It may be a very good film, but having watched so far only the first 14 minutes I can already note:
-
shammy-4 — 21 years ago(April 05, 2005 01:17 AM)
"No expedition was sent immediately after Gordons fall in Khartoum"In fact the relieving expedition was already on its way, it reached the City only 3 days too late. The City was finally re-taken by Kitchener in 1898.
-
KitMagic — 20 years ago(April 15, 2005 03:17 AM)
Well, yes, that's true, there WERE a lot of things that the Victorians thought
"immoral" (how silly of them, for the most part! ^~).
I've heard that before, that bayonets were for infantry, not cavalry (somebody
pointed out on TV fairly recently [History Detectives, Custer's Last Stand]
that while it was unlikely that a bayonet would have been used by the Seventh
Cavalry in Custer's Last Stand, a bayonet could have belonged to one or more
of the same soldiers who were in the cavalry at that time [they could have
used bayonets in previous battles/training/etc. in which they weren't cavalry
yet]).
And while I think the historical facts are very interesting, I also^~ think
that it's very^~ excusable/acceptable for a work of fiction to ignore^~
at least SOME^~ of the historical facts. (Call it poetic licence, if you like. ^~
[Okay, it's not EXACTLY^~ poetic licence, but it's sort of similar. ^~])
(I like historical fiction that tries really hard to keep its historical
facts straight [or as much as possible], but I ALSO^~ like/forgive
a lot of historical fiction that DOESN'T really do that. ^~
It's okay^^ by me either way. ^~)
Kit =^^= (the fur=^^=giving^^)
=^__^= -
Pharaoh Osmosis — 20 years ago(June 12, 2005 04:05 PM)
About bayonetsCavalry do indeed not use them however the characters in this film are Mounted Infantry, which are people who ride into battle dismount and then fighthowever occasionally they have charged like cavalrythey are infantry so that would esplain the bayonets!
-
ContinentalOp — 20 years ago(June 13, 2005 08:21 AM)
I believe the good Doctor is right.
The characters in the film are mounted infantry, also the Mahdis are disguised as mounted infantry, though I seem to recall someone say "The British Cavalry!"
Also cavalry do use bayonets, though most of the time swords and lances were used (well the lances were used by Lancers) to charge the enemy. -
malcolm_mccallum — 20 years ago(December 31, 2005 03:15 AM)
Dragoons/Mounted Infantry use a carbine which has a much shorter barrel. Short enough, in fact, that it is pointless to put a bayonet on it. Even light infantry do not use bayonets and mounted infantry would be trained as light infantry. The bayonet is only used as a shock weapon and light infantry do not shock.
-
93rd — 20 years ago(January 25, 2006 12:49 PM)
Whether "historical fiction" is an excuse to ignore historical accuracy is an open debate. I for one think not, for the most part.
In a film such as this, the military is as much a character as the individuals and in that sense to ignore it is sloppy or ill-conceived.
I do not know whether the "military advisor" hired by the production was a complete moron or whether his advice was ignored, but either way it was a major mistake.
The drill, the commands, the uniforms and accoutrements are all rubbish. Painful to see and a jolt of disbelief while viewing. -
sazzrah — 15 years ago(July 17, 2010 06:54 PM)
The problem I find with fiction based on true historical events is that people who watch these movies ignorantly believe them to be 100% true. For every sensible person who watches movies like The Patriot and understands it's ludicrous bias towards the good American people vs. the over dramatised SS-like British (incidentally that movie was directed by a German famed for completely removing the British from Saving Private Ryan - chip on his shoulder, much?) there are 100 more people who honest to God believe that movies are just as good as documentaries for portraying the facts. The industry might not have asked for it, but Hollywood is lumbered with the responsibility of dispensing world history to the American people and safe-guarding their hearts and minds; or rather manipulating them.
Sorry to say it, but Americans are absolutely the worst for historical manipulation in Hollywood. It's why a lot of people from other countries get offended by Hollywood portrayals of their nation, culture and history. These people are lambasted on forums like this one for being offended and slapped with "it's fiction - get over it" by those who are rarely on the receiving end of Hollywood's bias.
The most significant example of this occurring in recent memory, which even got world leaders condemning Hollywood, is with the movie U571. This movie distorts history terribly by changing the fact that it was the British who captured the first naval enigma machine, not the Americans. Hollywood Americanised history to make money from a feel good movie; the idea is to leave audiences feeling patriotic and proud of their great American nation. Many leave the cinema thinking what they saw was 100% true - the Americans did it all, they saved the day - America did all the hard work and are the true WW2 heroes. It's bad enough for the American ego that it was primarily the British who lead the allies to victory let alone that the Russians were the good guys this time around! I mean, how many American movies even mention that the Russians made the biggest sacrifice in human-lives (approx. 20million soldiers) in the name of freedom? Their prejudice view of Russians as evil commmunists disallows them from ever being seen in a positive light in American cinema even to this day. I can't help but feel the same thing has happened here with The Four Feathers. God forbid the British are portrayed as anything but bumbling idiots; stuck up elistists or violent butchers to American audiences.
I'd like to see how it would go down if another nation made a film about a significant American historical event and changed things to make the Americans look like ridiculously over the top, evil murderers and their opponents look like the innocent do gooders, fighting for the side of good.
Say, I dunno, in 20 years time an Iraqi film depicts the Iraq war and the hunt for Saddam Hussein. The Americans painted like an army of inbred killing machines - think the PMC in Avatar. They ride into towns, slaughtering the men, raping the women and shooting children like animals. Maybe they'll ransack the towns; kill or torture the livestock for the fun of it, before the leave and head off to the next town to do it all again - all in the name of hunting evil Saddam. Now, imagine for just a moment that film coming to the US. Christ the pandemonium would be out of this world! Not true the Americans will cry! Completely histortically inaccurate they'll complain!! The president of the time will say it is an affront to American soldiers who fought and died for the protection of the Iraqi people.
What will the rest of the world say? "it's fiction - get over it." -
Lechaise — 15 years ago(February 17, 2011 12:22 AM)
Exactly, calling it fiction doesn't excuse historical inaccuracy, otherwise it should be listed as "alternative history". The UK's history is already messed up and blurred in films enough without more people jumping on to the bandwagon.
-
kducklin2 — 15 years ago(December 13, 2010 01:30 PM)
Taking this thread so far as a whole, I completely agree with the necessity for dramatic licence in historical films; but the fact is, the classic Korda version of "FF" managed to be both exciting and action-packed while giving a much more historically accurate rendering of clothing, uniforms and weapons.
My belief is, that when an historical film is made, the producers have a duty to decide exactly how much of a liberty they are going to take in these areas. One can compare three medieval-period films in this way: "Ladyhawke", "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Braveheart". LH is a fairytale, highly stylized but gorgeous to look at; "KOH" makes a credible stab at being a reasonably historically accurate looking epic, carefully stylized and in many respects probably as authentic a visual picture of the crusades as one is likely to get; "BH" is simply ludicrous, demanding to be taken seriously but in fact poorly and lazily stylized and almost totally lacking in any kind of visual authenticity.
For all that, various watchers will doubtless both like and/or defend any or all of these films. However, I wonder how many watchers would feel if in a few years time a picture was made set during the Gulf War, showing British and American troops in, say, WW2 uniforms and shooting Kalashnikovs? I reckon a lot of posters would be straight on here getting pretty hot under the collar. Therefore I don't think it's acceptable to say "it's a piece of fiction, who cares?"
I admit, however, that I speak as someone with a background in these matters
Merry Xmas 2010, everybody.
"Duck, I says" -
ztpt — 15 years ago(March 01, 2011 06:23 AM)
thats right,and from what I have learned the battle depicted in the movie where the whole regiment was wiped out actually was a British victory..
The defeat prior to this was actually the first time in history the famous british square formation was broken in battle.(the battle of Khartoum) -
The24thFoot — 14 years ago(March 29, 2012 09:47 AM)
The 'square' was indeed broken as depicted in the movie - because the Royal Navy landing party's Gatling guns stationed at that corner of the square jammed at the last minute. Instead of retreating as depicted in the movie the Black Watch merely turned around and fired a volley into the mass of Sudanese warriors who had broken through solving the problem.
There were numerous British forces present: a Royal Navy landing party (which included Royal Marines as well as sailors), the 19th Hussars (mounted on camels I believe), a composite battalion drawn from the Foot Guards regiments, the Black Watch, the Gordon Highlanders, and several other regiments as well as a number of Egyptian Army units.
Also, the standard uniform was a white tunic dyed a greyish color, and khaki pants with the standard tea stained pith helmet.