Inaccurate account of events
-
silverwhistle — 21 years ago(January 20, 2005 09:10 AM)
Yes, the Punch-inspired animations are the best thing in it. I was disappointed with the film itself in many respects, especially the misrepresentation of the Duberlys. And while David Hemmings looks very cute in hussar uniform, he's certainly nothing like Louis Nolan, who was nearly 37, tall, distinguished, mature and not cute. I say this as a long-term admirer of Lou Nolan and his books ('Cavalry: its History & Tactics' is very readable). From his portraits, he had the aquiline elegance of Basil Rathbone (at about the time Basil was in 'Mark of Zorro'). But that wouldn't have seemed appealing to the 1960s youth market at which the film was pitched.
cheers,
Doc M @ the Silver Whistle -
hypermecha — 21 years ago(April 02, 2005 11:29 PM)
Of course it's a movie, not a documentary; certain artistic licenses are taken, therefore. It was a "disaster" in that a very small (and light) army charged right into the face of heavy artilliary manned by many more in number. Also keep in mind the units down in the valley couldn't see everything around them as the leadership up on the hills could. A lot of people blame Nolan but I hardly see how it's his fault, being as he was stuck between a rock & a hard place & was simply following orders. If you argued with that, you got court marshalled.
As far as the movie, though, looking dated, well yeahwhat do you expect for 1968/9? Everything was mod & hip, and there were a lot of social commentaries floating around. Don't forget, too, the Viet Nam War was on everyone's minds. The 1938 version of this movie with Errol Flyn looks way outdated too; that's what happens when time passes. XD Personally I like the 60's feel to the movie, that's part of what I love about it. -
oscia3 — 19 years ago(August 18, 2006 12:14 AM)
The Reason Why: The Story of the Fatal Charge of the Light Brigade by Cecil Woodham-Smith is an excellent source as well. I read this for a college course and it attempts to portray things as accurately as possible. Of course, the Hollywood version is inaccurate, but it still holds the flavor of the period quite well.
-
teacher_tom516 — 19 years ago(August 23, 2006 11:31 PM)
Actually the movie was based on Woodham-Smith's book (which I read long before seeing the movie) while naturally some events and characters are telescoped it's reasonably accurate.
One problem that it - and virtually all motion pictures 'suffer' from is they sometimes tend to reflect their own times rather than the historical period depicted. Take Henry V - Olivier's version during WW2 is markedly different from Branagh's version, the same way that Flynn's glorious imperial version is different from this more Vietnam war influenced one.
Tom516 -
poe-30 — 19 years ago(September 18, 2006 01:32 AM)
i liked this film too. The thing is, it is clever, fun and makes some interesting social commentary. I don't believe it is meant to be entirely accurate and I think because it is rather tongue in cheek it works well. I like the way they poke a bit of fun at what is presented as a Victorian style of speaking, and make it seem very much a different culture from our own. The actors are some of my favourites from that era.
I have read a lot of history and I sort of expected it to be different. Somehow it bothered me far less than the strange stuff in "The Patriot" which was presented more seriously. -
tenkisoratoti — 19 years ago(October 11, 2006 03:36 PM)
The Battle of Alma was accurately protrayed. British infantry charge up a practical cliff and drive the Russians from the ridge, several regiments received battle honours from it and we can see a clear victory in the film.
-
jyoho — 19 years ago(January 23, 2007 12:24 PM)
I like the look of all the battle scenes in this film. You actually get to see the ebb and flow of a 19th century battle very clearly because the camera mostly keeps back to give us the generals' long distance points-of-view. Also, during the battles, the cannon actually recoil - barrel bows down while the trail goes up - which is something missing in period war films of late, especially the simply awful "Gettysburg" and "Gods and Generals."
-
ignorant — 18 years ago(October 02, 2007 07:08 AM)
One problem that it - and virtually all motion pictures 'suffer' from is they sometimes tend to reflect their own times rather than the historical period depicted. Take Henry V - Olivier's version during WW2 is markedly different from Branagh's version, the same way that Flynn's glorious imperial version is different from this more Vietnam war influenced one.
<< Tom516
I rediscovered the film two days ago and agree absolutely with your though. Still a great film and somewhat "low profile epic" that fits really well.
For me the treasure, being an animation buff is the brilliant work ot Mr. Richard Williams. Some may say dated. . . I would prefer to say classic.
__________EnJOY_____the_________CATalonian_______SeNSe______of____________HUMour -
teacher_tom516 — 18 years ago(March 23, 2008 11:55 PM)
Thanks! Yeah it was okay for facts though there are times when it verged on Pearl Harbor annoying (the portrayal of the Duberleys particularly Fanny's fictional tryst with Cardigan was utterly unnecessary as was the utterly tepid love story - I also hated that EVERYONE was wearing cherry red trousers instead of just the 11th Hussars. It makes Cardigan calling them 'cherrybums' rather pointless) but I did love the punch animations. Got a soft spot for classic Brit animation - Monty Python and all that.
Cheers,
Tom516
"It is not enough to like a film. You must like it for the right reasons."- Pierre Rissient
-
lambrettaguy200 — 17 years ago(April 22, 2008 05:37 AM)
"93rd's !! Damn all that eagerness !!" as Sir Colin Campbell shouted to the Sutherland Highlanders to restrain them from breaking their "Thin Red Line" and charging the Russian cavalry pell-mell !
You wanna f * * k with me? Okay. Say hello to my little friend! (Tony Montana)