# data[].attributes.headline
Downton Abbey - an unhistorical historical drama

# data[].attributes.subject
Downton Abbey - an unhistorical historical drama

# data[].attributes.body
This article is heavily critical about 'Downton Abbey', arguing that it is historically inaccurate and omits the two big themes of religion and the British Empire. The article further criticises the depiction of the attitudes of the people of the time, arguing that they are too accepting of unmarried pregnancy, women's freedoms, and homosexuality. They also criticise the closeness between servants and their employers, arguing that this wouldn't have been the case in the 1910s and 1920s.

# data[].attributes.headline
‘Darkest Hour,’ or the Great Man Theory of History (and Acting)

# data[].attributes.subject
‘Darkest Hour,’ or the Great Man Theory of History (and Acting)

# data[].attributes.body
This review is written by American film critic Anthony Scott, in which he analyses the roles of actors and also the historical accuracy of the 2017 film 'Darkest Hour'. Scott calls the film a 'Historical Drama' which attempts to depict an ideal English character, but ends up with something reactionary rather than nostalgic. He also states that the film promotes 'hero-worshipping' and offers something of a ''Great Man Fetish', showing nothing but a meaningless fantasy of 'imperial gumption and national unity'. Moreover, Scott also criticises the film for its lack of historical accuracy and attempts at promoting 'sham populism', as best seen from the scene where Churchill rides the London underground prior to his 'never surrender' speech and encounters the everyday British people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Review: ‘Darkest Hour,’ or the Great Man Theory of History (and Acting) (Published 2017)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Gary Oldman plays Winston Churchill in Joe Wright’s drama about the early days of World War II.

# data[].attributes.body
This article is written by a journalist that consults with a WW2 historian. It is critical of the accuracy of the film, in terms of how it depicts the air battles and the amount of emphasis placed on the small boats used to rescue the soldiers. However, despite the historian being largely critical of the film, he notes there are some accuracies in the film, and particularly praises the accuracy of the portrayal of the soldiers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dunkirk has received rave reviews, but is it historically accurate? (Photo: Warner Bros.)

"A visceral, nerve-shredding film that needs to be experienced on the biggest screen you can find."

That was the verdict on Christopher Nolan's major new blockbuster, Dunkirk.

Every screenwriter is allowed a little artistic licence, but just how accurate is the epic retelling of Britain's great escape?

"The film is a spectacle, it's absolutely terrific, I really really enjoyed it," says James Holland, a World War Two historian and author of 'Duty Calls: Dunkirk'.

"It's just historically all over the place."

Too much emphasis on 'little ships'

During the Dunkirk Evacuation, private boats were called upon to assist in the rescue operation. While Holland doesn't deny the crucial role that the 'little ships' played in the evacuation, he feels that Nolan's film exaggerates their role, and downplays the British Navy.

"Judging by the film you'd think there were only two destroyers in the whole of the Royal Navy. But there were 202, and 41 of them were operating at Dunkirk, along with legions of minesweepers and trawlers and lighters.

"Watching Dunkirk you're under the impression that 300,000 people had been evacuated by little ships when actually it was about 5%.

"They massively exaggerated the role of little ships."

Holland suggests this may have been to encourage an inaccurate, against-all-odds plot.

"It perpetuates this backs-to-the-wall, Little Britain, David versus Goliath story. But we had the world's largest navy, we had over 200 destroyers alone. We had vast numbers of ships."

Spitfires only had 14 seconds of ammo - and couldn't land on beaches

Dunkirk is told from three perspectives: land, sea and air.

James Holland is critical of the portrayal of the air battles - in particular the British Spitfire's capabilities.

"A Spitfire is made out to have 75 seconds worth of ammunition, when actually a spitfire only had 14.7 seconds.

"Pilots would rarely shoot down more than a single plane in one go, but one pilot shoots down four because he seems to have an inexhaustible supply of ammunition."

A pilot also glides his Spitfire onto a beach using the undercarriage, which Holland says is "ludicrous".

"There's a frantic moment when he thinks that his undercarriage won't work, but you'd never land on a beach with your undercarriage because it would just collapse into the sand.

"Under no circumstances would you land on a beach with your undercarriage down."

"The sea wasn't rough - it was like a mill pond."

Holland also insists that the power of the Luftwaffe is overestimated in Nolan's film.

"A lot of ships were sunk at Dunkirk, but not many naval vessels. Seventy per cent of the vessels were sunk because of collision and misadventure and only 30 were sunk because of air attack out of 220 that sank.

"If you watch the Dunkirk movie, you'd think the whole evacuation was halted by air power."

The sea wasn't rough - and tides didn't really have an effect

One of the biggest factors that decided the fate of the British Expeditionary Force was actually the overcast and still weather.

"There was low-lying cloud for the majority of the evacuation," explains Holland.

"In the film, at one point the sea's really rough and the next minute it's blue skies, but in reality it was like a mill pond."

The role of tides is also a feature of the film. However, Holland asserts that, due to 'moles' - concrete barriers that acted as breakwaters and impromptu docking stations - the tides were of little importance.

"At one point one character says we're not getting a destroyer for another six hours and another character responds 'why? I thought tides were only three.'

"But on the mole, tides didn't come into it at all.

"There were destroyers and other ships, packed up double berth along there, so the idea that you're waiting for one destroyer at a time to turn up is way off the mark."

On the other hand...

Despite his criticisms, Holland notes that the film is accurate in many other ways. In particular, he praises the presentation of the soldiers.

"All the men looked right. They're all nice and thin and young and they all look filthy."

Due to his historical expertise, Holland's enjoyment of Dunkirk was always going to be limited.

"I just sat there with a weary resignation," he admits. "I was thinking: 'I wish I could enjoy it more if I didn't know so much about it.'"
Dunkirk is out in UK cinemas today (21 July). James Holland's book 'Duty Calls: Dunkirk' is available to buy now
More from i: Atonement gave us the definitive depiction of Dunkirk 10 years ago Dunkirk review: the most immersive war movie ever made How a merchant ship from Glasgow saved thousands of lives at Dunkirk

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What 'Dunkirk' gets wrong - according to a World War Two historian

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Every screenwriter is allowed some artistic licence, but just how accurate is Christopher Nolan's retelling of Britain's escape at Dunkirk?

# data[].attributes.headline
Satirising Hitler and the Nazi's - Jojo Rabbit

# data[].attributes.subject
Satirising Hitler and the Nazi's - Jojo Rabbit

# data[].attributes.body
Here Jojo Rabbit is praised for it's depiction of Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime, while being clearly absurd and full of creative license it does not mean it is historically inaccurate. Hitler is imagined through the eyes of a ten year old boy, he is not this evil, sadistic fascist dictator but rather a goofy, harmless imaginary friend. Therefore, when dealing with a period so brutally inhumane using comedy in many ways is the best way to portray it in the modern world. As the journalist stresses prejudice is irrational so trying to approach it in a reasonable way won't necessarily work. However. if you use satire the ridiculousness of Nazism is exposed and a quite powerful and poignant message can be expressed to today's audiences.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Warning: Spoilers ahead for "Jojo Rabbit."

"Jojo Rabbit" may have its critics, but it's a feel-good film that uses comedy to deliver a powerful message.

Taika Waititi's film is a perfect example of how comedy can be more effective than drama when it has something to say.

However, "Jojo Rabbit" also so much more than just an "important" film - it's a brilliantly-made, clever piece of cinema, too.

Visit Insider's homepage for more stories.

"Jojo Rabbit," like "Joker," is seen as a bit of a marmite movie. You love it or you hate it.

Taika Waititi's film is a comedy about a kid who has Adolf Hitler as an imaginary friend. It's also a drama about a young boy in Hitler's youth army discovering his mother is hiding a Jewish girl in their home, and soon questioning everything he has been taught as a young Nazi.

The blend of these two premises, one wacky and zany, one serious and heartfelt, has proved jarring for some.

But due to the seamless combination of the two and a perfectly-judged tone, there is a hell of a lot to appreciate about Oscar-nominee "Jojo Rabbit" - a film that's exactly what we need right now.

Comedy is more powerful than drama

Since Charlie Chaplin's "The Great Dictator," his Hitler-Mussolini satire, Hollywood has often used laughter to sound sirens.

There's something more attractive about a comedy with something to say than a drama with something to say. With the latter, one can often feel lectured or moaned at - and while the films themselves are often well-made dramas, they can often be a bit of a chore to watch.

How many times have you through Netflix, looked at one of those films, thought "I'm really not in the mood for something heavy," and chosen something else?

The nature of a film like "Jojo Rabbit" is more appealing. We get to enjoy an entertaining, feel-good movie full of laughs - but then get to feel good about ourselves afterwards knowing we've also consumed the important message of the picture.

In a film like "Jojo Rabbit," the juxtaposition of comedy mixed with serious subject matter means the message hits home harder. We feel the sadness and severity with greater impact having just laughed.

I never found this jarring - I just it found powerful and expertly executed.

But don't take my word for it. One of the masters of satire, the legendary Mel Brooks, loves "Jojo Rabbit."

Brooks directed his own Hitler comedy in 1967 - "The Producers."

"I want to say, I just saw 'Jojo Rabbit,' and it's really a terrific and eloquent and beautiful picture," he said during appearance at the AFI Awards.

"Taika, where are you? You did a great job. Even as an actor, you were good, which is hard!"

That's pretty high praise coming from one of the inventors of mainstream satire, but Brooks understands that laughter is the way to tackle the issues of hate and fascism.

"If you stand on a soapbox and trade rhetoric with a dictator you never win," he added. "That's what they do so well: they seduce people. But if you ridicule them, bring them down with laughter, they can't win. You show how crazy they are."

Abraham Foxman (national director emeritus of the Anti-Defamation League and himself a Holocaust survivor) concurs with Brooks' sentiment.

Foxman told Vanity Fair: "Prejudice is so irrational that reason doesn't necessarily work. We need to find more creative, imaginative ways to deal with it."

"Jojo Rabbit" shows how utterly silly the Nazis were (though also shows their evilness and nastiness, too) and ridicules them completely.

The Gestapo scene, one of the very best scenes of the year in any film, summarizes this perfectly. Stephen Merchant's Gestapo Officer Deertz searches Jojo's home for hiding Jews but gets caught up in the Nazi greeting protocol - he and his fellow officers introduce themselves with a "Heil, Hitler" to each and every person in the room. "Heil, Hitler" is said 31 times in the scene.

It's funny as hell, but completely responsible in its storytelling

Abraham Foxman also told Vanity Fair that he was moved by the film's storyline, particularly because he was also, like Elsa, hidden from the Nazis as a child (by a Polish Catholic Nanny).

He thoroughly believes that the movie takes what Vanity Fair calls "the horror of extremisim" very seriously.

"It's a satire, but the 'reality' is a mother is risking her life and her child's life by protecting and hiding a Jewish child," he said. "We don't just go into fairyland. Satire is risky, but reasonable and rational doesn't change bigots. For those who are inclined to follow bigotry, maybe satire can expose the ridiculousness of what it's all about."

There was a worry that "Jojo Rabbit" could have been tone-deaf, a la the James Franco/Seth Rogen comedy "The Interview." However, Waititi, being Maori-Jewish, avoids any sense of this and his script (adapted from Christine Leunens' novel "Caging Skies") is as equally heartfelt and touching as it is broadly funny.

It mocks the nazis, yes, but Waititi takes his central characters and their plights seriously.

Elsa (Thomasin McKenzie), the Jewish girl hiding in Jojo's cupboard, is the soul of the film. While initially carving up a love-hate relationship between Jojo and Elsa, Waititi makes it clear that we are on Elsa's side. We feel her frustration stuck in makeshift room-in-a-wall in a house in the middle of Germany, feel claustrophobic with her, and our hearts break as we find out more about her back story. We share her anger at Jojo's initial blind disgust of her, as well as his later lie about the victors of the war.

Meanwhile, Jojo (Roman Griffin Davis) has one of the most grown-up and powerful character arcs in 2019 cinema. At first, Jojo is a naive little boy who is "massively into swastikas" and considers his imaginary pal Hitler (played by Waititi) to be his best friend.

But when he discovers Elsa in his own home and begins to learn more about the girl, he realizes that all he has been taught as a young Nazi may not be true. He soon begins to see Elsa for what she is - a human being - rather than the monster the Nazis painted her kind out to be.

Jojo's mother Rosie (Scarlett Johansson, who admittedly shouldn't have been nominated) and the closest thing he has to a father figure, Captain Klenzendorf (Sam Rockwell, who should have been nominated), play a role in teaching Jojo to be kind and to steer away from the vile teachings he's been surrounded by his entire life.

But, crucially, and rightfully, it's Elsa who does the heavy lifting. She is the one who truly sets Jojo on the road to becoming a better person. And it absolutely had to be Elsa for the power of the message, and of Jojo's character arc, to strike home: the oppressed teaches the oppressor.

Jojo asks Elsa to draw where Jews live, so she draws a picture of Jojo's head, saying: "That's where Jews live" - Jojo is told, whether he quite believes it yet or not, that his entire idea of what Jews are is nonsense inside his head, put there by the indoctrinating Nazis he's been brought up around.

Later, she tells Jojo: "You're not a Nazi, Jojo. You're a 10-year-old kid who likes dressing up in a funny uniform and wants to be part of a club."

She cuts to the core of why he believes what he believes - because he's been taught it, and because he wants to belong. There are no other reasons. From this line onwards, Jojo knows his beliefs are built on nothing but weak and false premises. Soon after this, his world-view crumbles and he realizes the truth. Elsa is nothing but a good person. The Nazis are wrong. He is wrong.

Obviously, I have never been through anything nearly as horrific as Elsa. But the lesson that Elsa teaches feels personal to me because I've seen it work in real life.

A few years ago, a person who knew I was gay expressed some pretty bigoted opinions about gay people. But when I asked him why he didn't like gay people and had such negative views around them, he couldn't answer. "It's wrong, innit," was the only response I got.

Once we continued talking, it was clear that he had these views only because he had grown up in a small, religious town where these sorts of views were the norm. Once I confronted about those views, they seemed nonsensical and based on nothing but blind ignorance - to me and to him. He soon realized that his opinions were baseless and created from indoctrinated stereotypes that he had no evidence to believe were true.

"Jojo Rabbit" is precisely the sort of movie that should be taught in schools because it shows kids how to think for themselves, and to not just assume that what is going on around you is true or right. It teaches kids to educate themselves and to listen to the oppressed rather than the oppressors. Most of all, it teaches kids to be kind, which, in this current climate, cannot be understated.

'Jojo Rabbit' is way more than just a feel-good satire

All of the above sounds pretty saccharine - not that that the film is, mind (save the only heavy-handed moment in the film - when we see literal butterflies in Jojo's stomach).

It would be easy to dismiss this film as sweet-natured with hints of biting comedy and a crusading, campaigning message that is equally relevant today.

Those sorts of films can often be cloying and, to put it bluntly, not that great. Take the recent movie "Last Christmas," for example - another picture that preached acceptance and anti-intolerance as one of its key themes.

While it had its heart in the right place, the film bombed and was a bit of a sugar-sweet mess. It couldn't find the right tone or balance, and wasn't smart enough to execute it.

But "Jojo Rabbit" concentrates just as much on being a good film in its own right as it does on its message.

One of the most intelligent parts of "Jojo Rabbit" is when it subconsciously teaches audiences a cinematic language with Scarlett Johansson's shoes. We see close-ups of Rosie's shoes as she dances on a wall. Shown from a child's perspective, this doesn't, at first, seem to bear that much significance.

But, later, again from a child's height and perspective, we are taken on a walk around town when he bumps into a pair of hanging feet wearing those same shoes. We immediately know it's Jojo's mother without ever seeing any part of her past her legs.

Jojo hugs her legs and attempts to tie up her shoelaces (another recurring visual theme), but fails. It's a heartbreaking and shocking reveal that worked because Waititi and cinematographer Mihai Malaimare subconsciously taught us to look out for this visual motif earlier in the film.

At the end of the movie, Elsa wears these shoes (the first time she wears shoes in the entire film) as she dances - signifying her liberation. Jojo bends down and successfully ties her shoe laces - his character arc complete.

It's intricate, clever stuff from Waititi that seems obvious when spelled out but, as with all great filmmaking, you don't even notice upon first viewing. It's a visual representation of the subtle skill wielded by Waititi in a film that wears its not-so-subtle humour on its sleeve.

It will continue to be under-appreciated, no doubt, but there is a reason the movie earned six Oscar nominations, including Best Picture.

"Jojo Rabbit" is not just the feel-good film we need right now. It's also just a really, really good movie.
Read more: '1917' is an impressively made but hollow spectacle that doesn't deserve to win best picture at the Oscars Scarlett Johansson landed 2 Oscar nominations this year, was the highest-paid actress of 2019, and has an estimated net worth of $165 million. Here's how she got there. The cinematographer of 'Jojo Rabbit' says director Taika Waititi banned cell phones from his film set

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Oscar-nominated 'Jojo Rabbit' is the film we need right now

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Taika Waititi's film is a perfect example of how comedy can be more powerful than drama when it comes to relaying an important message.

# data[].attributes.body
This review discusses the White Queen series, and its historical inaccuracy in the portrayal of the complicated events in the Wars of the Roses. The author critiques the lack of exploration of the events of the period and instead seems to focus on the 'swampy lands of generic medievalness' instead. This fictionalising of events means that the show has relied upon stereotypes and condenses complicated political machinations in order to entertain the audience. However, the author does praise the empowerment of women and the focus of how they navigated politics in medieval society.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"The White Queen," a co-production of the BBC and Starz, debuted in Britain this summer to mostly scathing reviews. Critics objected especially to a few glaring anachronisms - no zippers in the 15th century, nor tourist-friendly castle handrails - and a general lack of the slop-pots-'n'-rotten-teeth realism that has marked period dramas ever since HBO's "John Adams" showcased the horror of early smallpox vaccines.

There was, however, the feeling that the Americans might like it better. The Starz version apparently features more nudity and sex and, of course, Americans are not as well-versed in that plague of British schoolchildren, the Wars of the Roses, on which "The White Queen" is based. We might, presumably, learn something about British history between Robin Hood and Henry VIII.

Actually, the show is based on three novels by Philippa Gregory, which view the 30-year feud between rival factions of the House of Plantagenet for the throne of England through the eyes of three women: Elizabeth Woodville (Rebecca Ferguson), Margaret Beaufort (Amanda Hale) and Anne Neville (Faye Marsay). That, rather than the unpocked skin of its characters, is the show's biggest problem.
PHOTOS: Hollywood Backlot moments
Shoveling three novels and 30 years of very confusing history into even 10 hourlong episodes requires that "The White Queen" become a series of vignettes rather than a cohesive narrative, a "greatest hits of the Wars of the Roses," as it were. Years collapse into minutes, intricate policy is condensed into cardboard personalities, and the characters are swiftly categorized as good or evil.

But if the whole never lives up to a sum of its parts, some of the parts are quite good. The back story of how Elizabeth (Ferguson) starts out begging King Edward (Max Irons) to return her sons' lands and winds up marrying him is rolled out with remarkable speed and very little sense.

Mercifully, Janet McTeer is on the premises, as Elizabeth's mother, and as long as McTeer is on screen, "The White Queen" borders on the hypnotic and makes perfect sense. Naturally regal, with a voice that could control a rampaging horse or a king, McTeer's Lady Rivers is as matter-of-fact in her political machinations as she is in her magic - a self-proclaimed descendant of the river goddess, she believes she, and Elizabeth, have "the sight."

With such a teacher at her side, Ferguson, like Elizabeth, soon straightens up into a queen to be reckoned with, and if her love story with the less-convincing Irons is far too by-the-naked-breast numbers, well, it soon becomes one narrow thread in a very complicated tapestry.
PHOTOS: Celebrities by The Times
Facing off against the young lovers is Lord Warwick (James Frain), who, having set Edward on the throne, does not appreciate him marrying a woman who is not a foreign princess. Frain, who played Cromwell in "The Tudors," schemes with the best of them, but Lord Warwick is nothing more than a one-dimensional foil, shifting allegiances and manipulating his family in such a way as to produce a second power dame. His young daughter Anne (Marsay) is soon forced to become adept in the ways of influence and power, learning, as the tag line for "The White Queen" goes, that men go to battle and women go to war.

There are many powerful scenes in "The White Queen," moments that illustrate time and again how a woman's body was both her greatest tool and her inevitable prison; a man could control his fate by mind or sword, a woman can do it only by proxy.

Unfortunately, they are surrounded by the misty, swampy lands of generic medievalness. By choosing to illustrate this with so many disparate characters in a story of such inherent complexity, the creators of "The White Queen" are forced to launch too many battles, rip too many bodices and dispatch too many messengers with thundering hoofbeats.

Years slip by in a moment, dismissed with clunky exposition, the rooms with their hangings become interchangeable and claustrophobic, and though some windows shine brightly, it becomes increasingly difficult to see the kingdom for the queens.
mary.mcnamara@latimes.com
'The White Queen'

Where: Starz

When: 8 p.m. Saturday

Rating: TV-MA (may be unsuitable for children under the age of 17)

PHOTOS, VIDEOS & MORE:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Television review: 'The White Queen' courts confusion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Television review: 'The White Queen' courts confusion

# data[].attributes.headline
1917 - How does it deal with the realities of war?

# data[].attributes.subject
1917 - How does it deal with the realities of war?

# data[].attributes.body
In this review, Jeremy Banning highlights the over-reliance on cliches and the lack of historical accuracy specific to this timeframe of early April 1917. Whilst the film does tick the boxes of the various tactics the Germans deployed when retreating for example the scorched earth policy as well as rearguard fire, the more intricate details are missed out. For example, there is lack of accuracy around the positioning of soldiers, as in the film there were soldiers some 9 miles beyond the former German line whereas others were behind the line, unaware of whether this line was manned. In reality the Germans withdrew in such a co-ordinated manner that by early April 1917, any enemy would have been miles away, and there would therefore be no confusion between the troops and their positions. Banning also draws upon how Sam Mendes draws too much on his grandfather's wartime stories and critiques this reliance on family lore, advocating for a wider consideration for a more coherent storyline. History in this film therefore is used with partial accuracy, to ultimately create a dramatic and entertaining "story of friendship and duty".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The film's plot is simple - to my mind, lamentably so. Lance Corporals Blake and Schofield are instructed by a taciturn general (played by Colin Firth) that two battalions designed to assault enemy positions the next morning are walking into a carefully laid German trap. To attack would mean the annihilation of both units, some 1,600 lives needlessly wasted. The assault must be halted, but with field telephone communication cut, only messengers stand a chance of getting through. The stakes are further raised by the fact Blake's brother is serving in one of the attacking battalions. And so it falls to our two main characters to stop a massacre. And that's it - a longer, more elaborate version of the last few minutes of Peter Weir's 1981 film Gallipoli.

Mendes's film demonstrates British difficulties in following the enemy in their withdrawal to the Hindenburg Line. The Germans adopted a 'scorched earth' policy as they withdrew, flattening villages, destroying railways and roads, mining key crossroads, blowing up bridges, felling trees and even poisoning wells. Booby-traps were sown in their thousands, all in an effort to kill, maim and slow down the British advance, buying time for an orderly retreat. And it worked. A Fifth Army report in mid-March 1917 noted: "Roads in the shelled area have practically ceased to exist."

The herculean task of reinstalling some kind of infrastructure along with safely clearing booby-traps fell to the Royal Engineers. Yet despite their efforts, British progress through March and into April 1917 remained painfully slow as village by village, ridge by ridge, the Germans withdrew under the protection of rearguard units and long-range machine gun fire.

Our heroes' journey into this wasteland ticks every box - booby-trapped dugouts, wanton destruction and random violence from rearguard enemy troops until a crashing German aircraft paves the way for the most shocking scene of the film. It's cleverly done and the twist is unexpected. Roger Deakins's cinematography and use of a continuous shot works brilliantly, drawing the audience into the action. As the credits rolled I was conscious I hadn't been breathing properly for the film's duration, such was the suspense created. Much of that is due to the filmmakers' skill.

The film is not perfect, let down by a weak plot and overreliance on clichés

So far, so good, but the film is not perfect, let down by a weak plot and overreliance on clichés: Andrew Scott's deranged lieutenant, reduced to cynicism, sarcasm and swearing; the breakdown of a captain under shellfire; Benedict Cumberbatch's manic colonel with an almost irrepressible blood-lust for action; and a lone Frenchwoman tending a baby stood out as prime examples.

(Image by Universal Film Studios)

How plausible is the story of 1917?
This is the first big-budget First World War film released in an era of mass social media, and online reaction has been fascinating to read. Some decry its message that war is hell or, more mundanely, the use of modern weapon handling. Neither of these concerns me but, as I write this the day after watching the film, I'm still frustrated - not at the film-making, which is a staggering, technical tour de force - but at the opportunity missed. A movie is no documentary, it's designed to entertain and relies upon its story, yet this story was so implausible.

It made no sense, as the film depicts, to have some battalions nine miles beyond the former German line and others seemingly unaware of whether this line was manned. When the Germans withdrew, they did so in a coordinated manner, evacuating villages and retreating to pre-determined temporary positions, often on ridges behind. Our heroes' journey across No Man's Land was nerve-wracking to watch but, by early April 1917, any enemy would have been many miles away. It simply made no sense. Neither did the clearing of the farm (if you've a mission to deliver a vital message then you'd skirt all areas of possible conflict) or its immediate aftermath where a convoy of lorries inexplicably trundles by. You're either alone in enemy territory or you're not.

As for the assault by the Devons, no unit would attack without adequate artillery support - so we're led to believe infantry, artillery and even medical personnel and equipment have reached beyond Ecoust, deep into what had been German territory, but in nearby sectors the British have no idea if the Germans' line is manned? It's a great shame, as other aspects of the film are brilliantly executed, notably the terror inside the German dugout.

The film is a tribute to Sam Mendes's grandfather, whose wartime stories apparently inspired the script. In my work I am wary of relying solely upon using veterans' accounts or family lore, many of which are embellished, either consciously or not. In my opinion, if only Sam Mendes had considered this, he may have crafted a more coherent storyline, thus making 1917 the perfect war film and a true tribute to that incredible generation.

1917 is less an old-fashioned war movie and more a story of friendship and duty with the First World War as its backdrop. Despite its imperfections I left the cinema having enjoyed many aspects of it. But films billed with such fanfare should live with you for days afterwards - I have vivid memories of the gut-wrenching feeling as Schindler's List's closing credits rolled, the audience stunned and moved into silence. It had managed to tell a story whilst being part of something much larger. For me, 1917 fails to manage this feat, let down by a questionable plotline - but as a technical piece of cinema it shines brightly.
Jeremy Banning is a military historian and researcher specialising in the First World War. directed by Sam Mendes, is in cinemas now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
"A staggering tour de force - but an opportunity missed": a historian's review of the film 1917

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Directed by Sam Mendes, the Oscar-nominated film 1917 has arrived in cinemas across the US and UK. How does it deal with the realities of war and what does it show about the real events of 1917 - the retreat by German forces and life in the trenches?

# data[].attributes.headline
How Accurate Gladiator's Epic Opening Battle Is Compared To Real Life

# data[].attributes.subject
How Accurate Gladiator's Epic Opening Battle Is Compared To Real Life

# data[].attributes.body
This article written by Jen Tombs details many historical accuracies as well as inaccuracies present within the opening scene of Ridley Scott's 'Gladiator' (2000). Tombs praises the effort made by the producers to try and be as historically accurate as possible whilst not deviating away from the main goal of creating a compelling narrative. Armour and weapons shown during the film are seemingly standard issue for Roman soldiers during that time despite there being unrealistic usage of siege machines. The article references historians who claim the costume design to be 'relatively true to history' with only a few gripes such as there being too much leather etc. Additionally, the article claims that the way the film depicts the complexity of Roman camps is commendable. These camps would have been grand and acted as mini towns with the article referencing an archaeological dig in Vindolanda supporting this notion. Furthermore, the death of Marcus Aurelius is also somewhat accurate as he did die in 180 AD when the battle was set and he likely died within the confines of his camp. However, he was not killed by his son Commodus in real life so the film certainly does prioritise the continuation of the fictional narrative over historical accuracy in many cases. While the article does recognise that this level of accuracy is not necessarily maintained throughout the rest of the film, these opening scenes in particular do deserve praise. It is not the goal of historical fiction to provide a documentary retelling of historical events so in the rare case where there is a significant attempt at historical accuracy, it deserves recognition.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Gladiator's opening scene is one of the most iconic battles shown on film, vividly depicting the chaos of war, as well as the glory and tragedy General Maximus (Russell Crowe) feels as he rides into battle - but a fight being epic doesn't mean it's accurate to history. Ridley Scott's scene is a masterwork of tension and drama, from Maximus' rousing speech to the Romans' detailed tactical formations and fury of the fighting. However, historical accuracy is also an important part of this moment, as it aims to depict the tactics behind the Romans' military might.

Set in 180 AD, Gladiator tells the story of Maximus, a general who is made to fight as a gladiator after he's chosen as the leader of Rome, making him the target of the Emperor's son. The movie's opening scene shows the Roman army defeating the Germanic barbarians in Vindobona (modern-day Vienna), firing arrows, charging at them on horses from the forest, and finally hacking them with swords as the fight descends into chaos. The battle features many familiar images from films set in Ancient Rome, including complex camps and the iconic Roman testudo shield formation. While these are familiar tropes, some parts of Gladiator are more realistic than others.

The Roman Army's Armor & Weapons Are (Mostly) Historically Accurate

As the Romans flush the Germanic warriors out of the forest, the archers fire a volley of arrows, then set off catapults and bolt shooters. The latter are " one of the most common forms of ancient artillery," according to what history lecturer Dr. Roel Konijnendijk told Insider. Romans did use siege machines like this is in battle, but flaming missiles might not have appeared in the specific fight Gladiator shows, as the weather is so wet. Maximus' sword, which he uses to hack his way through enemies, is a spatha - a long weapon that was standard-issue for Roman soldiers. However, the soldiers' pila spears are barely used on screen.

The armor that Maximus and the other soldiers wear in Gladiator is also relatively true to history. Fellow historian Dr. Simon Elliott told History Hit that Crowe is wearing lorica segmentata, armor made of metal strips (although the costumes use too much leather). However, Dr. Konijnendijk points out the testudo formation that the troops make with their shields - forming a " turtle's shell" in front and above them to hide from arrows - would not be used in this situation. This is because the formation leaves soldiers unable to move and attack, with the enemy able to wait for the formation to break to continue their own attack.

Gladiator's Roman Camp Gets Most Aspects Right

The camp where Maximus and the other men mix after the battle is portrayed almost as its own town in Gladiator. Bustling crowds chat cheerily amid rows of tents and torches. This is true to life. Roman camps were complex, laid out with sections that included a main street, and they provided defensive capabilities while men recuperated. They could nevertheless be put up and taken down very quickly.

An archeological dig in Vindolanda, a Roman site in England, found remains of sturdy leather tents. Researchers found these played a big role in the men's sense of community amid the hardships of war, writing in the paper Warm and Dry: a Complete Roman Tent From Vindolanda:

The reassurance of warm, dry quarters at night was not only a boost to morale, but also made a very real contribution to the health and well-being of the ordinary soldiers.

When Maximus talks to Emperor Marcus Aurelius in his tent after the Roman victory, Gladiator viewers can see that the leader's quarters are decked out in finery. It's full of sofas, furs, and even marble busts. The higher your rank, the larger a tent you would have, so the size and luxury of this tent makes sense. As a side note, though, busts in Ancient Rome weren't usually plain. Instead, they were often painted in bright colors. They would seem garish to most people nowadays.

Maximus' Wolf An Important Roman Addition

As the two armies clash in Gladiator's opening battle, Maximus' pet wolf is seen helping him out, weaving through troops and viciously biting enemy forces. Maximus having a wolf as a four-legged friend is a little far-fetched. However, it isn't quite as far from reality as it might seem. Some historians believe Roman forces did, in fact, use dogs for guarding the army, although others disagree. The Mastiff-like Molossus dogs originated in Ancient Greece and are now extinct. Maximus' wolf, on the other hand, is played by a Tervuren Belgian Shepherd.

However, Maximus' canine friend isn't in the Gladiator scene just to provide a historical tidbit. He also serves a greater purpose than providing an endearing, loyal figure for audiences to root for. It also reflects an interesting aspect of Roman culture, giving Crowe's character more depth. The wolf was a symbol of Mars, the Roman god of war. Legend tells of a wolf appearing at the Battle of Sentinum, which was a sign the Romans would win. As well as signaling Roman victory, Maximus' wolf reflects his duty to Rome, as Rome's founding myth involves a wolf bringing up Romulus and Remus.

Gladiator's Marcus Aurelius May Have Really Died At Vindobona

In Gladiator, Emperor Marcus Aurelius is killed by his power-hungry son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), after telling Maximus that he wants him to take over Rome to stop political corruption. In real life, the leader may have actually met his end amid the fighting that Gladiator's dramatic opening scene depicts. Many historians say the leader died in 180 AD, just as he does in Gladiator, but in Sirmium (modern-day Serbia) rather than Vindobona. His " health deteriorated rapidly," according to the UK's University of Nottingham, and his last words were said to be " Look to the rising sun, for I am setting".

The Roman historian Aurelius Victor also says Marcus Aurelius died in 180 AD. His account claims it happened in his military quarters in Vindobona, but it doesn't indicate that he was murdered by his son. The Emperor's death in Gladiator is therefore accurate in some ways and factually off in others. While Commodus didn't kill him in real life, he may have died at the camp where Maximus led the Roman troops to glory. At the very least, Aurelius, who is now known as a philosopher ruler due to his musings on stocisim, was present at the Germanic battles, and his death is linked with the site.

Sources: Insider, History Hit, Warm and Dry: a Complete Roman Tent From Vindolanda, University of Nottingham

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How Accurate Gladiator's Epic Opening Battle Is Compared To Real Life

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Ridley Scott's Gladiator famously opens with Russell Crowe's Maximus engaged in an awe-inducing battle, but how accurate is it to history?

# data[].attributes.headline
The Death of Stalin - Sacrilege to Satirize?

# data[].attributes.subject
The Death of Stalin - Sacrilege to Satirize?

# data[].attributes.body
This review is largely an account of praise for the disarming of horrific historical individuals, breaking them down beyond their crimes and highlighting the macabre humour that was inherent within the Soviet political system. A system whereby friends could murder each other for political gain without a second thought, and a man could be undyingly loyal to the person who murdered his wife. The writer also notes the question of whether it can become 'sacrilege to satirize' a given historical figure, given the magnitude of their crimes committed. This is an example of how Kenny argues Ianucci makes the film intentionally uncomfortable, as in the first scene there is a depiction of how the power of the state and individuals of the state mortally threatened anyone in society at any given moment. This moves the film beyond simply political machinations which can feel unrelatable to the viewer if it were the sole focus. The decision to allow the actors to speak with their own accents further disarms the genocidal characters in question, encouraging free-flowing dialogue centred on themes of pettiness and squabbling, which would escalate into an murder and illegal executions, highlighting most poignantly the banality of evil.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Death of Stalin (2018)

Rated R for language throughout, violence and some sexual references.

106 minutes

Cast

Director

Writer (based on the comic book "The Death of Stalin" by)

Writer (original screenplay by)

Writer

Writer (additional material by)

Cinematographer

Editor

Composer

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Death of Stalin movie review (2018) | Roger Ebert

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This is a movie that wants you uncomfortable, in a variety of ways. Even when you're laughing, and you will be.

# data[].attributes.body
This review discusses the film, Munich: The Edge of War, an adaptation of the book by popular historical fiction writer, Robert Harris. The film's overarching theme (from a history perspective) is the highly positive brush with which Chamberlain and his policy of appeasement is painted in.

# data[].attributes.body
This review of Titanic describes how, despite its descriptions as one of the most historically accurate movies about the titanic, many actual figures in the movie were misrepresented. I find it raised an interesting question on the ethics of portraying real people (particularly those who were heroic) as immoral. Though this was done in Titanic to reinforce a message, of the negligence and pride of those in charge of the ship, this re-writing of history gets rid of nuance and paints a false picture. Is it worth it for a coherent message- even assuming this is necessary to convey that message?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Titanic is an interesting piece of fiction to consider. Director James Cameron is hailed as a ‘hugely respected Titanic expert’. The film itself was, at the time, heralded as one of th…

# data[].attributes.body
This review looks at the numerous historical inaccuracies of the 2011 action film Ironclad. Whilst it accepts that many of these changes are understandable results of the film making process, it is more critical others. It argues that the filmmaker's decision to pit Knights Templar against Vikings was driven by an 'anachronistic and comparative pulp imagery'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Medieval Movie Review: Ironclad - Medievalists.net

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This movie from 2011 gives an extra-bloody version of a somewhat famous English siege.

# data[].attributes.body
This TV series, released on Netflix in 2018, tracks the lives and interactions between the top Nazis surrounding Hitler. As stated in the review, it combines reenactment with real archival footage alongside some 'talking head' context offered by a few historians. However, it suffers somewhat from historical inaccuracy (such as misdating the year of the assassination plot of Hitler as 1942 rather than 1944) and overdramatization in the reenactments. Despite this, the review states that it would recommend the show although it should be watched as a piece of historical fiction rather than a professional documentary.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.provider_name
WW2 HistoryBook - World War II historical images. WW2 book reviews and movie reviews.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This 10 episode Docu-Series launched in 2018, on Netflix, tells the story of the leading Third Reich officials who were at Hitler's side through the rise and fall of Germany before and during World War Two. It combines artistic re-enactment with archival footage and context offered by a few historians.

The series is certainly enjoyable and engaging, although it does get repetitive quite often, and could have been shorter. There is a fair share of valuable historical footage being shown, some of which is actually quite rare. But the good stuff ends here.

There are so many things wrong with this one, and so much to say, that it's hard to know where to begin.

I'll put it bluntly. The leaders of Nazi Germany are portrayed (by a dramatic, over the top narration) as a bunch of imbecile hooligans, a collection of pathetic teenagers competing in a reality show for the ultimate prize - Hitler's attention. There is scheming and plotting, alliances and betrayal, everything you would want from a historical soap opera. Unfortunately, most of the claims made are baseless and pure speculation. The producers show us personal, unrecorded meetings behind close doors, or one's own thoughts in the privacy of his home, and tell us what was going on as if they were there! They know for sure that most leading Third Reich officials had no political ideology and were only interested in scheming to get in Hitler's good graces.

It seems like every time a Nazi official is mentioned, a demeaning adjective is attached to their name. They are losers, they are weak, they are fat, they are ugly, they are frustrated. They are insane, twisted, monstrous. They are pathetic sycophants (you'll get tired of this word). And sometimes the producers are sinking quite low. I thought making fun of people's physical disabilities is not something cool in our day and age - or when we do not like the person, it is fine?

The characters have no depth and are completely one dimensional - evil and idiocy incarnate. There's no doubt: the producers wanted to make sure we understand that these people were the absolute scum of the earth in every aspect of their existence. I feel this is a disservice to humanity as a whole. The valuable lessons we can learn from World War Two are valuable precisely because all these people were human beings. We can learn and be better in the future by understanding their humanity, and going from there - if they were just fire spitting demons came from hell, what is there to learn?

I was expecting more from the historians which were featured in this series, but I was disappointed. Again, most of their expertise consisted in personal attacks, sarcasm, speculation, and tabloid drama - likely the direction imposed on them by the producers. I don't need a historian telling me what Rudolf Hess's level of affection towards Hitler must have been.

There's more. For a Netflix production of solid cinematographic quality, the lack of attention to detail can be shocking. Most of the actors do not resemble their real life counterparts in any way, shape or form, not to mention the actors are changed mid series when the characters are supposed to have aged a few years. It makes no sense - a bit of makeup would have done the job. Adolf Hitler looks like somebody who would get beaten up as soon as he opened his mouth, as one IMDB reviewer accurately put it. He reminded me of Jojo Rabbit's satirical Hitler, if you've seen that one (not that I recommend it). At no point did I feel anybody was believable. The uniforms are sometimes inaccurately portrayed, and resemble what you would find searching online for "cheap nazi Halloween costume". Some dates and facts are also wrong - for example, the 1944 assassination attempt on Hitler is said to have taken place in 1942.

This series might as well be called "Let's bash the Nazis", because that's what it is - not more, not less. They were bad, we get it, but this film seems to shove this notion down our throat like none before it, barring WW2 propaganda.

Ironically, I enjoyed it personally, but that was because I wasn't counting on this to learn something, or get an accurate representation of what happened. I also took a bit of silly pleasure in picking apart all the claims thrown around without context or evidence.

But I would not recommend it. I actually feel it's quite dangerous: it's on Netflix, it had the advertising bucks, it is enjoyable, simple and easy to follow, it tells people what they want to hear and has all the fancy cinematography of a modern production - a perfect mix of qualities to engage the youngsters and novices, teaching them sensationalized, dumbed-down and out of context speculation claiming to be factual historical information. In fact, I feel it sways more towards historical fiction than the professional documentary it claims (but didn't even try) to be.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hitler's Circle of Evil (2018) - TV Series Review - WW2 HistoryBook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This 10 episode Docu-Series launched in 2018, on Netflix, tells the story of the leading Third Reich officials who were at Hitler's side through the rise and fall of Germany before and during World War Two. It combines artistic re-enactment with archival footage and context offered by a few historians.