Historical inaccuracies

[fgadmin]

Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Four Feathers

---

jcmiller5150 — 18 years ago(December 19, 2007 09:42 PM)

WTF!!! Is this supposed to be an alternate history movie? This idiot director needs to take a history lesson before making movies about British military history. I thought this was going to be an interesting at least somewhat accurate portrayal of the Sudan Campaign, (stupid me) instead I get this historical crap that does not even come close to actual history. Just some examples:

1. The Battle of Abu Klea was a complete and decisive British victory, with the British taking minimal casulaties and inflicting tremendous casualties on the Mahdists. (This is like the Confederates winning the Battle of Gettysburg, hope this director stays away from US history)
2. No British force was wiped out or decimated during this conflict. Maybe the director was thinking of Isandlwana (Zula War 1879). I guess he can not tell the difference between South Africa and North Africa??????? The fighting up to that time was being done by Egyptian forces with British commanders.
3. The Mahdists never used or wore captured British uniforms. This was done to some degree by Botha and his Boer troops during the Second Boer War (1899-1902).
   4.How could Heath Ledger pass for anyone but a white British soldier.
   I could go on, but now I am tired of typing.
   Now that I have said what I need, I hope this moron does not touch another period peace again. (oops spoke too soon, Looks like he directed Elizabeth: The Golden Age. Have not seen that yet. I will reserve judgement on that for now.
   And anyone who want to says this is just a fiction movie, well thats fine, but when making a fiction movie with historical battles, you should at least come close to presenting it, instead of lying about it.

[fgadmin]

hannonle — 18 years ago(January 15, 2008 12:30 PM)

Yay for stringent history snob drudging up facts no one cares about just to prove their intellectual capacities!
Is this supposed to be an alternate history movie?
It definitely was never billed as a non-fiction re-telling of a specific event. No one has taken it to be so. So you just need to unclench. You're familiar with the time period. We get it. What do you want a medal or something?

[fgadmin]

squatdog_nz — 14 years ago(August 01, 2011 07:31 PM)

LMFAO!!!
You're calling someone a 'history snob' because they point out the glaring fact that the British actually WON the battle of Abu Klea in crushing fashion and that the director literally rewrote history to spoonfeed the audience his political views?
I guess Saving Private Ryan should have had the Allies defeated in the Normandy landings, because historical accuracy isn't important, right?

[fgadmin]

SPNGirl83 — 18 years ago(January 25, 2008 10:14 PM)

As a fellow history nerd i completely understand. I may not know much about british history, but i hate it when writers and people behind the scenes in movies and tv completely change everything around. I can forgive 1 or 2 minor things, but come onto completely ignore the main events that occured is just plain stupid. For example: i'm a fan of the BBC series Robin Hood. The clothes aren't in style, they killed Marian at the end of the 2nd season (because Lucy Griffiths wanted to go to Hollywood) instead of recasting the character. That pissed me off right then and there. I can forgive the costumes not being of middle ages time, but come on you don't mess with a main character!!
Like your example about the Battle of Gettysburg, that would be like saying the Confederates didn't lose the battle, and 30,000+ soldiers didn't die!!
RIP Heath Ledger
RIP Brad Renfro
"WE ARE ROBIN HOOD!!!

[fgadmin]

Yorick_Brown — 14 years ago(April 09, 2011 10:03 PM)

1. The Battle of Abu Klea was a complete and decisive British victory, with the British taking minimal casulaties and inflicting tremendous casualties on the Mahdists. (This is like the Confederates winning the Battle of Gettysburg, hope this director stays away from US history)
   It's two hour long movie and some things have to be altered and compressed. Gettysburg was a much more well-known and pivotal battle than this one.
2. No British force was wiped out or decimated during this conflict. Maybe the director was thinking of Isandlwana (Zula War 1879). I guess he can not tell the difference between South Africa and North Africa??????? The fighting up to that time was being done by Egyptian forces with British commanders.
   I'm sure the director and the author knew that but artistic license was taken.
3. The Mahdists never used or wore captured British uniforms. This was done to some degree by Botha and his Boer troops during the Second Boer War (1899-1902).
   It's a movie. Who cares?
   4.How could Heath Ledger pass for anyone but a white British soldier.
   Now you're just nit-picking.
   You and I were made for this
   I was made to taste your kiss
   We were made to never fall away