Historical Inaccuracy in movies is nothing new. It's called poetic license.
Historical Inaccuracy in non-fiction articles is not usual and not good. If there are facts, get them right.
Case in point was the article put up on Google Alerts from The Loveland-Reporter Herald of October 21, 2023. A review of the movie THE BUCCANEER (Paramount Pictures, 1958) with historical notations.
There's no problem with the writer expressing opinions about the movie. I agree with many of them. The casting of Yul Brenner as Jean Lafitte was a good choice, so was Charlton Heston as Andrew Jackson, Charles Boyer as Dominique You and Claire Bloom as pirate Bonnie Brown. However, the wonderful Inger Stevens, who plays Louisiana Governor William C. C. Claiborne's daughter who has a love affair with Lafitte, well, Claiborne did have a daughter at the time but she was three years old.
However, the article describes the "well done" battle scenes, which were clearly filmed on a Hollywood sounds stage where the dialogue and sounds of horses and bagpipes echo from the walls of the sound stage. British troops wearing kilts march slowly in a wide line to their deaths, when in fact they marched at the quick-step in two long columns. There were no kilts worn at the Battle of New Orleans. The Scottish 93rd Regiment of Foot (Sutherland Highlanders) wore trews, tartan trousers – their winter uniform as the Battle of New Orleans, The battle itself involved six engagements from December 14, 1814, through the climactic battle on January 8, 1815, to the final engagement south of New Orleans at Fort St. Philip, January 9-17, 1815. It occurred in one of the coldest winters in Louisiana history. Hence, no kilts.
As much as the writer of the article suspects "there is a grain of truth in the song" The Battle of New Orleans sung by Johnny Horton, the British did not run after the battle as the song goes, “They ran through the briers and they ran through the brambles/ And they ran through the bushes where a rabbit couldn’t go/ They ran so fast that the hounds couldn’t catch ’em/ On down the Mississippi to the gulf of Mexico.” This is untrue.
In fact, the British withdrew to its original position at the start of the climactic battle, the de la Ronde Plantation, and waited to see if General Jackson was dumb enough to come out from behind his formidable fortifications to try and destroy the British army. Jackson was too asute to try this. His job was to protect New Orleans and he remained behind his fortifications between the British army and the city.
The new commander-in-chief of the British Expedition (Generals Pakenham and Gibbs were killed at the battle and third-in-command General Keane so severly wounded he was supposed to die), GeneralJohn Lambert conducted a disciplined, orderly withdrawl of his defeated army back through the swamp to the Royal Navy ships outside Lake Borgne. He was decorated for this strategic withdrawl. He left Louisiana to capture Mobile, which highlights the fallicy (restated in the article) that The Battle of New Orleans was fought after the war ended.
While U.S. and British representatives agreed to end hostilities, initially signing a peace treaty at Ghent, Belgium, on December 24, 1814, the British and Americans were already fighting outside New Orleans. They just finished the second engagement on December 23, 1814 and fought again on December 28 and January 1, before the climactic battle on January 8. The Treay was not ratified by the U.S. Senate and Parliament until February 17, 1815, ending the War of 1812.
OK, it's a review of an inaccurate movie. Just don't add historical inaccuracies in an analysis.
I worked long hours accumulating 72,000 words of historical research before I wrote my epic novel BATTLE KISS. I made it as accurate as I could make it, so much so, my 16,303 word January 8 battle scene was published in the historical journal SOUTHEAST LOUISIANA REVIEW (Vol. 4, Winter 2012/2013).
The article THE BUCCANEER can be found at: https://www.reporterherald.com/2023/10/21/trivially-speaking-the-buccaneer-seized-a-place-in-movie-history/
The book:
https://www.amazon.com/Battle-Kiss-Novel-New-Orleans-ebook/dp/B0069VMOI0/
www.oneildenoux.com
Historically inaccurate movies still drive me NUTS. I remember when a fellow history professor and I went, with our spouses, to see the 1998 movie "Elizabeth" with Cate Blanchett. Well, she and I were yelling at the screen so often that our spouses finally suggested - actually, they insisted - that we leave. Nobody assassinated Mary of Guise. Henri, Duke of Anjou, was NOT a cross dresser. Robert Dudley did NOT participate in the scheme to make Mary, Queen of Scots, Queen of England. Etc., etc., etc.
ReplyDeleteAnd don't even get me started on The Last Samurai, or Gladiator.
And yes, it's even worse when it's supposed to be nonfiction.
Great article, and good luck with your book. I did see the movie with Yul Brenner a long time ago.
ReplyDeleteCongrats on your book & article. Funny you should mention the War of 1812. My ancestor, General Henry Dearborn, is the one who captured Toronto in 1813 & was recalled! It happened so long ago I don't need to feel embarrassed about it any more.
ReplyDeleteWell done and congratulations. Historical writers I know (most of them here on SleuthSayers) take pride in accuracy. I recall a Rumpole episode where a romance writer did not.
ReplyDeleteThe worst example I'm aware of is Django Unchained. My friend Sharon and I began taking notes about the numerous anachronisms and other errors. And then, on the DVD version, Tatantino brags about his historical research. Yeah, right.