Rob Halliday

9th Jul 2018

Braveheart (1995)

Trivia: For much of ‘Braveheart' Robert the Bruce is torn between the choice of following his conscience by helping William Wallace or submitting to the English as a puppet ruler of Scotland. Thus he serves with the English army at the Battle of Falkirk, but helps Wallace to safety after the Scots are defeated. At the end of the film he is about to finally submit, when he has a change of heart, calls his followers to fight, and defeats the English. This is nonsense. Robert the Bruce was among the first Scottish noblemen to resist English control of Scotland. Edward I's Scottish wars lasted for more than ten years, and, at times, when it seemed that Edward had crushed all opposition, Robert the Bruce (like most Scots) made a half-hearted submission, but he soon took up arms again. There is no record that he was at the Battle of Falkirk (on either side). In 1306, seven months after Wallace's execution, he had himself crowned King of Scotland, provocatively rejecting English authority. For the rest of his life he waged uncompromising war against the English, culminating in his great victory at Bannockburn.

Rob Halliday

7th Jul 2018

The War Lord (1965)

Factual error: The main plot of 'The War Lord' is based on a total fallacy. Chrysagon, a nobleman in eleventh century Normandy, falls in love with Bronwyn. She is betrothed to Marc, a villager on Chrysagon's estate. When Bronwyn and Marc marry Chrysagon claims 'Droit Du Seigneur', a law that a lord is allowed to sleep with a lesser man's wife on their wedding night. It is often asserted, even by some medieval historians, that 'Droit Du Seigneur' was legally enforced in the middle ages, but no reference to the practice has ever been found in any surviving medieval law code, legal text book, or historical source. It is first mentioned in the sixteenth century, and then as a discontinued practice from a barbarous past (like human sacrifice or cannibalism) but the earliest accounts of the custom do not provide any verifiable sources, suggesting that it originated in over-active minds of writers of popular romances.

Rob Halliday

6th Jul 2018

Little Big Man (1970)

Question: In all honesty I have little (if any) anthropological knowledge of what life was like for Native Americans in the USA in the nineteenth century. But it seemed to me that, for much of the time, the Native Americans in the movie did not resemble the members of a 'hunter gatherer' society whose way of life was under threat from the onset of the modern industrial world. Instead the Native Americans seemed to live, act and behave much more like the members of a 1960's hippie commune. How accurate is that?

Rob Halliday

Answer: Some members of tribes like the Cheyenne joined in the 'modern' world to some extent, using guns and even putting on Western clothes and eating Western food. While nowhere near the technological nous of the white settlers, the natives were far from being hunter gatherers at this point.

Answer: Well observed sir! What you say is correct. I admit I probably was wrong in calling Native North Americans 'hunter gatherers' as I think some tribes had agriculture and permanent settlements well before Columbus ever reached the American Continent. I also think that the Cherokee consciously tried to adapt to modern life by building houses and becoming farmers. My point was more that it seemed to me that the portrayal of many Native Americans in Little Big Man did not seem historically accurate, but showed them as being more like 1960's hippies. But I am fully aware that this may have been intentional, since the film was giving a 1960's 'spin' on the legends of the 'Wild West'. But please, do not take my posts on this website too seriously. I am fully aware that this was a film made to entertain people, it was not meant to be a historical documentary. And it was the fictional recollections of a 121 year old man. And the film poster said 'Little Big Man was either the most neglected hero in history OR A liar of insane proportion', so you are invited to have your doubts about anything that happens in the film.

Rob Halliday

Rob, you may want to look into reading the novel the film was based on written by Thomas Berger. He wrote some pretty twisted stuff.

3rd Jul 2018

The Long Ships (1964)

Factual error: Rolfe is leading the Vikings on a quest to find a giant golden bell, 'The Mother Of All Voices'. After many exploits the Vikings find a building with a large dome on it: Rolfe excitedly enters it, but all he finds is one small metal bell, hanging from a rope. In his anger he grabs the small bell and smashes it against the wall. This causes a horrible reverberation, and he realises that the dome on top of the building is 'The Mother Of All Voices' and it has been disguised by being covered with mortar to make it look like a building. The Vikings then remove the mortar to find the bell beneath. But a bell will only reverberate if it is allowed to hang free: the noise is made by the vibrations as the bell moves. If a bell is locked in position and it is then struck it might make a single clang, but it would not reverberate constantly.

Rob Halliday

3rd Jul 2018

The Long Ships (1964)

Question: The Vikings led by Rolfe and the Moors led by Aly Mansuh are both seeking a gigantic bell, 'The Mother Of All Voices', twenty feet high, made of solid gold. Eventually the Vikings find it, and transport it on their ships back to Aly Mansuh's capital. How can they do this? One of the world's most famous bells is 'Big Ben' in the Houses of Parliament: a mere seven and a half feet high, this weighs thirteen tons! Not only is 'The Mother Of All Voices' considerably larger than 'Big Ben', it is also made of gold. Now, gold is heavier than lead, so how much will a gold bell over twenty feet high weigh? How can the Vikings transport this over the sea on their 'long ships'? And what do either the Vikings or the Moors plan to do when they have the bell? If they keep it to admire for its beauty and craftsmanship, then it will just be a financial liability to whoever owns it. Or if they melt it down for the gold they will destroy all the craftsmanship and artistic endeavour that went into making the bell.

Rob Halliday

Answer: Perhaps, when I submitted my question, I may have been pondering the internal logic of a film that makes a good adventure story, but is historically rather doubtful to say the least (I can say this as I have a degree in medieval history, and have worked as an archaeologist on Viking settlements). In all probability, if historical Vikings were seeking treasure or plunder, and found a bell made of gold, they would melt it down for its precious metal content, with no regard for its artistic significance.

Rob Halliday

Answer: It's unlikely Viking ships could transport such a heavy object, but movies, which frequently ignore historical and scientific reality, often use plot devices like this to tell the story. As far as the Vikings and Moors admiring the gold bell's craftsmanship, that may be the case, but they might also be like the Spanish conquerors who plundered Mexico and South America with little regard for the culture, and shipped finely-crafted gold objects back to Spain where they were melted and remade into coins, jewelry, and other art objects.

raywest

3rd Jul 2018

Amadeus (1984)

Trivia: 'Amadeus' is essentially an extended flashback. The composer Antonio Salieri, now old and embittered, recounts his life story to a young priest. He recalls how, as a young man, he dedicated his life to music by taking a vow of chastity. He became a successful and respected musician. Then his life was disrupted after the child prodigy, Mozart performed for the crowned heads of Europe, demonstrating incredible ability, and composing music that was much better than his. At times Mozart ridiculed Salieri's compositions as old fashioned and badly written. Jealous of Mozart's brilliance, Salieri worked to discredit Mozart and hasten Mozart's early death at 36. Much of these elements of the plot are highly fanciful. Salieri never lived a life of chastity: aged 25 he married Therese Hefferstorter, by whom he had eight children. The portrayal of Salieri as a mature, adult musician eclipsed by the young upstart Mozart is wholly inaccurate. Salieri was only six years older than Mozart: he was born in 1750; Mozart was born in 1756. Like Mozart, Salieri was a child prodigy, performing before the Emperor Joseph II when aged 16. Salieri and Mozart were attached to the Habsburg court in Vienna, here, far from being bitter rivals, they often collaborated. "Amadeus' is accurate in showing how Salieri outlived Mozart: while Mozart died in 1791, Salieri lived until 1825. But he did not harbour animosity to Mozart, instead he was something of a surrogate father to Mozart's youngest son, Franz Xavier Mozart, ensuring that Franz received a good musical (and general) education. Far from being alone and forgotten in his last years, Salieri became a highly regarded music teacher, whose pupils included Franz Liszt, Franz Schubert and Ludwig Van Beethoven.

Rob Halliday

Trivia: Something that I found rather amusing. In the 1968 'Planet Of The Apes' film, its immediate sequels, and the spin-off television series, apes have acquired a high level of intelligence, but lack technology. They can construct simple houses and buildings, write books, cultivate the land for food, organise governmental systems, but they cannot make machines, or run factories. Yet the apes possess vast quantities of guns, and have an unlimited supply of ammunition, which they apply to keep humans under control. Like or loathe firearms, it requires a great level of technical skill and resource to make a gun. Soon many people began to ask: how can the apes have so many guns, when they have no factories in which to make them? It was not long before somebody found a simple answer to what seemed like an unanswerable conundrum. All the weapons were left over from World War III, and discovered by the apes after they evolved.

Rob Halliday

3rd Jul 2018

Cromwell (1970)

Trivia: After the execution of Charles I / Alec Guiness, Oliver Cromwell / Richard Harris returns to his home. Sitting by the fire, he is consoled by his wife: he can now put the cares and worries of war and politics behind him, and enjoy a quiet life as a country gentleman. This cosy domesticity is rudely interrupted when some of his old colleagues arrive to tell him tell him that he is now needed to run the country. He protests that, as a country gentleman he would be unfit for such a role, but he reluctantly assumes power. In fact, by the time of Charles I's execution Oliver Cromwell was one of the most powerful political figures and military commanders in Britain, and actively continued commanding armies in Ireland, Scotland and England, and involving himself in government. Although rejecting a suggestion that he should be crowned king (after much deliberation), he was quite willing to take the title of 'Lord Protector' and govern England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales until his death in 1658.

Rob Halliday

Factual error: In the religious service there are some incredible mistakes that are really obvious to a historian whose speciality is medieval church architecture. The scene is filmed in St Bartholemew The Great Church in London, which was founded in 1123 and built during Henry I's reign: thus it would have been standing by the reign of Richard The Lionheart, when the film is set. However, several seventeenth century memorials can be seen on the walls of the church, and even a modern wooden hymn board. Some of the upper windows of the church were added in the fifteenth century: we see these on several occasions. The glass in the windows is obviously modern, and while the interior walls of medieval churches were elaborately painted, the walls and stonework are plain and bare. (Admittedly it might have been rather expensive to install coloured medieval stained glass and paint the interior walls, so perhaps we can let that go.) There is a later scene in St. Bartholemew the Great in which a modern altar, candlesticks and metalwork can be seen.

Rob Halliday

Trivia: Peter O'Toole is a great actor, and delivers a commanding performance as 'Lawrence Of Arabia'. Much of the presence that he exudes when portraying T.E. Lawrence derives from his height (Peter O'Toole is 6 foot 2 inches tall). But Lawrence of Arabia was only 5 foot 5 inches tall (at a time when the average height for men was 5 foot 9 inches). For much of his life T.E. Lawrence forced himself to great tests of endurance to increase his strength and stamina, it is possible that this was to compensate for feelings of inferiority over his short stature.

Rob Halliday

27th Jun 2018

Spartacus (1960)

Trivia: A crucial point occurs quite early on in the fight between Draba and Spartacus, being staged for the entertainment of Crassus. Spartacus is defeated, and lies at Draba's mercy. Crassus smugly points to Draba with a downturned thumb. In the film the gesture is meant to signal 'kill him'. Classical historians are generally agreed that the Romans used the gesture called, in Latin 'pollice verso' (which translates as 'turned thumb') as a signal to gladiators, but nobody is sure which gestures applied. Some argue that a downturned thumb meant 'drive your sword into him' (kill him), which is the case here: had Crassus felt merciful he would have displayed an upturned up thumb, meaning 'raise your weapon' (spare him). However, many experts argue that an upturned thumb meant 'raise your weapon to kill him', while a downturned thumb meant 'drop your weapon and spare him'. It has also been suggested that both schools of thought were wrong: instead Romans who wanted a gladiator to dispatch a defeated foe pointed sideways, meaning 'run your sword into him', but if they wanted to spare a fallen gladiator they displayed a fist with the thumb tucked inside, meaning 'sheath your sword' (or put your sword back into the scabbard). Unfortunately since the greatest classical historians and archaeologists have been debating this for over a century, and never resolved the point, any film director wishing to stage a classical epic film will probably have to use his or her discretion and chose whichever version they think best.

Rob Halliday

27th Jun 2018

Leap! (2016)

Factual error: Felicie, her rival Camille, and the other young dancers in the ballet school are all hoping to dance the part of Clara in a prestigious production of 'The Nutcracker'. The film shows the Eiffel Tower being built: this took place between 1887 and 1889. Tchaikovsky did not compose The Nutcracker until 1892. Also, early performances of The Nutcracker were unsuccessful. It was only from the 1930's that The Nutcracker became a popular work.

Rob Halliday

27th Jun 2018

Leap! (2016)

Factual error: The film shows the Eiffel Tower under construction. Several scenes of the film are set in Gustave Eiffel's workshop, where The Statue of Liberty is being assembled (the unfinished statue is the setting for a confrontation between Felicie and Regine). But the Statue of Liberty was transported to New York in 1885 where it was dedicated in 1886. Construction of the Eiffel Tower only started in 1887.

Rob Halliday

27th Aug 2001

Braveheart (1995)

Factual error: The Battle of Stirling (Bridge) is shown inaccurately in the film: the English and Scots line up on a battlefield and proceed to set about each other, with the Scots winning, with no bridge in sight. In the actual battle the English were crossing a bridge over the River Forth. The bridge was narrow, so they had to file down into small ranks. Wallace and the Scots waited at the top of a hill until half the army had crossed, then, before the English had time to regroup and form battle lines, the Scots charged down the hill and massacred the unprepared English.

Rob Halliday

Join the mailing list

Separate from membership, this is to get updates about mistakes in recent releases. Addresses are not passed on to any third party, and are used solely for direct communication from this site. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Check out the mistake & trivia books, on Kindle and in paperback.