Modern Mistakes in Ancient Movies
Movie studios pour millions into making their historical blockbusters as accurate and authentic as possible, which makes spotting their obvious errors all the more enjoyable! Here are some of the biggest blunders of ancient world film-making.
300 (2006)
Aside from the imperialistic undertones and modern ideologies of warfare – rudimentarily speaking the ‘us’ against
‘them’ syndrome – this fictionalised retelling of the Battle of Thermopylae has too many rather obvious gaffs. The first example comes at the risk of upsetting the Gerard Butler fan club, as in the scenes where King Leonidas has his mouth open – quite a few – his modern fillings can be seen adorning his gleaming nashers. Also, in a movie that prides itself on impressive CGI, would it be too much to ask to air brush out a few vaccination scars: most noticeable on the left arms belonging to Daxos (Andrew Pleavin) and Queen Goro (Lena Headey), respectively.
10000BC (2008)
It would be easy, and perhaps cruel without a full critique (which will arrive on these pages at some point), to say this whole film is generally a mistake. Somewhat more tactful would be to highlight that the ships in the movie would never need their sails raised when travelling northward on the Nile, as they’d be blown back by prevailing winds; the metalwork seen mastered onscreen acts as if to cut the very title in two as this was a feat only achieved circa 5500BCE; and the earliest Egyptian pyramid, so lorded over in the film, is believed to have been built around 2630BCE.
Alexander (2004)
There will be those disappointed with Oliver Stone’s reluctance to fully examine the US involvement in Iraq through his
Alexander. But when one side calls him a raging liberal and the liberals themselves don’t quite believe in the usefulness of his propaganda tendencies, and he says he’s not a political filmmaker, is it any wonder mistakes are noted? Whilst it might be more historically believable (not necessarily accurate) than Gladiator or Troy, Colin Farrell’s shoulder tattoos, bowls filled with fruit not around until 283BCE, and the month of June mentioned before the Julian Calendar claims it as a date in 45BCE, all suggest a rethink.
Ben-Hur (1959)
It may be one of the most famous big budget movies of its time, but if the money is on the screen in this picture then there are a few fake notes also in circulation. In the courtyard of Ben-Hur’s home when Judah (Charlton Heston) and Messala (Stephen Boyd) are talking, the noise from a nearby road and its revving motorcycles betrays the authenticity of the scene. Also, before the famous race the Star of David is pinned onto Judah’s belt in order to goad the Romans – except the Star of David was never a symbol of Judaism until the Middle Ages.
Gladiator (2000)
It’s one of the best loved films about gladiatorial times, but after considering some of the historical inaccuracies it is
unlikely most will feel Maximus (Russell Crowe) has “entertained”. From leaflets and Lycra shorts to seventh century Saxon helmets, perhaps the sheer number of errors spotted in this film relates more to its mainstream popularity than any real bellyache we have with its fictitious history? Then again when a weapons-fest of a film uses a term like “fire” before firearms themselves are a glint in any maniac’s eye, it is rather unforgivable form.
Life of Brian (1979)
With the satirical nature of this film you might think it would be hard to underline any absolute errors that weren’t deliberate mistakes. Considering these examples against the witticisms and sheer brilliance of the Monty Python team, you’d probably be right. For example, when Brian (Graham Chapman) and the others begin singing in the last scene a tourist is seen walking in the background or, when a blind man falls into a pit moments after regaining his sight, a white mattress is clearly positioned to break the fall. Finally, consider the flimsy cross Brian carries compared to the one he is raised upon.
Spartacus (1960)
Sword & Sandals doesn’t get much more epic than this, but when the sandals on display are purchased from the local
Wal-Mart the audience’s suspension of disbelief springs back like some zealous Bungee-cord. A shiny coin to anyone who spotted the anachronism in that last sentence. Whether it’s a truck driving past in the hills of a particular battle scene or Antonius (Tony Curtis) wearing a Rolex watch, the impeccable attention to detail which was later a recognisable trait of director Stanley Kubrick’s oeuvre is called into question here.
The Passion of the Christ (2004)
In a film such as this it becomes difficult to identify actual errors from chosen artistic decisions, and even murkier to explore historical accuracies juxtaposed with various and varied biblical accounts. So we’ll just stick to the good old-fashioned movie gaffs instead. As Mary (Maia Morgenstern) attempts to clean the bloodied cobbles a camera pans inadvertently to reveal the shadow cast from a Boom mic; and when Pontius Pilate first commandingly enters the court and rests his arm on his stone chair, he’s either a little too commanding in wobbling the hard stone or it’s just that film-set favourite: painted polystyrene.
The Ten Commandments (1956)
It’s difficult to consider Charlton Heston as an adopted-Egyptian prince and deliverer of the Hebrew slaves today, but
that’s exactly who he was in playing Moses in this 1956 classic. Exemption from this list, however, is not a common courtesy extended to a classic. Given that the stone tablets are said to be the word of god, you’d think hiding the scripture already clearly written on them before this great revelation might be an idea. And from a visible safety pin on the young Moses’ nappy to a watch on the adult incarnation as he stands on top of the great Mount Sinai, it seems Heston didn’t believe much in the character either.
Troy (2004)
The spectacular set pieces and beau monde costume design of Troy threatens to skirt over the attention span of even the most conscientious of continuity editors. Its very loose basis on the ancient Greek epic The Iliad - but with an exclusion of the influence of gods - means the ten-year war unfolds in a fortnight, but that’s not exactly an error or a factual bone of contention. What are faults, however, are the shattered illusions of ancient Greece when Mexican dialogue can be heard from extras; a group of Llamas wandering around later confirm the suspicions that it was just cheaper to shoot in South America instead.
Blogpost
Popular Articles
Related Articles
- Napoleon's Battle of the Pyramids
- Seeing King Tut: Tutankhamun Virtual Experienes, Sites, Artefacts and Exhibitions Around the World
- London Before Londinium: a Prehistory of the Thames
- Servants In the Place of Truth: Who Built the Tombs in the Valley of the Kings?
- Interview: Barry Kemp on the Latest Findings of the Amarna Project
- Stalin's Stash: The True Story of Soviet War Booty
- The Great Cities of the Ancient World
- Why Super-Cements May Hold Secrets of the Pyramid Builders
- Interview: Bob Brier On How To Read A Mummy
- Women's lives in Ancient Egypt



videos
Comments
10,000BC : One that annoyed me tremendiously when I started watching this film, was that although according to 'The Stone Age Sentinel' (don't ask) 'horseback riding' wasn't invented until +- 5.000BC, the 'bad guys' were happily using horses as main transportation. I was like "OMG, how could they make this mistake?! Even I know that!" A bit later, all of a sudden, mastodons were building the pyramids. *sighs* This film is to history what creationism is to evolution. (I wonder if the percentage of people overlooking the erros is the same? ;)) A few other 'minor flaws':
I believe the Flintstones has a higher educational value then 10,000 BC. I wonder if showing this film to any archaeologist would be considered torture? ;)
It doesn't class as an ancient movie, but the shot of Abu Simbel, closely followed by action in Karnak made me wonder if the makers of the James Bond film, The Spy who loved Me knew anything about Egyptian geography...
How about the latest CGI family bucket of fun from Shawn Levy, Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian? In the mish-mash of historical fact and fiction (a lot more fiction), Ahkmenrah (played by Rami Malek) has a tablet which can bring objects to life - and even open up a porthole to the underworld. Cue Hank Azaria's Kahmunrah, who tries to steal the tablet to wage a demonic war.
Now plenty of this is clearly a bit of good ol', sexed-up Hollywood BS - but the figure of Ahkmenrah (not a pharaoh) is derived from the prominent ancient Egyptian god Amun-Ra, who created the 'Ba', or breath of life - one of the five elements of the soul, according to popular mythology. So I guess NATM2 is based on some sort of legendary fact. But there was no tablet; or humorously slapstick pharaoh gunning for it.
THE MUMMY (1999)
Anyone would have noticed the goof in the first scene: Karnak with the Giza Pyramids in the background. but when describing Mummification talking about FIVE Canopic Jars when anyone knowing basic Egyptology knows there were only FOUR Canopic Jars.
The movie was not meant to be that accurate, but things like Karnak and Canopic Jars ?
No matter, I love those movies especially Rachel Weisz and Patricia Velasquez, naked with just body paint. I would love to have been her make-up artist.
Filmmakers are utterly indifferent to historical accuracy (except, perhaps, Mel Gibson). If you pointed out these mistakes, most filmmakers would reply, "So what?" (Look at the discussions on the American Zoetrope screenwriting site).
In the upcoming novel, The Well of Souls, a studio making a movie about the life of Lady Jane Grey highlights her intellect by making her pen-pals with Isaac Newton and Thomas Edison.
In many cases, filmmakers are indifferent to basic logic too: in his newsletter Dean Koontz gives a hilarious account of screenwriters adapting one of his novels to film. In the novel, there's a secret (evil!) research lab in the dense forest. The heroine learns of it by stumbling across a snow-free supply road in the winter (it has heating pipes built into it to melt the snow).
One screenwriter decided to make the road red-hot "like a highway to hell". Koontz said "Wouldn't the tires pop when supply trucks drove over it --- and why would anyone make a road red-hot anyway?" With condescending smiles, the screenwriters replied "Visual impact!"
Each iteration of the script was more inane than the last and he considered suing the studio to get his name off the movie. Mercifully, the project was cancelled after the executive in charge left for another studio (a step up for him). (Millions had been spent by then).
In Avatar, the natives live on the "biggest deposit of the mineral in 100 kilometers". These people travel light-years to get to Pandora and then balk at going another 100 km? (The planet's riddled with this mineral --- that's why the floating mountains float).
Post new comment