Movies aren’t about historical accuracy

For those who haven’t seen” The Eight Hundred”, I highly recommend it. Yet, understand, it takes some liberties with the truth.

Most notably, there is a scene where Western journalists are observing the fight from the Goodyear Blimp as it flies over the besieged warehouse. That particular scene led to a discussion on whether it was accurate, and if not, why it was included in the film. For the record, the Goodyear Blimp only visited the Chinese city in July 2025, as part of a worldwide celebration of the centennial anniversary of the first Goodyear Blimp, the “Pilgrim.” In the 1930s, Goodyear’s blimp never left America, and it would have been a challenge to get it to Asia!

So why was the scene of the blimp in the movie?

I can’t speak for the producers of the film, but as a buff of cinema, I understand the symbolism that the blimp may have been meant to represent. The idea of Westerners watching the battle from a vehicle used in major American sporting events may have been intended to suggest how the West felt about the Chinese defense of the warehouse. It was little more than sport. It should be added that the film over-dramatized life within the Shanghai International Settlement, likely to highlight the West’s indifference to the plight of the Chinese.

 Yet, I still argue it is a powerful film, and I understand that such changes from history were made for dramatic effect. 

These changes are also something that military history buffs often can’t look past. The upcoming “Der Tiger”, about a German Tiger tank crew on a secret mission, has already received some pushback, and it has yet to be released. The criticism on some forums and social media groups based entirely on the trailer is that the tank commander’s crusher cap is incorrect. It may be a minor nitpick to some collectors, while others have vowed not even to bother seeing the film.

Such criticism was common after the release of the remake of “All Quiet on the Western Front” three years ago. As I previously wrote about, most complaints were that it didn’t closely follow the book or previous film versions and wasn’t accurate enough to the history of the final days of the First World War.

Interestingly, the film went on to win widespread acclaim from film critics and pop culture writers. It also won numerous awards, including an Academy Award for Best International Feature, while it was nominated for the overall Best Picture. Clearly, those who aren’t collectors or serious history buffs had a different take on the film. 

“All Quiet on the Western Front” is hardly an isolated example, but we should remember that the film is based on a book that is still fictional. Although the novel by Erich Maria Remarque was set against the backdrop of the First World War and was semi-autobiographical, it was still essentially a made-up story.

In some ways, the 2022 adaptation of Remarque’s novel is comparable to the 1972 film “The Godfather”, which was also based on a book with several significant changes made for the big screen. “The Godfather”, the novel, was an even more fictionalized look at organized crime in the era in which its author, Mario Puzo, grew up. It doesn’t offer a history of the mafia (a word not ever uttered in the film, btw), but much of what the average American knows about organized crime does come from “The Godfather”, and subsequent films and TV shows.

Yet, most gangster films based on real figures have been heavily fictionalized for dramatic effect. That was certainly the case with the 2013 film “Gangster Squad”, which depicted the Los Angeles Police Department’s efforts to bring down crime kingpin Mickey Cohen. The film includes a violent shootout, but the real Cohen was arrested for tax evasion. Moreover, the 1987 crime epic “The Untouchables” doesn’t come close to touching the real history. The film is a comic book version of the action events. Yet, it is still a good film (although Gangster Squad is NOT).

 It isn’t just war and gangster films that are filled with such inaccuracies. Other films based on supposed historical events or periods are equally lacking.

“Chariots of Fire”, about two British runners and their quest for glory in the 1924 Olympic Games, and “Rush”, about two rival Formula One race car drivers in the 1970s, both miss the mark in terms of historical accuracy. Yet, both are excellent films, and two of my all-time favorites. 

I bring up those other films because I doubt most readers (who have even seen those films) had any idea their histories were so wrong. In the case of “Chariots of Fire”, which won an Academy Award for Best Picture, the rivalry between Harold Abrahams and Eric Liddell was essentially non-existent by the Olympic Games. They didn’t even compete in the same event in Paris, something they knew about months in advance. But that wouldn’t have made for as compelling a story. The rivalry of the race car drivers is also overly emphasized in “Rush”, with the two coming up together and even sharing an apartment early in their careers.

Now, in fairness, I saw those films and learned of the deeper history later. 

That may be why when it comes to war movies, collectors and history buffs are so irritated if the details aren’t spot on. They believe they already know the story and want it presented accurately. This is why, when discussing war movies with other collectors, there always seems to be a question about why the films aren’t more accurate. The most straightforward answer that I can give is that war movies aren’t made for collectors or even history buffs; they’re made for mass audiences.

At times, film critics and Hollywood may attempt to suggest a film is more “realistic.”

Such was the case in 1998 with “Saving Private Ryan” and “The Thin Red Line”. Most collectors can still nitpick, and history buffs who have studied World War II will point out every error.

Yet, there are notable exceptions, some that I find curious. 

Where is the criticism for the film “Zulu”, another all-time favorite of mine? It is an excellent film, but its accuracy is terrible at nearly every level. It is about as accurate to the history of the Zulu War as “Kelly’s Heroes” is to World War II if I’m being honest. There are innumerable errors in the depiction of the Battle of Rorke’s Drift, the personnel involved, and even the uniforms and the equipment.

Interestingly, I’ve had discussions with collectors about the Zulu War, and I have heard “facts” cited that seem straight from Zulu and its prequel “Zulu Dawn”, including how the quartermasters were to blame for the disaster at Isandlwana. The British Army’s defeat was actually a combination of bad leadership during the engagement, inadequate defensive positions, and poor intelligence, coupled with the Zulu army’s effective use of terrain and tactics that won the day.

I can make similar cases about the films “Kingdom of Heaven”, “Cromwell”, “Waterloo”, and “Gettysburg”. Those who have studied the Crusades, the English Civil War, the Napoleonic Wars, and the American Civil War, respectively, will quickly point out countless mistakes in each of those films, just as I can point out the errors in “Chariots of Fire” and “Zulu”. Many others wouldn’t know the difference.

The point is that movies are meant to entertain, not serve as history lessons. That is the job of documentaries (even if a lot still fall short), not docudramas/costume dramas. Movies require a “suspension of disbelief” at times, but for some reason, collectors and history buffs can’t suspend their disbelief and instead go directly into nitpicking mode!