Films Seen Through History’s Lens

The American Film Institute may have named “Citizen Kane” as the greatest movie ever made, but according to author Joseph Roquemore, the landmark 1941 Orson Welles film is a golden turkey as far as historical accuracy.

In his book, “History Goes to the Movies: A Viewer’s Guide to the Best (and Some of the Worst) Historical Films Ever Made,” “Citizen Kane” rates only two stars out of a possible five. The 1967 classic “Bonnie and Clyde” scores just a star, and Oliver Stone’s 1991 “JFK” doesn’t even rate one.

“Scriptwriters and directors change things in movies for all different kinds of reasons,” explains Roquemore over the phone from his home in Chicago. “They used to do that a lot more than they do now. Now, I think they change them for political reasons and I think that is wrong.”

Since the beginnings of cinema, filmmakers have chosen historical events and people as subject matter. And they have often been accused of distorting or altering facts and characters. Such recent Oscar-winning and Oscar-nominated films as “JFK,” “In the Name of the Father” and “Titanic” were criticized for their historical content. This year, two potential Oscar nominees, “The Hurricane” and “The Insider,” have come under attack for allegedly playing fast and loose with the facts.

In “History Goes to the Movies,” Roquemore--a speech writer, corporate communications specialist and history buff--critiques films by how they measure up to their historical roots. So for “Citizen Kane,” which was taken as a film about William Randolph Hearst, he says: “If you’re interested in accurate biographies, it’s a film easily forgotten. In many places it amounts to slander, and Welles knew it. . . . ‘Citizen Kane’ is a fine film, but earns abysmal marks for accuracy.”

His book, published by Doubleday, is divided into several topics including “Ancient, Classical and Medieval History,” “Early American History,’ “The U.S. Civil War” and “1920-1940: Gangsters, The Roaring Twenties and the Great Depression.” Other movies he takes to task include “The Charge of the Light Brigade” (the 1936 version), “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves,” “The Birth of a Nation,” “Bugsy” and “Gettysburg.”

Here are Roquemore’s picks for his favorite and least favorite historical movies along with his comments about each.

The Favorites

“A Man for All Seasons” (1966). Fred Zinnemann’s Oscar-winning drama about Sir Thomas More (Paul Scofield) who defied King Henry VIII (Robert Shaw) and was executed.

“I don’t think there is anything that can be improved upon. The first thing--and it is the most important part of the movie--is the script by Robert Bolt. It sounded to me like it would have been written by someone who sat down and began reading Shakespeare and read it and read it and read it and then he went straight to writing this script and began using modern vocabulary. The cast is wonderful, and I think its view of More is pretty much on target.”

“Apollo 13” (1995). Ron Howard’s Oscar-nominated look at the ill-fated 1970 Apollo mission.

“I think this movie is very accurate in all the details--how they got stranded out there and what happened.

“One of the things that I like about this movie is that we tend to forget just how dangerous what those guys were doing was. Basically what [the astronauts] were doing in those days was sitting on top of an ocean of liquid oxygen and turning the switch and going up out there.”

“Ulzana’s Raid” (1972). Robert Aldrich directed this western starring Burt Lancaster and Bruce Davison about the conflict between the U.S. Cavalry and American Indians.

“This is absolutely fantastic. It is a true story. The Apaches were terribly difficult to fight because they fought very intelligent guerrilla warfare.

“About 10 Apaches broke out [of a reservation] in 1885 and went on this incredible raid that lasted six or seven weeks. No one could find them. They killed about 38 people. At first the Army sent out some scouts and a small patrol after them. Eventually, they just disappeared into Mexico and they surrendered much later.

“I think it is one of the best movies ever made about the warfare between the Army and the Indians.”

The Duelists (1977). Ridley Scott directed this period piece starring Keith Carradine and Harvey Keitel.

“It is based on this true story, and even if it weren’t, it would still be great. What happened is that these two guys fought each other for 15 years and never managed to kill the other one.

“It has incredible period detail, beautiful early 19th century sets. You see changing military hairstyles and uniforms, and all of that is right on the money.

“The retreat from Moscow by Napoleon is a nightmare in this movie and that is the way it really was. This was Ridley Scott’s first film, and there is nothing he gets wrong, as far as I can see.”

“Conagher” (1991). Reynaldo Villalobos directed this TNT western, based on the Louis L’Amour novel, starring Sam Elliott and Katharine Ross.

“It shows very accurately how hard life was in the West for just about everyone involved. Another thing I liked was there were no lawmen in the entire movie and the ensemble cast was great.”

The Worst

“The Last Temptation of Christ” (1988). Martin Scorsese’s version of the life of Christ, played by Willem Dafoe.

“At first it was heresy to say anything against that movie; now I think it’s probably fashionable [to criticize it]. The movie was very offensive to Jews because of many inaccuracies. It shows Mary Magdalene tattooed. Jewish women did not get tattooed. They were forbidden to do that. The film gives the impression that Mary Magdalene and Jesus actually went steady when they were kids, which is absurd.

“The portrait of Jesus that Willem Dafoe gives is wrong in every way. He is sort of a mumbler and a bumbler and he’s cowardly. Judas slaps him around. According to what we know, he was not like that at all.”

“The Thin Red Line” (1998). Terrence Malick directed this Oscar- nominated adaptation of James Jones’ novel about World War II in the Pacific.

“The battle scenes are very good, but they completely distort what the Japanese were like. When at the end of the movie the GIs finally overrun this camp where the Japanese are and the Japanese are falling on their knees trying to surrender--the Japanese never did that. The Japanese usually fought to the death.”

“Dances With Wolves” (1990). Kevin Costner’s Oscar-winning epic about a Civil War soldier who is transferred out West, only to defect and join an Indian tribe.

“The buffalo hunt was terrific. But there was no record of any Army officer defecting and living with an American Indian tribe. That just didn’t happen. The Sioux refuse to use guns in the movie, and [in reality] the Sioux would do anything to get guns. In fact, they were better armed than Custer.”

“Elizabeth” (1998). Oscar-nominated drama about the early years of Queen Elizabeth’s (Cate Blanchett) reign.

“It is about the early part of her life and focuses very heavily on this romance with the Earl of Leicester [Joseph Fiennes]. It makes it seem like it is the most crucial thing in Elizabeth’s life, and it definitely was not.

“Another thing is when Richard Attenborough tells her, ‘You are innocent in the ways of the world.’ This is ridiculous. At age 14, she knew as much about the world as most people did by 20 because she saw a lot of her friends killed.

“She was not emotional as she is portrayed in the film. She could just stonewall you. And when she decides she is really going to take the reins and rule England, they cut all of her hair off and put this makeup on her which looks like Milk of Magnesia. She’s crushed she’s not going to have a personal life. That is just ridiculous. She was very good at ruling--she liked it a lot. She never took off her coronation ring. It sort of grew into her finger and was there when she died.”