I am a big fan of movies, especially historical films. I learned more about history from Lawrence of Arabia, The Sea Hawk, Gone With the Wind, Dr. Zhivago and Reds than I ever did in classrooms.
What I learned, of course, was not the discipline of historical study, but the scope of historical events and the universal themes that we all respond to. Even so, many of the cinematic portrayals I beheld strove for historical authenticity in location, costume design, language, characters, and events.
The post-modern trends of the last decade’s historical films have disappointed me extremely. History is no longer a character in these movies, but merely a setting or background. Like the History Channel (which I despise for its superficiality and sensationalism), today’s films contain little in the way of historical questions or issues with which the mind can grapple.
The first post-modern historical film I saw was Elizabeth (1998). 
I went seeking a good story and insight into one of my favorite historical figures. What I got was a stream of emotional scenes, with only a hint of political context. The focus was on what the characters felt, from the extremity of the martyrs being burned at the stake to the horror of a poisoned dress. Feelings, emotions, highlights of drama. Students asked me, “Was Elizabeth accurate?” I wanted to answer, “How do I know? I have no idea how everyone was feeling!” Until I saw this film, I had thought that Braveheart (1995) was a fluke in mistaking gore and screaming for history. I had known I couldn’t trust Mel Gibson with history; it was frightening not to be able to trust the British!
Troy (2004) was unbelievable. To remove the gods from Homer is to kill the story, yet Homer is actually cited as one of the movie’s writers! In addition to Brad Pitt’s horrendous acting, the script revolved around Achilles’ love affair with his own importance, his sense of destiny (which has no basis in anything, since there are no gods). He seems to stand for some sort of bizarre Western individualism, devoid of morality or a sense of greater purpose. Greek history and stories, especially Homer’s, have a larger type of destiny in mind, and contain great universal truths. Only Peter O’Toole as the broken-hearted Priam offered any sense of human worth.
O’Toole’s next extraordinary performance in Casanova (2005 – TV) could not bail out a production that had a sickening amout of historical trifling, not the least of which was a scene were people attired in impossible styles and colors (for the 18th century) did a waltz (a dance not invented for another 70 years). They got some sort of costume award for that.
Now we have 300. The Battle of Thermopylae, as reported by Greek historian Herodotus, is a great subject for a film, especially in today’s environment of xenophobia and war. The story has been used repeatedly in literature, films and television. But here, apparently, it has been reduced to the cinematic equivalent of a primal scream. Am I going to see it? No.
Yes, there are many more examples. The art directors of Pride and Prejudice (2005) chose faux finishes and peeling paint to represent the lower gentry (and actually got an Oscar for doing so!). The preview for the DVD release of Marie Antoinette (2006) shows her saying “let them eat cake” (which she never said). And don’t even get me started on Apocalypto (2006), a movie I heard praised for finally showing how violent history really is.
Even with their inaccuracies and the tendency, inherent in all films, to say more about the era in which it was made than about the era it portrays, the older ones were better. And yes, I believe that despite Charlton Heston’s smallpox innoculations scar in Ben Hur (1959) and the fact that all historical figures of merit have a British accent even if they’re from ancient Rome.
