What do you think?
Rate this book
The Hollywood History of the World: From One Million Years B.C. to Apocalypse Now
In this extensively illustrated study of Hollywood's extravagant relationship with history, the author analyzes historic film moments alongside historical facts
268 pages, Hardcover
First published September 28, 1988
4 people are currently reading
148 people want to read
About the author
George MacDonald Fraser
116 books696 followersGeorge MacDonald Fraser is best known for his Flashman series of historical novels, purportedly written by Harry Flashman, a fictional coward and bully originally created by Thomas Hughes in Tom Brown's School Days. The novels are presented as "packets" of memoirs written by the nonagenarian Flashman, who looks back on his days as a hero of the British Army during the 19th century. The series begins with Flashman, and is notable for the accuracy of the historical settings and praise from critics. P.G. Wodehouse said of Flashman, “If ever there was a time when I felt that ‘watcher-of-the-skies-when-a-new-planet’ stuff, it was when I read the first Flashman.”
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
October 29, 2007
How often have you watched an historical movie such as The Charge of the Light Brigade or Young Mr Lincoln and wondered whether or not it actually really happened that way?
There is a widely held belief that Hollywood "gets it wrong", and it does, quite often. But just as often, Hollywood gets it right, too, and this book compares the screen story to actual history. Fraser, author of the many Flashman books, certainly knows his history, and while he cringes at David Niven as Bonnie Prince Charlie or John Wayne as Genghis Khan as the wrong men in badly written roles, he applauds Yul Brynner as Ramses (even though that was not the Pharaoh of Moses) or Charlton Heston as Moses, Andrew Jackson, Cardinal Richelieu (in the Three Musketeers, for which Fraser wrote the screenplay) or Gen. Charles Gordon.
It helps if you've seen the movies referenced in the book, like I have, but it isn't essential. A great read.
There is a widely held belief that Hollywood "gets it wrong", and it does, quite often. But just as often, Hollywood gets it right, too, and this book compares the screen story to actual history. Fraser, author of the many Flashman books, certainly knows his history, and while he cringes at David Niven as Bonnie Prince Charlie or John Wayne as Genghis Khan as the wrong men in badly written roles, he applauds Yul Brynner as Ramses (even though that was not the Pharaoh of Moses) or Charlton Heston as Moses, Andrew Jackson, Cardinal Richelieu (in the Three Musketeers, for which Fraser wrote the screenplay) or Gen. Charles Gordon.
It helps if you've seen the movies referenced in the book, like I have, but it isn't essential. A great read.
November 9, 2014
Any book which undertakes to argue the author’s choice of the best or worst of anything has a good shot at being a lot of fun -- and an even better shot when the author is a very knowledgeable, highly opinionated, and notably talented wordsmith. Fraser is best known for his “Flashman” comic-historical novels -- highly regarded for their detailed accuracy -- but he was also an experienced and professional playwright and screenplay writer. And in this volume he considers how history has been treated in the (mostly) English-language films of Hollywood and Britain. You would expect such a book to automatically start arguments -- but because it is now nearly a quarter-century old, and because Fraser tends to concentrate on the films of his own youth, it seems likely that most readers under forty will not have seen many of the movies under discussion and won’t even have heard of many of the actors. (Robert Morley? Norma Shearer? George Sanders? Paulette Goddard? Not to mention Lionel Atwill or Felix Aylmer.)
Fraser is careful to note that his concern is less with the quality of the drama than with the fidelity to history -- or at least to its spirit, since art has its own requirements. The original Mutiny on the Bounty, for instance, with Charles Laughton and Clark Gable, was, he thinks, marvelous drama -- and terrible history. The second remake, with Anthony Hopkins and Mel Gibson, was quite good history -- but very limp drama. (The first remake, with Trevor Howard and Marlon Brando, is best forgotten from any standpoint, a judgment with which I entirely agree.) The author sometimes ignores his own strictures, however, in promoting his personal favorites. He believes, for example, that Quo Vadis? “may be one of the cinema’s most splendid views of the grandeur that was Rome.” Really? I’ve seen it several times (mostly on TV in the 1960s and ’70s) and its view of 1st century Rome is merely the usual squeaky-clean, well-fed version of the urbs romana Hollywood usually puts out -- not to mention its whitewashing of early Christians. On the other hand, he believes Olivier’s rendition of Henry V is the greatest film ever made, both historically and dramatically, and that’s certainly a defensible position; it’s a marvelous piece of work, both as Shakespeare and as a visual portrayal of Agincourt.
Probably it won’t surprise Flashman fans that the author hits his stride with film versions of 19th century events. He thinks very highly of Zulu (the story of Roark’s Drift, and it really is a superior epic), but also Lives of a Bengal Lancer, which I can’t agree with. However, Fraser was himself a soldier in India, and he says the accuracy in this film is very high. However again, the author appears to have a high opinion of The Alamo. He says that in most ways, it’s “authentic.” No. It isn’t. Not even close. John Wayne was a travesty of Davy Crockett, Richard Widmark wasn’t much better as Bowie, there was no midnight cattle raid, and the defenders didn’t die to the last man within the church’s precincts. Faithful to the legend, maybe -- but not to factual history.
I’ve said nothing about the chapters dealing with films on World War II, or the Old West, or pirate pictures, or the many films based on stories by Kipling, or Kirk Douglas as a viking, but then this review would be a dozen times longer. I’ll say only that if you love history and enjoy the cinema, and have strong opinions about both, you definitely should read this book. You won’t agree with all its judgments, maybe not even most of them, but you should read it. And perhaps work up an “I Must Watch This” list as you go.
And then there’s The Three Musketeers, filmed perhaps a dozen times (including a couple of more recent versions Fraser didn’t live to see). Dumas based his novel very carefully on real history and the 1973 version (plus its 1974 sequel, The Four Musketeers) was very close in character and style to Dumas. The two together are among my own favorites -- and the screenplays for both films were written by George MacDonald Fraser.
Fraser is careful to note that his concern is less with the quality of the drama than with the fidelity to history -- or at least to its spirit, since art has its own requirements. The original Mutiny on the Bounty, for instance, with Charles Laughton and Clark Gable, was, he thinks, marvelous drama -- and terrible history. The second remake, with Anthony Hopkins and Mel Gibson, was quite good history -- but very limp drama. (The first remake, with Trevor Howard and Marlon Brando, is best forgotten from any standpoint, a judgment with which I entirely agree.) The author sometimes ignores his own strictures, however, in promoting his personal favorites. He believes, for example, that Quo Vadis? “may be one of the cinema’s most splendid views of the grandeur that was Rome.” Really? I’ve seen it several times (mostly on TV in the 1960s and ’70s) and its view of 1st century Rome is merely the usual squeaky-clean, well-fed version of the urbs romana Hollywood usually puts out -- not to mention its whitewashing of early Christians. On the other hand, he believes Olivier’s rendition of Henry V is the greatest film ever made, both historically and dramatically, and that’s certainly a defensible position; it’s a marvelous piece of work, both as Shakespeare and as a visual portrayal of Agincourt.
Probably it won’t surprise Flashman fans that the author hits his stride with film versions of 19th century events. He thinks very highly of Zulu (the story of Roark’s Drift, and it really is a superior epic), but also Lives of a Bengal Lancer, which I can’t agree with. However, Fraser was himself a soldier in India, and he says the accuracy in this film is very high. However again, the author appears to have a high opinion of The Alamo. He says that in most ways, it’s “authentic.” No. It isn’t. Not even close. John Wayne was a travesty of Davy Crockett, Richard Widmark wasn’t much better as Bowie, there was no midnight cattle raid, and the defenders didn’t die to the last man within the church’s precincts. Faithful to the legend, maybe -- but not to factual history.
I’ve said nothing about the chapters dealing with films on World War II, or the Old West, or pirate pictures, or the many films based on stories by Kipling, or Kirk Douglas as a viking, but then this review would be a dozen times longer. I’ll say only that if you love history and enjoy the cinema, and have strong opinions about both, you definitely should read this book. You won’t agree with all its judgments, maybe not even most of them, but you should read it. And perhaps work up an “I Must Watch This” list as you go.
And then there’s The Three Musketeers, filmed perhaps a dozen times (including a couple of more recent versions Fraser didn’t live to see). Dumas based his novel very carefully on real history and the 1973 version (plus its 1974 sequel, The Four Musketeers) was very close in character and style to Dumas. The two together are among my own favorites -- and the screenplays for both films were written by George MacDonald Fraser.
May 11, 2021
George MacDonald Fraser would, by any reckoning, be considered to be the perfect candidate to write a book on the film industry's interpretations of history. He was one of the finest historical novelists, with his Flashman novels in particular being noteworthy for both their storytelling charm and their meticulous historical research. He was also a Hollywood screenwriter during the 70s and 80s, writing such films as The Three Musketeers and Octopussy and associating with the likes of Steve McQueen and Charlton Heston (see his amiable movie memoir, The Light's on at Signpost). As an added bonus, he also fought the Japanese in Burma as an infantry soldier in World War Two (see his peerless war memoir, Quartered Safe Out Here) and so, particularly when discussing the authenticity of modern war films, he speaks with authority. Yet all this adds up to a book, entitled The Hollywood History of the World, which, whilst unfailingly interesting and charming, often seems less than the sum of its parts.
(Before discussing why this is the case, it is important to mention that I read the updated and revised 1996 edition of the book, not the 1988 original. I would highly recommend purchasing the updated edition as it adds some newer films to Fraser's discussion, including a rather magnificent critical destruction of Braveheart, which Fraser says "commits as many historical errors as can well be contained in 170 minutes" (pg. 66).)
The drawbacks of the book pale in comparison with its merits, but they are also important drawbacks, so it is perhaps best to deal with the negatives first. Most importantly, the book is far from comprehensive. I neither expected nor wanted an encyclopaedia, but most of the films are dealt with in a paragraph or two each. This naturally means an in-depth discussion of what certain films did right or wrong, historically-speaking, is absent and Fraser's treatment is limited to a brief outline of the plot and his own judgement on how accurate and historically-relevant the picture in question is.
Many films are omitted completely: this is particularly noticeable in the final section, which deals with 20th-century history. There is no room in Fraser's book for such historically-noteworthy films as A Bridge Too Far, Glory, Das Boot, Patton, Tora! Tora! Tora!, The Dam Busters, The Great Escape, The Man Who Would Be King or The Bridge on the River Kwai, and these are all staples of the history- and movie-buff's diet. (Though, for the pedants out there, I am aware that Glory and The Man Who Would Be King are set in the 19th century.) Bearing in mind the book was updated in 1996, a failure to include the Holocaust movie Schindler's List (1993) is also a missed opportunity: surely this was one film where Hollywood did history a service in helping to explain the inexplicable. I also feel it would have been worthwhile to include a few television shows: aside from a passing mention of Dad's Army on page 233, there are none. A potential inclusion of Blackadder Goes Forth would have been justified at the very least: as someone who studied history at university I can tell you beyond any doubt that historians regularly refer to 'the Blackadder school of thought' when discussing the 'lions led by donkeys' interpretation of the First World War.
The other notable drawback of The Hollywood History of the World is Fraser's unexpected puritanism when it comes to screen violence. A common refrain throughout the book is of the increasing "pornography of violence" in modern cinema and, whilst there is an argument to be made here, it is beyond the stated remit of the book. Fraser's commitment to this hobby-horse is so complete that by the end he is critiquing Dirty Harry and Death Wish: not historical films by any stretch. The strength of his feeling on this prejudices some of his arguments: for example, when he praises the historical accuracy of 1995's Rob Roy but says he wouldn't show it to his grandchildren due to its "unnecessary coarseness", it smacks of not being able to see the wood for the trees. (Personally, although it's been a while since I last saw the film, I found Rob Roy quite restrained in its violence.) Perhaps this attitude is just because Fraser was a man of his time: an older, more conservative generation and one which, having seen violence in war firsthand, sought escapism in the movies rather than realism.
There are other drawbacks to the book. There is an overabundance of older films from the Thirties and Forties selected in comparison to more contemporary films, which makes the book less accessible for younger generations. Furthermore, Fraser often breaks his own rule – stated in the Introduction – that he is concerned only with the selected films' historical and not their artistic merit. On page 95, for example, he concludes that one film has "no special historic interest" but is distinguished by one particular actor's performance. Fraser clearly loves talking about movies as much as he does about history, but the balance is not always level.
Having addressed, at length, some of the faults in this book, it is perhaps strange to remember that I've given it a five-star rating and would highly recommend it. The reason I have done so is because all its faults pale in comparison to its main strength, which is to defend Hollywood's approach to recreating history.
It is a commonly-held belief that Hollywood has a cavalier approach to history, distorting facts and disdaining research in favour of hack storytelling and box-office receipts. It is not just pedantic armchair historians grumbling that a certain army unit didn't wear a certain brass button until 1865 and the film in question takes place in 1863 or somesuch nonsense. The common view is of Braveheart taking liberties (and then some), of Kevin Costner speaking with an American accent in Robin Hood, or the Americans unnecessarily stealing the British thunder in U-571 or Objective Burma. This is a view rarely questioned, and when Fraser recollects how his history teacher saw motion pictures as "the greatest disaster for education since the burning of Alexandria" (pg. 3), he could easily be talking about my own, and probably yours too.
Fraser's view, eloquently argued, is that Hollywood is often historically accurate, not through chance but through attentive research, and that there is an "immense unacknowledged debt which we owe to the commercial cinema as an illuminator of the story of mankind" (pg. 3). He is most certainly right in this, for more people watch movies than read history books, and films are the first reference point for our perception of the past. He argues that, with notable dangerous exceptions like Braveheart, filmmakers are often conscientious and respectful of their role as educators and recreators, with scenes like the cavalry charge in the 1970 film Waterloo being "more vivid and memorable than anything in Tacitus or Gibbon or Macaulay" (pg. 3). He argues that the magic they bring to the screen can inspire a love of, or at least a respect for, history that would otherwise go unrealised. This was certainly true for me personally: I owe my love of history not only to the Carry On films I watched as a kid, but also to the likes of Saving Private Ryan and The Great Escape, which I experienced in my early years. As Fraser says, Hollywood can send people to the history shelves (pg. 11).
But it is not only the general thrust of the book which makes it so enjoyable and rewarding. Even acknowledging the drawbacks mentioned above, the book is still put together extremely well. Fraser remains an excellent writer, with the occasional idiomatic turn-of-phrase or rolling prose which characterises his more well-known novels. He has strong opinions and yet remains respectful, and is eloquent in everything he says. As a fan of everything he has written, I began to imagine The Hollywood History of the World as an excuse to hang out with an interesting guy for a few hundred pages; talking history-buff to history-buff, movie-buff to movie-buff, unashamedly indulgent.
If I've bemoaned the omission of certain films from the book, it's only because I wanted to hear more from Fraser, and wanting more is the highest praise one can pay an author. I would love to pick his brain about some of the films that have been released since the book's release and since Fraser's death, such as Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator, Letters from Iwo Jima, Twelve Years a Slave and Master and Commander. (My personal suspicion is that he would appreciate all of them, especially the latter, but decry the amount of violence shown.) In defending Hollywood's approach to history on page 107, Fraser suggests that "the smoothest introduction to the past can be performed by a story-teller (novelist, dramatist, or film-maker) who knows his subject, respects it, and uses it honestly." This is an approach which can be used to describe anything written by Fraser. He knows his stuff, respects it and is honest with the reader, and The Hollywood History of the World is no exception.
(Before discussing why this is the case, it is important to mention that I read the updated and revised 1996 edition of the book, not the 1988 original. I would highly recommend purchasing the updated edition as it adds some newer films to Fraser's discussion, including a rather magnificent critical destruction of Braveheart, which Fraser says "commits as many historical errors as can well be contained in 170 minutes" (pg. 66).)
The drawbacks of the book pale in comparison with its merits, but they are also important drawbacks, so it is perhaps best to deal with the negatives first. Most importantly, the book is far from comprehensive. I neither expected nor wanted an encyclopaedia, but most of the films are dealt with in a paragraph or two each. This naturally means an in-depth discussion of what certain films did right or wrong, historically-speaking, is absent and Fraser's treatment is limited to a brief outline of the plot and his own judgement on how accurate and historically-relevant the picture in question is.
Many films are omitted completely: this is particularly noticeable in the final section, which deals with 20th-century history. There is no room in Fraser's book for such historically-noteworthy films as A Bridge Too Far, Glory, Das Boot, Patton, Tora! Tora! Tora!, The Dam Busters, The Great Escape, The Man Who Would Be King or The Bridge on the River Kwai, and these are all staples of the history- and movie-buff's diet. (Though, for the pedants out there, I am aware that Glory and The Man Who Would Be King are set in the 19th century.) Bearing in mind the book was updated in 1996, a failure to include the Holocaust movie Schindler's List (1993) is also a missed opportunity: surely this was one film where Hollywood did history a service in helping to explain the inexplicable. I also feel it would have been worthwhile to include a few television shows: aside from a passing mention of Dad's Army on page 233, there are none. A potential inclusion of Blackadder Goes Forth would have been justified at the very least: as someone who studied history at university I can tell you beyond any doubt that historians regularly refer to 'the Blackadder school of thought' when discussing the 'lions led by donkeys' interpretation of the First World War.
The other notable drawback of The Hollywood History of the World is Fraser's unexpected puritanism when it comes to screen violence. A common refrain throughout the book is of the increasing "pornography of violence" in modern cinema and, whilst there is an argument to be made here, it is beyond the stated remit of the book. Fraser's commitment to this hobby-horse is so complete that by the end he is critiquing Dirty Harry and Death Wish: not historical films by any stretch. The strength of his feeling on this prejudices some of his arguments: for example, when he praises the historical accuracy of 1995's Rob Roy but says he wouldn't show it to his grandchildren due to its "unnecessary coarseness", it smacks of not being able to see the wood for the trees. (Personally, although it's been a while since I last saw the film, I found Rob Roy quite restrained in its violence.) Perhaps this attitude is just because Fraser was a man of his time: an older, more conservative generation and one which, having seen violence in war firsthand, sought escapism in the movies rather than realism.
There are other drawbacks to the book. There is an overabundance of older films from the Thirties and Forties selected in comparison to more contemporary films, which makes the book less accessible for younger generations. Furthermore, Fraser often breaks his own rule – stated in the Introduction – that he is concerned only with the selected films' historical and not their artistic merit. On page 95, for example, he concludes that one film has "no special historic interest" but is distinguished by one particular actor's performance. Fraser clearly loves talking about movies as much as he does about history, but the balance is not always level.
Having addressed, at length, some of the faults in this book, it is perhaps strange to remember that I've given it a five-star rating and would highly recommend it. The reason I have done so is because all its faults pale in comparison to its main strength, which is to defend Hollywood's approach to recreating history.
It is a commonly-held belief that Hollywood has a cavalier approach to history, distorting facts and disdaining research in favour of hack storytelling and box-office receipts. It is not just pedantic armchair historians grumbling that a certain army unit didn't wear a certain brass button until 1865 and the film in question takes place in 1863 or somesuch nonsense. The common view is of Braveheart taking liberties (and then some), of Kevin Costner speaking with an American accent in Robin Hood, or the Americans unnecessarily stealing the British thunder in U-571 or Objective Burma. This is a view rarely questioned, and when Fraser recollects how his history teacher saw motion pictures as "the greatest disaster for education since the burning of Alexandria" (pg. 3), he could easily be talking about my own, and probably yours too.
Fraser's view, eloquently argued, is that Hollywood is often historically accurate, not through chance but through attentive research, and that there is an "immense unacknowledged debt which we owe to the commercial cinema as an illuminator of the story of mankind" (pg. 3). He is most certainly right in this, for more people watch movies than read history books, and films are the first reference point for our perception of the past. He argues that, with notable dangerous exceptions like Braveheart, filmmakers are often conscientious and respectful of their role as educators and recreators, with scenes like the cavalry charge in the 1970 film Waterloo being "more vivid and memorable than anything in Tacitus or Gibbon or Macaulay" (pg. 3). He argues that the magic they bring to the screen can inspire a love of, or at least a respect for, history that would otherwise go unrealised. This was certainly true for me personally: I owe my love of history not only to the Carry On films I watched as a kid, but also to the likes of Saving Private Ryan and The Great Escape, which I experienced in my early years. As Fraser says, Hollywood can send people to the history shelves (pg. 11).
But it is not only the general thrust of the book which makes it so enjoyable and rewarding. Even acknowledging the drawbacks mentioned above, the book is still put together extremely well. Fraser remains an excellent writer, with the occasional idiomatic turn-of-phrase or rolling prose which characterises his more well-known novels. He has strong opinions and yet remains respectful, and is eloquent in everything he says. As a fan of everything he has written, I began to imagine The Hollywood History of the World as an excuse to hang out with an interesting guy for a few hundred pages; talking history-buff to history-buff, movie-buff to movie-buff, unashamedly indulgent.
If I've bemoaned the omission of certain films from the book, it's only because I wanted to hear more from Fraser, and wanting more is the highest praise one can pay an author. I would love to pick his brain about some of the films that have been released since the book's release and since Fraser's death, such as Saving Private Ryan, Gladiator, Letters from Iwo Jima, Twelve Years a Slave and Master and Commander. (My personal suspicion is that he would appreciate all of them, especially the latter, but decry the amount of violence shown.) In defending Hollywood's approach to history on page 107, Fraser suggests that "the smoothest introduction to the past can be performed by a story-teller (novelist, dramatist, or film-maker) who knows his subject, respects it, and uses it honestly." This is an approach which can be used to describe anything written by Fraser. He knows his stuff, respects it and is honest with the reader, and The Hollywood History of the World is no exception.
June 3, 2008
George MacDonald Fraser has long been a favorite author of mine. I first ran across him with his Harry Flashman character in "Royal Flash," the second in his long series of fantastic historical novels about the 19th century and the adventures of the heroic coward, Harry Plashman.
Fraser wrote "The Hollywood History of the World" as a tribute to the cinema and it is a howl from start to finish. His own work as a screenwriter helped him, but his love of movies and the wonderful stories he tells make this a real delight. Fraser's ability to write long sentences, normally frowned upon by style manuals and teachers, is to his advantage here. In one sentence he can summarize the history of the world from the Big Bang to his own death...and make it a joy to read!
It's great fun and I'm sorry to report this fine writer died January 2nd of this year at 83. He's worth your time, believe me.
Fraser wrote "The Hollywood History of the World" as a tribute to the cinema and it is a howl from start to finish. His own work as a screenwriter helped him, but his love of movies and the wonderful stories he tells make this a real delight. Fraser's ability to write long sentences, normally frowned upon by style manuals and teachers, is to his advantage here. In one sentence he can summarize the history of the world from the Big Bang to his own death...and make it a joy to read!
It's great fun and I'm sorry to report this fine writer died January 2nd of this year at 83. He's worth your time, believe me.
September 2, 2007
An excellent book, well written and comprehensive without being tiresome. The author is British and makes no apologies when he assumes the reader is familiar with many aspects of the cinema, but a good book should challenge you to learn more and a quick check of Google can be of benefit. His writing is witty and opinionated, but never dull.
July 14, 2008
What a delightful book. A lot of the references go over my head b/c I'm not a British 70's screenwriter / former resident of India as a colony / WWII vet, etc etc. The author goes off on all these odd tangents like the imanginary argument he has with the person who asserts that British people in 1946 did not wear underwear.
I like history and I like movies. This book about history as told by movies is just awesome. The author includes all this intriguing trivia about how the movie differs from the book or history. For example he wants to know why in the bible Goliath falls forwards after getting beaned in the head yet in the movie he falls backwards. How obscure!
Plus there are pictures. Bonus!
I like history and I like movies. This book about history as told by movies is just awesome. The author includes all this intriguing trivia about how the movie differs from the book or history. For example he wants to know why in the bible Goliath falls forwards after getting beaned in the head yet in the movie he falls backwards. How obscure!
Plus there are pictures. Bonus!
July 21, 2024
The idea here is to analyze how accurately Hollywood got the historical facts in their period pictures. Fraser does depart from that by including some of the major British films, by the way. Of course, his selection has to be subjective, and sometimes he doesn't get it quite right, but overall he does a pretty good job. However, it doesn't make for compelling reading, and most of the films get brief treatment. He seems to be hung up a bit on casting someone who doesn't look like the historical figure, such as Lincoln or Napoleon. I thought he should have stopped at about 1950, but he includes films up to about 1980. I do share his disdain for the glorification of violence by American film, something that has only gotten worse in the past 30 years.
March 9, 2021
The book informs the reader how Hollywood and film have shown movie audiences their version of history and historical events.different genres are covered and how historical accuracy matches up to the real thing.historical events and the main protagonists mirrored.very infomative,the only time it goes off track is in the last chapter that covers the violent century,the author condemns the later films as Sam peckinpah's wild bunc and dirty harry.i agreexthat violence in films has become too explicit.enjoyable book nonetheless.
October 5, 2022
This is really Fraser's opinions about the period films he's seen, of which there were many. If you think Fraser was an exceptional man, a valuable product of his era which was so different from ours, with useful insight into history and film (despite being an amateur rather than an academic) as well as society and human nature, then you'll want to read this.
November 30, 2017
If you're a film fan and a history buff, like I am, you'll definitely enjoy this book. Fraser writes well, and skillfully combines a wide-ranging knowledge of history and film. It's also richly illustrated with plenty of B&W photos.
December 2, 2020
One of my all-time favourite books on the topic. The Tudors and Sea-dogs chapter is a particular strong point in this book, I think.
March 6, 2026
A gloriously vivid, opinionated, evocative and splendidly written gallop through Hollywood's relationship to the subject matter of its historical movies - with multiple illustrations of both the photographic and textual variety.
June 15, 2020
Like having a pleasant conversation with a fellow film buff.
July 4, 2020
God, could this man write.
December 1, 2008
For a book about history as depicted in the movies, George MacDonald Fraser comes across as SPECTACULARLY ill-informed on both subjects. He would have us believe that movies like One Million B.C. are accurate because the dinosaurs look correct while completely ignoring the problem of dinosaurs and humans cohabiting the earth.
When discussing the Richard III mystery, Fraser claims the bodies of the king's nephews were found beneath the stairs at the Tower of London. This is patently false. A few bones (not even complete skeletons) were found there about a century after the boys' disappearance and were never properly identified despite popular rumors to the contrary.
Fraser also sings the praises of Charlton Heston (a fun star though no reputable critic's idea of a great actor) because he looks so accurate in roles as diverse as Henry VIII and Cardinal Richelieu. The fact that acting is about more than physical appearance seems to escape the author who seems quite eager to praise work done in a movie that he wrote (Heston played Richelieu in Fraser's screenplay of The Three Musketeers).
Combining this unbearably shoddy scholarship on the part of an author whose credentials would suggest the contrary with his flagrant insistence on voicing matters of opinion as if they were fact (note his comparison of the three film versions of Mutiny on the Bounty) and you have an absurd book that amounts to less than the sum of its parts.
When discussing the Richard III mystery, Fraser claims the bodies of the king's nephews were found beneath the stairs at the Tower of London. This is patently false. A few bones (not even complete skeletons) were found there about a century after the boys' disappearance and were never properly identified despite popular rumors to the contrary.
Fraser also sings the praises of Charlton Heston (a fun star though no reputable critic's idea of a great actor) because he looks so accurate in roles as diverse as Henry VIII and Cardinal Richelieu. The fact that acting is about more than physical appearance seems to escape the author who seems quite eager to praise work done in a movie that he wrote (Heston played Richelieu in Fraser's screenplay of The Three Musketeers).
Combining this unbearably shoddy scholarship on the part of an author whose credentials would suggest the contrary with his flagrant insistence on voicing matters of opinion as if they were fact (note his comparison of the three film versions of Mutiny on the Bounty) and you have an absurd book that amounts to less than the sum of its parts.
February 1, 2012
Lavishly illustrated with movie stills. The writer of historical fiction, and WWII vet, discusses a wide range of films that can be called “historical” (some more justifiably than others). The book is somewhat disappointing at times, in that many films receive only a brief mention, even if (as in the case of “Apocalypse Now”) they may merit weightier consideration. Eventually the sheer number of the paragraph-length overviews of films tend to fade and blur; it might have been better to focus on fewer rather than more films, and studied them in-depth in terms of historicity.
But Fraser is, if nothing else, a fine and lively writer, and even if his taste in film is shaded by his vocation as military man (he prefers “Rambo” to “Platoon,” because at least in the former, trash though it is, some warfare goes on, whereas Fraser is disgusted by the lack of army camaraderie in the latter), he does convey a sense of excitement and wonder when talking about beloved films. That made me want to see them, and that’s the best film writing can do, really.
But Fraser is, if nothing else, a fine and lively writer, and even if his taste in film is shaded by his vocation as military man (he prefers “Rambo” to “Platoon,” because at least in the former, trash though it is, some warfare goes on, whereas Fraser is disgusted by the lack of army camaraderie in the latter), he does convey a sense of excitement and wonder when talking about beloved films. That made me want to see them, and that’s the best film writing can do, really.
June 22, 2009
Fraser was a Hollywood insider, so I expected his take on Hollywood's treatment of history to be worth a read. It was, sort of. He first proposes that Hollywood has actually done a pretty good job presenting historical events -- and then disproves his proposition time and again.
February 14, 2008
didn't finish
Read
July 25, 2011Highly entertaining for the history buff (and purveyor of costume drama)...
March 31, 2012
If you have friends in the SCA. Citing both primary and secondary sources he shows how Hollywood (especially in costumes) worked very very hard to get it right.
May 12, 2013
This is how history looks from the Hollywood point of view. A cool book with many photos from the author of the Flashman series.
July 17, 2016
Good read of an interesting idea that Hollywood gets it wrong in the historical movies . Lots of photos
August 29, 2010
A light-hearted review of Hollywood history, showing that it wasn't as bad as perceived.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews