PDA

View Full Version : Importance of Historical accuracy


Enigma
09-14-2005, 11:01 PM
Here's an e-mail I received today. I can't/won't vouch for any of it, but it is kind of amusing:



> These are interesting.
>
> Most people got married in June, because they took their yearly bath in
> May and still smelled pretty good by June. However, they were starting to
> smell, so brides carried a bouquet of flowers to hide the body odor. Hence
> the custom today of carrying a bouquet when getting married.
>
> Baths consisted of a big tub filled with hot water. The man of the house
> had the privilege of the nice clean water, then all the other sons and
> men, then the women and finally the children! Last of all the babies. By
> then the water was so dirty you could actually lose someone in it. Hence
> the saying, "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."
>
> Houses had thatched roofs-thick straw-piled high, with no wood underneath.
> It was the only place for animals to get warm, so all the cats and other
> small animals (mice, bugs) lived in the roof. When it rained it became
> slippery and sometimes the animals would slip and fall off the roof. Hence the saying "It's raining cats and dogs."
>
> There was nothing to stop things from falling into the house. This posed a
> real problem in the bedroom where bugs and other droppings could mess up
> your nice clean bed. Hence, a bed with big posts and a sheet hung over the
> top afforded some protection. That's how canopy beds came into existence.
>
> The floor was dirt. Only the wealthy had something other than dirt. Hence
> the saying "dirt poor." The wealthy had slate floors that would get
> slippery in the winter when wet, so they spread thresh (straw) on! floor t
> o help keep their footing. As the winter wore on, they added more thresh
> until when you opened the door it would all start slipping outside. A
> piece of wood was placed in the entranceway.
> Hence the saying a "thresh hold."
>
> (Getting quite an education, aren't you?)
>
> In those old days, they cooked in the kitchen with a big kettle that
> always hung over the fire. Every day they lit the fire and added things to
> the pot. They ate mostly vegetables and did not get much meat. They would
> eat the stew for dinner, leaving leftovers in the pot to get cold
> overnight and then start over the next day. Sometimes stew had food in it
> that had been there for quite a while. Hence the rhyme, "Peas porridge
> hot, peas porridge cold, peas porridge in the pot nine days old."
>
> Sometimes they could obtain pork, which made them feel quite special. When
> visitors came over, they would hang up their bacon to show off. It was a
> sign of wealth that a man could "bring home the bacon." They would cut off
> a little to share with guests and would all sit around and "chew the fat."
>
> Those with money had plates made of pewter. Food with high acid content
> caused some of the lead to leach onto the food, causing lead poisoning
> death. This happened most often with tomatoes, so for the next 400 years
> or so, tomatoes were considered poisonous.
>
> Bread was divided according to status. Workers got the burnt bottom of the
> loaf, the family got the middle, and guests got the top, or "upper crust."
>
> Lead cups were used to drink ale or whisky. The combination would
> sometimes knock the imbibers out for a couple of days. Someone walking
> along the road would take them for dead and prepare them for burial. They
> were laid out on the kitchen table for a couple of days and the family
> would gather around and eat and drink and wait and see if they would wake
> up. Hence the custom of holding a "wake."
>
> England is old and small and the local folks started running out of places
> to bury people. So they would dig up coffins and would take the bones to a
> "bone-house" and reuse the grave. When reopening these coffins, 1 out of
> 25 coffins were found to have scratch marks on the inside and they
> realized they had been burying people alive. So they would tie a string on
> the wrist of the corpse, lead it through the coffin and up through the
> ground and tie it to a bell. Someone would have to sit out in the
> graveyard all night (the "graveyard shift") to listen for the bell; thus,
> someone could be "saved by the bell" or was considered a "dead ringer."
>
> And that's the truth... Now, whoever said that History was boring ! ! !
>
> Educate someone...Share these facts with a friend.
>

Joe Calabrese
09-15-2005, 12:36 AM
What does this have to do with screenwriting?

Enigma
09-15-2005, 12:58 AM
What does this have to do with screenwriting?

Probably nothing, but one can never tell when or where he or she might be able to make use of trivia, historical or otherwise. Beside, it's fun stuff to know. Regardless, it always pays to know the history/BG of something you might be writing about, about a statement made by a character, or in the narrative. Right?



When I was reading your material, Joe, without meaning to I was fact checking. If I had found an historical error, which I didn't, it would have stuck with me throughout and adversely influenced my opinion of your scripts. Like a film I saw the other night; it was about Vietnam, in the late 60s and the troops were carrying M-16s. No! They would have been M-1s. There were several other flaws but that one made an indelible impression that the writer or director, or somebody, didn't know what in the heck they were talking about.

Sorry if you took offense.

Joe Calabrese
09-15-2005, 01:02 AM
Never mind, I misread.

Glad to see I did my research. Anyway. I can't keep this thread. Only screenwriting stuff can stay. Sorry.

Joe Calabrese
09-15-2005, 01:06 AM
I read it again.

They did use M16's in Vietnam from 64 on.

Aldenard
09-15-2005, 01:09 AM
What are you talking about there not being M16s in Veitnam?!? While there were alot of M1 Carbines and heavy assualt machine guns, M16s were used too. While they may not have been as popular, M16s and other varients, such as the XM16E1 were used in Vietnam. If you don't believe me read

http://www.answers.com/topic/m16

under 'M16 Adoption'.

Enigma
09-15-2005, 01:09 AM
I read it again.

They did use M16's in Vietnam from 64 on.

Not when I was there.

Joe Calabrese
09-15-2005, 01:13 AM
1964. US Air Forces officially adopted new rifle as M16. Same year US Army adopted the XM16E1 as a limited standard rifle, to fill the niche between discontinued 7.62mm M14 rifle and the forthcoming SPIW system (which newer got past the prototype and trial stages).

1966. Colt was awarded with the contract for some 840 000 rifles for US Armed forces, worth almost $92 millions.

1967. US Army adopted the XM16E1 rifle as a standard "US Rifle, 5.56mm, M16A1", on 28 February 1967.

1965 - 1967. Field reports from Vietnam began to look much more pessimistic. M16 rifles, issued to US troops in the Vietnam, severely jammed in combat, resulting in numerous casualties. There were some causes for malfunction. First of all, during the introduction of the new rifle and its ammunition into the service, US Army replaced originally specified Dupont IMR powder with standard ball powder, used in 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition. The ball powder produced much more fouling, that quickly jammed the actions of the M16 unless the gun was cleared well and often. This pitifully combined with the fact that the initial M16 rifles were promoted by the Colt as "low maintenance", so, for the sake of economy, no cleaning supplies were procured for new M16 rifles, and no weapon care training was conducted fro the troops. As a result, soldiers did not knew how to clean their rifles, and had no provisions for cleaning, and thing soon turned bad. To add the trouble, the ball powders also had a different pressure curve, so they produced higher pressures at the gas port, giving the rise to the rate of fire, and, thus, decreasing accuracy and increasing parts wear.

1967 - 1970. The deficiencies discovered in previous years began do dissolve. 5.56mm ammunition was now loaded using different powders that produce much less residue in the gun action. The barrel, chamber and bolt of the rifles were chrome-lined to improve corrosion resistance. Cleaning kits were procured and issued to troops, and a special training programs were developed and conducted ever since. Earliest cleaning kits could be carried separate from rifle only, but since circa 1970 all M16A1 rifles were manufactured with the containment cavity in the buttstock, that held the cleaning kit. At the same time (circa 1970) the new 30 rounds magazines were introduced into service instead of the original 20 rounds ones, to equal Soviet and Chinese AK-47 assault rifles, which had 30-rounds magazines from the very beginning.

Joe Calabrese
09-15-2005, 01:17 AM
Anyway. I'll keep this up for an hour os so, but then it has to go.

Point being. Research, research, research. The devil is in the details. All it takes is one reader who knows his/her stuff to hate you for not doing the research.

Enigma
09-15-2005, 01:35 AM
What are you talking about there not being M16s in Veitnam?!? While there were alot of M1 Carbines and heavy assualt machine guns, M16s were used too. While they may not have been as popular, M16s and other varients, such as the XM16E1 were used in Vietnam. If you don't believe me read

http://www.answers.com/topic/m16

under 'M16 Adoption'.

Most certainly there were M-16 in 'Nam. But when? The Secretary of Defense (Robert McNanamara (sic)) rushed them into the field, but there were problems with the early versions. They couldn't take the abuse (the mud) and kept jamming, partly due to the heat from firing a full clip at a time, and to get one unjammed required a full field strip. We tossed 'em, and went for the riot (shot)gun.

Later, around '69 or '70, when the bolt was chromed and the weapons already in the field were retro-fitted, that problem was fixed. The clips remained a problem, however. The springs were too weak to hold a full load for any length of time. Again, it caused jamming at the most inoportune time. We loaded them four or five rounds short to help prevent that. Today the M-16 is one of the finest weapons around even though most of them (I think) will fire only a three round burst, and not go full automatic. Introducing; the SAW. Man, that puppy is mean!

Historical trivia: the Nazi government during WW II elected not to give the infantryman an semi-automatic weapon, like the M-1, because their reasoning was the men would not aim before firing, therefore, waste rounds. Go figure.

Joe Calabrese
09-15-2005, 01:42 AM
So, you are saying there were some and although you used an M1, there were soldiers who used an M16 and as for that film you watched where you said:

"Like a film I saw the other night; it was about Vietnam, in the late 60s and the troops were carrying M-16s."

Since it took place after 1964 (maybe even closer 1970) then it is plausible and acceptable to have it in the story.

paprikapink
09-15-2005, 01:42 AM
Anyway. I'll keep this up for an hour os so, but then it has to go.

Point being. Research, research, research. The devil is in the details. All it takes is one reader who knows his/her stuff to hate you for not doing the research.

Or how 'bout just change the title, now that it's morphed into something more useful/relevant?

Joe Calabrese
09-15-2005, 01:53 AM
Good idea and gives up the opportunity to talk about how to present history or any fact.

Like:

Naming the park and film Jurassic when all the dinosaurs were from the Cretaceous period? Is no big deal, but when it comes to presenting something, where do you draw the line?

Personally, I think presenting William Wallace as a Robin Hood type hero in Braveheart, knowing what I know as fact, is deplorable. Great movie yes, but don't base it on someone real if that person never did things in the film or misrepresents the things history has shown us to be true.

Enigma
09-15-2005, 01:56 AM
.... 1965 - 1967. Field reports from Vietnam began to look much more pessimistic. M16 rifles, issued to US troops in the Vietnam, severely jammed in combat, resulting in numerous casualties..

And I was one of those (deleted) casualties - 28 December 1968, "The Day My Mother Cried," if you remember the song.

On a lighter note, if any of you need incidents concerning Air America, send me a PM and listen to an old man reminse about old times in foreign places. A lot went on that was funny, like flying into Hong - a pilot and a spook both flat stonned with stolen pacers (race horses) on board! Man, those were the days.

Enigma
09-15-2005, 03:43 AM
So, you are saying there were some and although you used an M1, there were soldiers who used an M16 and as for that film you watched where you said:

"Like a film I saw the other night; it was about Vietnam, in the late 60s and the troops were carrying M-16s."

Since it took place after 1964 (maybe even closer 1970) then it is plausible and acceptable to have it in the story.

I personally carried a Colt .38 and later a Walther PPK (.22 caliber), but that's beside the point. (Oh, if anyone out there knows weapons and knows what a spook is, they'll have figured out why it wasn't some cannon.)

The time line of that flick (I only watched ten minutes of it and can't remember the title) was late 68 or early 69 when we got really involved in 'Nam and, no, M-16s weren't around then, at least not in country, so the answer is NO, it is not plausible as far as I and a few million other poor souls (called viewers) are concerned. I can remember seeing one for the first time, as a matter of fact. I like 'em. They were light weight and, being the poor shot that I was/am with a rifle, had a lot of rounds in the clips. A lot of good and brave men were wasted getting it right.

It isn't the writer's responsibility to have what is shown on film historically accurate, true, but if it's important to the integrity of the story, then the writer not only should know about it, I contend, but must mention it either in the script or during the script meetings, or he isn't doing his job. They used to have professionals around who would vet details like weapons, battle ribbons, tatics, period dress, language, etc., but, and sadly, no more.

Enigma
09-15-2005, 04:10 AM
Since the hour's about up, time for a departing joke; The Frenchman, ever critical of Americans, asks, "Why is it that more Americans are killed by guns that Frenchmen?"


The Texan looks at him, smiles, and says, "I guess it's because we're better shots."

LloydBrown
09-15-2005, 04:14 AM
(Oh, if anyone out there knows weapons and knows what a spook is, they'll have figured out why it wasn't some cannon.)

Yes.

It isn't the writer's responsibility to have what is shown on film historically accurate, true, but if it's important to the integrity of the story, then the writer not only should know about it, I contend, but must mention it either in the script or during the script meetings, or he isn't doing his job.

I contend that it is the writer's responsibility to get it right. Historical inaccuracies break the fourth window for a part of the audience and limits enjoyment of the movie. The more egregious the error, the larger the audience loss.

Enigma
09-15-2005, 04:34 AM
Yes.



I contend that it is the writer's responsibility to get it right. Historical inaccuracies break the fourth window for a part of the audience and limits enjoyment of the movie. The more egregious the error, the larger the audience loss.

I could not, and probably couldn't have, said it better myself. Thank you for confirming my belief in my fellow writers.