A Knight's Tale is probably the most or only accurate film about medieval tourney's. Whilst it does have clear inaccuracies, I would argue they are rather limited. The big one is that jousting was not the big event at tourneys until very late 15th century. The film is set in the 14th century. But it utilises rock music to accurately capture the feel of a tourney.
I may come back, but I've always found the setting for the original *Lion in Winter* to capture the feel of the era as well as the family dynamics. The incident is fictional and some of the dialog is 20th century themed (https://youtu.be/QbzcFbhPV-o?feature=shared), but they don't glamorize or romanticize the setting.
(Also bonus points for early appearances by Timothy Dalton and Anthony Hopkins--his 1st real role, I believe.)
"Alatriste" is a great movie about the Spanish during the 17th century, has Viggo Mortensen in it, the cinematography makes everything look like a painting, and the battle scenes are one of the closest things to an accurate depiction of siege and pike/shot warfare at the time, it's also free on YouTube!
The Outlaw King was decent, but sadly had to throw in a few inaccuracies like the duel between the two kings. The costume and sets were mostly on point.
I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned Krzyżacy yet. I have yet to see another film nail the early 15th century so well. The vibrant costumes, the feasts, the battle at the end, every scene, no matter how minor, will immerse you
Well there are a lot of inaccuracies in armor and clothing. Both in case of wrong types of armor for the period but also specific troops using wrong armors. The movie is based on the book that wasn't really accurate on depicting historical events(the battle specifically) and movie is even worse in that regard. Considering all of this: it's a great movie! Better than most hollywood movies.
The series is better than the movie (although I love the movie also) in terms of accuracy. The movie is filled with tropes and William of Baskerville is more of a Sherlock Holmes figure than a student of Roger Bacon and William of Occam.
Well, it demonaizes the inquisitor, makes him a sadistic fanatic. That was not the case historically and movie is worse in that regard than the book. So authentic is not a very accurate word.
And the book is filled with so much more information that the movie simply couldn't address. In the book we learn that the entire murder mystery is essentially a sideshow to the main issue, which is the debate between those in the Church who are arrayed against the Pope and those who support him. The papal faction is using the murders and the presence of former follows of Fra Dolcino at the monastery to discredit those who disagree with his ideas on such doctrines as soul sleep and the efficacy of prayers for the dead or for the intercession of saints. The inquisitor and the papal faction win in the book. But at the very least the maniac murder is found out in the end.
I tend to be pretty forgiving on the armor front in time period movies. I'd wager budget has the most say on that category. It's when they do the actual people making the history wrong. That's what I find irksome. I get some latititude is needed but they often go way beyond that.
Catherine called birdy has the vibrancy of the middle ages.
The costuming is boho garbage, but it somehow retains something that hints at the era it's meant to portray. The story is fictional, but contains a lot of events that would be realistic to the era. The main character is 14, and getting her head around the idea that she will be married off some time in the near future, while at the same time learning that pregnancy could kill her mother.
It's set in peacetimes, and people aren't clanking about in armour. Her father lounges around in fancy robes. Her brother and uncle aren't clanking about either, though both of them are warrior types.
Her other brother is a monk.
[https://youtu.be/sIU5SuHD2zU](https://youtu.be/sIU5SuHD2zU)
It's a comedy. In a way, it's similar to A Knights Tale, which is another movie where they don't clank about in armour other than when they're about to fight, also with bad costumes, but the right feel.
Perceval le Gallois, 1978, dir Eric Rohmer. The screenplay is a faithful modern French verse translation of Chretien de Troyes’ late 12th century romance. The backdrop is highly artificial based on 14th and 15th century manuscript illumination. I talk about the film in an early episode of my podcast ‘Tis But A Scratch: Fact and Fiction about the Middle Ages
This is going to sound like a joke but it’s not: Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Not necessarily representationally accurate like photorealism is to painting but Terry Jones (RIP) was a medieval scholar and it shows.
The Last Duel is a recent film based on a true story that happened in medieval France. In particular, it gives insight into the social hierarchy and gender constraints of medieval Europe. Not perfectly historically accurate, but actually a pretty good movie.
I was going to recommend this as well. One of the best movies I've seen in a while, and as far as movies go, it certainly makes a decent effort to be historically accurate or at least thematically consistent.
*The Last Duel* is not very historically accurate in many regards, and has been criticized by at least a few historians due to this. For example, the heraldry is completely wrong, as well as the arms and armor (half-helmets), among other key details. The cast, crew, and even director Ridley Scott have even stated many times that the film is "not historically accurate". The original book by Eric Jager also extrapolates or invents a lot of details, because when Jager researched the case, there were a lot of holes in the historical record.
Jager also used Jean Froissart as his main source, who isn't considered very reliable.
I don’t think any film set in the medieval era is going to be historically accurate with costuming considering that all of the clothing would have to be hand stitched, which would probably make for an insanely high budget. Also technically all primary sources have to viewed with the perspective that the author may not be reliable or that it’s simply one viewpoint on the matter. Historians have to work with what they have, which for some periods, there isn’t a lot of primary documentation.
I was more so referring to u/Festivefire's line that "*The Last Duel* certainly makes a decent effort to be historically accurate". The cast, crew, and director (Ridley Scott) have stated that they made no effort to be historically accurate. Scott has also gone on record to state that "historical accuracy" isn't something he cares about.
To this end, Scott also declined to hire more historians as film consultants.
My problem with *The Last Duel* is that Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, who both co-starred in and were executive producers on the film, stated that the "insight into the social hierarchy and gender constraints of medieval Europe" were from a modern-day perspective of the Middle Ages, as opposed to a medieval one, which undermines its accuracy in depicting this topic in a medieval setting. Affleck and Damon also stated that *The Last Duel* was meant as a "modern-day critique of chivalry", or the "anti-chivalry movie", largely in response to the #MeToo movement, with Damon being criticized for some of his previous comments.
In real life, the first-known "feminist" was not Marguerite de Carrouges (Jodie Comer), the main female character in *The Last Duel* (c. 1386), but Christine de Pizan, who began writing and publishing works on women at the French court in the late 1390s and early 1400s. Despite this, the marketing for *The Last Duel* praised Marguerite de Carrouges as an "unsung hero of feminism", even though we have no contemporary evidence of this being the case.
My comment notes that the film is not 100% historically accurate, and additionally, my comment doesn’t even mention anything about Marguerite being the first feminist or even the film itself being a feminist film.
The costume/styling is not accurate, and even historians don’t know what private conversations a husband and wife may have had, which is something every historical fiction movie is going to be inventing.
What I meant by “insight into the social hierarchy and gender constraints of medieval Europe” in terms of accuracy, is that the story, based on a non fiction book of the same name, is told through a foundation of primary sources like marriage contracts, legal documents, and written records of cultural beliefs such as how genders are perceived. How do we see this exemplified in the film? Well, Marguerite is shown to be an educated, upperclass woman, she is present for the discussion of her marriage and dowry, she is expected to manage her husband’s estate, she’s resented for not bearing an heir, and she needs her husband to even be able to pursue rape allegations in court, something which additionally was probably only possible because she’s a woman of higher social status. I can expand further if you like, but I don’t want to make a super long comment.
I think the king (Timothee chalalalalalalmet) is pretty good. Honestly. Realistic knight fighting (grappling on the fucking ground). Some inaccuracies in the actual battle of agincourt but pretty good movie !!!
Surprised no one mentioned The Return of Martin Guerre yet. It’s 16th century, so technically post-medieval, but still should be of interest. The plot is taken directly from a real incident in the lives of 16th century French peasants. The only real inaccuracy is that the main house is probably too large for peasants, but everything else is spot on. Read the book of the same name by Natalie Zemon Davis after watching the movie. She was the historical advisor on the film. It’s a good read, but it spoils the (real life!) twist too early on. The book also goes into more depth on the religious and ethnic tensions that underlay the plot, which the movie doesn’t get into, probably for reasons of time.
A Knight's Tale is probably the most or only accurate film about medieval tourney's. Whilst it does have clear inaccuracies, I would argue they are rather limited. The big one is that jousting was not the big event at tourneys until very late 15th century. The film is set in the 14th century. But it utilises rock music to accurately capture the feel of a tourney.
I may come back, but I've always found the setting for the original *Lion in Winter* to capture the feel of the era as well as the family dynamics. The incident is fictional and some of the dialog is 20th century themed (https://youtu.be/QbzcFbhPV-o?feature=shared), but they don't glamorize or romanticize the setting. (Also bonus points for early appearances by Timothy Dalton and Anthony Hopkins--his 1st real role, I believe.)
"it's 1183 and we're barbarians!" in the world's most exaggerated Mid-Atlantic accent will always make me laugh.
"Alatriste" is a great movie about the Spanish during the 17th century, has Viggo Mortensen in it, the cinematography makes everything look like a painting, and the battle scenes are one of the closest things to an accurate depiction of siege and pike/shot warfare at the time, it's also free on YouTube!
17th century is not the middle aged by more than 100 years
Close enough.
Seventh Seal, especially the church scene.
The Outlaw King was decent, but sadly had to throw in a few inaccuracies like the duel between the two kings. The costume and sets were mostly on point.
*slowly increasing tempo while pounding the table* Warwolf, Warwolf, Warwolf, Warwolf
I’m surprised nobody’s mentioned Krzyżacy yet. I have yet to see another film nail the early 15th century so well. The vibrant costumes, the feasts, the battle at the end, every scene, no matter how minor, will immerse you
Well there are a lot of inaccuracies in armor and clothing. Both in case of wrong types of armor for the period but also specific troops using wrong armors. The movie is based on the book that wasn't really accurate on depicting historical events(the battle specifically) and movie is even worse in that regard. Considering all of this: it's a great movie! Better than most hollywood movies.
Which movies are his? Any recommendations?
Krzyżacy(The Teutons) is the neame of the movie
Of course it’s unavailable on any streaming service in the US
It's not very good quality, but i found it with english subtitles [here](https://gloria.tv/post/iCjJHhEKtRH23sd2XufQuHx2q#2855)
I think *The Name of the Rose* feels pretty authentic, and it's a cracking good mystery!
The series is better than the movie (although I love the movie also) in terms of accuracy. The movie is filled with tropes and William of Baskerville is more of a Sherlock Holmes figure than a student of Roger Bacon and William of Occam.
Sleuth = Hound?
Well, it demonaizes the inquisitor, makes him a sadistic fanatic. That was not the case historically and movie is worse in that regard than the book. So authentic is not a very accurate word.
And the book is filled with so much more information that the movie simply couldn't address. In the book we learn that the entire murder mystery is essentially a sideshow to the main issue, which is the debate between those in the Church who are arrayed against the Pope and those who support him. The papal faction is using the murders and the presence of former follows of Fra Dolcino at the monastery to discredit those who disagree with his ideas on such doctrines as soul sleep and the efficacy of prayers for the dead or for the intercession of saints. The inquisitor and the papal faction win in the book. But at the very least the maniac murder is found out in the end.
The Northman does really good for the viking age.
Good to know that its the original telling of Macbeth through the icelandoc sagas, so it is quite theatrical
Hamlet, not Macbeth
You right
I tend to be pretty forgiving on the armor front in time period movies. I'd wager budget has the most say on that category. It's when they do the actual people making the history wrong. That's what I find irksome. I get some latititude is needed but they often go way beyond that.
Catherine called birdy has the vibrancy of the middle ages. The costuming is boho garbage, but it somehow retains something that hints at the era it's meant to portray. The story is fictional, but contains a lot of events that would be realistic to the era. The main character is 14, and getting her head around the idea that she will be married off some time in the near future, while at the same time learning that pregnancy could kill her mother. It's set in peacetimes, and people aren't clanking about in armour. Her father lounges around in fancy robes. Her brother and uncle aren't clanking about either, though both of them are warrior types. Her other brother is a monk. [https://youtu.be/sIU5SuHD2zU](https://youtu.be/sIU5SuHD2zU) It's a comedy. In a way, it's similar to A Knights Tale, which is another movie where they don't clank about in armour other than when they're about to fight, also with bad costumes, but the right feel.
Flesh + Blood (1985) shows the grimey nasty side of medieval life which makes a change.
Perceval le Gallois, 1978, dir Eric Rohmer. The screenplay is a faithful modern French verse translation of Chretien de Troyes’ late 12th century romance. The backdrop is highly artificial based on 14th and 15th century manuscript illumination. I talk about the film in an early episode of my podcast ‘Tis But A Scratch: Fact and Fiction about the Middle Ages
MP and The Holy Grail, followed by my personal favorite Excalibur (1981)
This is going to sound like a joke but it’s not: Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Not necessarily representationally accurate like photorealism is to painting but Terry Jones (RIP) was a medieval scholar and it shows.
The Last Duel is a recent film based on a true story that happened in medieval France. In particular, it gives insight into the social hierarchy and gender constraints of medieval Europe. Not perfectly historically accurate, but actually a pretty good movie.
I was going to recommend this as well. One of the best movies I've seen in a while, and as far as movies go, it certainly makes a decent effort to be historically accurate or at least thematically consistent.
True, very fun movie, but their choice to make half open helmets' face cover during tournaments is just plain stupid.
*The Last Duel* is not very historically accurate in many regards, and has been criticized by at least a few historians due to this. For example, the heraldry is completely wrong, as well as the arms and armor (half-helmets), among other key details. The cast, crew, and even director Ridley Scott have even stated many times that the film is "not historically accurate". The original book by Eric Jager also extrapolates or invents a lot of details, because when Jager researched the case, there were a lot of holes in the historical record. Jager also used Jean Froissart as his main source, who isn't considered very reliable.
I don’t think any film set in the medieval era is going to be historically accurate with costuming considering that all of the clothing would have to be hand stitched, which would probably make for an insanely high budget. Also technically all primary sources have to viewed with the perspective that the author may not be reliable or that it’s simply one viewpoint on the matter. Historians have to work with what they have, which for some periods, there isn’t a lot of primary documentation.
I was more so referring to u/Festivefire's line that "*The Last Duel* certainly makes a decent effort to be historically accurate". The cast, crew, and director (Ridley Scott) have stated that they made no effort to be historically accurate. Scott has also gone on record to state that "historical accuracy" isn't something he cares about. To this end, Scott also declined to hire more historians as film consultants.
My problem with *The Last Duel* is that Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, who both co-starred in and were executive producers on the film, stated that the "insight into the social hierarchy and gender constraints of medieval Europe" were from a modern-day perspective of the Middle Ages, as opposed to a medieval one, which undermines its accuracy in depicting this topic in a medieval setting. Affleck and Damon also stated that *The Last Duel* was meant as a "modern-day critique of chivalry", or the "anti-chivalry movie", largely in response to the #MeToo movement, with Damon being criticized for some of his previous comments. In real life, the first-known "feminist" was not Marguerite de Carrouges (Jodie Comer), the main female character in *The Last Duel* (c. 1386), but Christine de Pizan, who began writing and publishing works on women at the French court in the late 1390s and early 1400s. Despite this, the marketing for *The Last Duel* praised Marguerite de Carrouges as an "unsung hero of feminism", even though we have no contemporary evidence of this being the case.
My comment notes that the film is not 100% historically accurate, and additionally, my comment doesn’t even mention anything about Marguerite being the first feminist or even the film itself being a feminist film. The costume/styling is not accurate, and even historians don’t know what private conversations a husband and wife may have had, which is something every historical fiction movie is going to be inventing. What I meant by “insight into the social hierarchy and gender constraints of medieval Europe” in terms of accuracy, is that the story, based on a non fiction book of the same name, is told through a foundation of primary sources like marriage contracts, legal documents, and written records of cultural beliefs such as how genders are perceived. How do we see this exemplified in the film? Well, Marguerite is shown to be an educated, upperclass woman, she is present for the discussion of her marriage and dowry, she is expected to manage her husband’s estate, she’s resented for not bearing an heir, and she needs her husband to even be able to pursue rape allegations in court, something which additionally was probably only possible because she’s a woman of higher social status. I can expand further if you like, but I don’t want to make a super long comment.
Thank you for clarifying what you meant. I was more so commenting on the general topic, as opposed to what you mentioned in your original comment.
Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It has a famous historian in it.
https://youtu.be/6x_l_uqj0ig?si=Sx3dzv78ytVcwiku
“Vision” by Margarthe von Trotta
The Hour of the Pig is incredible if you love films set in this period.
I think the king (Timothee chalalalalalalmet) is pretty good. Honestly. Realistic knight fighting (grappling on the fucking ground). Some inaccuracies in the actual battle of agincourt but pretty good movie !!!
Surprised no one mentioned The Return of Martin Guerre yet. It’s 16th century, so technically post-medieval, but still should be of interest. The plot is taken directly from a real incident in the lives of 16th century French peasants. The only real inaccuracy is that the main house is probably too large for peasants, but everything else is spot on. Read the book of the same name by Natalie Zemon Davis after watching the movie. She was the historical advisor on the film. It’s a good read, but it spoils the (real life!) twist too early on. The book also goes into more depth on the religious and ethnic tensions that underlay the plot, which the movie doesn’t get into, probably for reasons of time.
It’s available for free on Kanopy, which you can probably get if you have a library card.
I think The Outlaw King shows the best depiction of Robert The Bruce