After we watched "Elizabeth: the Golden Age" I started wondering about historical movies and their proximity to reality.
Is well known that not everything we can see in movies is completely truth and we all know about the existence of special effects, edition and all that kind of things, but... what happen with "historical" movies?
First of all, is important to know what historical movies are. So, they are films in which story are based upon historical events and/or famous people (in this case, Queen Elizabeth I) and their purpose is to represent that event or life as good as posible.
There are lots of historical movies, and they show us some important events or details of someone's life in a more interesting way, especially if you don't like History very much. Despite this, most times these films are not completely close to what really happens. For that reason, I started surfing the Internet and I discovered that "Elizabeth: the Golden Age" is one of these films.
In this movie, Sir Walter Raleigh is one of the most important characters, but actually he was less important that another characters who was omitted in the film, as William Cecil, Robert Dudley, Sir Robert Cecil or Robert Devereux, for example. Also, his role against The Invincible Armada was less important than Sir Francis Drake's role, who was one of the most important pieces in the England's victory.
I think that this happens especially with historical movies because the story became more interesting if there is a charismatic character who catch your attention, even if productors have to "modify" the events just to make it more attractive.
Maybe, spectators would be less interested in the film if they could see events as it happened.... We have to think that in general, movies are made to entertain...
What about you?
Would you enjoy the movie as much as you did if events would be shown exactly as it happened?
