This book contained a lot of fascinating information about Hollywood's record on historical accuracy in films ranging from biblical times to the recent past - not very good, for the most part - but I would say that it's more for selective reading than going straight through, especially if, as with most of us, there are time periods and/or places that don't enthrall you. I have never cared for Westerns, for example, so found that chapter somewhat boring, despite learning quite a bit from it.

We have come a long way from pure good vs. evil narratives, crude stereotyping, and the utter disregard for accuracy of former days (mixing up a jumble of elements from various times and places in medieval films, for example), but one of the main points that I got from the book is that often good history is not necessarily good filmmaking or storytelling, since the former involves scrupulous even-handedness while the latter requires a point of view from which to tell the story. This means that often the best films need to strike a balance.

I received a copy of History vs. Hollywood from the publisher via NetGalley in exchange for an honest review.

I can't stand historical fiction when it is based on real people, especially my girl Eleanor of Aquitaine. I am the person who constantly corrects books and movies on their inaccuracies. So, a book doing the same? I should have LOVED this then, right?

Sadly, it was not to be. The author was incredibly snide and condescending throughout the entire book. This is especially evident when the author discusses Titanic. Yes, I love that movie, and have since it came out when I was 15. I will defend it until I die, and while there are certainly parts that were not historically accurate (Murdoch killing himself remains my biggest issue with the film), it was still incredibly well done. But for the author to say it was incomprehensible that Titanic won eleven Oscars is simply stupid. It was an incredible tribute to a piece of history that we continue to be enamored with, over 100 years later.

The author was also inaccurate with some of his history concerning the Tudor period, in comparing it to Hollywood depictions. This is an era I know very well, so I was able to identify those parts pretty quickly. This caused me to question his facts and what was accurate regarding the periods I know less about.

I also found that the scope of the book was simply too massive and unwieldy. So many movies were introduced, that the author's analysis was superficial and there was not much room to actually dive into any of the movies in question.

Overall, this was a disappointment. I was expecting to learn new things about the movies and the history they were based on. Instead, the author's tone made it unenjoyable and I can not recommend it.

Princess Fuzzypants here: In our house there is a popular saying. Hollywood has never let facts or history get in the way of a good story. Or a bad one as this book points out. There is always going to be some literary license when you tell a “true” story. In fact, as the book points out again, sticking too much to the facts can often drag down the pace or the characterizations.

If you are both a history buff and a movie buff you can rattle off lists of movies that got it wrong. Some get little details wrong and some get the whole shebang wrong. Reading the book hit a lot of the ones that have started our teeth grinding. No book could cover it all. But it certainly does give a comprehensive collection, done in chronological order when possible, of the films that include gaping holes, wrong technology and simply a complete misunderstanding of what really happened.

Four purrs and two paws up.

It's one thing – an entertaining thing, all the same, mind – to scan imdb's goofs pages and see how errantly bad Hollywood has been at portraying history. From the small scale cock-ups (Michael Caine in Zulu having the kind of gun not yet invented) to the mahoosive implausibility of certain films' entire concepts (something about Matthew McConaughey swimming down, rescuing a stranded submarine, and jumping on board to solve each and every Enigma code iteration before it surfaces – that kind of thing), some things have reached our screens when they might not. Yes, it's fun to pick up on this and that, but these tiny soundbites, factoids, whatever, don't tell you the history of such a thing. This book does.

For yes, we get the run-down on the history of cinema as well as the history as shown by cinema. After a few pages getting us up to speed we hit the sword and sandals epics, regarding the Bible, Egypt, Greece and Rome, etc. I can see people disliking this immediately for how scathing it is about the source of such things – some people won't appreciate being reminded there is no archaeological evidence of Moses ever being around. The author is a touch repetitive at this, and in my proof he does have some very clunkily-worded sentences (I know, pot, kettle), but he's not wrong. He can be catty about anything and everyone, mind – much later, the Barrymore acting dynasty is "over-hyped"; the success of "Downton Abbey" is deemed "inexplicable". Again, top marks for accuracy there, if not getting people on your side.

What we have then is the narrative of the world where referenced by Hollywood – what happens when it takes it upon itself to present real people and what could pass as real events. This means we get everything from films of Shakespeare 'history' plays, the women of the Wild West, "Pearl Harbor" (sic) and everything conceivable in between. Chapters themselves range from the Dark Ages to 20th century war efforts to a round-up of relevant biopics, such as "The King's Speech". And all this is fine – if you don't like Westerns you might bore of that chapter, but everything else is given a light look only, and we're soon into the screen down the corridor, checking out a different multiplex pleaser.

It's not a perfect book – twice it says someone said something that websites I checked immediately refute, as in an unfindable example of "elementary, my dear Watson". The film "From Hell" couldn't really have been expected to take on much of his friend's on-set advice, determined as it was to be an adaptation of the (heavily-researched) book of that name. And Trow delves into the Operation Mincemeat episode, declaring "very little... makes sense and I suspect there is a lot more to come" – yes, that would include the 2021 film of the same episode of the same name that seemed to pass you by.

All told, though, this is a success. Dedicated to the workers in the motion picture industry without whom none of this etc, it does seem exceedingly catty and scathing at times – but it doesn't really blame the makers for being doofuses. It says Hollywood's job is to get a story right, but it doesn't slam and lambast people for idiocy, rather than have a droll moment pointing it out before turning to a different film. It's an enjoyable, easy narrative as a result, rather than someone with a diatribe trying to defend their career or discipline from the Hollywood juggernaut. There is a place for a volume compiling those imdb goofs as factoids, but so is there room for a book with the authority and timeline of this, which will succeed with many to whom it appeals.

Hollywood historical movies are often a fantasy that make us think that historical characters were like those we see in the movies or thinks worked according to Hollywood.
Entertaining and well researched
Recommended.
Many thanks to the publisher for this ARC, all opinions are mine

You know the saying. Opinions are like... Everybody has one. Some like to publish them in books. Others, like myself, post them online.

Author M.J. Trow doesn't hold back with his in his new non-fiction work, "History vs. Hollywood: How the Past is Filmed", as he discusses the ways in which the fiction on-screen holds up against the facts. Across 12 chapters, he covers everything from the accuracy of Biblical stories & warfare in Ancient Greece to pirates, westerns, & WWII, with mentions of key figures & events along the way. It's presented in the perfect format for dipping in & out of at your leisure to find new films to add to your watchlists.

Now, as someone who considers themselves a film lover & dares to share reviews on Instagram, I was of course struck by a handful of quotes throughout this book & did struggle somewhat to understand exactly what point Trow was trying to make. There were moments of hypocrisy & perhaps attempts to merely evoke a response from readers that left me wondering. For example, after stating in the introduction that the problem with movies is "they tell stories for entertainment", he proceeds to praise films that are pure fiction or inaccurate that fit this description (e.g. "Shakespeare in Love" [1998]). He labels those who notice "tiny gaffes" as "sad people", yet his entire project relies on spotting small mistakes (e.g. the uniforms being too clean in "Peterloo" [2018]). Then statements such as "we shouldn't have to work to be entertained" in regards to foreign films seem rather dismissive.

In terms of the film analysis content, I think his scope was a bit too wide to provide as much value as I was expecting. Whilst, yes, some interesting observations are made & he gets to express his thoughts, as well as educate a little on the industry's past too, I would have liked slightly more depth to each section. Rather than chapters with long lists of references, narrowing down to specifics may have been to his benefit. And though I can see why he focused on the films of his youth, it's quite limiting (to me, at least) to speak predominantly about the 1930s-60s & give only brief notes on anything post-1990. I found myself waiting for other examples that were never acknowledged.

I did, however, enjoy the nod to the blurring of lines between TV & film that's currently happening towards the end.

Trow's aim is to get you to view films with historical context more critically, but just note that this is one man's perspective & you are entitled to your own (& to love films like "Titanic" [1997] without shame).

Thank you to @penswordbooks & @netgalley for accepting my request to read this eARC.

It was not a book I could sit and read from start to finish. It was information overload. There are a lot of movies discussed but not in a great amount of detail. The author shares his opinions about the movies which seemed a bit much at times. I did find movies that I want to check out based on this book.

Thank you to the author, publisher, and NetGalley for the Advanced Reader Copy (ARC) copy of this book and I am voluntarily leaving an honest review.

A fascinating trip through history via the cinema. The author looks at the films made about historic events in the past & what they got right & what they got wrong. It's a good book to dip in & out of - reading a few chapters & returning later - but the sheer amount of information can become a little overwhelming if you are trying to read it straight through.

If you have read anything by the author before you are probably familiar with their slightly sardonic tone, if not then do check out their series of historical mysteries featuring Christopher (Kit) Marlowe. Overall I enjoyed this one & I have a list of films to watch at some point now.

My thanks to NetGalley & publishers, Pen & Sword History, for the opportunity to read an ARC.

I find the line between history and Hollywood's history fascinating, and I was glad to find M.J. Trow's non-fiction book. Starting at the beginning of the film industry to the present day, Trow makes compelling arguments and observations about Hollywood's tendency to glamourise and stretch history to fit their film's narratives (not to say it is a bad thing, but it does beg the question if history can truly be learned from films). I found History vs Hollywood an interesting read with tidbits of history that I didn't know were added by Hollywood and become part of how we view history.

I highly recommend History vs Hollywood to any film history or history fanatics who want to learn how Hollywood merges imagination and fact into their films.

Thank you, NetGalley and Pen & Sword for sending me an ARC in exchange for my honest review.

The Author had big opinions - his book so that's fine but it started to annoy after a while
Some very interesting facts though and overall not enlightening but mostly entertaining read

History vs. Hollywood covers a lot of ground. The author surveys multiple historical genres and films and points out the historical inaccuracies as well as behind=the=scenes making of the films. He also is very opinionated which grated on me after awhile. He makes clear what films he think are excellent (even if historical inaccuracies) and those that he thinks are garbage. There were interesting passages in this book which intrigued me enough to want to go watch some of the films he mentioned that I had never seen before. And I think in the end, that was the author's intent -- is to have us go see more historically-based films and watch them with a critical eye (meaning, be aware it is not the complete truth/history). Interesting read though I wish he dove in a bit more on some of the films.

Thank you to Netgalley and Pen & Sword for an ARC and I voluntarily left this review.

In history versus Hollywood MJ Trow discusses how movies based on real life stand up. From westerns to movies about Rome regency era films historical bios and on and on. He compares the movies based on religious text and that of Jesus himself Oliver Cromwell Wyatt Earp Queen Mary of Scots ET see this is a book that is right up my alley and I couldn’t wait to read it and I really liked the way he gave opinions of historians and popular people and also the The actual facts and what the directors and producers tried to pay us off as fact I really enjoyed that aspect of the book my only negative about the book is that he would say that certain people would claim a movie what is their favorite version of whatever A civil war battle, queen Victoria whatever the subject matter was and then would proceed to say basically their favorite movie of the subject matter was garbage in the one he thinks was the best was the best. Had he been saying that historically said movie was more accurate that would’ve been fine but he said President Roosevelt loved dear Clementine and it was his favorite movie and he proceeded to say that it was garbage I DK I just didn’t like that also I think because I like nonfiction books where the author tells us the facts and lets people make up their own mind and I get it he was comparing One thing to another people like movies for more than one reason so to call someone’s favorite movie trash with something I just didn’t like and I am going on way too long about it. I also wish they would just take the forward out all together because with the exception of the movies they mentioned and the tropes that were discussed I feel like it was beating a dead horse although many things he said in the forward I totally agreed with him. I just think if what made these movies about history bed was that people put their own two cents in maybe when riding a book about it you could’ve kept yours to yourself. Either way I enjoyed the book it’s highly entertaining and I can promise most people who read it will not even come close to having the negative emotions I did because it really is a great book. I want to thank Pen and Sword publishing and net galley for my free Ark copy please forgive any mistakes as I am blind and dictate my review.

"History vs Hollywood: How the Past is Filmed"

Unsurprisingly since the beginning of the making of motion pictures, if it came down to reality or drama, drama won out every time. The more in the past a movie takes place, the better is the chance that the dialogue, clothing, background (where it was filmed) can be expected to be exaggerated.

This is especially to be expected when filming is done during a war (WW2) or in a country that you can’t get permission to film in. During WW2, you couldn’t film in Germany or most of Europe, so most times you would build a set instead. Now depending on the Studio’s finances, if you could use the wardrobe from one movie (say France of Louis XIV) when filming an Era that was close to the same time (under Louis XIII for the Three Musketeers), truly, except for some History Professors, who cares.

If you want to make a movie about Joan of Arc, but the lead actress is thirty though Joan died at nineteen, let’s not be picky. So, the bottom line is making an interesting and exciting movie, or getting every little occurrence or detail just right, you will have to adjust your thinking when you watch the film.

Not what I was expecting. The author covers centuries of history and dozens of movies, so unfortunately each one only gets a cursory explanation. I was really hoping for a more in-depth explanation, not a brief, shallow overview.

This one was a miss for me. The scope was too wide and there's no space for more than just a superficial analysis of any given movie. I got into the book expecting to underline many interesting facts but I just barely found a few.
Also, I can't get over the author's condescending commentary on James Cameron's Titanic, calling some of his ideas "idiotic" and noting how it "incomprehensibly" won 11 Oscars.

A fun and interesting read. This book covers movies from all different periods of time as well as genres. Especially enjoyable when they are movies that you have seen. There's a fairly large amount of casting the wrong actors for a part but that was not unusual in early Hollywood when actors were under studio contracts. Sad to see that historical inaccuracies still exist today. I hope this author writes more on this subject. Thanks to Netgalley, the author and publishers for an advanced copy in exchange for my honest opinion.

Nobody expects Hollywood movies to be historically accurate (despite my always joking how that’s where I get all my knowledge), but I had no idea how strongly they have influenced widespread history! The author loves movies, but he is also a historian so, when he says that Billy the Kid was not a leftie, he explains how it is known. The writing is humorous and approachable. From Genesis to Vietnam, Trow discusses films and describes what really happened. Or what can be proven. Or what is impossible to know. As well as what definitely was not possible because the characters in the film were dead by then. To limit the page count, he focusses on real characters who existed in real life (alas, no William of Baskerville), and chooses mostly Hollywood films, with a few exceptions. Readers who still choose to believe that Napoleon was a great rider, Rasputin a monk who dabbled with the supernatural or Cleopatra a great beauty may want to skip it (learning the truth about the shield maidens was worse than finding out about Santa Claus. For real). It is a fascinating history lesson for movie buffs.
I chose to read this book and all opinions in this review are my own and completely unbiased. Thank you, #NetGalley/#Pen & Sword History.

I really enjoyed this book. I think it would be a fantastic conversation piece, maybe a great coffee table book.

This was interesting to read and see all the differences in how people were in real life vs. how they were portrayed in movies. I liked the little facts at at the end of the book with the images. Like what characters played Queen Elizabeth I in the movies and who was too tall or too short.
This isn't a book I could read in one sitting as I noticed myself googling little facts, or looking at the costumes in the movies. It made me think and research and I felt like it took over my whole life as I was reading it.

The writing is great, and there is some humor mixed in the book. 10/10 I absolutely would recommend.

M J Trow, History vs Hollywood How the Past is Filmed, Pen & Sword, Pen & Sword History, March 2024.

Thank you, NetGalley and Pen & Sword History, for providing me with this uncorrected proof for review.

M J Trow has written a book full of interest to anyone who enjoys films with an historical bent. Perhaps they will be disappointed to learn from History vs Hollywood How the past is Filmed that so much in these ‘historical’ films is erroneous, from major problems of fact, flawed depictions of costume and event details and poor representation by actors who bear little resemblance to those they are supposed to portray. However, is this book offering much more? Perhaps, of course, what is offered is enough. However, I would have liked more analysis, some other experts noted if Halliwell has been supplanted as the film buff’s ‘go to’ reference, and less freewheeling chapter content.

There are constant references to ‘Halliwell’ author of Film goers Companion (1965) and Halliwell’s film Guide (1977). However, there is no information other than his name, about this critic who so often meets with Trow’s ire. Although Trow’s opinion is often supported by reference to the films and subject of critique, there are no citations other than the title of the films and names of the actors. Halliwell’s reference works have been referred to as requiring that ‘one should look up for a moment to admire the quite astonishing combination of industry and authority in one man which has brought them into existence.’ (Wikipedia) Alternative views are also cited, with Halliwell being seen as both an expert and having a limited perspective. With this reputation further analysis of why Trow usually disagrees with his assessments would be revealing.

The chapters are devoted to particular genres which can be described as historical. The Dark Ages covers the fall of Rome to Alfred the Great; The Middle Ages considers early war films from Hastings to Bosworth; The Renaissance provides details about one of the most well-known eras, the Tudors from Henry V111 to Elizabeth 1; The Swashbucklers, an exciting title which covers musketeers, pirates and ‘The New World’; The Age of Empire – Napoleon Bonaparte, Nelson, and women such as Lady Caroline Lamb, famous in the period to the wars of Empire, including those featuring Queen Victoria, to Ekaterine and a Russian emphasis; Westerns; Trench warfare to The Killing fields; and Crime films.

The genres covered by each chapter provide a wealth of information about a huge range of films, their scripts, associated personnel, and background. I would have liked to see more organisation within the chapters, so that they provided a chronological or subject discussion. The bibliography is a not particularly extensive bibliography, although there is a comprehensive index. So, as a book that has little analysis, criticises the opinions of a recognised expert and categorises only by genre with little effort to discuss films in any historical context such as reference to the chronological order in which they were produced, does History vs Hollywood How the Past is Filmed have a lot to offer?

For the reader who wants to know more about the films Trow covers, this book in a treasure trove. It also provides a wonderful perspective on the historical authenticity, or lack of authenticity, on a multitude of films in a wide range of genres. It is fun to read, and I enjoyed doing so. However, as a contribution to academic debate about the value of historic authenticity, evaluation of other expertise in the field and a thorough analysis of the films covered I felt it could have been better.

Social history and films are among my interests so a book which purports to combine the two was immediately appealing. It’s taken me many years to understand the extent to which the media, including the film industry, not only affects but shapes public opinion. The real issue is that it tends to be black and white….in war films all Germans and Japanese are bad, Royalty is good, ethnic minorities are frequently stereotyped and shocking events are glamourised or misrepresented.

This book takes a linear approach starting with pre biblical times and concluding with the present day. The scope is diverse and I felt that presented some limitations in analysis. Most is very superficial with limited comment about how opinion was shaped by inaccurate depictions. Having accepted those limitations, I still found it an interesting and entertaining read. I grew up with a trip to the cinema once or twice a week taken for granted. In the 1950’s, over 30 million people a week went to the cinema, so the power to influence was phenomenal. Hollywood, Pinewood, Ealing et al were only interested in making money. So the British public weren’t shown films of Allied bombing raids which killed over 50,000 people in Hamburg in a single night. They focussed on the blitz endured by London ( with far fewer deaths) and the suffering of the poor British civilians. Native Americans were colourful heathens, there to be brought under control by American troops. The police were good, The Mob were bad. We were swept blissfully into the magic of the silver screen which insidiously shaped beliefs and attitudes,

This title has loads of examples of historic inaccuracies in films, from choice of actor, accuracy if an event, dress faux pas, location choices and much more. It’s a genuinely interesting exploration of films and poetic licence. It’s not an in depth study of the potential consequences of misrepresentation. I enjoyed it.