Customer Reviews

The Hollywood History of the World: From One Million Years B.C. to Apocalypse Now

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This is not a dry scholarly study but a witty, droll, and entertaining book in its own right. Fraser has apparently seen every historical film ever made; it goes without saying that films set in Regency England and Mary Stuart's reign in Scotland are throughly scrutinized by Mr. Fraser, along with "One Million Years B.C." and "Ben Hur." Fraser peppers the book throughout with his own knowledge of history without ever getting pedantic. A real treat for movie buffs and fans of Fraser's novels.

I bought this book when it first came out in the '80s, and it has gained that most honored spot for a book -- the bookcase right next to my bed. It's an old friend; I've read it over and over. It's hugely entertaining, and remarkably informative as well. I joined Netflix largely to get access to many of the wonderful old movies I'd read about in Fraser's book, and I've learned all sorts of tidbits of history.

Also fascinating are the many illustrations showing contemporary portraits of the historical characters portrayed and the actors who played them. Much of the casting and costuming has been remarkably good -- in particular, in The Private Life of Henry VIII, Merle Oberon's costume as Anne Boleyn is a dead-on copy of the clothes Anne wore in a portrait. Read this book and you'll have a new respect for how much history Hollywood has gotten right.

This was a very entertaining and unstuffy book to read comparing actual history and historical figures with Hollywood's interpretation of them. Surprisingly, Hollywood did a pretty good job of it, most of the time. It also contains over 200 pictorial comparisons of paintings of historical figures with photos of their Hollywood look-a-likes (or not), e.g. Charlton Heston as Cardinal Richelieu; Charles Boyer as Napoleon; Henry Fonda as a young Abraham Lincoln; and a truly remarkable photo of Ben Kingsley as Ghandi. (On the other hand, cute and perky Doris Day looked nothing like the coarse, drunken, manish Martha Jane Canarray - aka "Calamity Jane.") the author, George MacDonald Fraser, best known for his series of comic novels about the misadventures of the Victorian era rogue Harry Flashman, writes in his usual, easy going and humorous style that is guaranteed to keep the reader's interest high. This is a difficult book to put down. I recommend it to movie and history buffs alike.

In "The Hollywood History of the World", George MacDonald Fraser provides an enjoyable survey of Hollywood's treatment of historical subjects. This is no scholarly dissertation, enumerating all of the factual errors in each film and grading them on accuracy. Indeed, there's very little scholarship at all. Although there is some judgement on historical matters, most of Mr. MacDonald Fraser's commentary is made up observations about actors, sets, dialogue and drama. This book is really the reminiscences of a movie lover who happens to be a history buff. The author adeptly conveys the wonder one must have felt watching movies during Hollywood's Golden Age, and makes one realize how incredible it is that we are able to actually see history resurrected before our eyes, while all previous generations before the early 20th century had to resort to dusty manuscripts and pictures. The movies are the closest process we have to time travel and George MacDonald Fraser concludes that Hollywood has done a pretty job of it.

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.

This book looks at the way in which Hollywood films have accurately (or not) portrayed historical events. Since these are two of my favorite topics (films and history) I was immediately attracted to the book.

The book's best virtue is the plethora of pictures that give us side-by-side comparisons of the actual historical figures and the Hollywood people who portrayed them. Of course it's not necessary for the film character to resemble the real person, but it is interesting. Here are some good match-ups

- Olivier and Lord Dowling (Battle of Britain)
- Jack Hawkins and General Allenby (Lawrence of Arabia)
- Anthony Quinn and Audah Abu Taiyeh (Lawrence of Arabia)
- Glenda Jackson and Queen Elizabeth (Mary Queens of Scots)

Here are some terrible matchups -

- Steve McQueen and Tom Horm (Tom Horn)
- Jane Russell and Belle Star (Montana Belle)
- Burt Lancaster and Wyatt Earp (Gunfight at OK Corral)
- Genevieve Bujold and Anne Boleyn (Ann of 1000 Days)

Another virtue of this book is the large number of films it covers and the attempt to cover such a wide period of time, from prehistory (1 Million BC) to World War 2.

If the book has any fault, it is that the author does not really go into much detail about any of the films, and he often spends his time as a film critic rather than an historical fact checker. There are times when he simply tells us that there isn't much historical information about a certain subject, and one has to wonder why he includes that film since there isn't much to say.

These small criticisms aside, this is certainly a great idea for a book and it is executed very well and well illustrated and well written.

A brillantly conceived foundation with combines GMF love of history and Films. It also allows him to poniticated on all of the issues and ideas that claim his fancy. It was a very fun read for me!