Is "The Woman King" any more historically inaccurate than most other period pieces?

by PabloPhysio

I've seen a lot of hate towards The Woman King. A lot of it is said because it's historically inaccurate.

I've seen it and I've read the historical inaccuracies on Wikipedia. Indeed there are inaccuracies (and I know the main plot is fictional). But is this any worse than many other popular "history" movies? Movies like The Patriot, Gladiator, Braveheart, 300, The Last Samurai, Amadeus, Apocalypto, etc.

I know those movies get criticisms and comments on inaccuracies. But they don't seem to get the hate that this movie is getting. And they are still regarded as great movies. I'm just trying to understand what the difference is here.

DanKensington

I invite you to consider the movies you've named. I haven't seen the last two, but the other five, yes. Particularly liked The Patriot as a child (single-handedly responsible for my interest in Early Modern warfare, even if I'm now dabbling in the Napoleonic era), still like The Last Samurai (is the reason I put Shogun 2 back on, and my Republican Satsuma playthrough is going well), Gladiator remains good, 300 and Braveheart just worth an eyeroll.

Let's take a detour from considering the above movies to a few previous answers. The question of historical accuracy of media comes up every so often here, so we've got some previous answers to consider.

I include the last one because, while Dahomey is by definition not a White Mythic Space, there's a lot of the same processes going on.

Now. Take a closer look at the five I've named above. Note that they're all about white men at warfare. That includes The Last Samurai - note that our focus character is a white man.

The Woman King is about black women at warfare. Let's be honest here: 'historical accuracy' is just a fig leaf people use so they can say they're not being racist or misogynist. Take this video playthrough of the Battlefield V prologue.. Note that there's a Tiger tank in the Narvik action, the tank itself appearing at 4:45.

The Battles of Narvik were from 9 April to 8 June 1940. Tiger I was first produced in August 1942.

You see the obvious problem here? And yet how much hate about BFV being 'historically inaccurate' on that specific count can you see? How much hate did Call of Duty: WWII receive for being able to play black women in the Wehrmacht...in multiplayer, which isn't even about accuracy in the first place?

Now, I'll readily admit that I haven't seen The Woman King. But whether or not it actually is inaccurate is, frankly, beside the point. It's a movie. A story in real life is never going to be neat enough to present in any artistic work, whether it be novel, film, or TV series. Any media representation will inevitably have to make some sacrifices somewhere. Come the fuck on, people, the version of the Battle of Stirling Bridge in Braveheart completely omits the fucking bridge. There will be any number of reasons for a production crew to change things around. All media does that. Frankly, it isn't worth picking on media for 'historical accuracy' because they're all inaccurate anyway. (The Last Samurai condenses two whole wars into one conflict! Saigo Takamori wore a Western military uniform to his last battle, not samurai armour!)

I am, however, reasonably familiar with racists and what they do. The reason The Woman King has received such castigation for being 'inaccurate' is because we're dealing with racists.

I'm just trying to understand what the difference is here.

There are women in it, front-and-centre. There are black people in it, front-and-centre.

That's it. That's the difference. That's earning all the hate here.

It's not the first time. Mad Max: Fury Road earned itself a whole mess of whining from fragile MRA arseholes simply because it had competent women in it. They just couldn't use the 'historically accurate' fig leaf because it isn't historical fiction, but if it was, you can bet there'd be people trying it on. Over in Star Wars, there have been fans tossing racist vitriol against John Boyega and Moses Ingram, for...what reason precisely? Oh, right: They're black. That's it. There's no in-universe reason for them to be against canon. Their only crime is acting while black.

It's not even limited to people today. On this very subreddit, I have dealt with a questioner who severely doubted Yasuke the black samurai, even when I shoved the historical evidence in their face. Yep. Questioning a long-dead person just for samurai-ing while black.

The hatred here isn't because of any concern for historical accuracy.

The hatred here is because racists hate that there's women and black people up front.

polvitablanca

How dare you shit on 300