Survey of films based on historical events, broadly interpreted. Illustrated with stills and portraits of the historic figures. Covers films up to the 1980s. Does not cover the controversy of white actors playing Indians, Arabs, etc. since the practice was so common and ethnic actors were not as common as now.

The idea here is to analyze how accurately Hollywood got the historical facts in their period pictures. Fraser does depart from that by including some of the major British films, by the way. Of course, his selection has to be subjective, and sometimes he doesn't get it quite right, but overall he does a pretty good job. However, it doesn't make for compelling reading, and most of the films get brief treatment. He seems to be hung up a bit on casting someone who doesn't look like the historical figure, such as Lincoln or Napoleon. I thought he should have stopped at about 1950, but he includes films up to about 1980. I do share his disdain for the glorification of violence by American film, something that has only gotten worse in the past 30 years. ( )

George MacDonald Fraser would, by any reckoning, be considered to be the perfect candidate to write a book on the film industry's interpretations of history. He was one of the finest historical novelists, with his Flashman novels in particular being noteworthy for both their storytelling charm and their meticulous historical research. He was also a Hollywood screenwriter during the 70s and 80s, writing such films as The Three Musketeers and Octopussy and associating with the likes of Steve McQueen and Charlton Heston (see his amiable movie memoir, The Light's on at Signpost). And, as an added bonus, he also fought the Japanese in Burma as an infantry soldier in World War Two (see his peerless war memoir, Quartered Safe Out Here) and so, particularly when discussing the authenticity of modern war films, he speaks with authority. Yet all this adds up to a book, entitled The Hollywood History of the World, which, whilst unfailingly interesting and charming, often seems less than the sum of its parts.

(Before discussing why this is the case, it is important to mention that I read the updated and revised 1996 edition of the book, not the 1988 original. I would highly recommend purchasing the updated edition as it adds some newer films to Fraser's discussion, including a rather magnificent critical destruction of Braveheart which Fraser says "commits as many historical errors as can well be contained in 170 minutes." (pg. 66))

The drawbacks of the book pale in comparison with its merits, but they are also important drawbacks, so it is perhaps best to deal with the negatives first. Most importantly, the book is far from comprehensive. I neither expected nor wanted an encyclopaedia, but most of the films are dealt with in a paragraph or two each. This naturally means an in-depth discussion of what certain films did right or wrong, historically-speaking, is absent and Fraser's treatment is limited to a brief outline of the plot and his own judgement on how accurate and historically-relevant the picture in question is.

Many films are omitted completely: this is particularly noticeable in the final section, which deals with 20th-century history. There is no room in Fraser's book for such historically-noteworthy films as A Bridge Too Far, Glory, Das Boot, Patton, Tora! Tora! Tora!, The Dam Busters, The Great Escape, The Man Who Would Be King or The Bridge on the River Kwai, and these are all staples of the history- and movie-buff's diet. (Though I am aware that Glory and The Man Who Would Be King are set in the 19th century.) Bearing in mind the book was updated in 1996, a failure to include the Holocaust movie Schindler's List (1993) is also a missed opportunity: surely this was one film where Hollywood did history a service in helping to explain the inexplicable. I also feel it would have been worthwhile to include a few television shows: aside from a passing mention of Dad's Army on page 233, there are none. A potential inclusion of Blackadder Goes Forth would have been justified at the very least: as someone who studied history at university I can tell you beyond any doubt that historians regularly refer to 'the Blackadder school of thought' when discussing the 'lions led by donkeys' interpretation of the First World War.

The other notable drawback of The Hollywood History of the World is Fraser's unexpected puritanism when it comes to screen violence. A common refrain throughout the book is of the increasing "pornography of violence" in modern cinema and, whilst there is an argument to be made here, it is beyond the stated remit of the book. Fraser's commitment to this hobby-horse is so complete that by the end he is critiquing Dirty Harry and Death Wish: not historical films by any stretch. The strength of his feeling on this prejudices some of his arguments: for example, when he praises the historical accuracy of 1995's Rob Roy but says he wouldn't show it to his grandchildren due to its "unnecessary coarseness", it smacks of not being able to see the wood for the trees. (Personally, although it's been a while since I last saw the film, I found Rob Roy quite restrained in its violence.) Perhaps this attitude is just because Fraser was a man of his time: an older, more conservative generation and one which, having seen violence in war firsthand, sought escapism in the movies rather than realism.

There are other drawbacks to the book: there is an overabundance of older films from the Thirties and Forties selected in comparison to more contemporary films, which makes the book less accessible for younger generations. Furthermore, Fraser often breaks his own rule – stated in the Introduction – that he is concerned only with the selected films' historical and not their artistic merit. On page 95, for example, he concludes that one film has "no special historic interest" but is distinguished by one particular actor's performance. Fraser clearly loves talking about movies as much as he does about history, but the balance is not always level.

Having addressed, at length, some of the faults in this book, it is perhaps strange to remember that I've given it a five-star rating and would highly recommend it. The reason I have done so is because all its faults pale in comparison to its main strength, which is to defend Hollywood's approach to recreating history.

It is a commonly-held belief that Hollywood has a cavalier approach to history, distorting facts and disdaining research in favour of hack storytelling and box-office receipts. It is not just pedantic armchair historians grumbling that a certain army unit didn't wear a certain brass button until 1865 and the film in question takes place in 1863 or somesuch nonsense. The common view is of Braveheart taking liberties (and then some), of Kevin Costner speaking with an American accent in Robin Hood, or the Americans unnecessarily stealing the British thunder in U-571 or Objective Burma. This is a view rarely questioned, and when Fraser recollects how his history teacher saw motion pictures as "the greatest disaster for education since the burning of Alexandria" (pg. 3), he could easily be talking about my own, and probably yours too.

Fraser's view, eloquently argued, is that Hollywood is often historically accurate, not through chance but through attentive research, and that there is an "immense unacknowledged debt which we owe to the commercial cinema as an illuminator of the story of mankind." (pg. 3). He is most certainly right in this, for more people watch movies than read history books, and films are the first reference point for our perception of the past. He argues that, with notable dangerous exceptions like Braveheart, filmmakers are often conscientious and respectful of their role as educators and recreators, with scenes like the cavalry charge in the 1970 film Waterloo being "more vivid and memorable than anything in Tacitus or Gibbon or Macaulay" (pg. 3). He argues that the magic they bring to the screen can inspire a love of, or at least a respect for, history that would otherwise go unrealised. This was certainly true for me personally: I owe my love of history not only to the Carry On films I watched as a kid, but also to the likes of Saving Private Ryan and The Great Escape, which I experienced in my early years. As Fraser says, Hollywood can send people to the history shelves (pg. 11).

But it is not only the general thrust of the book which makes it so enjoyable and rewarding. Even acknowledging the drawbacks mentioned above, the book is still put together extremely well. Fraser remains an excellent writer, with the occasional idiomatic turn-of-phrase or rolling prose which characterises his more well-known novels. He has strong opinions and yet remains respectful, and is eloquent in everything he says. As a fan of everything he has written, I began to imagine The Hollywood History of the World ( )

I like this book because it allows me to share some experiences with a history buff ("Flashman"), who also likes the movies! It's a series of pocket reviews and stills from the mostly English -language film world. Funny on occasion, but frequently balanced, Fraser adds some necessary dimensions to a list of productions that certainly entertained, even when their educational value was marginal, to say the least!
And he was a skilled practitioner of the art of Film writing, having penned? the scripts for the best "Three Musketeers" films of all time! ( )

A light-hearted review of Hollywood history, showing that it wasn't as bad as perceived. ( )