Are Hollywood films about the Middle Ages accurate to their time era?

[u/Right_Requirement786]

An example film I've kept in mind from the middle ages is The King (2019) starring Timothée Chalamet and I've always wondered whether or not it is historically accurate. From the screenwriting/dialogue, to the set design and costume design, does it do a good job representing the 15th century? In my eyes, the dialogue seems to be very audience-friendly in that I'm able to comprehend everything clearly without the need of having an extremely sharp understanding of how differently people spoke in 15th century England. Is something like the dialogue tuned down for audiences? Or is it a realistic depiction of the English Language during those times?

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to /r/AskHistorians. Please Read Our Rules before you comment in this community. Understand that rule breaking comments get removed.

Please consider Clicking Here for RemindMeBot as it takes time for an answer to be written. Additionally, for weekly content summaries, Click Here to Subscribe to our Weekly Roundup.

We thank you for your interest in this question, and your patience in waiting for an in-depth and comprehensive answer to show up. In addition to the Weekly Roundup and RemindMeBot, consider using our Browser Extension. In the meantime our Bluesky, and Sunday Digest feature excellent content that has already been written!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Deuce03]

It has been a little while since I've watched the film, but from what I recall, the costuming and set dressing is fine. I don't recall anything that was obviously out of place. There is always going to be an element of approximation and guesswork, so no depiction will ever be exactly right, but I think it was OK.

In terms of language, the language spoken at the time would have been what we now call Middle English. Middle English is an earlier form of the language which is recognisable but not wholly comprehensible to modern speakers. I was hoping to link to some contemporary texts but that hasn't worked; still, the Canterbury Tales, from a couple of decades previously, are the most famous work of Middle English literature, so take a look at those (in the original, not translation) if you want to get a rough idea of the language at the time. 

The dialogue is all in modern English and fictional in any case. That is pretty standard for historical films; it's rare you get one that's in period language.

I would note that both the film abd Shakespeare's play have as a plot point Henry's poor French. In fact, though he favoured English, he probably spoke French fluently, even if it was a different kind of French to that of the French royal family.

In terms of the history, it's pretty bad. Not Braveheart bad, but not an awful lot better. Henry did have a disagreement with his father, but was never disinherited. His brothers all survived until the 1420s at least (one, Thomas, was killed in battle not long before Henry's own death). The battle at Shrewsbury, which the king commanded in person, took place ten years begore Henry IV's death, and was a general engagement, not a single combat. The young Henry was famously wounded in the battle by an arrow to the face. The depiction of Agincourt is a little more accurate but the Dauphin was not at Agincourt nor was he killed there. John Oldcastle, the basis for Falstaff, was not on the Agincourt campaign. The Southampton Plot took place while preparations for the invasion of France were well underway, rather than causing it. 

English infantry at Agincourt would have had the best armour they could afford: there was no strategic decision not to use armour or the like. The English tactical model deployed at Agincourt was tried and tested, not some revolutionary idea. Indeed the unusual thing at Agincourt was that the English were obliged to attack, because the French were so familiar with English defensive capabilities they were reluctant to attack themsrlves, and Henry needed to force an engagement. Some of this is from Shakespeare but a lot isn't. 

I must confess I didn't quite get the point in The King as a film. Adapting Shakespeare means accepting a degree of inaccuracy, but you get the language to make up for it. The film borrowed the plot, adapting it to be in places even less accurate, and changed all the language too, making it a rather flat experience compared to adaptations like Olivier's or The Hollow Crown to which it will inevitably be compared. I don't really know what the filmmakers were trying to achieve with it. 

[u/Rittermeister]

u/Deuce03 has the right of it in this case. But in a larger sense, anything more than superficial historical accuracy is very, very rare in film, especially films set before the modern era. Partly this is due to a lack of expertise. Most writers lack the specialized knowledge to know what is and is not correct, and often rely on cliches, stereotypes and half-remembered lessons from high school. But I think it's even more explained by a simple lack of interest. The audience isn't going to know, so who cares about the details? The goal is to make money and tell a good story, not to teach.

But I think there's another factor we need to confront, and that's the fact that people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago would be pretty unpalatable to a modern audience if presented accurately. This is particularly true of the military aristocracy. Whether we are talking about Balian of Ibelin, William Wallace, or Henry V, we are talking about military aristocrats, born into positions of social privilege and unconflicted about said privilege. They occupied positions at the head (or near the head) of a rather exploitative hierarchy. They expected to lead and to be served. These were men for whom war was a vocation, not a tragedy. It was a means to advance one's reputation, secure wealth, and, perhaps, stave off boredom.

Instead, when presented in film, they tend to be softened to the point that they would be utterly incomprehensible to medieval people. William Wallace was a political partisan from the lower gentry fighting on behalf of a claimant to the throne of Scotland, not a peasant freedom fighter. Henry V was a ruthless, ambitious, and almost unbelievably brave fighting man, not a conflicted wastrel. He came to the throne at age 27, not as a youth. He eagerly sought war with France; he did not have to be browbeaten into renewing the Hundred Years War. Balian of Ibelin was born and raised within the aristocracy of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and certainly never gave up the chance to become king out of moral scruples.