accurate
was this movie accurate to history?
share[deleted]
MovieChat Forums > April Morning (1988) Discussion > accurate
Was this movie historically accurate?
Only in a very general sense.
Unfortunately, this made-for-TV movie wasn't even completely loyal to Howard Fast's novel, which is better than this movie. And on top of that, Howard Fast's novel took certain creative liberties with history.
Some suggested reading for those interested:
Paul Revere's Ride (by David Hackett Fischer)
Lexington and Concord (by Arthur B. Tourtellot)
Not saying that it is 100% accurate, not saying that it is a GREAT movie... but it is pretty good.
The accuracy may not be 100%, but it is a good representation of what that April day in 1775 must have been like.
Of the very few motion pictures that deal with the topic, it is certainly one of the best. To me, it caught the feeling of the era better than Mel Gibson's big budget "The Patriot" (which was way too chiched... and had a last battle that looked like a cross between something out of Braveheart and The Last of the Mohicans. Besides, any movie that uses the old "character playing dead to trick another character" loses some points in my book). It was certainly light years better than the Al Pachino mess called "Revolution". Also much better than the A&E mess "Bendict Arnold". The only other American Revolution presentation I can think of was the old Mini Series "George Washington"... very dated now... that was an "epic" that seems very small scale now... though it was a "fun" presentation and is okay for what it is.
For historical documentaries that are pretty good... A&E's The American Revolution and PBS' The Revolutionary War are excelent. They are documentaries but yet they the way they are filmed, with re-enacted scenes, they are very entertaining as well. Can't comment on the current series on either History channel or National Geographic (I forget which) as I can't seem to remember when it is on.
-----
"Probably". The word is "Probably"! Enough of that "prolly" crap.
In a general sense only. The British really did march to Concord to find stores, shoot some minutemen in Lexington on the way and then get picked at by geurrillas on the way back... but the protagonist is fictional and no one knows who fired the first shot in the skirmish at Lexington.
share After over 200 years of patriotic mythology, yeah, this is about as true to the historical feel as we're likely to get--and only thanks to the great literary talents of Howard Fast. Art is the enrichment of reality for the growth of the human spirit, and the book and movie stand firm as true works of art.
If you want historical accuracy, walk the ground. The ghosts are all there.
It's all .. poop poop.. fantasy.
For God's sake.. it was a made for TV piece.....