Historical inaccuracy?


I loved this movie. I knew while watching the movie that everything that was shown wasn't historically accurate. But I don't know what aspects were historically incorrect. What was it that was wrongly portrayed? Can anyone enlighten me or refer me to somewhere I can find the 'mistakes'?

Thanks

reply

I looked up Samuel Taylor Coleridge and William Wordsworth online and was surprised to find out he had a rocky marriage that did not go well. It didn't mention any kind of special relationship with Dorothy Wordsworth, but it did say that Southey and Wordsworth romanced and married sisters. Apparently, the Wordsworth marriage was very successful romantically, although the picture makes Mary Wordsworth appear to be a cold, nasty woman. And Dorothy Wordsworth was a great talent in her own right, although it makes her look like she is the real intelligence behind her brother's writings - she wrote on her own. The inaccuracies are legion.

However, I do love this movie. The performances are wonderful, and it gives you a wonderful history of the period, removing the stodgy image of the late 18th century. The poets were the superstars of the day, and that shouldn't be forgotten.


"Nobody's perfect."

reply

its a good film, quite involving but yes it is quite amazingly historically inacurate and takes massive liberties with debatable or unknown facts and simply does make up stuff.
its a good film but i think you need to understand at least some of the historical background to really appretiate it but when you do know some of the facts you realise how many liberties were taken in the plot
its not all bad though cause you can see it as purely a dramatic piece
but some of the bits that do take historical liberties are shocking especially because they really do change the people unfairly, i actually shouted out in complaint during the porlock cottage scene

reply

Quite a lot of it was inaccurate, especially the relationship between Coleridge and William Wordsworth. Yes they had their disagreements but the film seems to show Wordsworth trying to sabotage Coleridge, which is a bit of a stretch. Wordsworth didn't make Coleridge burn Kubla Khan, and it wouldn't have mattered if he did because Coleridge would have known it off by heart (he recited his poems from memory for lots of his friends). Another huge inaccuracy in the film is when Coleridge is writing Kubla Khan and Wordsworth walks in and interrupts him and it's all ruined after that. The real story is that Coleridge had been asleep under the influence of opium, he had this fantastic dream and when he woke up started writing it all down, then a messenger/acquaintance (not sure which, but definitely NOT Wordsworth) interrupted him and by the time he got back to writing he had forgotten his dream.
The best part of the whole movie was the poetry - it was taken very seriously and Frost at Midnight especially was portrayed very beautifully.

reply

According to Coleridge, the interruption was "a pen-friend from Porlock."

reply

It also was not Wordsworth who interrupted Coleridge while he was writing his masterpiece, "Kubla Kahn." Coleridge writes in his introduction that someone came on "business" and detained for over an hour. Historians actually believe that it was only the milkman who came to the door. Either way, it is true that by the time Sam sat back down, he had forgotten most of his vision. Some literary historians believe that Coleridge may not have ever seen as much in his vision as he claimed, but may have used the story as an excuse as to why the poem was shorter than he would have liked. The movie has Wordsworth interrupting Coleridge; he knows that Coleridge is working on some "great piece" and wishes to interrupt him in the act because he is jealous. This, most likely, was not the case in real life.

In the face of every coward burns a straw dog.

reply

I loved both Coleridge and Wordsworth prior to the film, so I knew a bit about pretty much everything before watching the film.
IF they had made it historically accurate, I think it would be over long and a bit boring.

Off topic, am I the only one who laughed during the "Kubla Khan" writing scene when he comes back to his desk after being interrupted and screams, "NO!" Maybe I found it humorous 'cause I knew it was coming.

reply

As for historical inaccuracy, has nobody noticed that every time the camera looked up at the sky there was a jet contrail in plain sight?

reply

Yes, and if you've read anything about the film, it explains that it was done on purpose.

'Scientists get funky about having their research poached' - Byers

reply