i don't appreciate purposeful disregard to history. Its a muddle thing it is, but you shouldn't just be making stuff up to make a good tale while passing it off like it is truth. Want alternative queens? Make your own world and have at it, or find alternative people to cover.

The whole conflict between France in England is overused in setting, why not tell the tales of other realms: like the rise of Autokrator Alexius Comnenus and an alternative view of the Crusades (who's life story was written by his greatly educated daughter); the life of Kassia the fair poet who refused the hand of a prideful Roman Emperor because she did not believe in gender inequality; Kaiser Frederick II Hohenstaufen and agnostic conflict with the Pope while also being a 'Holy Roman Emperor"; Roman Empress Zoe Porphyrrogennetia Makedon, one of the few female rulers of the Roman Empire and last strong one before decadence began to retake the realm in the decades before Alexius Comnenos; or Harald Hardrada, a low noble turned adventurer, going from bodyguard of the Roman Empire to claiming the Norwegian throne and then invading England. If you want to go all deviant while covering an influential person in history, look no further than Elagabalus of the Roman Empire, or Catherine the Great of the Russian Empire, or heck, Marilyn Monroe.

I do find Iaredios's point to be interesting.  That is, in most art there is no "rules," no "ought."  Yet when it comes to movies based off of history, perhaps there are some ethical concerns to take into consideration.  These days, filmmakers and artists are very concerned about how their art may influence people in the real world, beyond just entertaining them, and so long as we're concerned about that, I'd imagine we'd have to include ahistoricism in our list of concerns.

This concern really came up when I watched Eddie the Eagle, which played fast and loose with a real story, and it really disappointed me.  The movie loses a lot of its special magic when you realize what the real story is.  I think that this was the tipping point where I started to care more about whether or not non-fiction movies were historically accurate.  I always cared, but Eddie the Eagle made me care more.  And that was about a relatively unimportant person, and it was praising him?  What about movies where there are controversial figures?  How do I know that I'm not watching propaganda?  Nowadays, I always do extensive research, because I can't simply watch a film about history and enjoy it as a film if I'm simultaneously worrying whether or not I'm damaging myself with misinformation.

If I were to recommend a historic film about a powerful figure, I definitely recommend the made-for-television movie Stalin, starring Robert Duvall.  My sister and I both did many days of research after watching the movie and were able to confirm just about every beat of it.  More or less, the only thing that they made up was the dialogue, but every last plot point was actual history.

For a movie like The Favourite, I think that these concerns could be alleviated rather plainly with a disclaimer.  There are films that a based on real events, films that are inspired by real events, and films that are inspired by history in general and are historical fiction.  I was thinking about how the MPAA issues ratings for films so people can know how comfortable they will be with the content, and I wondered if it would be within reason for them to issue similar ratings for historical films.  Something like D (documentary/facsimile), BE (based on events), IE (inspired by events), and HF (historic fiction).  The ahistoricism that you're describing, to me, sounds like what I would classify as "historical fiction."  I wouldn't necessarily compare this to Westerns or Metal Gear Solid, though, since it's historical in more than just its setting, but also its people.  Plus, I'm actually familiar with who Queen Anne is, so it's not like it comes off to me like a generic historical setting like in Frozen.  I'd imagine that the British audience saw that knew that Queen Anne was an actual person, too.  In any case, from the way you describe the movie, it sounds as though it made it clear with its tone that it was historic fiction that tells its story mainly with its imagination.

From what I've heard, The Favourite was a pretty good movie.  I didn't have time to watch it.  If I had known that it would have been an Oscar nominee, sure I would have, but I didn't, and so it flew under the radar.  I did have some interest in watching Green Book, perhaps because it was clearly marketed as something that wanted to win an Oscar or two, but I didn't have the time for that one, either.  And then I really, really wanted to watch Bohemian Rhapsody, but when I found the time for it, it was the day after they pulled it from my local theatre.  I still really want to see it.  There's a good change that I'll end up seeing the latter two films.  A couple of people at work highly recommended them, so I might watch those with them sometime.

24601