• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

Am I allowed to be a little unrealistic for middle ages?

R

RealJasonBourne

The guy needs to know sign language but it wasn't widely used until maybe 1700. If I have a guy in the 1500's (medieval ages)
who knows sign language and he communicates with someone else who happens to know it, is that crossing the line or will they let that slide? (audience/anyone).

does it have to be that realistic or can story be something that doesn't follow facts?

What are my best solutions here? scrap it? or go for it because its tv and on a subject no one really knows about?

edit: sry for bad sentence function lol
 
Last edited:
Sort by date Sort by votes
I didn't know sign language wasn't around that far back. I'm sure most others wouldn't know either.

Even if they did know, if the story is good enough, a tiny detail like this isn't likely to take people out of the story.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Sweetie said:
I didn't know sign language wasn't around that far back. I'm sure most others wouldn't know either.

Even if they did know, if the story is good enough, a tiny detail like this isn't likely to take people out of the story.
Click to expand...

thanks man, youre the best! I need to use it as a reveal and this is the most impactful way to do it.

I tried googling it to make sure and they say there was only basic sign language (I want to eat, drink) etc but I don't think that would be very useful.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
People always use gestures and secret signals. I would encourage you to avoid using actual sign language or fingerspelling in the production. Let the actors make it up but make sure it's consistent if the same "sign" is repeated (continuity). While not a major issue, there will be those who know ASL that will be snarky. A friend who worships everything ninja harped on about a movie which "got its facts wrong". You don't have to please every viewer but there are more people who know sign language (hearing impaired and their family/friends) than one might imagine. Since the story is fictional, it doesn't have to be historically accurate. It only needs to be historically consistent within its universe. Did Robin Hood have special gestures he used with his men? Who knows, but it won't stop me from writing in a segment. If it's important to your story, write it. Let the director worry about how it will be realized. If that happens to be you, thus my comments above. Have fun.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Thank you for the advice and info. (I like the idea of inventing one) I think i'll do something where it is only used once as a reveal (with a non important character, like a slave) and then have that character help him and then is killed off.

Thanks!!
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think it depends. Depends on many things.
If it's a comedy, it's ok to be unrealistic in a way.
If it's a history drama, then keep it tight to the history.
As people above said, if you come up with a good story, people will forgive if you derail from historical events. But if you feel you need to derail a little bit from history to make the story better - I say go for it.

I remember the Scorpion King movie. The first one was awesome, even if it had a very little to do with real historical events. But then again, the genre is fantasy, so it doesn't matter so much.

However, I also tried to watch Scorpion King 3, and watching the first 20 minutes were a torture for me. The story wasn't good at all, but the total disaster was the incredible mess with the history setting. Imagine a story that occurs somewhere in 2000 B.C., with Roman Empire soldiers, medieval castles, Renaissanse palace interior and a German soldier named Olaf. Oh, and Germany was mentioned there as a medieval country. WTF?

So, don't be too much realistic, but watch what you're doing.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A system of signs would be fine to convey meaning as historically they must have existed on a person-by-person basis. Your disabled individual wouldn't "know sign language"; they would just be conveying meanings as best as they could.

The real sticking point would be anyone outside of the signing person's immediate family understanding anything beyond very basic meanings - with no standardised vocabulary or syntax, only time and experience would enable those close to a signer to understand what was being expressed, but even then, only by that individual alone. So "someone who happens to know it" is considerably less historically feasible IMO than the structured system of signs existing in the first place.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Signed languages are, obviously, ancient. They were the first forms of communications. But that's very, very different from American Sign Language, which I assume is what you mean.

If I saw a film where someone was performing ASL in a medieval setting, I would be confused. Not to mention the fact that it's the wrong side of the atlantic, it's also clearly anachronistic.

Signed languages in the Middle Ages were likely to be based on frequent actions (eat, drink, pray...etc) with limited vocabulary (house, father, horse...etc) and a non-grammatical structure – which is to say *Sign for eat* *sign for bread*, rather than being able to sign a full sentence like 'I would like to eat some bread'. So if you plan on sub-titling the film, then you would have a major problem. That said, if you have a deaf character in the Middle Ages, it is likely that their limited signing might be broad enough that a modern audience could understand it, i.e. fingers to mouth means eat, hands together means pray, hands by head means sleep...etc.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
maz said:
A system of signs would be fine to convey meaning as historically they must have existed on a person-by-person basis. Your disabled individual wouldn't "know sign language"; they would just be conveying meanings as best as they could.

The real sticking point would be anyone outside of the signing person's immediate family understanding anything beyond very basic meanings - with no standardised vocabulary or syntax, only time and experience would enable those close to a signer to understand what was being expressed, but even then, only by that individual alone. So "someone who happens to know it" is considerably less historically feasible IMO than the structured system of signs existing in the first place.
Click to expand...

NickClapper said:
Signed languages are, obviously, ancient. They were the first forms of communications. But that's very, very different from American Sign Language, which I assume is what you mean.

If I saw a film where someone was performing ASL in a medieval setting, I would be confused. Not to mention the fact that it's the wrong side of the atlantic, it's also clearly anachronistic.

Signed languages in the Middle Ages were likely to be based on frequent actions (eat, drink, pray...etc) with limited vocabulary (house, father, horse...etc) and a non-grammatical structure – which is to say *Sign for eat* *sign for bread*, rather than being able to sign a full sentence like 'I would like to eat some bread'. So if you plan on sub-titling the film, then you would have a major problem. That said, if you have a deaf character in the Middle Ages, it is likely that their limited signing might be broad enough that a modern audience could understand it, i.e. fingers to mouth means eat, hands together means pray, hands by head means sleep...etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks! This puts things in a better perspective for me.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
RealJasonBourne said:
The guy needs to know sign language but it wasn't widely used until maybe 1700.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Moses didn't speak English, but there's no shortage of films with him doing just that.

Don't fake ASL. You can't get away with it. If you don't know ASL, how are you going to get it right in post-production? You can't do cutaways during ASL dialogue and showing reaction shots while people are signing is impossible. You'll have to ensure you have FULL coverage of both people signing so it'll all cut together in post.

There are very few editors that know fluent ASL. (I would ask for thousands of dollars to do this.)

If you botch the signed dialogue, expect to see certain people bursting out laughing in your audience.

Good luck.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
ahah^^ Thanks for the advice. I've decided I''ll write-in basic hand motions to show that they both feel a connection with each other. The protagonist is going to be in a cell with his partner and the slave will come bring food or clothes. The protagonist will notice he's deaf and use hand motions to show that they're the same. I was thinking he would motion toward the slave and then towards himself and then clench his fist. He'll do a few more and then the slave will just be staring at him without response and leave. The slave will come back with a guard, he'll be pointing to the protagonist, and then motion towards himself, and then clench his fist, and then knock the guard out to free them ahaaahaha.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
To be honest, you're "allowed" to do what you like in your own story. Whether anyone will notice or not, I don't know. If you want it to be understood, use the sign language of the country you're setting it in. Or use one from the time.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
RealJasonBourne said:
The guy needs to know sign language but it wasn't widely used until maybe 1700.
Click to expand...

You're out by about 250 years! Wide use of one of the formal sign languages didn't occur until 50-60 years ago! Today's sign languages can trace their roots back to the 1700s but they weren't widely used.

RealJasonBourne said:
If I have a guy in the 1500's (medieval ages)
who knows sign language and he communicates with someone else who happens to know it, is that crossing the line or will they let that slide? (audience/anyone).
Click to expand...

Firstly, the 1500s is pretty much bang in the middle of the renaissance period, not the medieval ages! Secondly, the chances of a deaf person in the 1500s (or even 1700s) knowing a formal sign language is remote and the chances of meeting a stranger who just happens to know the same informal sign language, unlikely in the extreme. This is not the main historical flaw in your story though, the main flaw is that you seem to be projecting a modern view on to a period of time in which there obviously wasn't a modern view. The hearing impaired, widely referred to as the "deaf and dumb" before the 1900's, were generally perceived to be unteachable and their impairment widely assumed to be a divine punishment visited on the family for some past sin. The vast majority of deaf people were therefore hidden/locked away, denied basic human rights, treated at best as a family embarrassment and at worst as an embodiment of evil/sin which no amount of religious "cleansing" could cure. A pretty horrendous and often short life for many! By the 1700's there were a handful of schools for the "deaf and dumb" across a few countries and even a couple of communities with a high prevalence of deafness which were relatively tolerant but these were very much the exception. Even today, there are still some societies with the same basic view that deafness is a divine punishment and/or family slur and many deaf people are therefore still denied basic human rights, or worse.

Most members of a general audience will not be aware of any of this, some might be vaguely aware but let it slide anyway, others might be quite severely critical. There's even a danger that one of the more vociferous members of the deaf community becomes aware of your film and takes exception to it, which is not uncommon as there are not a lot of films which depict deaf people and some within the community are justifiably angry at how history has treated them.

RealJasonBourne said:
...does it have to be that realistic or can story be something that doesn't follow facts?
Click to expand...

What I've said above mostly depends on context. If it's a comedy or fantasy then maybe not so much but if you are presenting it as even vaguely historical then I think you need to be alot more careful and do far more research or, avoid the issue entirely.

G
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
AudioPostExpert said:
You're out by about 250 years! Wide use of one of the formal sign languages didn't occur until 50-60 years ago! Today's sign languages can trace their roots back to the 1700s but they weren't widely used.



Firstly, the 1500s is pretty much bang in the middle of the renaissance period, not the medieval ages! Secondly, the chances of a deaf person in the 1500s (or even 1700s) knowing a formal sign language is remote and the chances of meeting a stranger who just happens to know the same informal sign language, unlikely in the extreme. This is not the main historical flaw in your story though, the main flaw is that you seem to be projecting a modern view on to a period of time in which there obviously wasn't a modern view. The hearing impaired, widely referred to as the "deaf and dumb" before the 1900's, were generally perceived to be unteachable and their impairment widely assumed to be a divine punishment visited on the family for some past sin. The vast majority of deaf people were therefore hidden/locked away, denied basic human rights, treated at best as a family embarrassment and at worst as an embodiment of evil/sin which no amount of religious "cleansing" could cure. A pretty horrendous and often short life for many! By the 1700's there were a handful of schools for the "deaf and dumb" across a few countries and even a couple of communities with a high prevalence of deafness which were relatively tolerant but these were very much the exception. Even today, there are still some societies with the same basic view that deafness is a divine punishment and/or family slur and many deaf people are therefore still denied basic human rights, or worse.

Most members of a general audience will not be aware of any of this, some might be vaguely aware but let it slide anyway, others might be quite severely critical. There's even a danger that one of the more vociferous members of the deaf community becomes aware of your film and takes exception to it, which is not uncommon as there are not a lot of films which depict deaf people and some within the community are justifiably angry at how history has treated them.



What I've said above mostly depends on context. If it's a comedy or fantasy then maybe not so much but if you are presenting it as even vaguely historical then I think you need to be alot more careful and do far more research or, avoid the issue entirely.

G
Click to expand...

Thank you sir, I appreciate it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
In regards to what APE said: the way the deaf were generally treated can be great setting for some drama where the love of family and views from society can clash in a terrible (and terribly emotional) way...
Or the deaf person is a cast out run away. (Which can open the door to a hunchback of the notre dame/monster of Frankenstein like drama.)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top