Historical films
Jan. 3rd, 2008 01:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ladyofastolatI was talking to someone today about historical inaccuracies in films. He was of the opinion that they didn't matter, and that only sad anoraks cared about them. I was of the opinion that they potentially do matter – and matter rather more than faithfulness in literary adaptations.
Of course, historical inaccuracies come in various types. There's the anachronistic prop type of inaccuracy – "that type of hat wasn't invented until 1845, but the film is supposedly set in 1842!" I can tolerate these (when I'm aware of them), though I do feel that the film-makers should have tried to get them right, and the fact that they didn't implies that they didn't really care. I read an article a few weeks ago by a historical advisor on films, who said that it is very rare to get called in during the early stages of a film's development. He's usually called in on the day of filming, when most of the content is already set in stone, and he has to let most errors pass, in order to save up the fight for the really big ones. Clearly, for many film-makers, historical accuracy is something they just play lip-service to.
Some inaccuracy is only inevitable. Set a film in 1145, and you inevitably have to update the language, or none of the audience will understand a word. A degree of fictionalising is also necessary. Fictional characters are invented, and are slotted into real events, and often given a pivotal role. When real figures appear, imagined dialogue needs to be put into their mouths, and events are restructured to have the beginning, middle and end that modern storytelling expects. Minor events are dropped, or merged to create one pivotal scene. One secondary character fills the role that four people took in reality, in order to slim down the cast.
However, I contend that it is vital that essential historical accuracy is maintained. History is not dead and gone, but still has the power to shape the modern world. Events from hundreds of years ago – wars in Scotland, Crusades, civil wars etc – are still used as reasons for national hatreds. Take a common fictional portrayal of the Jacobite rising – heroic, united, tartan-wearing Scotland trying to protect their liberties from the evil English. This is a million miles from reality, but how many Scots believe it? My Dad certainly did for years, and he and his friends despised all English people on principle. I was talking to a Scottish person before Christmas who still believes it.
I also have a particular pet hate of the imposing of modern beliefs on the past. People are portrayed as villains because they uphold a belief system that well-nigh everyone at the time would have believed, but which is now considered wrong. Heroes shout about democracy and liberty, and heroines go on about feminism. "Good" characters are the ones who take a stand against the "evil" standards of their day, and spout about the sort of values that today's film-makers consider right. This all helps create the idea that the values held today in the Western world are the only right ones, and that all of history has been a slow and heroic struggle towards today's Utopia. Far more admirable, I think, to make a sympathetic character of someone who happens to uphold values that are nowadays considered wrong, but which at the time were considered right.
Totalitarian regimes are well aware that by twisting history, you can influence the present. Far more people watch historical films than will ever read a non-fiction book about the same period. For many people, it is truth, and beliefs about the past can shape beliefs about today. I think film-makers should take more care to ensure that they're not propagating lies.
Of course, historical inaccuracies come in various types. There's the anachronistic prop type of inaccuracy – "that type of hat wasn't invented until 1845, but the film is supposedly set in 1842!" I can tolerate these (when I'm aware of them), though I do feel that the film-makers should have tried to get them right, and the fact that they didn't implies that they didn't really care. I read an article a few weeks ago by a historical advisor on films, who said that it is very rare to get called in during the early stages of a film's development. He's usually called in on the day of filming, when most of the content is already set in stone, and he has to let most errors pass, in order to save up the fight for the really big ones. Clearly, for many film-makers, historical accuracy is something they just play lip-service to.
Some inaccuracy is only inevitable. Set a film in 1145, and you inevitably have to update the language, or none of the audience will understand a word. A degree of fictionalising is also necessary. Fictional characters are invented, and are slotted into real events, and often given a pivotal role. When real figures appear, imagined dialogue needs to be put into their mouths, and events are restructured to have the beginning, middle and end that modern storytelling expects. Minor events are dropped, or merged to create one pivotal scene. One secondary character fills the role that four people took in reality, in order to slim down the cast.
However, I contend that it is vital that essential historical accuracy is maintained. History is not dead and gone, but still has the power to shape the modern world. Events from hundreds of years ago – wars in Scotland, Crusades, civil wars etc – are still used as reasons for national hatreds. Take a common fictional portrayal of the Jacobite rising – heroic, united, tartan-wearing Scotland trying to protect their liberties from the evil English. This is a million miles from reality, but how many Scots believe it? My Dad certainly did for years, and he and his friends despised all English people on principle. I was talking to a Scottish person before Christmas who still believes it.
I also have a particular pet hate of the imposing of modern beliefs on the past. People are portrayed as villains because they uphold a belief system that well-nigh everyone at the time would have believed, but which is now considered wrong. Heroes shout about democracy and liberty, and heroines go on about feminism. "Good" characters are the ones who take a stand against the "evil" standards of their day, and spout about the sort of values that today's film-makers consider right. This all helps create the idea that the values held today in the Western world are the only right ones, and that all of history has been a slow and heroic struggle towards today's Utopia. Far more admirable, I think, to make a sympathetic character of someone who happens to uphold values that are nowadays considered wrong, but which at the time were considered right.
Totalitarian regimes are well aware that by twisting history, you can influence the present. Far more people watch historical films than will ever read a non-fiction book about the same period. For many people, it is truth, and beliefs about the past can shape beliefs about today. I think film-makers should take more care to ensure that they're not propagating lies.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 02:50 pm (UTC)When the film does not pretend to be historically accurate, for instance anything by Ridley Scott, I can forgive it a lot if it is also a good movie. Also, I do not expect something like, say, Troy to be in the least historically accurate, and am quite happy for them to fiddle with the story, because that is what happens to traditional tales.
What I cannot stand is when a movie starts blabbing about being "the true story" or "historically accurate". King Arthur is a prime example, and the nit-picking is throughly justified.
Then take the various versions of Robin Hood. Again, this is a folk tale, and the legend is more important than any possible fact. Neither of my two favourite versions (the Errol Flynn one and the Costner one) are in the least accurate, and the idiocies in the latter are part of its charm. However, they are both true to the spirit of Hood, and are exciting and funny.
If, however, the movie or TV series fails to deliver on filmic quality, then no historical accuracy will save it.
Funnily enough, I am more willing to forgive said movies than I am to forgive historical novels. I rarely read historical novels because they never seem to get into the heads of the people of the time, and some historical fantasies are just as bad (yes, Marion Zimmer Bradley, I'm looking at you) though I will forgive Guy Gavriel Kay practically anything. Mind you, his research is very good indeed.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 03:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 03:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 07:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 04:37 pm (UTC)essay onreview of Troy. (Of course, you can debate whether you want to call this a historical film or a literary adaptation...) As this is more or less my period, you might have expected me to be horrified by it, and certainly there were some gross inaccuracies in, say, material culture (5thC BC red-figure vase in a supposed c.12thC BC setting? A bit like putting computers in Braveheart) as well as such things as the expected prominence of the 'female love interest'. However I forgive the film much for the very unexpected, non-Hollywood feeling of truth to the value-system of the time, of an honour-culture (as opposed to our modern guilt-culture) where Akhilleus' prime motivation is to win glory.no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 04:50 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 07:20 pm (UTC)I agree that it has good actors in it. Richard Harris (Priam) is also worth a mention. My only problem with the casting is that if you're casting Helen (who after all is meant to be the most beautiful woman in the world), you should try to ensure that she is the most beautiful woman in the film. (Compare Diane Kruger and Saffron Burrows.)
no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 09:23 pm (UTC)Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the casting directors tend to have different ideas of beauty than mine! None of them can act, either, Lord knows why! My main quarrel was with Menelaus, who had nothing in common with Homer's version.
no subject
Date: 2008-01-04 08:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 09:32 pm (UTC)Now come on..! Normally I would agree with you, it's very annoying when they shoe-horn in some spurious love-interest. But come on, legend of Troy -- female love interest pretty central to plot, no? - Neuromancer
no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 09:44 pm (UTC)In Homer, Briseis is pretty much a cipher, though she does have a few nice moments. In the film she was conflated, cleverly, with Chryseis, and naturally her part is padded out hugely to give her a more personal, human relationship with Akhilleus. As I say, this was only to be expected in a Hollywood movie, and I was pretty resigned to it ;-)
no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 09:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 10:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 05:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 06:00 pm (UTC)True. My problem is the lack of plot and action...
no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 06:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 07:20 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 09:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-01-03 09:43 pm (UTC)