Historical films

[ladyofastolat]

I 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.

Comments

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

Agreed - but how are we going to ensure that all the stupid masses out there adhere to this rule? I think it's easier to change a few film-makers than to change a few billion credulous fools.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

I suspect that film makers tell the stories that people want to hear. Otherwise they become impoverished and stop making films.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

Yes, of course they aim to make films that make money, but has it ever been tested that historically accurate films don't make money? I can imagine that there'd be quite a bit of public appeal in a film that billed itself as the true story, hitherto unseen in film, especially if it contained big name actors.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

I don't think it's that way round - you'd need to demonstrate to the film makers that the extra effort involved in better research would make them more money, or at least, enough money to cover the extra research time costs.

I'm not sure it would.

Any film that billed itself as the true story is surely setting itself up to be pilloried. There will always be something that's wrong.

[ladyofastolat.livejournal.com]

I fear you're right... but it seems such a shame, and very misguided. Every year, some film comes along that's fresh and original and appears to break the rules, and goes on to become a break-out hit. Instead of taking from that the lesson "the public likes originality, as long as it's well done", the studios just try to copy it, and you get a bandwagon of by-the-book clones that don't do half as well as the original. I suspect that quite a lot of the Hollywood accepted truths about what the public wants could be proved wrong, if only they were brave enough to try.

Plus, what with the enormous budgets of most modern films, the pay of one historical advisor would be a drop in the ocean.

[bunn.livejournal.com]

But surely what you are asking for is not just one historical adviser?

Are you not asking that the the 'correct' historical story be considered as an integral part of the script writing, the overall concept development, that character development, the actors interpretation, the direction...

I think it would change the way films are made. I'm pretty sure it would at least involve a lot of meetings!

[bunn.livejournal.com]

... education?

The problem of people believing what they are told and refusing to look at alternative views or do proper research I think is much bigger than just historical films. Might as well cut straight to the heart of it.

(Or there's always the option of building a Golgafrinchan B ark...)

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

Says the person who argues that history shouldn't be taught in schools...

[bunn.livejournal.com]

Education doesn't end with school. Or shouldn't. Anyway, I didn't argue that, I said 'below 6th form'. Neh.

[philmophlegm.livejournal.com]

'Below 6th form' is 'in school' for those of us who went to a sixth form college!