History and Film: A Lovely Marriage
By Ally Di Censo
“Many characters in historical films seem somehow aware that they are living in the past.”—Roger Ebert, in his praiseworthy review of Marie Antoinette, 2006
The above quote by renowned film critic Roger Ebert is, I believe, spot on. As a history major and a film lover, I inevitably encounter people who love to rip apart movies with a historical setting for being “inaccurate.” Sure, I can understand people’s anger towards lazy research errors, like an iPod appearing in a film set in 1985 (although these errors tend to be exaggerated. All movies, even those set in the present day, contain gaffes—why latch on to minor flaws in otherwise good films?). However, what bothers me the most is the implication, espoused by many fellow history lovers, that if historical movies had only followed history down to a T, they would be better films.
Don’t get me wrong: I am passionate and serious about history. I was History Club president in my high school, I hope to become a history teacher after I graduate—you get the gist. However, I am also passionate about film and literature, and I realize that fiction is a completely different medium than a factual history textbook. Often, a level of anachronism is necessary for a movie to attain its artistic vision. And, as Roger Ebert indicated, this level of anachronism frequently helps a historical film achieve the admirable task of making history come alive. People who lived in, say, 1875 didn’t consciously think that they were living in a historical epoch. They were simply living in the present, their present. A film that becomes too concerned with recreating 1875 at the expense of other aspects, such as character development and story, can feel like little more than an animated museum waxworks display. However, a film that works hard to recreate the details of 1875, but also considers innovative ways to make the past relevant—whether it be by putting in a non-diegetic soundtrack of contemporary songs, or by giving as equal attention to the universal themes of its story as to its historical period—is doing something right.
To illustrate my point, I would like to talk about two films from the past year that received some unfair criticism from history buffs. One of them, Inglourious Basterds, is an Oscar-nominated epic; the other, Sherlock Holmes, is a thinking person’s popcorn flick. Inglourious Basterds sent several historians into a tizzy because—spoiler alert—Hitler and the Nazi high command is killed at the end by the titular group of Jewish-American soldiers. However, Inglourious Basterds was never meant to be an accurate depiction of American World War II combat. It is a revenge fantasy, a fable, made clear by its opening narration of “Once upon a time.” Moreover, like many Quentin Tarantino films, Inglourious Basterds is a movie about movies. In this case, it’s his homage to WWII combat B-flicks and Spaghetti Westerns that always carried a sense of over-the-top heroics to them. Similarly, some critics complained that an action hero version of Sherlock Holmes clashed with its Victorian London setting. Instead, Guy Ritchie’s steampunk adventure brought new life into a literary character in danger of becoming nothing more than a stereotype, keeping the detective’s trademark intelligence and wit with renewed coolness. As such, the 2009 Sherlock Holmes feels more in tune with Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s original creation than some of the character’s previous, stuffier incarnations.
I agree that there are definitely limits to how history should be presented in film. I People should raise an outcry over films that distort the facts and realities of history to serve an agenda, as these often ignore or grossly misrepresent racial and social tragedies throughout history. These would include movies that gloss over the treatment of Native Americans by white settlers in the West, or movies that provide a glorified picture of the antebellum American South. Movies that completely disregard the troubling aspects of the past in favor of presenting a sanitized version of events are not only a historical travesty, but also hurt present and future efforts at social justice. Also, it’s bad when movies impose modern sensibilities over historical attitudes. For example, some historical films show all of their female characters as being as liberated, accepted, and outspoken as women in 2010. They imply that women have always had it easy, which most certainly isn’t true.
However, a culturally sensitive film which strives to make history as relevant and alive as possible should be applauded. Historical accuracy is not the sole determinate of whether a movie is good or not (trust me, there are plenty of other things that can ruin a film before historical accuracy). Good movies, no matter what their setting, should make people think and inspire discussion. And good historical movies should banish the perception of history as some stodgy and outdated topic. While remaining true to the sensibilities and details of their time period, they should make the audience feel as if they are watching characters with the same concerns and emotions recognizable in our peers today: fear, love, humor, cynicism, outrage, bravery, evil, affection. These emotions are timeless. Let’s stop focusing on petty details and make movies timeless as well.