LuckyWillHistory with Fiction in Film. Reconcilable?
November 2nd 2006 00:50
Far too much we are seeing "creative license", skew films to a biased end, dramatic subplot or fantasised love interest. I see why script writers - and if not, definitely - producers elevate certain areas of film for shock value, merchandise, traditionalise formula and tease out unpopular quirks to ensure the film-going audience all agrees and likes it. Whether or not this is a good thing it happens.
Films like Gladiator, Braveheart, Robin Hood, Enigma all show a tantalising fiction that's very loosely based on history. Yet we are drawn in by them so much, not by their fictitious parts, but by their representations of connecting with prior figures in history and being a part of something while history is made. Then, after research into the area we come to learn the grievances of "editing". But isn't editing history, real life events, peoples lives an indictment on culture and history in the most deplorable terms? If you can't be represented as you lived and mocked by an alternate version, you've been coloured by your time, smeared by outside your living history and denied your truthful existence to generations to come.
In Gladiator Marcus Aurelius and Commodus are at odds with each other, never travel together, Commodus is disliked by the public and is killed by a Gladiator named Maximus. But rather, Commodus and his father travelled many places together, was liked by the public, yet was strangled in his bath and not dying in the arena.
Braveheart's capture was not as Shakespearean as it tells and William Wallace was captured by Scottish bounty hunters while he was hiding in the hills. No sign of the future king of Scotland betraying him to recieve the title for obedience, amongst anguish and dread of what he might have done. Just a tidy smile by Robin Hood esque grins on the recieving payment for bringing in a fellow countrymen. The Scottish were famously turncoats to their own lands, titles and people. For more trivia on Braveheart go here
Robin Hood and most other rebels were cutthroats who depended on robbery to stay alive. He wasn't a baron of a deceased estate through hereditary. He lived either in the woods or in the streets! There's no information regarding a Muslim friend. Nor a pretty girl dismissing the local sheriff for Robin Hood - a bandit and a theif. It's supercillious to claim they were class antagonists or economic revolutionaries by taking from the rich and giving to the poor (arguably, themselves) but moreso because the rich had money, whilst the outlaws didn't. There's a much simpler mathematical equation. More information go here
Enigma, surrounding the events to the lead up of breaking the German code to outsmart the nazi's and retrieve their information. In the film, credited to the Americans who break the Enigma code. In reality, it was actually the British, made up of European helpers. Also of note is a Polish man who is leaking information to the Germans, acting as a spy. This didn't happen. ..How can this "retelling", be atrociously told with no care for the time and lives spent trying to debunk intelligence from a frightening regime that wiped out roughly 3/4 of an entire race!?
Images taken from:
gladiatorstories.com
bletchleypark.org.uk
Films like Gladiator, Braveheart, Robin Hood, Enigma all show a tantalising fiction that's very loosely based on history. Yet we are drawn in by them so much, not by their fictitious parts, but by their representations of connecting with prior figures in history and being a part of something while history is made. Then, after research into the area we come to learn the grievances of "editing". But isn't editing history, real life events, peoples lives an indictment on culture and history in the most deplorable terms? If you can't be represented as you lived and mocked by an alternate version, you've been coloured by your time, smeared by outside your living history and denied your truthful existence to generations to come.
Hey boys, where'd the history go?
Braveheart's capture was not as Shakespearean as it tells and William Wallace was captured by Scottish bounty hunters while he was hiding in the hills. No sign of the future king of Scotland betraying him to recieve the title for obedience, amongst anguish and dread of what he might have done. Just a tidy smile by Robin Hood esque grins on the recieving payment for bringing in a fellow countrymen. The Scottish were famously turncoats to their own lands, titles and people. For more trivia on Braveheart go here
Robin Hood and most other rebels were cutthroats who depended on robbery to stay alive. He wasn't a baron of a deceased estate through hereditary. He lived either in the woods or in the streets! There's no information regarding a Muslim friend. Nor a pretty girl dismissing the local sheriff for Robin Hood - a bandit and a theif. It's supercillious to claim they were class antagonists or economic revolutionaries by taking from the rich and giving to the poor (arguably, themselves) but moreso because the rich had money, whilst the outlaws didn't. There's a much simpler mathematical equation. More information go here
Who are you really working for?
Enigma, surrounding the events to the lead up of breaking the German code to outsmart the nazi's and retrieve their information. In the film, credited to the Americans who break the Enigma code. In reality, it was actually the British, made up of European helpers. Also of note is a Polish man who is leaking information to the Germans, acting as a spy. This didn't happen. ..How can this "retelling", be atrociously told with no care for the time and lives spent trying to debunk intelligence from a frightening regime that wiped out roughly 3/4 of an entire race!?
Have you seen a film that irks you for it's misrepresentation of history?
Is it an outrage to history and peoples lives to devaluate it for entertainment purposes?
Or should history be retold like this, as editing can instill values where history departed?
Is it an outrage to history and peoples lives to devaluate it for entertainment purposes?
Or should history be retold like this, as editing can instill values where history departed?
Images taken from:
gladiatorstories.com
bletchleypark.org.uk
| 130 |
| Vote |
Comment by historylass
The Written Word
History Lass
Part of me says that Hollywood understand the viewing public a lot better than I do. They know what will sell and what won't. If they feel that certain facts have to be arranged to get the public in to see a movie, then I can understand that. And, in all honesty, I'd prefer to see a historical movie where the truth is twisted, but is seen by lots of people who then go out and find out the truth about it, than to see a historical movie that is completely truthful and seen by no-one.
On the other hand, so many people learn about history almost entirely from the movies. I'm sure there are a lot of people who believe certain things are facts just because they saw it in a movie and won't bother checking out the truth. I think historical movies are the main way that the general public learns about history. It would be nice if they were learning truth, not fiction.
Great Post!
Comment by Justin
I can relate to you being in two minds about the subject. Though I argue that with such fine examples of history, including Ned Kelly and Troy, they already have everything they need to work with, so changing it is fairly blasphemous to historical accounts. Concedingly, historical accounts can never be purely objective but at least it reports for accuracy not sensationalism.
I'm sure Hollywood and other film industries know public motivation and appeal better than we think through marketing and correlational studies and as such are a type of expert in their field owing their employment to this fact. But it's the majority of lively tales told from history that are accepted in the first place as being able to hold their own weight. If not, the idea would be scrapped from the outset. So already there's enough material to base a movie around, which sometimes and unfortunately, becomes turned around whereby the material isn't enough to base a movie around and history plays a secondary role to the objective of making entertainment.
I agree whole-heartedly with you here. If not for mediums of communication - like film - depictions of former culture and society are transformed into base delusions or shadows of the truth. Sociologically, film is an accessible and appealing device for concepts about actual things, but mistakenly, if continued in contemporary fashion, pop culture intelligence will understand the signified concepts to be the truth, when they're just about the truth, but not the truth themselves. And this is the chief problem of re-telling a story to a mass audience who implitly understand it to be meaningful, if not entirely factual.
Comment by Little Angry Doll
Falling Haiku Leaf
Inner West Life
OK, it's more oral tradition but why go to all the trouble if you're just going to sift through the Iliad for bits you like? I had to walk away a few times to stop myself from throwing my Robert Fagles translation at the TV.
And after misleading the Orble public with Incitatus, I'm just as crap and should not be listened to.
Comment by Stanley
Comment by Justin
It is kinda like that, hey? And in response to yours and Stans; I guess a comprehensive approach at getting all of the good stuff that appeals to the scriptwriters and the audience should be utilised, but the expense is towards an audience who learns this edited form is the actual and historical form.
It's slightly pedantic but still a methodological concern. It's like asking kids where eggs come from - the supermarket - but on a lengthy, historical overview..
Comment by Adrienne
Comment by Adrian
Philosophy Blog
This is false, as I understand it, but it sure makes for colour. And one gets a sense of how fictional is fiction, if even passing comments are falsehoods.
But from a "That's interesting" point of view, Dan Brown made the correct choice.
Perhaps the solution is not to restrict people's creative licence. I reckon art should in general be free to do whatever it likes. Art should answer to the dictates of art, not of history. The solution might be to better educate people, to train them into being better skeptics.
This should apply to media as well. Perhaps we need compulsory "Media is bullshit" classes from primary school onwards...
Comment by Justin
Haha, well, you did ask readers who they wanted to have sex with in Hollywood, I thought it only fair that you divulge likewise!
Adrian:
I agree somewhat. Though I'm not arguing for the death of fiction altogether, just that in this age where science fiction has become a religion (Scientology) and most see movies on things they're previously unaware of and consider them their reference point on the matter, that it can be dangerous to inform people through entertainment of history.
This is also attributing criticism to the people who do so without looking at the subject further, but like a teacher to a child, there's a type of responsibility on someone in a position of power to morally present things that have happened as they were. It's a difficult and inhibiting task but also lends more credibility to the author/presenter.
I agree with your solution. Moving people from a slant of distrust to scepticism might be the answer. You've raised a good point. Thanks.