Historical accuracy in films
A previous discussion about the first 9/11 movie, United 93, brought up a number of quite relevant points. First we discussed if it was too early, and we turned to the example of films coming out from World War II, and that turned us to talk about modern War films such as Pearl Harbour, U-571 and other such historically inept movies.
It was also pointed out that perhaps United 93 isn't that accurate anyway, taking as it does outside conversations and using them to create the timeline of events and thereby what happened on that plane.
It's not just this film either, there's many others and with all this inaccuracy are we in danger of preaching the wrong message? Of incorrectly educating by stealth the general public and changing our understanding of history?
On a story about Andy Garcia's Lost City Bullet in the Head summarised that films should not be used to depict historical events and that films such as these become interpreted as fact.
That is very true. For I remember reading a survey where teenagers were polled and the results showed that they believed the events in films, such as those mentioned above, to be actual fact.
This is worrying, that Pearl Harbour and U-571 are rewriting history in the minds of our younger generation. Is the message "Based on actual events" or "Inspired by a true story" not enough anymore? Are these too misleading?
I even find films such as Saving Private Ryan as slightly inaccurate, for they focus on the American involvement in the war and as a result the greater effort and sacrifice by Europe and Britain is overshadowed. U-571 portrays the capturing of the Enigma code machine from the Germans, an act carried out by the British, not the Americans, and Pearl Harbour presents a quick, decisive and quite large attack against Japan when in fact it was small and quite unsuccessful.
So what should films that depict actual events, use real characters or even dramatise themselves on something real be asked to do? Is carrying a stronger message enough? Do they need to carry some explanation of what actually happened or highlight which parts of their story aren't factually correct? Or do they need to do something much stronger and not touch historical events?
I saw an interesting feature on the Tears of the Sun DVD which could help correctly educate in these types of films. There was an option to watch the film with overlaid subtitles giving you facts about real objects, people, places and events on which the film touches. Would that work? Obviously not in the cinema.
Yet there's a large grey area here as well, what about films such as The Da Vinci Code? They don't present fact or talk about historically proven events, they do touch on widely accepted beliefs and understandings and incorporate those in their fictional story. Or what about films such as Braveheart that twist and bend the timeline of history to fit in with the dramatical storytelling? Are these lines too grey to make a judgement on?
What other films take liberties with historical accuracy? Either in a small, seemingly unassuming way, for the right causes, or are totally flying in the face of all that is good and right? What can, or should be, done?
|
Promotion