Should Historical Films be Accurately Portrayed?

[Cyber]

As a history buff I find the "stylised" portrayal of history in Hollywood to be really frustrating. Nearly every important historic event made into film has deviated in some way in terms of historic accuracy.

My question is can historic films permit artistic licence, creativity and fiction with the intent to entertain audiences? are there risks of changing history to accommodate a visual format and stylised storyline?

 

[Jumpinbare]

If it's altered, IT'S NOT HISTORY! How can so many authors/screenwriters/producers not get this basic concept??

 

[Shamar]

As a history buff I find the "stylised" portrayal of history in Hollywood to be really frustrating. Nearly every important historic event made into film has deviated in some way in terms of historic accuracy.

My question is can historic films permit artistic licence, creativity and fiction with the intent to entertain audiences? are there risks of changing history to accommodate a visual format and stylised storyline?

If they portrayed history accurately, people would be bored and offended. I have come up with a basic rule: If it comes out of Hollywood, it is wrong. This rule almost never lets me down. What really gets me is "based on a true story," but the only thing associated with the actual events is one or two names, one or two facts, and the location.

 

[Judge]

My question is can historic films permit artistic licence, creativity and fiction with the intent to entertain audiences?

This is something that happens even more often in the US, given the ability to create digital artwork or alter existing footage in color or black and white.

What is maddening to me is how so many films which graphically depict the attack on the USS Arizona at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th, 1941 always seems to show the ship in colors that are completely inaccurate from how a number of US battleships were elaborately painted at the time. Yet most of the Japanese and American aircraft seem quite accurate.

This article reflects the most realistic colors and paint scheme of that ship at the time. Colors that even the revered film "Tora! Tora! Tora!" failed to depict compared to the more accurate colors of the Japanese battleship Nagato.

Blue Controversy Surrounds The Color of the USS Arizona Dec. 7, 1941

And the 2019 film "Midway", which excelled with aircraft yet flunked with ships as well:

I just find it bizarre. With a possibility that some individual in charge worries that reality of color could be misinterpreted or even laughed at, without a concise explanation filmmakers would never bother with. Compounded by historical footage in black and white, obscuring the whole issue of the actual colors of our battleships at the time, and why.

Particularly the tops of the major gun batteries that were painted red for one reason- air recognition to keep our own pilots from mistakenly bombing their own naval vessels. May sound preposterous until you see how the Italians used to paint their own warships with stripes for the same reason. Or the Nazis who painted huge swastikas on the bow and stern deck surfaces.

And don't get me started over German uniforms of WW2. Seems either they are terribly good or terribly bad.

I could just see a Hollywood art director scoff and lament, "But it doesn't look real!" It happens.

Pertinent only to artistic license and freedom of expression ? Yes. -A constitutional guarantee under the First Amendment.

Pertinent to obscenity, defamation, copyright concerns or incitement to violence that lead to an unlawful act? No.

The First Amendment and the Entertainment Industry under Entertainment Law

 

[FayetheADHDsquirrel]

I think it should be accurate if it is about a true story, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[Judge]

I think it should be accurate if it is about a true story, but I won't hold my breath.

I've seen so many such films just butcher history. Usually either over aesthetics or budgetary reasons. Sad, but the ones in control always have the last say in such things. Though I also recall the ones where they at least try to get it right.

But truly it makes me cringe when authenticity gives way only to subjective notions based largely on aesthetics only. Reminds me of a PR director who always used to tell me she wanted a website to "pop". Never mind product authenticity, just visually "wow" the audience.

 

[Cyber]

I agree with all the points made. Also reminds me of fans of novels that become movies. Fans will always find the movie never lives up to the original book. But movie producers and their investors are willing to trade authenticity for something more exciting to fit into 2hrs of film and also cut corners to meet a budget.

I guess there are similar logistical hurdles for Hollywood historical films but some of the set designs, costumes, characters, storyline and casting seem unnecessarily deviant from history and don't seem to make sense in terms of marketing or audience approval?

 

[Judge]

I guess there are similar logistical hurdles for Hollywood historical films but some of the set designs, costumes, characters, storyline and casting seem unnecessarily deviant from history and don't seem to make sense in terms of marketing or audience approval?

Indeed. What tends to really bother me is when audience approval is really based on a nebulous, "They'll never notice the difference" mentality. Many probably won't. However it just seems fundamentally disrespectful to be so nonchalant with important and well-documented history.

Another disturbing thing I discovered was in how the production of "Band of Brothers" made some huge errors that made no sense. Such as the sad case of Albert Blithe, who while wounded, did not languish in hospitals to 1948 when they cited he died. He was a career military man who rose to the rank of master sergeant. He died in 1967 and was buried in the Arlington National Cemetery.

Also the real Captain Herbert Sobel while being a harsh company commander, was given credit for shaping E Company into outstanding combat readiness. Yet they portrayed him almost like a sadist who was disgracefully reassigned elsewhere.

For such a reverently told story of such great men, how could they do that to their survivors and their legacy ? On so many other levels I thought it was brilliant. And there are more such stories documented, including how technical advisor Major Dick Winters himself was at times disgusted with producer Tom Hanks and inaccuracies that Winters cited personally to Hanks.

And the captured German soldier who Donald Malarkey spoke to didn't work in a similar factory in Oregon 100 miles away. That in reality the poor fellow worked literally across the street from Malarkey. And that producers elected to change it because they thought the public might not believe it. And apparently Ronald Spears did not mow down all those soldiers with a machine gun. That the event never took place, though I seem to recall that Dick Winters or Donald Malarkey brought up an incident just outside the French town of Carentan where they thought Spears did kill Germans as they tried to surrender while emerging from a ditch.

For such a top-drawer Spielberg-Hanks production, how could such things happen? Unless perhaps that higher-ups like studio executives may have put their two cents into things. That does happen as well. When internal politics can override production quality.

 

[UFO]

I'm fine if they compress a little bit, simplify story and shorten character list for story telling reasons. It is unreasonable to include all events and people affecting to some historical happenings. Also, the real life never creates a clear story line with beginning, middle and ending, which are pretty much required for a good story structure.

But yes, they should stick to truth and realism if they are going to tell about historical events or claim to describe historical times. Even thought King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table are very deep into supernatural fantasy, their historical depiction should be at least consistent with the selected historical times (tribal post-Rome period, feudal high medieval setting...)

While I don't lose my night's sleep for inaccuracies, I still don't like to realize when they have forcefully applied modern customs, values and ideologies to a history. For example, medieval times: No, uprisings were not attempts to replace despotic rulers with democratic and both socially and ethnically equal societies. No, women were not generally allowed to argue against men (any men, not only husbands) without consequences. No, women did not use strong eye liner and bright lipstick (they did try to look healthy and less suntanned than field-working commoners, though). No, there was not much of foreigners of different distinct ethnic and especially religious background among commoners (foreign trade hubs, and nobility and their direct servants are different thing). No, such foreigners were not treated equally, and hardly with acceptance, among commoners even if they had adopted Christianity. No, commoners were not allowed to travel freely between feudal provinces. No, this wasn't a time of witch trials, and even when there was a trial, the church was skeptical about such accusations. No, black fitted leather suits were not popular clothing, even Vikings wore rather colorful, fancy and even dandy clothing.

But are wrong facts harmful? Twisted facts about history are constantly used to justify intolerant and such actions. "This land belongs to us", "this land has always been inhabited by our kind", "this ethnic minority / majority has always oppressed us", "we didn't do anything wrong, it was always only them".

 

[NB79]

how you know that something is real footage photo or voice now?
anything could be AI. Is horrible.

 

[Mary Terry]

Documentaries should be 100% factual. Historical dramas or movies based on real events should have free artistic license to make the movie more entertaining or to appeal to larger audience.

If you want historical accuracy, find a documentary. If you want to be entertained by a historical drama or a movie based on real events, then there nothing wrong with that. Just be aware of the nature of what you're watching.

 

[TBRS1]

Everything comes from an egocentric point of view.

Even ones own memories.

There is no such thing as "objective history."

Even if there were, BECAUSE the present changes the meaning of past events, anything "objective" has a short shelf life.

 

[UFO]

Everything comes from an egocentric point of view.

Even ones own memories.

There is no such thing as "objective history."

Even if there were, BECAUSE the present changes the meaning of past events, anything "objective" has a short shelf life.

That is the problem. If things are already subjective, why confuse things even more, and in purpose?

This goes pretty quickly to a debate if truth and education is useless and should be abolished, or at least reserved only to the selected elite few, in sake of entertainment... I'll stop here if this gets to that.

 

[TBRS1]

That is the problem. If things are already subjective, why confuse things even more, and in purpose?

This goes pretty quickly to a debate if truth and education is useless and should be abolished, or at least reserved only to the selected elite few, in sake of entertainment... I'll stop here if this gets to that.

I don't see that the subjective nature of perceptions invalidates education.

What I do see is that the subjective nature of perception is a thing people need to learn in order to understand reality.

In other words, more education is needed, not the acceptance of ignorance.

 

[Ken]

I think the problem boils down to the fact that Hollywood is a business and the business is entertainment.

For the most part, accurate portrayal of history would not entertaining - or at least entertaining enough for their profit margin. Thus Hollywood must make it more entertaining in order to sell their product. And movies are far more profitable than documentaries.

 

[Judge]

I think the problem boils down to the fact that Hollywood is a business and the business is entertainment.

For the most part, accurate portrayal of history would not entertaining - or at least entertaining enough for their profit margin. Thus Hollywood must make it more entertaining in order to sell their product. And movies are far more profitable than documentaries.

Reminds me of the creative and cultural disaster of producing so many films that are spinoffs, copycats or just remakes of previous works. That from the perspective of so many Hollywood studios, they provide a predictable, if even modest rate of return with a much more tightly controlled production budget.

Denoting the distasteful difference between a risk and a moderately profitable business venture. With the ultimate metric determined by profits rather than laurels from the public, well-known critics or the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences.

Ironically though it's even worse to consider Broadcast News and how it has devolved from prioritizing the enlightenment of an audience to entertaining them. Primarily by metaphorically grabbing them by their lapels and shaking them rather than passively educate or inform them.

 

[Judge]

how you know that something is real footage photo or voice now?
anything could be AI. Is horrible.

It is amusing to discover so many YouTube presentations using artificial narration where the AI can't seem to pronounce certain words properly. One of those "dead giveaways" much like AI where models look like their skin surfaces were made with plastic.

Perhaps we only really need to worry if or when AI ever gets things truly correctly the first time. Under the present circumstances, it's difficult for me to be "wowed" by such technology. Where the hype continues to exceed what is delivered with few exceptions.

 

[UFO]

don't see that the subjective nature of perceptions invalidates education.

What I do see is that the subjective nature of perception is a thing people need to learn in order to understand reality.

In other words, more education is needed, not the acceptance of ignorance.

Asdsds...

The last paragraph of mine ("this goes pretty quickly...") was not well formed at all . Just for the record: I didn't mean that I think that anyone had thought or would think like that. I meant that if entertainment don't take any responsibility about facts, it competes with (for example) the school education - and wins because it is much more interesting. This would leave only those who were awake in (for example) school with at least some idea of facts. I could spend hours writing a rant about that threat, which is something I don't want to do because I would probably be preaching to the choir, and because of personal time management. But I was close to do that.

 

[Ronald Zeeman]

See physics absolute does not exist either relative or probable. Why physics is so much fun figuring out.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

As a history buff I find the "stylised" portrayal of history in Hollywood to be really frustrating. Nearly every important historic event made into film has deviated in some way in terms of historic accuracy.

My question is can historic films permit artistic licence, creativity and fiction with the intent to entertain audiences? are there risks of changing history to accommodate a visual format and stylised storyline?

I think the best one can do in this regard is to put the film into a "documentary" format. If you are trying to tell a story that would be entertaining to people, then often times you do have "characters" and you do have to take some creative license.