Skip to main content

The Problem with History

As I have mentioned before, I am a History major at Drew University doing six months abroad in England, and it is History, above film, which is my true passion. As a lover of both, it is often difficult to reconcile the two together. Films can be a great teacher of history, as they have explored Rome, Vietnam, both World Wars and the lives of several leaders and events in depth and from multiple angles. On the other hand, history is often inconvenient for filmmakers, so they take great liberties with rewriting it for their benefit. Directors like Oliver Stone and Steven Spielberg are notorious for this. JFK, while undoubtedly a well-constructed film, is an appalling dishonor to American history. Shindler’s List, which the American Film Institute put in its top ten American films of all time list, packages the Holocaust, one of the greatest failures in human history, as a success story, choosing to focus on 6,000 people who are saved rather than the 6,000,000+ people who died.
I simply cannot get over these details. As much as I love film, I think that a historian’s art is much more challenging, and when it is done successfully much more rewarding. Authors such as Peter Fleming and David McCullough are much more limited than a screenwriter who can make a story up on its own merits. They are limited to telling the story that actually happened, in as factual a way as possible, without boring the reader to death. Now, I am not criticizing every film that has gone off of history. Sure, films such as the ones I’ve mentioned and various others (Caligula, Forrest Gump), do bother me, but despite that I actually mostly enjoy historical epics. Nobody actually believes the events that unfold in Inglourious Basterds, it’s liberties make for great story telling and everyone can tell the difference. What bothers me is when people blur the line to have their viewers believe they are telling a true story.

Wait, you mean Hitler wasn't actually killed in a theatre?
I love Kubrick’s histories: Spartacus, Barry Lyndon, and Full Metal Jacket are some of the best in the genre. Spartacus is a story whose only sources we have are Roman, so the story is fabricated around everything Kubrick and the writers could make out about Roman society. Barry Lyndon is what the historical theorist Thomas Macaulay would call portraiture – Lyndon is not about getting the history placed into context, but rather, a picture from what is discernable. All of the costumes in Lyndon come from old portraits, a lot of the props and settings are very faithful replications, and there is no in door lighting throughout the film, making it one of few films to be filmed by candle light. Characters fade in and out as they do in historical sources; when no historian writes about the events of people, they are lost forever. That’s how the film ends; we are told, not shown, that Lyndon returns home to his mother in Ireland, and eventually comes back to Europe as a gambler without much success – he simply fades out of focus. Full Metal Jacket, I think, is the most faithful of the over flooded Vietnam films. Based on the novel The Short Timers, Kubrick made a film that is not pro nor anti war, simply showed the brutality of what the soldiers endured. The cynical dialogue and steady camera work help to give a fuller view of their desperation.
But of course, it should be obvious by now that I have a love affair with Mr. Kubrick. He did the best he could with any genre; he was not preoccupied with history, but when he got to it was very faithful. I suppose I should be happy that history has become so popular in film; half of the films of the past thirty years to win the Best Picture Oscar have been big Hollywood historical epics. It’s possible I am too much of a purist, but I can’t really help it, when it is my job in the work that I do for my major to make sure I am relying heavily on good source material and I get to see others make things up that people are going to readily accept. I’d like to see filmmakers take this issue as a whole a little more seriously.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Actor/Director

When I was a kid I used to watch Home Movies on Adult Swim, a show about kids who try to make movies with a hand held camera. I remember the main character, who was the director, saying at one point that he was going to switch roles with his friend and become the actor, because every director wants to act, and every actor wants to direct. Hollywood keeps proving this statement true. Spike Lee regularly appears in his own movies, Tarantino has done it, Kevin Smith wrote Silent Bob for himself, David Lynch acted in Twin Peaks, Martin Scorsese, Mel Brooks, Woody Allen, Fritz Lang, the list goes on of directors who have appeared in their own films. Then there are those who have had full time jobs as both actors and directors, most notably Orson Welles and Clint Eastwood. Both of them can be studied in either context, and often appear in their own work. But what I’m getting to are the actors, who make it big in Hollywood, and then try their hand at directing. These films are what interest
5 comments
Read more

I Really Miss Roger Ebert

Note: I originally wrote this article in 2011, and in July 2015 accidentally deleted it. When I reinstated it I decided to revise a lot of it. I find that I miss Roger Ebert whenever a great film is released, as I would love to be able to read his thoughts on films like Birdman or Boyhood. I highly recommend the documentary about his life, titled Life Itself.   The film critic – perhaps, in many ways, the most useless job on the planet. Nobody lives or dies, goes hungry or starves, or makes any important life change whatsoever based on the opinion of a film critic. I decided not to go to film school because I could not see myself doing anything important with a film degree. Most audiences pay no attention to these journalists, and often critics are the butt of a joke for poorly rated popular filmmakers. Still I am very grateful for those who have taken up the occupation – I personally read film criticism and, obviously, write it for my own enjoyment. I am a fan of AO Scott, Peter
2 comments
Read more

I Still Don't Like Spielberg

Sorry. Four years ago I wrote an article about my issues with Steven Spielberg, particularly taking aim at Schindler’s List and AI , mostly from the Kubrickian critique I had developed at the time. As time has passed and I have seen hundreds more films to greater contextualise the man and his work, I decided it was time for a re-evaluation of Spielberg on my part. After all, the age of the “coffee table” Hollywood drama seems to be winding down, as studios continue their unfortunate output of sequels, reboots, and superhero franchises. I sometimes pine for the days when Hollywood at least made an effort and created Oscar bait - independent films dominated awards season this year, with American Sniper being the only studio film nominated for Best Picture. So this week I watched four films I had never seen before from Spielberg’s back catalogue, in the hope of being able to soften my stance towards him. With détente declared, I watched Amistad , a film grounded in the little
4 comments
Read more