I was recently watching one of my personal favorite films, The Right Stuff, when it occurred to me that while I normally don't care much for films that don't follow the actual course of history. For those that haven't seen it, the movie is about the golden age of test flying and the Mercury Seven astronauts. The movie is not entirely true to what actually happened; in fact the movie itself is based on a novel by the same name. Despite this, the movie was received very well by critics as well as audiences. I personally enjoy the movie for its rich aviation and aerospace tone, as well as severl correct historic points. However, while this movie was a better example of Hollywood mixing with history, other films have been far less successful at blending the two together, but have been nonetheless popular. Some recent and unfortunate examples that come to mind are Pearl Harbor and Red Tails. This leads me to my point: for the sake of public history, should movies seek to be more historically accurate rather than made to cater to Hollywood? If movies are made in such a way that they sacrifice telling history for the sake of a story, does that contribute to the notion of "historicidalness" in the US today?
I think that there is very much a grey area for finding a balance between telling history and telling stories. If the two are properly brought together, movies can both represent the past as well as attract moviegoers. Unfortunately, the present trend seems to indicate that the people responsible for making the big movies are not interested in accurately telling history. This causes misunderstanding among viewers, who think that the past occurred in the same sometimes ridiculous fashion that it occurs on screen. In the case of many so-called war films, I think that the focus has really shifted from the history of the events to the action- the incident itself doesn't matter, just the shooting and the explosions. There are of course exceptions to this trend (Saving Private Ryan, Letters from Iwo Jima), but it seems that they are in the minority. Does anyone else have an opinion on this issue?
I don't think we're ever going to be able to change film makers to produce films that are historically accurate, at least not 100% accurate. I think the problem from a film maker's point of view is that the flow of history doesn't necessarily translate to the screen as a good story. A movie that I love, but is far from accurate is "Kingdom of Heaven," a Ridley Scott movie; terribly inaccurate, but good movie.
ReplyDeleteA movie that I would point out that illustrates this point well is "Lord of the Rings," the flow of the story in the books would not translate well to a movie telling format. Because of that, the story was rearranged, parts cut, other things added; in the end, it goes a different path than the books, and is still recognizable, but still very different.
One thing that I think we could do, if we have the skill to write stories, write scripts that are historical AND would go well on the big screen. That may be hard, but I'm sure it's doable.
I agree that the movies that actually have a great historical backing are the minority; however, these are usually the best movies. Like Last of the Mohicans, for example. It's a great movie, and also shows plausible and typical Native American experiences.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with your assessment of Red Tails. I was very excited to see that film because it was supposed to be something important and new for the history of the Tuskegee Airmen. However, it just focused on the love story and explosions.
Unfortunately, I think people will gravitate toward explosions because that is what the superhero movies have been focusing on lately; we need some good historical discourse in movies for a turnaround -- and I'm hoping to see that with Lincoln in November.