The Responsibility of Accuracy

Historiography and its Relationship with Film and Filmmakers

By Kelly Idali Salaiz

One of the best forms of media to present history has been film. Whether the film’s purpose is to inform, then entertain (Lincoln, 1917, Dunkirk, 42) or to take historical events and create a narrative that is solely to entertain and engage (Troy, 300, The Pianist, Braveheart). Film is visual, fun, engaging for an audience to watch and “learn” from, but it must be asked to what degree does a filmmaker have responsibility to present a historiographical, accurate final product?

Inform, then Entertain

Historical movies, such as Lincoln, 1917, Dunkirk, and 47, have been films where the main purpose seems to be entertainment as a form of biographical, historiographic media. But films are flawed, as Hollywood has the tendency to take a sound historical narrative and perpetuate it to make a profit. Author and historian James Reston Jr. has brought up this “tension” between historian and dramatist when “compressing history” to create a narrative to get “what sells and holds the attention of an audience.” Therefore, films like Lincoln, 1917, Dunkirk, and 47 do just enough to inform, then entertain with overly dramatized events, addition of fictional (nonexistent historically) characters, and cinematic elements such as wardrobe, makeup, action, and performance. Holding the attention of an audience is important, but just how much simplification of history harm the overall historiographic significance of the subject?

Simplifying History

Holding the attention of an audience, especially during a film can be difficult. Filmmakers only have at most two hours and thirty minutes to provide and establish a historical narrative that captivates an audience and (hopefully) informs that audience. In order to do this, filmmakers must simplify history to create the narrative of their film for the screen. But how does simplifying a history to create a filmable narrative affect the position of the historian? Bruno Ramirez has had this dilemma presented to him as a historian and moviegoer and eventually filmmaker. Ramirez poses the question, “Was filmic treatment of the past in itself bound to distort renditions of the past because of the technical imperative that the film (as opposed to the typical historical monograph) imposed?” (Ramirez, 5)

Poster for D.W. Griffith's 1915 silent American film *The Birth of a Nation* for a showing at the Academy of Music. Based on the book by Thomas Dixon, tells the story of the  Stoneman and Cameron family, both affected by the Civil War, fighting in opposite armies. The development of the war in their lives plays through to Lincoln's assassination and the birth of the Ku Klux Klan.
Poster for D.W. Griffith’s 1915 silent American film The Birth of a Nation for a showing at the Academy of Music. Based on the book by Thomas Dixon, tells the story of the Stoneman and Cameron family, both affected by the Civil War, fighting in opposite armies. The development of the war in their lives plays through to Lincoln’s assassination and the birth of the Ku Klux Klan. [source]

Ramirez’s example of this “filmic treatment” comes from his view of D.W. Griffith’s 1915 silent epic drama The Birth of a Nation where the movie deals with the Civil War and “heroic” rise of the Ku Klux Klan. This was a film in which Griffith, a filmmaker, not a historian, seemed to want to impart a history lesson of the Civil War, choosing to include battle sequences, political intrigue, and a romantic subplot (because it is a movie after all). As the filmmaker, D.W. Griffith made specific filmic choices such as scenes and sequences with written quotations from historical personalities such as President Abraham Lincoln and contemporary historians such as Woodrow Wilson, while using historically accurate locations pertaining to the history of the film.

Still, Ramirez believed that there were repercussions of the film’s historical theme and treatment of historical narrative that The Birth of a Nation “signaled the irreversible entry of historical motion picture into the American universe of cinema.” (Ramirez, 4) The history was essentially being simplified and diluted by Griffith to create the narrative of an epic Civil War drama that captivated audiences, not really informing as was the filmmaker’s initial intention. So, when does it become the responsibility of the filmmaker to take on the role of a historian?

Filmmakers as the Occasional Historian

It is naïve to think that history is only for historians; history is for all to take, interpret and present. Which is why filmmakers find themselves working in historical films, because the histories are there—but to what degree are filmmakers responsible for providing a historically accurate account? When do filmmakers take on the role of the historian?

Movie poster for Steven Spielberg's *Lincoln* starring Daniel Day-Lewis as Abraham Lincoln. Although the film is centered around Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation of slaves, Spielberg made the choice to not include the narratives of African American slaves and freemen of the time: simplifying history and stunting the accuracy of the history.
Movie poster for Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln starring Daniel Day-Lewis as Abraham Lincoln. Although the film is centered around Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation of slaves, Spielberg made the choice to not include the narratives of African American slaves and freemen of the time: simplifying history and stunting the accuracy of the history. [source]

Take for instance, 2013 when Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained and Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln are released; both are films centered on slavery, but Tarantino’s film was more of a “play” on history under the guise of a “spaghetti western”, whereas Spielberg’s film was a biographical historical drama about Abraham Lincoln that was serious yet highly revered. (Bonilla, 72) Spielberg was even praised by University of Virginia Professor of History, Philip Zelikow, for “offering new insights” into the Emancipation period of American history, although it was quite apparent that Spielberg had also “silenced” the role of African Americans in that history as well. There was no questioning that Spielberg had gotten the Lincoln side of history correct, but had he done his part as a historian in presenting as much of the history as he could? The answer is yes and no.

What Spielberg was able to do with Lincoln was provide a narrative about Abraham Lincoln, during the Emancipation of slaves, that stays with just Lincoln, his cabinet administration, and those close to him. But it is an injustice in both historiography and film to exclude the narrative of African American slaves or freemen who were also a part of the Emancipation history. It goes back to Bruno Ramirez’s belief that simplification of history for filmic purposes distorts the rendition of the past. The history being presented is not as accurate as it should be—it is entertaining, informative, but not as informative as it should be to provide accurate representation.

Where Spielberg went for an authentic film, Tarantino went for “inauthentic” historical narrative with his film, Django Unchained, because his purpose was to write a film that “speaks to us about the contemporary era of black power.” (Bonilla, 73) Tarantino knew that he was responsible for filming a history that the “political present” set the stage for, and Tarantino was especially aware that “the dynamics of the country are changing, and people are talking about that… This time in history is a part of that conversation.” (Bonilla, 73) Tarantino is aware that he is writing a film, that although perpetuated a western drama, has validity in its history both in the past and in its contemporary. Something that Spielberg was not able to do with Lincoln because although the history is (mostly) accurately portrayed, Spielberg had shortfalls as a historian in not providing the whole history and connecting that history to the contemporary.

Historiographical Narrative and Agency

Film as a medium is about creating a narrative from the perspective of a filmmaker, whether that be from the screenwriter, director, or producers. Consider the fact that Quentin Tarantino and Steven Spielberg both had films centered around slavery but chose two distinct narratives to frame their film. Narrative, framework, paradigm—a historian must be explicit in what they are trying to do with the historiographical work they are presenting for the sake of transparency and agency. An issue that historical narratives will face in filmmaking is the issue of agency and how funding can have implications on production, distribution, and audience; all of which affect content of filmmaking, further affecting the subject of history and what gets to the public.

It has become increasingly important that historians who wish to break into filmmaking are aware of what kind of narrative, framework, paradigm, etc. they are going to work through. For historian filmmakers Barbara Abrash and Daniel J. Walkowitz, the focus on historical narrative presentation became apparent for them while working in public television, creating documentaries for public television, remaining conscious of the fact that “there are historical truths that have profound political consequences.” (Abrash & Walkowtiz, 203) While working in U.S television, Abrash and Walkowitz realized that there were limits to the types of historical narrative and filmmaking they could present, as “television—including public television—serves corporate agendas far from their own, and that its programming is cast primarily as entertainment.” (Abrash & Walkowtiz, 203) They understood that when it comes to the relationship between filmmaking and the role of the historian, telling the “truth” was going to be subjective as it pertained to what medium (public television, mass media consumption as major film releases, independent documentaries, etc.) was presenting that history. Historian filmmakers must ultimately make the decision; sacrifice the historiographical narrative for means of funding and audience, or acquire personal funding and ensure that the historiographical narrative the filmmaker wishes to make is done well?

Historical Narrative and Persuasion

When it comes to narratives, “they are thought to persuade by presenting information in a ‘story format’ such that audience members accept the attitudes and beliefs presented while engaging the story.” (Cui et al, 2743) Take for instance, take the 2006 colorful, historical drama film written and directed by Sophia Coppola Marie Antoinette. A film whose narrative is highly driven by the excited and “bratty” nature of Austrian-teenager-turned-French-queen, the film is not historically accurate, but the narrative of Marie Antoinette made the ill-fated queen likeable and tragic. But how does the narrative persuasion of Sophia Coppola’s script compare to the work historians do? And although it can be argued that what filmmakers present for historiography is a form of public history.

Promotional photograph from Sophia Coppola's historical drama *Marie Antoinette*. A colorful and charming movie that proves how narrative can be persuasive in its simplification of certain histories translated on film. Property of Sony Pictures, photo credit to Leigh Johnson.
Promotional photograph from Sophia Coppola’s historical drama Marie Antoinette. A colorful and charming movie that proves how narrative can be persuasive in its simplification of certain histories translated on film. Property of Sony Pictures, photo credit to Leigh Johnson. [source]

Historical movies tend to “focus on the portrayal of real events and people,” but historical fiction movies (like Marie Antoinette, Titanic, and Pearl Harbor) “are artistic and creative interpretations of real events [that] struggle with ‘the problem of truth’ because ‘meaning lies not in a chain of events themselves but in the writer’s interpretation of what occurred.’” (Cui et al, 2743) Without inherently wishing to do so, filmmakers who create historical fiction narratives are persuading an audience to believe something happened that, although based on some fact, did not entirely happen. Marie Antoinette was more complex of a human being than Sophia Coppola’s film led audiences to believe; but the movie is still nice to watch.

Conclusion

As a medium, film is one of the best ways for history to be accessible to the general public. When it comes to accuracy and transparency, it is the responsibility of the filmmaker, whether that be the screenwriter, director, or producer to do the work; become the occasional historian so that the final product being presented for (mass) consumption by large audiences in a way that is beneficial for their learning and entertainment.

Bibliography

  • Ramirez, Bruno. Inside the Historical Film. 2014: 42-84
  • Cui, Di, Zihan Wang, and Arthur A. Raney. “Narrative Persuasion in Historical Films: Examining the Importance of Prior Knowledge, Existing Attitudes, and Culture.” International Journal of Communication (2017): 2741–59
  • Abrash, Barbara, and Daniel J. Walkowitz. “Sub/Versions of History: A Meditation on Film and Historical Narrative.” History Workshop, no. 38 (1994): 203–14
  • Bonilla. “History Unchained.” Transition, no. 112 (2013): 68
  • Bell, Jeffrey A., Claire Colebrook, and James Williams. Deleuze and History. 2009
  • Toplin, Robert Brent, and Jason Eudy. “The Historian Encounters Film: A Historiography.” OAH Magazine of History 16, no. 4 (2002): 7–12
  • Klenotic, Jeffrey F. “The Place of Rhetoric in ‘New’ Film Historiography: The Discourse of Corrective Revisionism.” Film History 6, no. 1 (1994): 45–58
  • Library of Congress, “History & the Movies: An Historian Writes a Screenplay.” Video.
  • Jacoby, Faith “Let Them Eat Fake – FHCtoday.Com.”