“Drama is life with the dull bits cut out.”
– Alfred Hitchcock
Even the worst Hollywood history movies often get people interested in the history …
In 2001, Hollywood released a movie called “Pearl Harbor.” It starred Ben Affleck, and it butchered the history involved. For example, the B-25 bomber planes of the later Doolittle Raids did not fly like fighter planes. The idea that they would be flown by fighter pilots was sheer nonsense. I suppose that many people were misinformed by the movie, but I noticed a very interesting thing happening after the movie came out. People became more interested in the earlier movie “Tora! Tora! Tora!” from 1970, which also depicted the attack on Pearl Harbor. The movie “Tora! Tora! Tora!” has a few goofs of its own, but it is generally quite good on the historical accuracy front. At the very least, it is far more historically accurate than the Ben Affleck disaster. Many Hollywood movies have had a similar effect, making people more curious about what really happened in the history. In my opinion, the movie “Pearl Harbor” still deserves to be called out for its inaccuracies, but people can learn from their mistakes, if they do their own research about what really happened – which is what the learning process is all about.
History movies have the potential to reach a wider audience than history books
Other Hollywood movies are much better, and have done a great service to the history. For example, the Steven Spielberg movies “Lincoln” and “Bridge of Spies” both did fantastic storytelling, which brought the history to life. Their historical accuracy is not perfect, but in my opinion, it is good enough. Many that refuse to read a book will happily watch a history movie. Thus, movies have the potential to reach a wider audience than your average book can reach. Some will be inspired to read the book itself afterwards, and delve further into its story. Either way, they can add much to the audience’s history education. In general, I believe that books still have a higher batting average than movies do for getting the history right. But it would be a mistake to throw out the baby with the bathwater, and dismiss everything that Hollywood has done in this area.
The need for condensing things: When “poetic license” can actually be good
In fairness, Hollywood movies can seldom exceed three hours, so they operate under some major time constraints. Even if you do a long television miniseries like HBO’s “John Adams” (eight hours long in all), your time is rather limited. In part, this is because Hollywood movies are generally more expensive to produce than books. A single hour of runtime can cost millions of dollars for a Hollywood movie. Thus, Hollywood has to condense things to fit their budget constraints, and also get something that’s more digestible for their audience. This not only limits the depth of most Hollywood movies, but it also creates great incentives to dramatize aspects of their source material. For example, most dialogue in history movies is completely manufactured – and, to some extent, it has to be this way. We don’t always know what all of the characters said behind the scenes in the real events, particularly when the accounts of the real people may differ somewhat. Thus, filmmakers make educated guesses, and may sometimes get us closer to the truth in the process. This is true for historical fiction in movies as much as in books. If you don’t manufacture dialogue, a movie can be rather boring to boot, so there is great incentive to write some dialogue that captures the spirit of the thing. I’ll respect a director that adheres to the spirit of their material, even if they depart somewhat from the things that are known for certain. Such things are necessary to condense a movie to a digestible length, and allow it to show rather than tell. Call it “poetic license,” call it what you will; but I believe that some amount of it is necessary for a Hollywood movie.
Yes, books allow you to use your imagination, but movies inform your imagination …
People often say things like “the book is always better.” They say this about movie adaptations of fantasy books such as Harry Potter, and they say it about movie adaptations of history books as well. Many would rather read the book first, so that they can “exercise their imaginations” more about the world that it depicts. In fairness, they have more reason to say this about fantasy stories like Harry Potter than they do for history stories. Our imaginations create the world of Hogwarts, because it has no real existence outside of the books and movies. But with historical subjects, it may actually be better to watch some movies about the period first. Why? Because then, you can imagine better what the period probably looked like. The movie “Ben-Hur” is a classic work of fiction, and has never claimed to be anything else. Although it depicts real people like Pontius Pilate (and Jesus himself), the characters of Judah Ben-Hur and Messala are sold as fictional characters. Nonetheless, I feel that I can appreciate the New Testament better from having seen this fictional depiction of first-century life. I can imagine the period clothing, the Roman architecture, and other aspects of the period when I read the New Testament now. For example, I can picture a centurion in an authentic Roman uniform.
… allowing you to imagine these periods better if you later read about them
When I’ve read other histories of Ancient Rome, I could picture the characters in my head as well. Admittedly, I don’t know what the clothing was like for every period of Roman history, and I haven’t seen a statue of every major figure from Roman history. But I probably come closer than someone who’s never watched a movie about the first century, or any other period within the broader Roman Empire period. I owe this partly to documentaries with re-enactments, but I also owe them to Hollywood movies that tell these fictional stories. I thus feel that my imagination has benefited somewhat from seeing people in period costumes, and seeing the fantastic sets made by Hollywood. A history buff can benefit much from watching a movie about their periods of interest. I can picture the American Revolution better, because I’ve seen some Hollywood re-enactments of the Battle of Trenton. (More about that here.) I can picture the Civil War better, because I’ve seen some actual photographs from the period – and movies like “Gettysburg.” And I can picture World War II better, because I’ve seen actual footage from the time – including footage that was featured in one or more Hollywood movies. When I’ve read books about World War II, I can thus picture people hitting the beach at Normandy or Iwo Jima, because I’ve seen the real thing in the footage – and because I’ve seen some fantastic Hollywood movies about these respective battles. The same goes for reading about World War II battles that were not dramatized, and whose real thing I’ve never seen on camera.
Movies can be essential tools for history studies, and become part of the history themselves
Thus, I think that movies can be an essential part of the education of the history student. Many history teachers use them for this reason. They are also, of course, a lot of fun. Good movies are among the highlights of my life, both historical and otherwise. And movies themselves can become a part of the history. This applies to fictional movies as much as historical movies. For example, the “Star Wars” movies were a major moment in movie history – in part, because they changed how movies were made. And historical movies can have a great effect (good or bad) on how the history itself is perceived. For example, many history classes today talk about the negative role of “Birth of a Nation” or “Gone with the Wind” in misleading people about race relations. You would still do well to take Hollywood history with a grain of salt, and fact-check the claims made by Hollywood history movies. These two movies are a classic example of this. But the movies have to be reckoned with nonetheless, and often merit a more serious response from professional historians. On the other hand, when a movie actually succeeds in bringing history to life, then it does an invaluable service to the history. It brings this history to a wider audience, and allows the drama of its chosen period to come to life – creating the necessary emotional impact in the viewer. Whatever the sins of Hollywood with the history, they have also done much good to it, showing that they can get things right when they put their collective mind to it.
A movie about the Cuban Missile Crisis
History movies allow the drama of the real thing to be felt, appreciated, and remembered
Thus, I continue to love historical movies, and hope that Hollywood will keep on making them whenever they feel inspiration to do so. They might teach new generations about history, and allow the drama of the real thing to be felt, appreciated, and remembered.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment