Um Actually…

I am a history fan and a nitpicking nerd who has said on countless occasions “Um actually…” as I issue a correction to someone. To many the idea of going through movies and pointing out the errors of Ancient Rome’s senatorial politics in Spartacus is simply being a killjoy. An understanding of history is important in society, it is a way to learn and understand things in the world. For example, the great biopic Lawrence of Arabia covers, in part, the redrawing of borders in the Middle-East after World War I, creating countries by drawing lines on maps and an accurate understanding of these events would help someone understand the political history of that region for the past 100 years. Does Lawrence of Arabia help or hinder that understanding?

Silly Criticisms

Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette had mixed reviews but was criticised for its historical inaccuracies, such as not portraying all of Marie’s children. However, it was also criticised for purely stylistic choices of the director, such as when a blistering review of Marie’s dozens of shoes a pair of Converse trainers are seen for a split second. Coppola was not trying to suggest Marie Antoinette had Converse shoes. Even just the poster of Napoleon caused fury as it contained the text “He came from nothing. He conquered everything.” as he did not come from nothing, being minor Corsican nobility and did not, in fact, conquer everything. I would feel that this was poetic licence and helped to contextualise the scope of his achievements.

Revising History

Movies (as well as teachers, historians etc) are constantly being accused of revisionist history, or changing it to suit their political purposes and the real and accurate history is being pushed down. The fact is there is one correct version of history. When a historian writes a book there may be many facts about dates of battles etc but they are making an argument, an interpretation, of the events. And this has been going on since there was history. Opinions on figures, like say, Oliver Cromwell have changed considerably over the centuries from his death – tyrant, liberator, religious fanatic, champion of democracy or destroyer of it, and are never a monolith. As such if we’re saying filmmakers have a responsibility to portray history accurately…surely that would mean just portraying one interpretation accurately.

But that is an argument about the subject of history and biopics are not history. Biopics are fiction, not a documentary, and they do not claim to depict history. Their goal is to tell an entertaining story. Filmmakers adapt books, TV shows, plays and more as they are entertaining stories and history is just a fertile ground for ideas as any of these.

However, even if a biopic should be seen as a work of fiction rather than history, it is undeniable that biopics have a huge impact on how history is perceived. To use the example of Lawrence of Arabia – we have a dearth of material on and about Lawrence, he wrote books, and there are many photographs and even footage but for most people that is irrelevant, they have seen the movie. Your opinion of the real historical figures of the people portrayed in the film will be deeply affected by the movie.

In conclusion…

So we come to the difficult conclusion to the question of do filmmakers have a responsibility to history when making biopics? Yes in some ways, no in others, and it probably comes down to “it depends”. Some films, like Marie Antoinette, are not made to accurately depict every aspect of their protagonist, whereas some clearly want to create the definitive version of this person. And what are we being “accurate” about…a period costume being wrong is very different to interpreting the motivations of a leader going to war. Often a lot more leeway is granted to a figure from 1000 years ago to someone who died in the 20th Century. Its hard to imagine a biopic being made now of someone like Winston Churchill, who has equally vocal supporters and critics, who is not accused of betraying history no matter what. Ultimately if we want to watch historical figures in film then we shall have to accept they will never be completely accurate.

Also Read: Will We Ever See These Celebrity Biopics?

Also Read: Straying From The Truth: The Historical Facts Disney’s ‘Pocahontas’ Overshadowed

The post Ethics of Biopics: Balancing Historical Accuracy and Creative License in Movies appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Colin Farrell played Alexander the Great, Daniel Day-Lewis Abraham Lincoln, Cate Blanchett Queen Elizabeth I and in some ways making these films is like adapting a popular book or graphic novel, the filmmaker borrows on the existing interest and glamour. Much like with Shakespeare, the three above-mentioned biopics are simply one-word names – there is no need to elicit further interest with a catchy title. After all, if a filmmaker wants a story that has war, love, disaster etc, they can simply make one up…but then it isn’t Napoleon, and even a film that is historically inaccurate (no judgment on Napoleon) would have that name.

An interesting aspect of Napoleon is that it stars Joaquin Phoenix as Napoleon, and over twenty years ago Phoenix was the villain in Gladiator, the emperor Commodus. Spoiler for those who haven’t seen the Napoleon trailer or know Napoleonic history but Napoleon eventually declares himself emperor. Commodus and Napoleon are very different people. The latter was by all accounts a genius – for years seemingly unbeatable, victory followed by victory – and these were impossible victories. Napoleon wrote new law codes that lasted long after his death and redrew the map of Europe.

Commodus was not a genius and is often ranked as one of the worst emperors in Roman history and quite possibly insane. If anything Gladiator underplays just how unhinged Commodus was; as he would sometimes wander around Rome with a giant club pretending to be Hercules and hitting people. The only son of Marcus Aurelius who survived to adulthood (considered one of the best Roman emperors) he was born into unbelievable wealth and privilege. The Napoleon trailer says that Napoleon came from nothing, which is not quite true, being a very minor Corsican aristocrat, but certainly, his success was very much due to his work and talent. For all of his genius, Napoleon was someone who installed themselves as a dictator and then emperor waged endless war across Europe and relentlessly pillaged those he conquered of wealth and art.

Phoenix was fantastic as Commodus, the petulant, cruel, hurt, unloved, who wanted the love of the people. For all of his power he felt unable to act against the public mood, he clung to his sister as one of the few people he cared for and seemed to want her to be more than just his sister. The madness of Commodus taking on Russell Crowe’s Maximus in the arena makes sense when viewed through this lens, he could have killed him a thousand different ways but his desire was to defeat Maximus and gain the adoration of the people that had fallen on Maximus. Historically and narratively we know things will not end well for Commodus (in reality not killed in the arena but assassinated). Phoenix is receiving positive reviews for his performance as Napoleon, again playing someone we know will ultimately lose – again history spoiler – not because of insanity or incompetence but maybe their hubris.

Whatever the success of Napoleon there is a never-ending demand for these sorts of films and there will be more of these huge historical epics.

Also Read: War Films: Horror and Glory

The post Napoleon & Films About Prominent Historical Figures appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.