The Forsaken History of Film: Hollywood’s Love of Revisionism

          

When I go the movies, I hope to be entertained, which I think is true for everyone.  As a massive film buff, I have a tendency to want to consume without taking the time to reflect.  This flaw sometimes allows me to miss out on many details within a movie, particularly those based on historical record.  History has always fascinated me and so whenever a movie based on some riveting and honest to God impossible story approaches, I am more than ready to embark upon it.

Now there in lies a predicament.  Film is a work of art, and so what rules does art need to adhere to (if any) when making a film based on historical record?  That is a great question and unfortunately it’s difficult to provide a clear-cut answer or definition.  There have been many films that have altered, omitted and/or revised history for dramatic purposes.  But where does one cross the line when simply following the for “dramatic purposes” excuse?

In 2012, there were a number of films based on historical events.  The prominent ones were Zero Dark Thirty, Argo and Lincoln, which were all nominated for Best Picture Academy Awards.   I saw them all at the cinema and enjoyed them thoroughly.  Now typically, a historical film is Oscar bait, so there’s no surprise there.  However, these films were quite notable in how they dealt with the so-called facts of the events they depicted.  In the case of Argo and Zero Dark Thirty, they seemed to convey an agenda, one of a partisan and political nature.   Argo, which won Best Picture, was about the Iran Hostage Crisis in 1979 and how the CIA led to the rescue of six diplomats.   The film is quite overbearing and complimentary in its praise of the CIA and America’s role in the crisis, yet it dilutes the Canadian government’s role in the proceedings.  Even Jimmy Carter in a CNN interview went on record saying, “90% of the contributions to the ideas and consummation of the plan was Canadian.  And the movie gives almost full credit to the American CIA.”  Who would’ve known that Canada would come to the rescue? 

Zero Dark Thirty was released in December 2012 and was based on events that took place only 20 months prior, the raid and assassination of Osama Bin Laden’s compound.  This film was shrouded in controversy even before it was released, as politicians thought it would be released prior to the 2012 election to help Obama be reelected.   A lot of the controversy stems from the government’s aid in helping the filmmakers and from its depiction of torture.  The film documents many instances of waterboarding, which I don’t have a problem with as after all that was something the U.S. government took part in, repulsive and illegal as it was.  The problem arises because the film implied that torture was a means in apprehending Bin Laden.  In the movie, one particular suspect, Ammar al-Baluchi is tortured and then given food.  Throughout the film, he is threatened with more torture and then immediately gives names of terrorist suspects.  You could argue the movie links Bin Laden to torture and is reinforcing the notion that torture works, when plenty of studies and evidence show the contrary, yet the film never presents this viewpoint.  What’s quite maddening is that the film even opens with a caption saying that it is “based on first-hand accounts.”  This is certainly misleading to say the least and a trend we have seen around for ages.

Lincoln was arguably the least big offender when it came to historical record fabrications. Certainly, the film recreated the time period impeccably, but it seems to oversimplify the role that African Americans had in abolition.  The film, as do many films that try to convey the black experience seems to fall prey to the infamous white savior complex (see The Blind Side, The Help, Amistad, among others for reference).  While the film opens with African Americans speaking to the President explaining their experiences in combat, that’s pretty much all we hear of that perspective for the remainder of the film. According to Hollywood, African Americans had little or nothing to do with their own liberation, and thanks to white people, they were able to become free and achieve equality.  This has been an ever-growing problem for these types of movies and it leads to a very popular and misguided belief.

So, what is the point to all of this?  Why does it matter?  After all, no one expects a history lesson from a movie.  Well, while there’s some truth to that, there’s also truth that films are incredibly influential and omnipresent in our society.  Films have a greater power than people may realize and more than enough are used in history classrooms.  While it may not be these films, plenty of other films that have fabricated history, i.e. Saving Private Ryan, Amistad, Lincoln, and Glory, among others have been shown in class and how do I know this?  Well, because I was in those classes and I have talked to friends who have seen those grossly inaccurate historical films in their classes.  Obviously, a film is a film and there are certain cinematic flourishes a filmmaker must engage in to make a movie.  But if you’re going to make a film based on history, shouldn’t you adhere to some set of standards?  If you’re going to engage in such historical revisionism, why even bother depicting the event to begin with?  Art for the sake of art is not a good enough excuse.  I think history is important and obviously a number of such films make that case, but they lose a great deal of respectability, authenticity and integrity when choosing to ignore substantial details simply to accommodate dramatic purposes.  Now here’s a trend that needs some serious rethinking and revising, if you don’t mind me saying so.