When I first started taking classes to become a
screenwriter, several people warned me against doing scripts that were set in
the past. Apparently they felt there is a very small market for historical
dramas. But looking at all the films there are depicting historical events,
that advice seems counter intuitive. It seems most people only get any sort of
knowledge about the past from movies. Now of course when I say “most people,” I mean “me.” I was
always a decent student in school but history was never a subject that I found
all that interesting. And so it was the realm of films that I was left to learn
about the past. Thankfully I am a smart enough cookie to filter most of the
truth from the bullshit, but most people aren’t as smart as me.
As hard as it is for people to believe, the movie 300 is
based on a true story. Actually it’s based on a comic book that was based on a
true story. That seems to be the problem with most adaptations of historical
events into films. We are seeing them through several filters. So many of the
facts are colored by the visions of the author and filmmakers. As such, most
people probably think the ancient Spartans fought in capes and loincloths. I
doubt they would have the reputation of such legendary warriors if they never
mastered something as simple as armor. But since Frank Miller, the artist of
the
300 comic, was inspired by the
statue of Leonidas at Thermopylae (the
location of the actual battle) and that statue is nude, he drew the characters
as such. It’s an artistic choice, which is to be respected but not trusted.
Mel Gibson did not single handedly win the Revolutionary
War. Hitler was not assassinated in a movie theatre. Dinosaur and Man NEVER
shared the earth at the same time (also the continental drift of Pangaea
happened over centuries, not instantaneously like Ice Age would have you
believe). The problem is that drama and history are sometimes at odds with each
other. Trying to tell an interesting story must be economical, meaning many of
the finer details of history are edited out for time.
The worst thing than editing history for dramatic license is
when people write supposedly historical dramas in order to put forth their own
agenda. This seems to be the popular craze among political pundits and
religious hucksters. As much as conservatives love screaming “Liberal
Hollywood,” it always seems to be them showing huge amounts of bias when
putting forth their version of historical events. A film I remember in
particular is an American Carol which is a comedic (at least it was listed as
such, though it wasn’t very funny) was nothing more than a non-stop bashing of
every Liberal/Democratic belief there is, with no subtlety about it. And their
documentaries are straight up propaganda, so I find the term “Liberal Bias”
almost hilarious sometimes.
A lot of problems also with telling a historical story is
that films require a hero. The story needs someone for the audience to root
for, and while a protagonist can be flawed, and the flaws can be what make them
interesting, sometimes the rougher edges of what is in a person’s past need to
be sanded off. Many movies have been made about America’s race to space, but
little has been mentioned of the former Nazi scientists who helped us get
there. The Revolutionary War was fought for freedom, but we rarely see the
slaves still working in the fields. There is a need by filmmakers to polish
their subject matters before putting them to film.
The truth is, your average film is usually ninety minutes
long. Longer in some cases, but usually between ninety minutes and at most
three hours. That’s not a lot of time to get a lot of information across.
Anything that is not essential to the story is going to get lost in the
shuffle. In all honesty, a film should
never be judged against history. History spans centuries with a cast of millions.
Hollywood just can’t compete. All Hollywood can do is entertain. So if you want
to be entertained, see a movie. If you want to learn history, read a book. Just
not the book based on the movie.
When I first started taking classes to become a
screenwriter, several people warned me against doing scripts that were set in
the past. Apparently they felt there is a very small market for historical
dramas. But looking at all the films there are depicting historical events,
that advice seems counter intuitive. It seems most people only get any sort of
knowledge about the past from movies. Now of course when I say “most people,” I mean “me.” I was
always a decent student in school but history was never a subject that I found
all that interesting. And so it was the realm of films that I was left to learn
about the past. Thankfully I am a smart enough cookie to filter most of the
truth from the bullshit, but most people aren’t as smart as me.
As hard as it is for people to believe, the movie 300 is
based on a true story. Actually it’s based on a comic book that was based on a
true story. That seems to be the problem with most adaptations of historical
events into films. We are seeing them through several filters. So many of the
facts are colored by the visions of the author and filmmakers. As such, most
people probably think the ancient Spartans fought in capes and loincloths. I
doubt they would have the reputation of such legendary warriors if they never
mastered something as simple as armor. But since Frank Miller, the artist of
the 300 comic, was inspired by the
statue of Leonidas at Thermopylae (the
location of the actual battle) and that statue is nude, he drew the characters
as such. It’s an artistic choice, which is to be respected but not trusted.
Mel Gibson did not single handedly win the Revolutionary
War. Hitler was not assassinated in a movie theatre. Dinosaur and Man NEVER
shared the earth at the same time (also the continental drift of Pangaea
happened over centuries, not instantaneously like Ice Age would have you
believe). The problem is that drama and history are sometimes at odds with each
other. Trying to tell an interesting story must be economical, meaning many of
the finer details of history are edited out for time. 
The worst thing than editing history for dramatic license is
when people write supposedly historical dramas in order to put forth their own
agenda. This seems to be the popular craze among political pundits and
religious hucksters. As much as conservatives love screaming “Liberal
Hollywood,” it always seems to be them showing huge amounts of bias when
putting forth their version of historical events. A film I remember in
particular is an American Carol which is a comedic (at least it was listed as
such, though it wasn’t very funny) was nothing more than a non-stop bashing of
every Liberal/Democratic belief there is, with no subtlety about it. And their
documentaries are straight up propaganda, so I find the term “Liberal Bias”
almost hilarious sometimes.
A lot of problems also with telling a historical story is
that films require a hero. The story needs someone for the audience to root
for, and while a protagonist can be flawed, and the flaws can be what make them
interesting, sometimes the rougher edges of what is in a person’s past need to
be sanded off. Many movies have been made about America’s race to space, but
little has been mentioned of the former Nazi scientists who helped us get
there. The Revolutionary War was fought for freedom, but we rarely see the
slaves still working in the fields. There is a need by filmmakers to polish
their subject matters before putting them to film.
The truth is, your average film is usually ninety minutes
long. Longer in some cases, but usually between ninety minutes and at most
three hours. That’s not a lot of time to get a lot of information across.
Anything that is not essential to the story is going to get lost in the
shuffle. In all honesty, a film should
never be judged against history. History spans centuries with a cast of millions.
Hollywood just can’t compete. All Hollywood can do is entertain. So if you want
to be entertained, see a movie. If you want to learn history, read a book. Just
not the book based on the movie.
No comments:
Post a Comment