History on Film by Craig MacPhee

History vs Entertainment

The relationship between history and its representation on film has been a long and often complicated one. From the early days of cinema, historical periods, people and events have been portrayed on film as a means of entertainment. One such film being the 1895 short silent film 'The Execution of Mary Stuart' directed by Alfred Clark and produced by Thomas Edison that, as the name suggests, depicts the execution of Mary, Queen of Scots in 1587. Much discussion has been had over the ways in which film has handled its depictions of history, with the main criticism being that the films are never accurate and that the filmmakers have made stuff up. It is important however to acknowledge the ways in which film works as a medium and how that differs from a traditional history book. Ultimately film is a form of entertainment created to capture the attention of its audience. Where a history book has hundreds of pages to discuss in depth and complex details surrounding its subject matter, a film has on average two hours to tell its story. Films typically follow what is called the ‘Three Act Structure’, in other words it has a beginning, a middle and an end. The beginning of the film is concerned with setting up the world and establishing our protagonist (normally one person) who has a set of goals. The protagonist is then met with an ‘inciting incident’, an event which kicks off the plot and changes the life of the protagonist in such a way there is no going back, think Uncle Ben’s death in any version of Spider-Man, and how that event changes Peter Parker and ultimately leads to him becoming Spider-Man. We then follow the protagonist as they are faced with a series of events or ‘beats’, often created by an antagonist (again normally one person), which challenges them throughout the film until the climax (such as a final battle) where the protagonist will either succeed or fail at achieving their objectives. When knowing how a film is typically structured, it is quite easy then, to see how and why historical depictions on film have to change, simplify or even completely leave out huge parts of the history they are telling. History does not have a set structure or a clear beginning, middle and end. It is filled with complexities, nuance and contexts that would be impossible to fit into a two-hour piece of art created, primarily to entertain an audience. One of the most infamous films that portray an historical figure and time period would be 'Braveheart' (1995) directed by Mel Gibson. Set predominately during the First War of Scottish Independence (1296–1328), the film follows our protagonist, Scottish freedom fighter William Wallace (Mel Gibson), as he fights against the tyrannical English forces led by King Edward I (Patrick McGoohan) after the murder of his wife (Catherine McCormack). Wallace then goes on to win multiple battles before eventually being captured and executed. So, what aspects of 'Braveheart' are historically accurate? The short answer: not a lot. The wars of independence did happen, William Wallace existed, and Edward I was king. Though many of the battles shown did happen, they are not depicted accurately, most obviously of which being The Battle of Stirling Bridge (1297) which in the film, does not take place on a bridge. One of the more iconic images of the film is Gibson’s Wallace and his fellow Scots all wearing Kilts. This is an invention of the film as no evidence has been found to support that the kilt was worn before the sixteenth century in Scotland. Therefore, the wearing of kilts in this film is around two hundred years too early for the time period it is depicting. Another of the major elements distorted in 'Braveheart' is the role Princess Isabella of France (Sophie Marceau) has in the film. She is shown to fall in love and have a sexual relationship with William Wallace and reveals to King Edward I on his death bed that she is pregnant with the future King Edward III and that it is Wallace who is the father. However, during the time period the film is set, Princess Isabella was not in the country and would not arrive for another three years after Wallace’s execution making any relationship between the two completely impossible. Additionally, the future King Edward III, who the film implies to be the illegitimate son of William Wallace and Princess Isabella was not born until ten years after Wallace’s execution, not to mention that at the time of Wallace’s execution in 1305, Isabella herself would have only been around ten years old. These distortions of historical fact where clearly done purely for the factor of entertainment and to give a win to the hero of the story who, by all accounts, had failed. 'Braveheart' did not have an historical advisor involved during the production of this film and as Andrew Fisher says about 'Braveheart' in his book about William Wallace, ‘For the director and scriptwriter of the film, the concern was not liberty but the taking of liberties.’ This idea of ‘taking liberties’ is a common theme throughout discussions surrounding history on film and it poses the question: Can historical films be accurate? Robert Eggers is an American filmmaker who, through his films 'The Witch' (2015), 'The Lighthouse' (2019), and 'The Northman' (2022), has made a name for himself by showcasing history as accurately as possible in his films. Through extensive research of subject matters and time periods explored in his work, Eggers manages to create a world in his films that feels accurate and authentic. From crafting authentic dialogue and dialects utilised in 'The Witch' and 'The Lighthouse' to having authentic details such as using the same type of wood and nails that would have been used in the Viking age to make the longships in 'The Northman', Eggers has clearly proven that he cares deeply about History even calling it his ‘biggest passion’.

Top Image: Braveheart (1995) Directed by Mel Gibson. 20th Century Fox.

Dangers of History on Film

Filmmakers like Robert Eggers appear to be in the minority when it comes to taking care to weave historical authenticity into his films. Eggers himself acknowledges however, that sometimes things do need to be changed, in order to appeal to a larger audience, as Eggers states, ‘The Witch can’t just appeal to people who are alive in the 1630s, and The Lighthouse can’t just appeal to people who were alive in the 1890s, because there’s not enough graveyard screenings for that to be profitable’. As well as a way to appeal to a wider audience, distorting historical events in film can, on occasions, pose more dangers than simply streamlining events to fit within narrative structure, whether that is intentional or not. One of the most obvious dangers associated with distorting history on film, is when something in an historical film is shown, audience members may then be inclined to take this information as ‘fact’, this can then unfortunately lead to a wide range of people being misinformed about details surrounding historical figures and events. While potentially frustrating for a professional historian, the dangers associated with an audience member seeing an incorrect ‘fact’ on screen and then taking that ‘fact’ at face value, for the most part, are quite small. The main problem this might cause is being misinformed on a small aspect or detail of history. However, this misinformation around historical fact and depictions can lead to more serious outcomes and implications. After the release of 'Braveheart' in 1995, support for the pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP). The, at the time, leader of the SNP Alex Salmond, was quoted as saying at a national convention for the party ‘We should be ashamed, that it has taken Hollywood to give so many Scots back their history’. For a leading politician to use an inaccurate and distorted portrayal of a moment in Scottish history to shame a nation into changing their views on a sensitive issue like Scottish independence is a dangerous concept regardless of personal political views. When discussing the potential dangers associated with portraying history on film, it is impossible not to mention and acknowledge the dangerous impact of 'The Birth of a Nation', a silent feature film directed by D. W. Griffith which was released in 1915. Adapted from Thomas Dixon Jr.’s 1905 novel ‘The Clansman: A Historical Romance of the Ku Klux Klan’, 'The Birth of a Nation' tells the story of two once friendly families, the Stoneman’s and the Cameron’s, who find themselves on opposite sides of the American Civil War (1861 – 1865). While on one hand, the film is celebrated for creating, pioneering and having perfected many film making techniques still used today, this tragically, often overshadows the dangerous impact this film has had. 'The Birth of a Nation' is considered one of, if not the most, racist films of all time, even back when it was first released over one hundred years ago. The film is infamous for having black characters in the film that are played by white actors in black face, who are portrayed with offensive and racist racial stereotypes as well as its sympathetic portrayal of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), casting them as a heroic group and saviours. And framing the lynching of a black character as a celebrated and correct thing to do. By the time of the release of 'The Birth of a Nation', the KKK was effectively non-existent, but in the years following its release and box office success, interest in the Klan had skyrocketed, and by the mid-1920s, their memberships to the Klan reached millions, with the Klan actually using the film as a tool for recruitment. When looking at a film like 'The Birth of a Nation' then, it becomes apparent that film makers have a responsibility when telling these stories and depicting historical periods, events and people. As one of the largest and most popular forms of entertainment, film clearly can have a large impact. As Robert Eggers says, ‘you can’t rewrite history to conform to the zeitgeist, but you do have a responsibility to understand what’s going on today’. As we have seen, in the wrong hands, either through not enough care or through malicious intent historical inaccuracies and distortions in film can pose a greater threat than simply seeing a piece of clothing be from a different century, or a character turning up to an event they weren’t really there for. It can, on occasion, pose a serious threat. It can be used to influence political decisions, push dangerous ideologies, and in extreme cases, bring back to life, racist, far-right extreme hate groups, who then use a film to become a massive organisation whose memberships count in the millions. Despite the potential dangers of telling history through the medium of film and knowing the context behind how film itself works as a medium, primarily as a source of entertainment that follows a narrative structure in order to convey its story within a limited time frame. Depicting history on film does actually offer many benefits. When looking at historical films it is important to keep in mind what Pierre Sorlin, who has written on the subject of history on film, states: ‘Historical films are all fictional’. Unless discussing the documentary, this is true. As Sorlin then goes on to say that ‘most historical films combine actual events and completely fictitious individual episodes’. Even film makers like Robert Eggers who go to great lengths to ensure historical accuracy includes, what could be considered, fictional elements in his work, such as a witch in 'The Witch' and a mermaid in 'The Lighthouse' to showing elements of Norse mythology like the Valkyrie in 'The Northman'.

The Birth of a Nation (1915) Directed by D. W. Griffiths. Epoch Producing Co.

Benefits of History on Film

By depicting these creatures however, it could be argued that based on the context of the periods depicted, their inclusion is actually historically authentic as the people shown in these films, may well have believed in the existence of these creatures. Rather than posing a danger then, having these elements of folklore and myth, and by using characters that, while not real people from the past, fit perfectly into the world of the film. The works of Eggers actually are extremely authentic in showing what it may have been like in these periods for the people who lived in them precisely because of the historical ‘distortions’ in his films. As showcased by this discussion surrounding the works of Robert Eggers, film is in a unique and powerful position compared to a traditional history book, by virtue of what film actually is. A visual and auditory medium. Film allows us to both see and hear the history it is telling, which a history book simply cannot do. By condensing an historical period, person or event into a two-hour time slot, film provides an easily digestible look into the past for an audience. While at first this may seem like a potential issue, these distortions in the retelling can be beneficial in condensing sometimes complex subject matters and allowing a general audience to watch the film, be entertained, and if it connects with them enough, it can inspire them to the point of looking further into the real history behind the film to gain more knowledge and a better understanding of the topic. By using narrative conventions and focusing on emotion and story, film is also able to allow us to connect on an emotional level to history, which is something that, unfortunately, is often missing from history books. As opposed to being told about how someone may have felt about a thing that happened, and being told what something looked and sounded like, through film, we can actually see it, hear it and feel it. It is important to keep in mind that nothing can ever be one hundred percent accurate, and that things can, and more often than not, do get distorted. But it can at least give us an idea, impression or even the feintest of suggestions to what the past might have been like. And if that feint suggestion connects with someone enough on an emotional level to then want to learn about the real history behind the film, then surely that is a positive thing. Through representing history on film, historical people, events, cultures and periods which otherwise may have been forgotten about, are able to be preserved and put into the conscious of an audience who may otherwise have never heard of or known about them. And through telling these histories on film, it can act as a jumping off point for important discussions to be had surrounding the subject matter, people and periods depicted, ensuring that it does not fade into obscurity. When discussing history on film, the discussion mainly revolves around narrative feature films and the ways in which these historical films ‘get it wrong’. However, it is important to note another way to look at historical films. Film as history. Film has been around for a long time, with Thomas Edison’s Kinetoscope and the Lumière Brothers’ Cinématographe both being demonstrated to the public in the 1890s. The Lumière Brothers in particular, are credited with the first paid public screening of films in 1895, showcasing a series of short silent films including 'Workers Leaving the Lumière Factory in Lyon' (1895) directed by Louis Lumière which, like the title suggests, shows workers leaving a factory. To be able to see actual footage from the Victorian era of people leaving work and living their lives, is an incredibly important and valuable tool for the study of the past. Films like those made by the Lumière’s and Thomas Edison among others, allow us to see, in motion, life as it happened over one hundred years ago, showcasing the way in which film, as well as a way to be entertained, can be used as a primary source in the study of the past. Looking at film as history gives an insight into the ways in which filmmaking as an art form has developed, as well as see the topics that interested the people of the time from the types of films being made. As well as subject matter, we are also able to chart changing political and cultural attitudes in various countries by looking at the films themselves, the time periods they was made, as well as contemporary audience reactions to those films. While, undeniably, there are potential dangers when it comes to depicting history on film, the benefits outweigh the dangers. In spite of the sometimes serious impact of showing history on film, especially when that history is distorted, for the most part, the showing of history through the cinematic medium allows an audience to connect with historical people and subject matters in a way that no other medium can. Despite the distortions and inaccuracies, film proves itself to be an accessible way to explore and expose audiences to important stories and topics they may otherwise be blind to. It can also act as a primary source, giving insight into the lives and attitudes of people who lived in the past. Done in a responsible way, film has the potential to be an excellent history telling devices despite, and in some cases because of, the way it distorts history.

About the Author

Craig MacPhee is a film maker currently finishing his final year of undergraduate study at the University of Derby. A massive nerd, Craig enjoys history, film, television, reading fantasy novels and playing video games.