More About History and Film
Copyright © Henry J. Sage, 2005

In his “History by Hollywood: The Use and Abuse of the American Past,” historian Robert Brent Toplin, who has participated in the making of historical films, points out the following: “Years ago a Hollywood mogul observed that those who wish to send messages should consult Western Union.” That message has also been applied to novelists and others involved in enterprises which are primarily about entertainment.

What we need to remember as we evaluate historical films is that the filmmakers have a daunting task when making films that deal with history. On the one hand, in order for the film to be successful—that is to recoup the enormous costs of making films, especially a films with dramatic special effects, such as “Saving Private Ryan” or “Pearl Harbor,” and perhaps to make a little profit—historians need to make films that entertain, that will succeed at least modestly at the box office. The film industry is not in business to lose money, as is also true with television networks, book publishers, or even the newspaper business.

On the other hand, Hollywood, at least in recent years, has attempted to make films that are historically sound. As I mentioned in a previous essay, the cable networks HBO and Showtime have been especially good at doing that. The problem, however, is that making historically valid films and making films that are entertaining can often be in conflict, and it's important that we understand why.

Here is a recent example to illustrate. The film “The Alamo,” the new one with Billy Bob Thornton, Dennis Quaid, Jason Patric, and others, garnered some unfavorable reviews; critics said it was boring, that there wasn't enough action, and that there was too much talk. The problem with that is that while the Alamo battle itself was truly dramatic, even inspiring, a saga about 184 brave men who held off an army of close to 2000 for over a week, the real drama was in the politics behind the scenes. Who was in charge in Texas? What were the policies supposed to be? What were the roles of the Texas revolutionaries, including men like Sam Houston, Stephen Austin, Ben Milam, Mirabeau Lamar, and others? Why was Santa Anna bent on destruction of the revolutionaries in ways that seemed to violate the accepted principles of war?

All those questions are interesting, and they were depicted well in the film. The problem is that the back-scene politics did not often make for exciting action, and when some people go to see a film called “The Alamo,” they may expect to see mostly blood and guts and gore, with a minimal amount of commentary on the side. That's not the way history works.

Sometimes in order to make historical films more interesting to the viewer, that is to say more entertaining, certain liberties have to be taken with historical facts of. Sometimes that's unfortunate; sometimes it's acceptable—it really depends upon what the filmmaker is trying to do.

A couple of examples. First, filmmakers will often create composite characters because including a cast of many minor players with brief if significant roles can be confusing to the audience. Sometimes it's better to incorporate the characteristics or even actions of several characters into one. For example, a film dealing with the President of the United States would necessarily include many support players—a president has a dozen close advisers on his staff, members of the cabinet, colleagues and friends in Congress, and so on. To include them all would be a director’s nightmare. It’s more efficient and probably even better film making to condense some of those players into a single person.

For example Kenny O'Donnell, played by Kevin Costner in the movie “Thirteen Days” about the Cuban missile crisis, is mentioned only twice and very briefly in Robert Kennedy's book “Thirteen Days,” which was the basis for the film. Yet Costner plays a central role in the film; that is to say, Kenny O'Donnell does. Part of that is the star issue—Kevin Costner himself. But the fact is that much of what Kenny O'Donnell is up to in the film probably really happened as depicted. He was an important behind-the-scenes figure, and although he may not have been directly involved in many decisions regarding the Cuban missile crisis, he was always there providing support to the president, offering advice and putting out little political fires when they arose. He is also used to convey the personal drama experienced by the players, an essential part of the story that doesn’t make the newspapers. So his role in the film is very different from his role in the book, but no violence has been done to history.

Another example which Brent Toplin reports in his book deals with James McPherson's analysis of “Glory.” McPherson points out that in the film many of the African-American soldiers who compose the 54th Massachusetts Regiment were former slaves. In fact most of the 54th Massachusetts which actually fought in the Civil War was composed of free blacks from the North, and relatively few former slaves. And yet, as McPherson points out, of the almost 200,000 African-Americans who fought in the Civil War, most of them were former or runaway slaves. And since the film “Glory” stands as a monument to all blacks who fought in the Civil War, the portrayal of many members of that regiment as former slaves does no real violence to history, and in fact enhances it. Thus it is a detail that is wrong, but in the larger sense there's nothing wrong at all.

In other words, filmmakers can be free to adjust details in a film as long as they don't violate essential historic truth. Much of important history is complex, confusing, inconsistent in itself and frequently quite boring. If filmmakers tried to reproduce history exactly, no one would come to watch. Our job in this course is to sort out what filmmakers have done that enhances the experience of the audience, without distorting history, from the treatment of events which truly does violate the record of the past. That's the real challenge for us as historians and film critics, and it is what this course is all about.

History 121 Projects | History 121 Home | History 122 Projects | History 122 Home

Updated May 22, 2005