Reply to Topic
What role should historical films play?
Two films come to mind, both Mel Gibson films interesting enough, The Patriot, Braveheart, where history is played with fast and loose, and in this world of less reading and more watching, I thought it would be interesting to debate how historical films can leave us with an impression that isn't accurate. More importantly, does it matter?
In the film, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, a wonderful John Ford film starring John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart, a famous line emerged:
No, sir. This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
I just viewed the entire series, John Adams, and I was rather impressed.
Then I did a bit of research. Now I'm a bit angry.
I've wanted to see this for quite some time, because I've often wondered why there aren't more films/TV miniseries about the Revolutionary War. Seems there are more westerns and Civil War films out there. Is not the Revolution interesting?
As mainstream popular films go, we are left with The Patriot starring Mel Gibson. And, truth be told, I like that film. But it suffers from what mainstream historical films (and Gibson films, for that matter) often suffer from: historical inaccuracy. They also suffer from revisionism: a modern slant or politically correct point of view. After all, we wouldn't want to know that much about Jefferson's personal life, would we?
There is no doubt that making a film such as this requires some dramatic license -- historical letters become dialogue, series of events are compressed, some events are in a different order so as to create a dramatic arc and tension. That's all understandable.
But what happens when these changes seem silly? What happens when they compromise the entire experience because they are so inaccurate? What then? And what happens when you realize that the truth would have been even more dramatic? Some were small details but details matter in a story such as this, don't they? John Adams was central to the events. This miniseries stretched quite a few things and changed things for the sake of making Adams even more important. The truth was already there, why compromise with it?
Source for some of the inaccuracies: http://hnn.us/articles/56155.html
In here, we find the following:
1. Adams didn't actually "abandon" his children when he went to Europe. They went along. Adam's son, Charles, dies of alcoholism and is shown as a petulant child blaming his problems on Adams' absence. This can only be done for dramatic purpose to somehow explain the tragedy of Charles' life. Why? Isn't it simply enough to show Charles had problems?
2. Adams' daughter dies of cancer. In the series, it begins 7 years earlier with a doctor that was already dead. Why in the world would you change such a thing?
3. In one instance, Adams is the deciding vote in the Congress for the Jay Treaty. This vote was 20-10 in favor with no deciding vote by Adams. Now, why on earth would this have been changed?
4. And the most egregious of all: around 1775 at the time of the Boston Tea Party, we're shown an angry mob, seemingly fully supported by Adam's cousin, Samuel, where a British tax officer (I think) is tarred and feathered. It's a disturbing scene and John is outraged. According to the link provided above, this couldn't have happened. And in fact, this part of the series has some real problems as it seems to indicate John wasn't in favor of independence and had to be convinced otherwise. It seems that John always was in favor. This scene was simply fiction.
There are others listed, some of them not mattering a great deal to me. But some seem flat-out silly.
Before I go on, though, I would like to talk about the film's strengths: Stephen Dillane, as Jefferson, steals the movie for me (I'm about to seek out other roles he played, I liked him that much). He captured Jefferson's grace; his quiet manner during the arguments in the Continental Congress make him a compelling and thoughtful figure, and his relationship with Adams the second most interesting relationship in the film (as it should be, I would surmise.) Linney gives Abigal her intelligence and grounded manner. She was one of the most erudite women of her time: full of knowledge and advice for his husband. Their relationship is captured beautifully and is probably the most truthful aspect of the film.
Adam's meeting with King George III (Tom Hollander) was the moment that stuck out of the most. And it also seems accurate, based on Adam's own recollection of the event. I thought Hollander did so much with the moment he had. Bravo.
And everyone loves the way Adams and Jefferson each passed on the very same day: 50 years to the day the Declaration was signed. There is no other greater coincidence in history. That, too, was a special moment and captured accurately according to history.
Now, back to the central issue: in a final scene, the famous portrait of the signing of the Declaration of Independence is shown to an elderly Adams (with his son, John Quincy, now President). Adams is grumpy about the whole thing, going on and on about how the picture is inaccurate, since the signers were coming and going that summer and not every one of them could have been in the room at the same time for such an event.
It struck me that Adams was missing the whole point: the portrait was capturing the legend of the signing. Many years later, wasn't that what was important? What kind of portrait would it have been to have just a few men standing there signing it? The truth does nothing for the event.
Isn't is better to print the legend? How can Adams not understand that?
So is it alright to have a William Wallace have an affair with a Queen that was merely a child and couldn't have engaged in such a thing in Braveheart? Even worse, Wallace was a born noble, not the poor boy he seemed to be? Does it matter that Salieri and Mozart were not the enemies they were portrayed in Amadeus? What about the fact that the character Gibson played in The Patriot wasn't exactly a hero much of the time: he was reported to have raped his slaves and slaughtered Cherokee Indians. Hmmm, not exactly a patriotic hero, eh?
In each of these, it's clear that history can serve as a backdrop for a good old fashioned story with lots of romance, conflict, and intrigue.
But when you present a film such as John Adams to the public, is there a danger that certain distortions will remain? And do they matter? Does it matter that we are told that Benjamin Franklin was having an affair with a French woman while married, when, in fact, his wife had been dead for years?
Such a silly detail. Not worth mentioning or caring about, right?
Two films come to mind, both Mel Gibson films interesting enough, The Patriot, Braveheart, where history is played with fast and loose, and in this world of less reading and more watching, I thought it would be interesting to debate how historical films can leave us with an impression that isn't accurate. More importantly, does it matter?
In the film, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, a wonderful John Ford film starring John Wayne and Jimmy Stewart, a famous line emerged:
No, sir. This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
I just viewed the entire series, John Adams, and I was rather impressed.
Then I did a bit of research. Now I'm a bit angry.
I've wanted to see this for quite some time, because I've often wondered why there aren't more films/TV miniseries about the Revolutionary War. Seems there are more westerns and Civil War films out there. Is not the Revolution interesting?
As mainstream popular films go, we are left with The Patriot starring Mel Gibson. And, truth be told, I like that film. But it suffers from what mainstream historical films (and Gibson films, for that matter) often suffer from: historical inaccuracy. They also suffer from revisionism: a modern slant or politically correct point of view. After all, we wouldn't want to know that much about Jefferson's personal life, would we?
There is no doubt that making a film such as this requires some dramatic license -- historical letters become dialogue, series of events are compressed, some events are in a different order so as to create a dramatic arc and tension. That's all understandable.
But what happens when these changes seem silly? What happens when they compromise the entire experience because they are so inaccurate? What then? And what happens when you realize that the truth would have been even more dramatic? Some were small details but details matter in a story such as this, don't they? John Adams was central to the events. This miniseries stretched quite a few things and changed things for the sake of making Adams even more important. The truth was already there, why compromise with it?
Source for some of the inaccuracies: http://hnn.us/articles/56155.html
In here, we find the following:
1. Adams didn't actually "abandon" his children when he went to Europe. They went along. Adam's son, Charles, dies of alcoholism and is shown as a petulant child blaming his problems on Adams' absence. This can only be done for dramatic purpose to somehow explain the tragedy of Charles' life. Why? Isn't it simply enough to show Charles had problems?
2. Adams' daughter dies of cancer. In the series, it begins 7 years earlier with a doctor that was already dead. Why in the world would you change such a thing?
3. In one instance, Adams is the deciding vote in the Congress for the Jay Treaty. This vote was 20-10 in favor with no deciding vote by Adams. Now, why on earth would this have been changed?
4. And the most egregious of all: around 1775 at the time of the Boston Tea Party, we're shown an angry mob, seemingly fully supported by Adam's cousin, Samuel, where a British tax officer (I think) is tarred and feathered. It's a disturbing scene and John is outraged. According to the link provided above, this couldn't have happened. And in fact, this part of the series has some real problems as it seems to indicate John wasn't in favor of independence and had to be convinced otherwise. It seems that John always was in favor. This scene was simply fiction.
There are others listed, some of them not mattering a great deal to me. But some seem flat-out silly.
Before I go on, though, I would like to talk about the film's strengths: Stephen Dillane, as Jefferson, steals the movie for me (I'm about to seek out other roles he played, I liked him that much). He captured Jefferson's grace; his quiet manner during the arguments in the Continental Congress make him a compelling and thoughtful figure, and his relationship with Adams the second most interesting relationship in the film (as it should be, I would surmise.) Linney gives Abigal her intelligence and grounded manner. She was one of the most erudite women of her time: full of knowledge and advice for his husband. Their relationship is captured beautifully and is probably the most truthful aspect of the film.
Adam's meeting with King George III (Tom Hollander) was the moment that stuck out of the most. And it also seems accurate, based on Adam's own recollection of the event. I thought Hollander did so much with the moment he had. Bravo.
And everyone loves the way Adams and Jefferson each passed on the very same day: 50 years to the day the Declaration was signed. There is no other greater coincidence in history. That, too, was a special moment and captured accurately according to history.
Now, back to the central issue: in a final scene, the famous portrait of the signing of the Declaration of Independence is shown to an elderly Adams (with his son, John Quincy, now President). Adams is grumpy about the whole thing, going on and on about how the picture is inaccurate, since the signers were coming and going that summer and not every one of them could have been in the room at the same time for such an event.
It struck me that Adams was missing the whole point: the portrait was capturing the legend of the signing. Many years later, wasn't that what was important? What kind of portrait would it have been to have just a few men standing there signing it? The truth does nothing for the event.
Isn't is better to print the legend? How can Adams not understand that?
So is it alright to have a William Wallace have an affair with a Queen that was merely a child and couldn't have engaged in such a thing in Braveheart? Even worse, Wallace was a born noble, not the poor boy he seemed to be? Does it matter that Salieri and Mozart were not the enemies they were portrayed in Amadeus? What about the fact that the character Gibson played in The Patriot wasn't exactly a hero much of the time: he was reported to have raped his slaves and slaughtered Cherokee Indians. Hmmm, not exactly a patriotic hero, eh?
In each of these, it's clear that history can serve as a backdrop for a good old fashioned story with lots of romance, conflict, and intrigue.
But when you present a film such as John Adams to the public, is there a danger that certain distortions will remain? And do they matter? Does it matter that we are told that Benjamin Franklin was having an affair with a French woman while married, when, in fact, his wife had been dead for years?
Such a silly detail. Not worth mentioning or caring about, right?
Last edited by tramp; 08-16-09 at 01:11 PM.
