More thoughts on "historical" films

[chickenfeet]

The recent discussion about Kingdom of Heaven got me thinking more about what does and does not make for a satisfying "historical film" by which I think I mean one that is satisfying as a film while not providing fodder for history_spork.

First, it seems to me, too much budget tends to be deadly. Too much budget creates a need for a return on a vast investment. This in turn leads to patronising the audience, casting overpaid stars who can't act, spurious romance and even altering historical events to broaden the audience appeal. It also, of course leads to gratuitous overuse of CGI.

Kingdom of Heaven pretty much manages to incorporate all of these sins. Another example I might cite would be A Bridge Too Far which is pretty good overall but transfers key bits of the action from the British to the Americans, presumably for box office reasons. I often feel that one of the reasons The Duellists is so successful is that it is modest in scope and extraneous elements are avoided. If the director had had unlimited budget the temptation to include a set piece Napoleonic battle would probably have been quite strong. I wonder too whether the extremely unromantic treatment of sex and marriage would have survived.

A second observation would be that the best "historical" films tend to be grounded in a solid story. The Name of the Rose, The Duellists, Master and Commander were all solid novels or short stories before they were films. For whatever reason, directors and screen writers seem to take fewer liberties with fiction than fact!

And, finally, beware of directors on a mission. There are few surer ways of screwing up history than letting some overpaid denizen of the Hollywood fishbowl 'educate' the great unwashed (ie us) about historical events and their current relevancy. Yes, Mel Gibson, I'm talking to you.

I guess when one gets right down to it, it boils down to a solid story, respect for the past and respect for the audience.

Comments

[psychochicken.livejournal.com]

I think there's a big difference between making a movie and making a documentary. The real danger is when someone makes one and passes it off as the other. The worst culprit for that to my mind is Braveheart, however even that made a lot of Scots go learn their own history so it wasn't all bad.

Kingdom of Heaven I know we disagree on. I can see why some wouldn't like it and I can see where history buffs might find fault, but I thought it was a really good movie, especially the extended cut - but I certainly didn't leave the theatre thinking I knew All About The Crusades. I did leave thinking that it was a fairly balanced view of two sides, neither of which could claim to be The Good Guys and a vague intention that it was an area of history I'd like to know more about. I shall take your word for it that the history's more than a little off - I assume that with historical movies anyway because it's par for the course.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I think that it's easier to enjoy a film if one isn't aware of the liberties the screenplay/director is taking. That means the sporkpoint comes in different places for different people I guess.

[ironed_orchid]

I guess when one gets right down to it, it boils down to a solid story, respect for the past and respect for the audience.

It's hard to go wrong with those aspects.

I think something that helps modern audiences identify/sympathize with key characters, is to set it at an appropriate time for changes in science, politics, and etc. So we can see those who adopt the new ways of thinking as more like us and less like the old guard. So in The Name of the Rose, William is, along with William of Ockham and Roger Bacon, moving away from Scholastic thinking and towards what we can recognize as a scientific method.

And in Master and Commander we have Dr. Maturin reading Darwin and wanting to spend more time in the Galapagos.

I think these sorts of nods towards our ways of thinking and our knowledge of which model would triumph makes us feel sort of complicit with those characters, and enables us stomach some of the historically accurate, but, to us, repugnant actions of other characters.

But I think that this has to be done with care and in keeping with the thinking of the time period in question. Which, from your review/summary, is exactly what Kingdom of Heaven got wrong.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

I don't think Maturin could have been reading Darwin. Fifty years too soon, no?

[ironed_orchid]

Ah, I wasn't 100% sure. That's right, it was more that he might've been Darwin, if he had the chance to stick around longer. I've only seen the movie, not read the books, so my knowledge is much more sketchy in that case.

[albionwood.livejournal.com]

Romance is almost always deadly to a historical. Most of the great history stories are not romances, as the term is used nowadays - boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl. H'wood tries to inject that story line into nearly every movie they make. Some of the worst aspects of KoH arose from the need to have a modern romance plastered onto what was otherwise a compelling story.

The three you mention - Duellists, Rose, Master - all lack that romance angle. I think that is a distinguishing feature that partly accounts for how well they work as historicals. Same for The Advocate, Le Retour du Martin Guerre, and even Henry V (until the absurd business with Katherine de Valois). Dangerous Liaisons turned romance on its head.

Last of the Mohicans actually did have the romance angle but worked pretty well anyway.

[chickenfeet2003.livejournal.com]

Romance is almost always deadly to a historical

Good point! That's one of the things that is really impressive about The Duellists. It treats sex and marriage in a clinically accurate and very unromantic way.