Depictions of Historical Events in the Media
By George Leggett, 1st Year Ancient History
It is truly a rare event to find a fictional movie, novel or TV show which accurately depicts historical events, even if an attempt at this is made. The idea of ‘artistic licence’ often comes up in response to criticisms of inaccurate depictions of history in the media. In the context of historical media, ‘artistic license’ refers to that when creating fictional pieces of media that involve historical events, directors and playwrights often bend the truth in order to create something more artistically entertaining for their audiences.
To bring this concept up is a valid argument. After all, if it is historical fiction, should we really be focusing so much on the facts? Why is it that nitpicking historians like yours truly should ruin beloved pieces of media just for the sake of accuracy? Well, as you’ll hear often if you study history, one of the key reasons why we study historical sources is to get a clearer picture of the past.
So, if we simply engage in consuming historical fiction or media which portrays real historical events or people in a different light to what was actually true, then we are blinding ourselves to the full picture of what really happened. Fact checking and background research does not necessarily need to ruin pieces of media which depict historical events, but to ignore the facts and embrace a simpler, more appealing and glamorous version of history is to be willfully closing our eyes simply because it’s easiest to.
Last year, I wrote an article series that examined and fact checked all the inaccuracies I could find in the lyrics of the 2015 Broadway musical Hamilton. It’s widely accepted that Hamilton, simply in terms of artistic quality, is indisputably exceptional. However, it is still true that Hamilton looks at its titular character with rose-tinted glasses, especially in labelling him a firm abolitionist, when he himself is recorded to have purchased slaves for his father-in-law, though he did seem to (fairly passively) oppose slavery in general.
It also almost certainly overstates the complexity of the pseudo-romance between Alexander Hamilton and Angelica Schuyler, as well as the nature of the relationship between Hamilton and Aaron Burr prior to their political rivalry and their infamous duel in 1804. Whilst the most problematic aspect of the inaccuracy of Hamilton is the virtual whitewashing of the characters’ (and not just Hamilton himself) racial intolerance, generally the musical is intended to be an entertaining form of art, thus the romanticism of history within it is, whilst perhaps disappointing, somewhat inevitable.
The argument I would put forward is that pieces of media such as Hamilton which don’t completely rewrite history can be considered great, but genuine discussion over their flaws is necessary. Whilst in an ideal world we would have TV shows, movies and plays being supremely entertaining but still historically accurate, this is virtually impossible in practice. So as a viewer, try and make yourself as conscious of Hamilton’s flaws whilst still enjoying the ride is the best you can do. However, whilst Hamilton might hide from the face of historical fact, the term ‘rewriting history’ could be more accurately applied to another musical, namely The Greatest Showman.
Whilst Alexander Hamilton might have been a more grey historical figure than Hamilton leads you to believe, P.T. Barnum, the protagonist in The Greatest Showman, was indisputably a despicable person, whom the musical portrays as a loveable family man and entrepreneur. I could list all of Barnum’s despicable acts that weren’t included in the child-friendly musical, most notably his mistreatment of his slaves and the true grotesqueness of some of his “attractions” , such as one which involved “renting”, (and after her death, holding a public autopsy for) a Black woman who he claimed was the 161 year old former nurse of George Washington.
The main takeaway is that again the movie falsely depicts a real life person in a glamorous and attractive light for the sake of entertainment. And entertainment is important, but at the price of glorifying a historical figure whose actions should warrant nothing but revulsion, it’s almost certainly crossing a line. Generally historians find it acceptable to debate the status the real-life Hamilton deserves as a historical figure, whether they find him to be a hero or a scoundrel, but you’d be hard pressed to find a historian who’d defend the actions of P.T. Barnum.
Arguably, the failure of musicals to be historically accurate is inevitable, as by their very definition as a genre, musicals are intended to be whimsical, engaging and (shockingly, I know) perhaps a little silly. For non-musical examples, however, you’d come to a similar conclusion, that romance and entertainment are preferred to blunt, truthful facts.
Notable examples come in movies such as the 2004 movie Troy, which-as an Ancient History student, I won’t lie, this offends me a fair bit- depicts the famously 10 year Trojan War in the span of a few weeks, because naturally it’s more exciting if all the drama is happening at a breakneck pace. Another example would be Elizabeth: The Golden Age, portraying Elizabeth I giving a rousing speech to the English soldiers on the battlefield whilst on her horse, because obviously this paints Elizabeth as an inspirational monarch for entertainment value, even if she definitely didn’t do this in real life.
This is the reality of any piece of media that discusses historical events. Undoubtedly, some creators have gone in with the intention of making a mostly accurate, entertaining piece of work. Despite this, it is ultimately the grabbing the adoration of the audience that will always be what is prioritised over accuracy, unless it is a work of nonfiction. We don’t have to inherently dislike these works of media for doing this, but we must attempt to scrutinise the difference between what fictional media says is true, versus what is actually true.