MoviesAs I write this, Ridley Scott’s latest film Napoleon has beenslated in some quarters for its fabrications (apparently, Napoleonnever actually fired cannons at the Pyramids during the Frenchinvasion of Egypt).Yet when was history ever a completelyobjective science? And should it be?By Ben McCannWhenever a historical film or biopic is released, there is anenormous amount of discussion from academics, historiansand film critics about truthfulness, fidelity, and objectivity.From Braveheart (1995) to Pearl Harbor (2001) to Netflix’sThe Crown and SBS’s Versailles, films and television series havelong been regarded as unreliable documents to history.The creative joints between history and film have long been atopic of interest to filmmakers, historians, audiences and historicalconsultants. There is the ‘film as history’ concept that proposesthat film offers a window on the past (through, say, the Lumièrebrothers’ extensive recording of everyday French life in the1890s) that can be read alongside written historical accounts.Steven Spielberg’s Amistad (1997) and Saving Private Ryan(1999) were lambasted by some historians for their triterhetorical flourishes and sledgehammer sentimentality, as well astheir overall untruthfulness and ‘creative reimagining’ of the past.“Based onaagined?r imHistory on film: real o38
It seems that your browser's pop-up blocker has prevented us from opening a new window/tab. Please click the button below to open the link manually.
