I have thought a lot about this. Probably too much. Historical dramas are my favorite genre of films, television shows, and novels to consume. It often lets me feel like I’m watching something intelligent while also allowing myself to get caught up in the beautiful visuals, a nostalgia for a romanticized past, and swept up in a narrative that’s usually exceptionally dramatic.
As someone that has studied history academically, I often find myself enjoying them more. Whether it’s a detail that I’ve noticed or being able to point out why something is historically inaccurate, I like feeling engaged with the media.
And because those that know me know that I studied history and enjoy watching historical dramas, that means that I get a ton of questions whenever new films or television shows premiere.
So then Netflix released a trailer. Of a historical drama. Set in the Middle Ages.
Yes, I’m talking about The King.
Which meant — of course, I had to watch it. And some people were curious about my thoughts. And I’m a people pleaser, which meant I started the film and began diligently taking notes.
Some (necessary) background on why I or others think I’m qualified to do this —-
I have a Bachelors in History and a Masters in Medieval Studies.
I’m an avid reader and watcher of things. And those things are usually set in the past.
I usually either really, really, really care and have strong opinions, or I’m rather apathetic about things.
It is often through watching historical dramas that I encounter a new interest and then look to academic sources to really learn about the time period.
Through my studies, I’ve engaged a lot with pop culture, ideas on teaching history to the public, look up to and follow various historians of all sorts on social media, and have, at some point, wanted to work on historical dramas in some capacity.
I’m pretty open with those strong opinions either here on my blog or over on Twitter.
Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, back to my thoughts on The King, which may surprise you. Because my thoughts about this specific film reflects my general attitude toward historical dramas, and this attitude started forming during my undergraduate degree.
I was in my last semester at Loyola. I basically had my degree at this point, but I had to take an entry level history course for one of my minors. Therefore, I looked for a class that I thought I could easily pass and selected to take a general history course from the Renaissance to ‘modern’ day with a professor I enjoyed.
This professor’s course included listening to lectures outside of class, writing blog post summaries of the material, asking a question, and then meeting once a week to discuss the class’ questions.
At this point in my undergraduate career, I thought rather highly of myself. The questions I asked were specific and niche enough to show that I paid attention and knew a good deal of general/common knowledge history.
But there was one question that constantly kept coming up and it irritated me.
Without fail, someone would ask if there was a film or documentary that they could watch about some aspect of the lecture?
It baffled me. As someone trained to ask for sources and to search out monographs on topics that interested me, I couldn’t understand why students were constantly wanting to watch a film rather than read about a topic.
(Of course, I would enjoy watching a film as well, but I didn’t see this question as meeting the professor’s threshold of asking about and engaging with the material.)
Let’s fast forward a bit.
Not everyone knows this, but there’s a very specific reason that I chose to attend the University of York for my Masters in Medieval Studies. And it boils down to this: I wanted to be like Greg Jenner.
His work on Horrible Histories and on various documentaries and publications inspired me to want to do the same.
From what I understood, I would be able to take the niche information that I had learned and make it enjoyable and accessible to a public audience, which was something that I have always strived to do.
Whether it was as simple as writing essays for a non-specialized audience or making sure that I could explain my arguments to anyone and everyone, my purpose with history has been to really use it.
Now that I’ve had time to think about it, I really do understand why people would be asking for a film about a topic that they had a passing interest in.
A film isn’t the same kind of commitment as a monograph written by an expert. Ultimately, the purpose of these medias are vastly different.
Which really brings me to the point — and my general attitude toward historical dramas…
That’s right. I’m not going to spend the rest of this blog post nitpicking a movie or giving you ‘better’ examples or ‘fixing’ an adaption of history. Instead — I am going to give you four reasons why I no longer really care about the accuracy of historical dramas.
1. A totally accurate portrayal of the past is impossible.
History is in constant flux. New interpretations of the evidence that we do have is happening all the time. And that evidence is never quite the full picture.
Historical trends are constantly changing. Whether that’s how the material is approached, what is being studied and focused on, and who is doing the studying — the discipline of history changes.
My training as a historian has just really been training in critical thinking and constantly questioning what I am reading or seeing. It is asking the purpose and really attempting to understand what I’m working with.
Not many people in the past sat down and thought, “Oh, I must document everything about my entire existence for posterity.” So we’ve got snippets of what people thought were important… And even then, we only have what’s survived.
Asking a historical drama, or even a documentary, to be totally historically accurate is genuinely asking for a lot. In fact, you’re expecting the impossible because the past as it ‘actually’ happened cannot be reached.
2. Oftentimes, films and television shows are creating a past that you recognize.
Don’t believe me? Okay, picture this.
You’re watching some show. It’s set somewhere in the past. The characters are reading from a piece of parchment. It’s yellowed and has large scrawling handwriting on it.
Catch the problem yet?
Here’s what Annie Atkins, a graphic designer who works in the film industry, has to say:
“It’s a tight rope because the pieces usually should have been brand new at the time that the show is set in, but when you’re making a period drama, a lot of the time audiences need to see a little bit of aging to really believe that they’re in the period. You know, it’s like we need to see the cracks in the canvas of the oil painting, because that’s how we see it in the gallery. We need the paper to be off-white or slightly yellowed, because that’s how we look at old documents now.” Hero Props: Graphic Design in Film & Television”
Through pop culture, we’ve got a pretty good idea of what the past is like. And film and television often play on these preconceived notions in order to send their audiences back in time through the use of sets, props, and costumes.
What often matters is that they are recognizably ‘the past’. They should work with the narrative, helping the audience look past the modern dialogue and believing that all these gorgeous actors are really capturing the past and historical figures.
Need another example of this? Okay.
Have you ever watched a documentary and the presenter’s gone into a library? They’re seated in front of a very old looking book. And you know it’s real because the presenter and the expert are carefully touching it with a pair of white gloves.
But did you know that white gloves are actually quite risky to use on old books? It’s possible for the material to snag and tear the material. And the natural oils on your clean hands are often quite good for the old parchment or paper.
But you didn’t question if the book was legit or not because of the gloves, right? And really, that’s their purpose. It is in order to quickly convey to the audience that the artefact being touched is old and authentic, and it must therefore be handled with care by experts in white gloves.
Still not sure that the past as you know it is being shown to you? Let’s look no further than ‘The Tiffany Problem.’
Okay, so back to picturing the historical drama with the hot people and their old looking parchment.
The king, because there’s usually a king, calls forward a woman. “Tiffany!” You pause. Tiffany? That doesn’t sound right. What kind of medieval person had the name Tiffany?
Surprisingly, it’s certainly more than you’d think. Tiffany was actually a popular name. And its existence has baffled the internet.
3. The narrative of a film or television series is usually not written by an expert and its main purpose is to entertain you.
This part’s pretty self explanatory and it goes back to my earlier statement about the purpose of different media.
A film or television show’s main purpose is to entertain you.
The main narrative is created or adapted and sometimes experts are consulted about details, but that doesn’t detract from its main purpose.
Greg Jenner and Dr. Hannah Greig, a professor at the University of York and historical consultant, gave a talk while I was at York about historical consultancy, film and television, and their experiences with it all.
Dr. Greig spoke about what being a historical consultant really entails. It began with being an expert in your field and then acting as a resource for the production team of the media. That meant answering specific questions and offering background or specific information to the cast and crew. It wasn’t to critique and change the given narrative.
She was working as an important complementary resource that worked alongside the research that had already been done.
And based on this interview with Jenner and Greig, it is obvious that there’s a clear distinction between what a historian and a dramatist does, especially concerning film and television:
“A historical adviser can help to drive that story forward, informed by what we know about the past, but Greg is probably right that we shouldn’t try to determine what that story is.”“It’s more important for period dramas to be entertaining than historically accurate, say advisers,”
The writers of films and television shows are attempting to cause a react in you. Oftentimes, it is purely entertainment. Other times, it is making you question what you think of your own time through the lens of the past. (Of course I managed to throw some references to medievalism in here! Gotta make that dissertation worth something.)
4. Capturing the spirit of a time period is often more effective filmmaking.
As an avid lover of historical dramas, I most often enjoy the film the most when I forget about everything I know. Sure, I like pointing out discrepancies and discussing what the narrative could be trying to do at a deeper level.
But at the end of the day, it is just as much of an escape for me as it is for someone with no prior historical knowledge. I strive to turn off my brain and just enjoy the narrative that has been presented to me.
It’s often the films where I find myself constantly being reminded of what I know that causes me to focus more on nitpicking rather than just enjoying myself.
Personally, I believe that films that attempt to capture the essence of a time period or a particular situation are successful as historical adaptations. Sure, I like attention to detail and love a good reference here and there.
But when watching A Knight’s Tale, I’m not worried about the general historical accuracy of the story, but I understand the excitement of what a tournament could be. I’m well aware that Baz Luhrman’s Moulin Rouge! isn’t historically accurate, but my takeaway is the romanticism of the Bohemian movement and the escapist chaos that a place like the Moulin Rouge could bring to its patrons.
Which leads me to The King. I think it appropriately shows the brute nature of war. It’s messy. It’s loud. And it is often unnecessary and purely driven by the selfish desire for victory and vainglory.
But there’s a reason it took me months and three sittings to finally get through the film. It probably has something to do with how bleak it is: the shots are desaturated, no one’s smiling or having a good time, it is rife with political anxieties. The heaviness of war and the constant pressure the protagonist feels is exhausting to watch.
So while I can applaud it for the creation of a strong emotion to associate with the past and recognize it as a good film, I didn’t necessarily enjoy it.
__
Historical dramas will always be a love of mine. They will always be partially the reason that I got into history and participating in them will always be a dream career of mine.
I don’t think asking about the historical accuracy of a film or television show is a bad question. And I do quite enjoy reading expert historians’ takes on popular media.
But I do not believe that historical accuracy necessarily makes a good movie.
My advice, though, for those that wish to engage more with historical films and historians, check out Historians at the Movies (#HATM) on Twitter. Weekly, historians gather online to comment on historical films.
I hope that my lack of nitpicking is forgiven. But I was asked for my opinion on historical dramas and they will remain my guiltiest of pleasures.
Let me know what are some of your favorite historical dramas!
コメント