I recently read Albee’s play “THE DEATH OF BESSIE SMITH” and thought it horrible that this Blues great died after she was refused admission to a white hospital. A quick examination of the facts showed this was false, however: in fact, a white physician wrecked his own automobile to stop at a dangerous intersection and treat her while dispatching her lover for an ambulance, but her wounds were so great that she was DOA at the nearby black hospital (which was only two blocks from the white hospital, thus it would have been illogical to take her to the white hospital anyway).
In Peter Shaffer’s AMADEUS, Salieri is portrayed as a lean and bitter poseur whose envy of Mozart has poisoned him against God, music, and humanity; the real Salieri was a fat, jovial, father of a dozen children who is still considered one of the most influential music teachers and theorists of his era and there is little or no reason to believe he was obsessed with Mozart. In Shaffer’s ROYAL HUNT OF THE SUN, Francisco Pizarro longs to save the life of the Incan Emperor while dastardly Hernando DeSoto insists upon his execution, whereas in reality the reverse was true (and Atahuallpa was a bastard who needed killin’- just before the Spaniards arrived he had forced his brother to eat dog dung in the streets before torturing him to death, and killing unarmed civilians was nothing to him.)
You can look at film bios of Alexander the Great (it’ll be interesting to see how he’s portrayed in the new string of films about him), Christopher Columbus, George M. Cohan, Stone’s JFK & Nixon, Disney’s Pocahantas, etc., and see history stretched until it snaps and then rewritten until it bears little more resemblance to the actual events than GENERAL HOSPITAL bears to actual medicine.
In your opinion, is the willful distortion of historical events (beyond the need to condense or consolidate storylines to keep interest in a 2 hour framework) an intellectual dishonesty? I’m not asking if it should be protected under freedom of speech, which I think we’re all agreed it should, but does the playwright/producer/director, etc., have a responsibility to remain to the more-or-less facts?
You go to the movies or the theater for entertainment. For history, read a history book. People who learn their history from the movies get the education they deserve.
And, like everything else in the world, this is nothing new. If you’re going to indict Peter Shaffer for Amadeus, don’t forget William Shakespeare for Richard III.
So, no, I don’t think it’s dishonest because almost no filmmakers claim accuracy in their works. The only responsibility an artist bears is telling a good story, and using his or her art to illuminate the larger truths that underlie all human exsistence and bind us together as common entities. Or at least be entertaining.
Shakespeare was using good judgment as well as good storytelling skills: QE1 was capable of giving much more than a bad review to express her displeasure.
Do you think that a movie like JFK should be adjudged differently than a mythological piece like AMADEUS? The latter isn’t so much a biography as a parable, while the former is actually trying to pose a thesis.
Well, I think it’s up to the artist and what they think will be acceptable. Art, whether movies, paintings, fiction, or games isn’t always there to convey history, but to use history as a setting, and some of the characters to create what they want to create. If the events in their work follow the real world, then that’s their decision. As long as they aren’t actually calling it actual history, they should be able to do whatever the heck they want.
I think a good director should strive to retain historical accuracy in his works, (especially in well documented eras of history) Although, as mentioned, he should be under no obligation to do so, as his work will always be a fictional account, regardless of how he strives to make it real. It really depends on context and expectation.
There could be an ethical argument (IMHO) against deliberate manipulation of facts or figures to cause shock or disparage / enhance the character of individuals. No, it’s not real history, and no, it shouldn’t be taken as fact, but films so often are in this visual-led world.
A great lot of people will accept the film as fact without doing the background reading to confirm / deny it. Is this the directors / writers fault? You could argue no, but it is a big responsibility to bear.
I agree with Aro that a good director should try to be historically accurate, as much as possible. Obviously in a two hour movie events are going to be edited, sometimes juxtaposed with other incidents from other times in the life or period being presented, and conversations are likely to be fiction. On the other hand, to completely rewrite a person’s life, or alter facts to give an impression that has no historical justification just seems wrong. A movie I’ve mentioned before is ARTEMISIA. This movie about artist Artemisia Gentileschi distorts the events depicted. Reading about her and her life after seeing the movie, I was really annoyed at the changes, because her story AS IT HAPPENED, would have made a great movie.
In a case like that I have to wonder what the producers were thinking.
I feel that the film makers have a certain responsibility to maintain historical accuracy to the extent that the film portrays itself as accurate. Movies such as Perfect Storm bill themselves as historical drama, and as such should try to be pretty accurate, except in cases where a minor fact is hard to portray or would confuse things. Then, I think that creative license is warranted, as long as the spirit of the situation is preserved. Other movies, like Saving Private Ryan or Life is Beautiful, aren’t really precise historical accounts, but rather fictional stories set in a historical environment. These should maintain historical accuracy as well, but precision here isn’t as important as the overall feeling. For example, portraying a large-scale battle in a place where no large-scale battles took place in a movie like SPR would be okay, as long as the feel of the battle were preserved. But calling something the “Battle of the Bulge”, and placing it in Alaska would be crossing the line.
Now movies that are blatantly false, or satirical, can do pretty much what they please, and I don’t have a problem with it. Something like “Impromptu” obviously isn’t a historical account of Chopin’s life, and nobody is going to think that it is (at least, I hope nobody). With something like JFK, the situtation is a bit touchy. It appears to be pretty fact based, but the movie as a whole is so paranoid/conspiracy-esque that it’s hard to take it seriously.
As far as the argument that “movies are just for entertainment, so the movie makers have no obligation to maintain accuracy”, I just don’t buy it. First of all, not all movies are just for entertainment. Do you really think that Schindler’s List was just for entertainment? Of course not, the movie had a definite agenda - to educate people about the holocaust, and to serve as a tribute to those who lost their lives. It wasn’t just Spielberg saying, “Hey, you know what would be a cool movie idea? A bunch of jews being shot in the head. That would kick ass!” Similarly, “The Contender” had a definite political agenda - the movie was a 2-hour ad for the democratic party line and an apolgy for Clinton’s behavior. Neither of these movies was just, or even primarily, about entertainment, they were about getting across a point.
Secondly, regardless of whether or not they should, a woefully large segment of the population gets their idea of history from movies. My mom came home after seeing JFK and said how sad it was that all of those bad people conspired to have JFK shot, and how horrible our government was, and blah blah blah. Movie makers know this, or at least they should. As such, they should know that if they put out something that looks like a historical biography, people will absorb it as such, even if it’s blatantly false. We as people have no inherent mechanism that allows us to magically determine what is fact from what is fiction, apart from what sounds plausible; and most of us don’t have the time or resources to fact-check every movie that we see that purports to be a historical account of something-or-other. If moviemakers want us to take any picture they make seriously, they should take the responsibility of making it clear what is true and what is not. Something as simple as a disclaimer before the film that says, “Jimmy Carter was not really secretly a gay ballerina, this was added for dramatic effect,” would suffice.
Wow, I’ve rambled for quite awhile here. Hope it was at least semi-coherent. That’s what happens when I post while working in 60-second bursts. 
Jeff
Somehow I wasn’t bothered by the misrepresentation of Salieri. I didn’t think it was meant to be historically accurate. Also, it has little connection to today. If we think less of Saleieri, so what?
I am much more concerned about the Bessie Smith case. This could engender racial disharmony, and do real harm.
The Stone versions of Nixon and Kennedy are unfortunate. I regret them, but not as much as the Bessie Smith legend.
A true and much more ironic story is that of Dr. Charles Drew; he was a pioneer in plasma research and developed the methods of preserving blood that saved thousands of lives in WW2. In 1950, while driving home from a lecture in Tuskegee, AL, he dozed off at the wheel, drove off the road, and bled to death. His life would have been saved except this was an actual case of a white hospital refusing to accept him. Another irony: although so light skinned he could usually pass for white in daytime, he was in the car with darker skinned black people which tipped off his “rescuers” that he himself was black.
OTOH, a play entitled “THE DEATH OF CHARLES DREW” wouldn’t inspire as much name recognition as Bessie Smith.
It’s exactly that laid back attitude that causes thousands of Salieris to be bashed and discriminated against each year. Do you have any idea how hard it is to be a teenage Salieri and know the lies told about you but being powerless to correct them? That’s why we adapted our motto
“We’re here-y, we’re Salieri, and we’re not killin’ Mozart!”
Oh wait- I’m thinking about being black and feminist… or something.
Interesting trivia about Amadeus: it wasn’t Wolfgang’s name. It’s a title bestowed by the pope like a very minor papal baronet- “ama deus- beloved by God”. In the title of the parabolic movie (which, historical accuracies and all, is one of my favorites) the title is particularly meaningful.
When the ninjas save Christmas.
Retracted, with apologies. That’s what I get for taking that special episode of Laverne and Shirley as history.
The irritating thing is that I actually read this in a textbook on black history. I want to write the publisher with the info.
I’ve strong doubts about this : I never heard about such a “title” granted by a pope, but more importantly, there are several actual surnames which are variations of “amadeus” (I assume it’s the latin form of these surname), like amadeo, amedee, etc…with the exact same meaning : “loved by god”. So I see no reason to believe that amadeus wouldn’t be an actual surname too. Do you have some cite?
(By the way I think that directors, authors, etc…have some responsability in not spreading misconceptions about actual historical events…even in the case of “Amadeus” , mispresenting Salieri annoys me a lot)
Some research in texts:
Mozart was baptized as Joannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart, the name Theophilus being the Gk equivalent of “loved by God”, or “Amadeus”. His father Leopold’s term of affection for him, directed more towards his talent than towards the boy, was “Gottlieb”, the German equivalent of Theophilus.
In 1769, the fourteen year old Mozart gave a command performance for the newly installed Pope Clemens XIV. (It was his first performance for C XIV, though he’d played with great praise for his predecessor, Clemens XIII.) C XIV was so impressed that, making note of what Leopold had called him, he said “Amade assolutamente!” (roughly, “beloved by God, indeed!”), and then presented him with the Cross of the Order of the Golden Spur, a Papal title and decoration. Thereafter, Mozart always preferred the Italian “Amade” or the Latin “Amadeus”, and incorporated it as a part of his name, becoming as he is known today, Wolfgang Amadeus.
So, Amadeus was given to him by the Pope, sort of, but not officially. The actual decoration was the Golden Spur, but the Amadeus was a souvenier from this visit as well.
In one biographical source, it notes that it is unknown what became of Mozart’s money. Towards the end of his life, he lived in perpetual near-poverty and deeply in debt, yet his income was always much higher than that of the average person and should even have been enough for his lifestyle. Hypotheses are that he had a gambling addiction or that he was being blackmailed, the latter of course bringing up a host of other purely speculative hypotheses.