Do Movies Distort Historical Facts and damage truth?

Do Movies Distort Historical Facts by Taking Too Much Artistic License? As a little boy, I remember that at a certain time of the night, the programming would change to the wild West, with cowboys chasing ‘Indians,’ scalping, and the epic armed conflict, which usually involved the demise of entire nations of indigenous American tribes. It was not uncommon after this for me and my friends next door to have shootouts like typical little boys, having an adventure, playing good guys versus the bad guys. I almost bought the lie. It was only in my 20s while in college that the vehicle began lifting, and I began to develop my own critical lens to analyse the movies that depicted historical events.

There are subliminal expectations of trust when the future begins, watching the true story depicted in the film, or in a documentary. Viewers tend to let their guard down because they assume that they are consuming entertainment that is factual. But usually, films put a disclaimer at the beginning, suggesting that artistic license has been taken to make the stories being told more interesting. A 2009 study from Washington University in St. Louis concluded: “students who rely on historical films risk internalizing inaccuracies, suggesting that cinematic storytelling can shape—and distort—public understanding of the past.”

To re-tell historical facts on film requires a certain sense of authenticity, which, unfortunately, if “beauties in the eye of the beholder,” then is that which is being called authentic really authentic? Whose version of the story is the correct one (the most authentic)? Are there biases pervasive in society that are restricting the expression of factual events as they occurred? Post World War 2 Germany struggled with the idea of telling the history of the atrocities committed by the German people for a while. The United States of America consistently restricts the teaching of the historical events depicting the enslavement of African people who were then transported across the Atlantic Ocean to the rest of the world. This is not a mundane topic, but one with historical precedence.

Historically, when the emotional guard of the populace is brought down, and their emotional need for entertainment and curiosity engaged while juxtaposed against a socio-economic cause or hurt, any narrative as to the source of that pain and its cure can be sold in a film. A nation can be unified and healed, divided internally, or whipped into a (us-versus-them) frenzy that can lead to civil war or international conflict. Kent Germany in his article ‘When history is not good enough for Hollywood,’ said when writing about the film Selma, “The director, Ava DuVernay, has offered a standard filmmaker’s defense. It is a two-hour work of art, not a documentary. As she told the New York Times, historical accuracy is a “gray area” that depends on an individual’s perspective. She is right. Gray areas give life to history. A major problem with her film, though, is that it does not present its history as gray. Its voice is authoritative and crisp. The film uses real events, real locations, real narratives, and the real names of real people to establish a spirit of authenticity. Its mood clearly says, “This is genuine.”