"We love what film can do. Let's just accept that Hollywood thinks of something as 'great history' that falls well short of being that. And awards follow. Let's label it historical fiction, because that's what it is. Remember when TV wrestling wouldn't admit it was fixed, and the wrestlers wouldn't admit to being entertainers? At least we don't do that anymore. So why do movie critics go on pretending that screenwriters are expert interpreters of the past? Not everyone who tells stories–or reads a biography or two–is a historian. You don't turn pro after you've taken a few tennis lessons. A film that captures scenes from history can be called 'gripping' or 'glamorous' or a 'romantic' vision of the past, but don't try to persuade the public that it's truthful.
"There is no such thing as historical truth by percentages. If you'll just stop calling it history, then we pointy-headed historians (and key participants like Califano) will not have to call Hollywood’s bluff."
Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg in Salon discuss the controversy over Selma.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment