Are filmmakers obligated to tell the historical truth?

Question

If so, to what extent?

I'm researching this question for a college paper, and was wondering what some "real" people think about this, to get some fresh ideas. I originally thought the essay would be, pick a movie and dissect what is true and false about it, but the prompt actually has us pick a movie and argue whether the director/writer are obligated to tell the historical truth about it and why. I chose Scorsese's 2004 film The Aviator on Howard Hughes life. Does anyone have any opinions on this in regards to The Aviator, or just in general what responsibility filmmakers have to tell the truth to the public regarding an event or a life?

If you can refer me to any articles or sites for reference, that would be great too!

Answer 1

As an amature historian, I have often cringed at the historical inaccuracies found in films. The historical accuracy of a film depends a great deal upon, the source for the film, how well known the event is, and how dedicated the director is to showing historical truth rather than some glamorized fiction.

Remember that a glorified film such as "The Alamo" (starring Fess Parker; produced by Disney in the late 1950s and the one starring John Wayne from about the same time period)were produced to show the American frontiersman as a hero, always good, always bold, while the enemy, be it Indian or Mexican, were always portrayed as sneaky, bad, and cowardly. There was never much of an attempt to portray things accurately (when Parker went on to star in the TV series "Daniel Boone" he still wore his trademark coonskin cap, even though Boone never wore one)--the stress was on making a good morality play more than anything else. And during the years when these films were produced, stressing the superiority of American life was almost a requirement, whether it was good history or not.

Some films have been based on excellently researched and crafted books; my favorite is "Lincoln", starring Sam Waterston and Mary Tyler Moore. The film was based upon "Lincoln" by Gore Vidal, and almost every word Lincoln utters in the film was actually spoken by the man in real life. Costuming and manners were also given great attention. The only flaw in the whole production was the height of some of the actors-the one playing William Seward (Richard Mulligan) was as tall as Lincoln, as was the actor playing Robert Lincoln. But I felt the quality of the acting did much to overcome this inaccuracy. Of course one reason this film almost HAD to be truthful is because the Lincoln story has been told and re-told so many times, usually in a fictional or embellished way, that being accurate was something of a novelty.

With the world becoming ever smaller, and with the information about different peoples becoming more readily available, I would say that now there is more of an imperative to be more historically accurate in a film. This started in the 1970s, with films such as "Little Big Man" which showed history from the Indian's point of view, a huge departure from earlier films. This film was fiction, of course, but still showed a change in emphasis. The danger in such films is going too far towards political correctness. An example of this would be "A House Divided" from around 2000, when the story of a Southern slaveholder, his mistress slave, and their daughter was told. The problem this time was that the slaveholder was made out to be a one time rapist who kept the maternity of his daughter secret from her until she was an adult. The historical facts were that the man had an ongoing sexual relationship with his slave mistress, and that he never hid the fact that the slave was the mother of his daughter. Apparently the director feared that a movie based upon the historical facts would not sell. And whether a movie will sell still appears to be the most important factor in how historically accurate a movie is made.

Answer 2

Filmmakers are not obligated to tell the historical truth, as long as they don't represent their work as documentary. Even people who were all present at an historical event will have different viewpoints and different memories of the event, so there really can't be any "Fly on the wall" type of historical recounts. Dialogue has to be reconstructed, and edits have to be made for time and clarity.

I think the only obligation a filmmaker (or author) has to history is to do your best, and be up front about your sources.

Answer 3

No, there is no obligation for a film maker to tell historical truth, unless they are claiming it is, such as a documentary or biography.

Sometimes, some film makers present their work in such a way that some people think that it is a documentary or biography, and therefore they think it is the truth, even though it clearly is not (see any film by Michael Moore for an example of this).

Much of Howard Hughes' early life is very well known, as he lived it very much in the public eye. Scorsese's film does a very good job of telling the Hughes story, but it is a film made for entertainment, not historical accuracy.

Answer 4

No they are not. Many filmmakers present historical events with their own slant or spin on it and thus misteach history. No one in recent memory has more guilty of this thatn Oliver Stone. Stone, loves making historical movies, but he rarely gets his facts straight. His 1992 movie "JFK" presented a ridiculous scenerio surrounding the assassination of John F. Kennedy in which he had multiple gunmen firing up to eight shots at the president from various locations. However serious historical research has shown that only ONE person was firing at the president that day from only ONE location and firing only THREE bullets. But Stone's work has sadly convinced an entire generation of poorly-read, and lazy students that there was a conspiracy in the president's death. His movie about the Doors musical group also had made-up portions, and outright untruths scattered throughout it.

Even some films that present themselves are false. Ethan and Joel Cohen, the great filmmakers behind "Fargo" began their movie with the statement that the following movies was based upon a true story. Was it? Nope. There was NO truth to the story behind "Fargo". They simply added that intro as a part of their fabricated plot and as an inside joke. Film goers search in vain for the details surrounding the actual murders until they learned there wasn't any.

So for the viewer, just like the buyer of a used car, the weight of the responsibility to ascertain truth lies with the viewer. Lazy viewers who don't like to do much reading nor research will ALWAYS believe everything they see in movies. Serious scholars and hungry researchers will learn for themselves where the wheat and the chaff begin to separate.

Good luck.

Answer 5

NO and seldom do. Its your responsibility to know what was true and what wasn't. I think the Aviator was pretty accurate in portraying Hughes achievements but probably not so good in portraying Hughes himself. He was unusual. Certainly the actor looked Nothing like him. If I wanted to know about Hughes I wouldn't rely on the movie. Writers/Directors have No responsibility to tell the truth or be historically accurate. Their responsibility is to make money for the producers by entertaining the public.

Answer 6

If they don't represent their work as a documentary, they are entitled to take creative liberties with the truth. Their goal is to present an entertaining story, not to educate with historical fact. If I wanted to know the "truth" about Howard Hughes' life, I would look for an authoritative scholarly biography; I wouldn't go to the movies.