Misrepresentation and historical inaccuracy in the media has always been an issue. The media has, throughout the years, romanticized suicide and death, leading to a negative effect on youth. The reality of war, such as World War Two, was also not accurately represented (also having a part to play in the romanticism of death), being romanticized and showing actors such as John Wayne and Frank Sinatra to lend a veil of heroism and romanticism that was not present. History, all in all, tends to be ignored by the media in search of a pleasing film.
The media takes to dramatizing history in film for its own purposes, mainly to draw the audience deeper into the film and to create a more intriguing or dramatic plot that is more adventuresome than what history is thought to be. History, within society, has been treated as a dull subject for which there is to be no interest in. Such is the state of society today that fiction and yellow journalism is preferred over fact and documented history; such is the state of society today that information must be fabricated or altogether distorted to hold the attention of the audience.
Three historical films will be analyzed for their accuracy. The first being a film based on the early years of the Queen Victoria. The following two are more contemporaries, The King’s Speech and W.E., being as they follow the events leading up to the Second World War and the events after the start of it.
The first film to be analyzed, The Young Victoria is historically accurate, much like The King’s Speech, save for two inaccuracies, the assassination attempt on Victoria was dramatized and the age of Lord Melbourne was decreased. Yet, these two things, although historically inaccurate, were done to promote the historical accuracy and underlying theme of the movie. These two changes were mainly done in order so that modern audiences would be able to understand and relate the movie.
Even so, with all that was done to make it as accurate as possible, the few historical inaccuracies are heavily criticized and the movie was thought to be quite dull and not as entertaining as it could have been by most who expected racier apparel for Emily Blunt in the titular role. Which, if one thinks about, is an absurd thing to be critical about as well as to expect such a thing when it is a film based on the life of Queen Victoria in an age and time where modesty and proper conduct ruled, not an age in which Emily Blunt would be dressed sexily.
Queen Victoria is unlike most female monarchs that are depicted in the media and history as paragons of all that is evil and are loathed for the simple fact that they are female or their abilities and achievements are downplayed, such as the Empress Wu Zetian of the Tang Dynasty. The Empress Wu is the most demonized female monarch in history, much of the cruelties of one of her predecessors; Empress Lu Zhi is attributed to her as well to make her seem more evil by Confucian scholars. In the media she is depicted as a sexual creature who climbed to power through sex and cleverness, as she, in fact, did. When depicted in film, she shares the same determination and will power as she did in life, just as Queen Victoria is depicted in The Young Victoria.
Perhaps the reason for why Queen Victoria is looked so favorably upon by the historians of the day would be because of her female predecessors in the monarchy and the fact that although she lived in a male dominated world, it was not to the extent as the Empress Wu Zetian. Queen Victoria was an extensive diarist, writing down the events of each day faithfully in her diaries and journals, their survival is what has allowed for such great insight into Her Majesty’s character and life. In comparison, what is known of the Empress Wu Zetian is what her enemies allowed to survive. Even so, in recent years, history has started to look kindly upon her, seeing as modern audiences are more appreciative of her policies and feminine sex. She was much like Queen Victoria in that her reign was marked by peace and prosperity, there were few wars and she expanded her empire.
The movie The King’s Speech, directed by Tom Hooper, is quite possibly one of the most brilliant and seemingly accurate depictions of historical events in the media that is capable of moving its audience. The events in the movie are entirely accurate, save for Churchill’s support of George the Sixth gaining the throne and Edward the Eighth’s abdication (he was a supporter of Edward in truth and almost destroyed his career, again, because of that support, which, would have destroyed Britain).
Each of the personages represented in the film are represented as they are, human, with their faults and caprices on display without being hidden by sight. Truly, the only villain in the movie would be when the generally charming Edward the Eight shows his immaturity when he mercilessly mocks his brother’s stammer and thinks only of his affair with Wallis Simpson while his father lies dying. The appearance of Wallis Simpson, Edward’s married mistress at the time (and later his wife), is at a party where she is, as well, generally charming yet slightly condescending towards her lover, the royal family and royal protocol. Not as the romantic and misunderstood heroine as some would make her out to be and not as double spy thought by some who, alternatively, was a spy for the British or the German. It would have been incredibly simple for this film to turn out like The Young Victoria, accurate yet seemingly dull and unsatisfying.
Yet, even though the film was brilliant, there were some inaccuracies that, again, were done to dramatize the story and bring the quiet heroism of King George the Sixth to the grand screen. The events that occurred in the movie were shifted, in real life, King George was showing improvement in speech months after beginnings his meetings with Logue, not years as is shown by the film’s time line (yet, the average viewer will not realize that the movie is showing the passing of years, not months and week). It is agreed by an adviser on the film, Hugo Vickers, that the changing or dramatizing of historical details in a film, as was in this one and a great many others, may sometimes be necessary to maintain the dramatic core that is the film.
Madonna’s W.E., in comparison, is a romantic version of the events that led to the abdication of Edward the Eighth before War World Two and the plummeting morale of the British people in a tumultuous time. Called by critics a shameless piece of visual candy that has more style than substance, the Nazi sympathies of Wallis and Edward were conveniently ignored, as well as any faults in their characters, representing them as swooning, moody lovers. As was the fact that Wallis leaked information about the defenses of the Belgian and French while Edward, now the Duke of Windsor, was stationed in a military post in France, to friends within the fascist movement.
Already mistrusted by the British government and people, when the north of France was invaded by the Germans and Britain was bombed, an American journalist was told by the Duchess that, “I can’t say I feel sorry for them.” (Charles Higham.) The Duke’s admiration of Hitler and subsequent visit to him in Berchtesgaden with the Duchess are painted over without a thought as an attempt at peace, a visit that only disgusted the British populace. In truth, the Duchess did become the most vilified woman in Britain due to her taking away their King when they needed him, and, because of that vilification, she loathed them in return, the country that hadn’t accepted her as their Queen.
Films are dramatized, that is to be expected. One cannot except for everything that is to be depicted to be depicted properly and accurately. It is the duty of not only the director and producer, but the scriptwriters as well, to present a film to the public that is not a piece of pure speculation and misconstrued facts when basing the film on historical fact. A historical film is meant to be a historical film, there is room for artistic license but there should not such dramatization that history cannot be recognized.
The problem is when the viewer accepts what they see on the screen as fact and believe that things actually happened the way they happened on the screen. The modern audience still believes, generally, that what is seen on the screen is true. No critical questions are asked when differing versions are seen and documented history contradicts what was in the film.
Historical accuracy in the media is important for the simple reason that people need to understand that the things that are portrayed as fact, sometimes aren’t. The audience tends to accept things as they are presented on the screen for lack of critical thinking, for the acceptance and general belief that if it is on the screen, then it must be true.