Historical Inaccuracies... For the Better?

A few days ago my mother sent me this article from the Washington Post. The author, Steve Luxenberg, loved the movie The King's Speech but was appalled by the portrayal of the events after he looked up the 'true' history at home. He writes, "Then I ruined it. I mentioned to my wife that I might check some facts. "Don't spoil it," she groaned."

(King George VI)

Luxenberg then proceeds to give us the facts: first, that the stammer of King George VI (also known as Bertie) was not nearly as bad as it's made out to be in the movie. Next, Luxenburg quotes Peter Conradi, a journalist who wrote a companion book to the movie who supposedly knows the 'real' history like the back of his hand. Conradi said in reply to British historian Andrew Roberts' critique of the film, "Roberts is right to point out that Tom Hooper, the director, has tinkered with some of the basic facts, such as having Winston Churchill back the abdication of Edward VIII, which put a reluctant Bertie onto the throne in December 1936, whereas Churchill instead spoke out in favor of Edward and his romance with Wallis Simpson."

Luxenberg seems appalled by 'cinematic storytellers' altering history in order to, as he puts it, "search for a manipulated 'truth.'" Not too long ago, I would have been right there on that boat with him. When The Tudors started I critiqued everything about it-- from Jonathan Rhys Meyers good looks to Natalie Dormer's blue eyes and everything in between-- but ultimately, after having watched two seasons, in the end I have found only one historical sticking point: the 'suicide' of Cardinal Wolsey. Here's why: not only did Cardinal Wolsey not commit suicide in real life, he wouldn't have considered doing so as a Cardinal in the Catholic Church. He would have believed that such an action would have damned him to Hell for eternity. In reality, Cardinal Wolsey was just an old man who died on his way to the Tower. But even in the 'reality' of the television series, the action didn't make sense. They made Wolsey out to be a strong man who believed he could bounce back from anything. The last scene with him before his suicide is with his 'wife' (legally he couldn't marry, but they had been together for 20 some years and they had several children together-- *actual historical fact*) and him promising to come back to her. Not the words of a man who commits suicide a scene later. They didn't even make him seem on the edge of defeat, honestly. I still had hope that this Wolsey might make a strong reappearance, except I knew he was going to die on his way to the Tower of natural causes. The forged suicide didn't even seem necessary to the forward motion of the plot. But, had the show convinced me of the character of Wolsey's reasons for committing suicide, I might have been on board.

Why? Because cinema/television is a version of public history, and these historical portrayals have their merits. After hearing the creator of The Tudors explain that he cast Jonathan Rhys-Meyers as a very good looking Henry VIII because that's how the people living in the 16th century viewed him, it made sense. He was seen as a young, good-looking, vivacious prince that at his coronation brought about a renewed sense of hope in the kingdom. Instead of trying to be 100% historically accurate, the series creator was trying to create history through the eyes of historical figures using our standards. An interesting concept, no?

In The King's Speech Winston Churchill example, I was convinced that the character of Churchill had reason to be alarmed by the relationship, and that contrived fact moved the plot forward. Necessary components to storytelling. Hey, I'm right there with you!

Perhaps most importantly, although Luxenberg writes "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice..." he was not fooled. The movie interested him enough that it gave him impetus to look up the 'actual' history. Would he have ever known Churchill's stance on the relationship of Edward and Wallis if The King's Speech had never been made? Probably not. And I think that might be the most important aspect of historical storytelling: for people who care, it provides them with an insight into an era, person, or event they might not otherwise have cared about. When I was little, I learned all there was to know about the 'actual' story of Pocahontas-- would I have cared without the Disney movie? Probably not. I probably wouldn't have even heard of Pocahontas until college. So while yes, that movie is extremely inaccurate, it interested me enough to make me look up the facts. With the internet and all its information at our fingertips, historical movies are more important tools of education than ever.

Movies are not and have never claimed to be bastions of academic history; they are for public consumption, and as such must appeal to the public. Would I like them to be perfect? Huh. Maybe. But would even I, a historian but also member of the general public, like them as much?

So while I still find it incredibly fun to watch historical movies just to point out the historical inaccuracies, I've come to appreciate them in all their flawed glory.

(Colin Firth as King George VI)