In the wake of Netflix’s controversial Blonde, Anghus Houvouras discusses the fallacy of accuracy in historical fiction…
Mark Twain famously said “Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.” It’s a fantastic quote, but here’s something interesting; Apparently Mark Twain never said it. You’ll see the quote attributed to him in countless places, even though it might not be true. History is a complicated thing even before everyone tries to start telling fictionalized versions of it.
‘Based on a true story’.
Those might be the five most disingenuous words in the history of filmed entertainment. The goal is to make audiences believe that what they’re about to watch is rooted in historical accuracy, even though the vast majority of the time they’re playing fast and loose with the facts.
With every work of fiction, liberties are taken. For most filmmakers, historical accuracy is nothing more than a flimsy guideline. The goal of a fictional film is to entertain, not educate. Sticking to the facts doesn’t always make for the most compelling drama.
Fans of Mel Gibson’s Braveheart might find themselves surprised to learn that Robert the Bruce was considered to be the true saviour of Scotland and even though they fought in the same battles as allies there is no hard evidence that he and William Wallace ever met. Did you enjoy Zack Snyder’s 300? Turns out that Xerxes was not actually a statuesque eight-foot, hairless golden god with a penchant for piercings and bangles. Are you aware that the Manson family’s attempt on the life of Sharon Tate was not prevented by next door neighbor, actor Rick Dalton, using a prop flamethrower as portrayed in Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood?
Of course you do, because you are a rational person who understands the fundamental differences between fiction and non-fiction.
There are so many examples of historical inaccuracy in movies and TV shows that it feels pointless to chronicle them in order to make this argument. I have no interest in examining the lack of historical accuracy in fictional films. This is well-travelled territory and I have no interest in wasting your time.
However, I am fascinated by the fact that people are still so hung up when a fictional movie deviates wildly from the truth, as if a work of fiction should be judged on how closely it sticks to the facts. For example:
- Fictional films will always play fast & loose with the facts. Therefore, inaccuracy is the rule, not the exception.
- Fictional filmmakers have no responsibility to ‘stick to the facts’. That is the responsibility of documentarians & journalists.
- If you have ever watched a fictional film and regurgitated any of it as the basis for historical fact, you might need to visit your local library and spend some time in the non-fiction section.
Andrew Dominik’s controversial adaptation of Joyce Carol Oates’ Blonde has generated a lot of polarizing reactions. From the cruelty of portraying Marilyn Monroe’s life as a gauntlet of horrors to the lack of historical fidelity.
What’s most disturbing about people who get internet outraged about a lack of historical accuracy is the ease of which the true story can be tracked down. Whether it be from YouTube channels like History Buffs or from picking up a book on the topic or watching a documentary, of which there are literally hundreds of options. The truth is out there for anyone interested in seeking it out.
But I don’t believe people who complain about historical accuracy are doing so in good faith. On social media, these kind of gripes feel like an easy point of contention for a movie they already didn’t enjoy. If historical accuracy is the lynch pin for enjoying a fictional film, your expectations may be unrealistic to the point of incredulity.
There are so many legitimate criticisms that could be levied against Blonde. Bold choices that have elicited so many strong reactions. I have seen severe reactions on both sides of the spectrum. Strong endorsements and absolute revulsion. It isn’t a paint by numbers, predictable biopic. I can understand why people would love the film and equally why others would feel as though they were witnessing a living nightmare. That’s the thing about good art: sometimes it is extremely challenging and forces passionate reactions.
Blonde is definitely not a film for everyone. But the amount of responses either on social media or as clickbait I’ve seen over the last week levying criticism against the movie for it’s historical inaccuracies is laughable. The fact that we’re even having this discussion is a woeful testament to the state of online film criticism.
So let’s collectively agree to stop complaining about historical accuracy in movies & TV shows. Because the core argument, in its current form, seems to come from people who believe fictional works are obligated to adhere to a strict, fact based rigidity that has not and will not ever exist. It’s a crutch for lazy critics & content creators to create tabloidized clickbait. Acting as though they are doing a public service by ensuring that people who may.
The fact is, filmmakers will always play fast & loose with the facts when making movies. They’re making connections that didn’t exist and rearranging the timeline because it works better for the story. They are making these changes four the benefit of the audience. Yes, they are sensationalizing the story and making wholesale changes to what happened… combining different real people into one character to cut down on confusion… wrapping things up conveniently because that’s what people prefer.
Please, for the love of God, do not get your history from movies & TV shows. And please, film columnists and websites, stop making these nonsensical arguments and criticism about shows & movies that deviate from recorded history as if its anything other than business as usual.
Anghus Houvouras
