Historicals: Truth Or Downright Lies?

What is one of the subjects that you get taught at schools? History, of course.

Do you ever wonder about the way you are, were, or have been taught that subject?

Admittedly, history is something that one will NEVER be able to fully "accurately" remember or re-tell to others. Our minds can only do so much to store a memory, a fact, and an event to an extent where only certain moments are kept while the rest quietly deteriorate.

And of course, there is the phrase "History is written by the victors". But who on this world is the "victor"? And how does the victor tell their stories?

Is the victor honest?

Is the victor somebody who decides to twist the truth and turn it into something else in order to create an alternate image?

And is the victor actually a filmmaker?

The cinema screen is no doubt a rather entertaining way of re-enacting historical events, whether if it harkens back to past centuries or recent years. But I cannot help but become incredibly nit-picky about the things that would crop up in some films which "re-tell" events from the past. Like I said, you cannot be truly "accurate", but there are limits as to how you would talk about the past. Even if it happens to insert elements of fiction or, as I mentioned, twist the "truth".

Want to know what else was fake? Some of the truth, of course.

"Argo" (Ben Affleck, 2012) is one example that happens to stick in my mind for all the said reasons that make me incredibly skeptical about story telling. Even though I was impressed by how the Canadian Caper which happened during the Israeli Embassy Siege, I was furious when I discovered that elements of the film had turned the facts upside-down into a bin which has the word "fiction" slapped on to it like a banana skin on a tree. I'll start with one aspect of it which I hate.

Everything that happened at the airport was very dramatic.

Apparently not according to the witnesses of the events at the airport. Particularly when the passenger plane was taking off with the diplomat team safely on board which tends to be a moment that has remained in my mind very strongly. According to Mark Lijeck, one of the diplomats involved in the event, the airport grounds were pretty quiet with little to no glances towards the group given by the few present revolutionaries. According to the film, however, there were revolutionaries chasing the plane to the point of attempting to board it and stop the diplomats from leaving the airport.

And it happens to contradict what the individual present in the event had experienced, let alone told us. So why would such an element of drama be thrown into something like "Argo"? To make it interesting?

But let's not stop here: this is an example of something which I would like to call "propaganda":

The USA were, pretty much, the main heroes for allowing the diplomats asylum.

And that New Zealand and the UK turned them away. Apparently. It seems that we were not very kind in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

Actually, the UK and New Zealand DID grant the diplomats asylum, however the UK had deemed their embassy location to be unsafe so a relocation was conducted while New Zealand were taking huge risks to ensure the safety of the diplomats.

"History is written by the victors." Mr. Churchill did have a point back then, and it's still relevant today.

Not being able to tell something properly accurate may be one thing, but twisting the truth in order to create an alternate (and sensitive) image of peoples can be a very negative thing to do. This is an example of making it appear that one country, person etc is responsible for saving the day and therefore taking all the credit for doing so. In that sense, they simultaneously throw the participation of others out the window.

This is why I see it is a form of propaganda. By telling a story from an upturned perspective, the image of the supposed saviour is glorified thus making the other peoples look like loonies. And of course, "Argo" makes the USA appear as the heroes of life once again by messing about with the said country examples.

There is another film example which takes a real-life event, but it uses the event as a model for the fictional story it tells. Even so, the fictional aspects were deliberately intended for fictional plot devices rather than historical tellings.

"Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer."

There is one reason why I don't mind films such as "Pumping Iron" (Robert Fiore and George Butler, 1977) using such a method, even if it does contain risks. In this example, it is a docufiction (or docudrama if you want), and a lot of the dialogue and such was intentionally thrown in there to the point where, during the making of the film, some of the lines and "facts" were ad libbed. Particularly the perverse comparison that Arnold Schwarzenegger makes when talking about the effects of the gym work.

But is it acceptable to create fictional accounts of real-life events? Might it depend on the approach that is taken when incorporating such truth? How sensitive is what you are doing? These are answers that you would, unfortunately, have to find out yourself. As much as I'd like to give a defined perspective on that, such things are never going to be properly set for good. And as for dramatising real-life events within a historical tale, it again depends on the approach taken and how you view it. Perhaps Russia and Korea might be the heroes who save the world one day despite France's weather reporters being responsible for alerting the world to a flood of liars.