Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:19 pm
The biggest problem with trying to relate historical facts in movies is that accurate history often makes for dull or hopelessly long drama. A case in point is the many "biopics" of composers and other show business figures that were so prominent in the 1940s and 50s: the day-to-day workings of writing songs or touring in vaudeville often aren't that interesting, so dramatic conflict had to be inserted. The censorable elements of some people's private lives had to be smoothed over (most ludicrously in Words and Music, where poor Larry Hart dies in front of a store specialising in elevated shoes). And most people portrayed in these films had relatives, associates or ex-spouses who were still living and not always willing to give permission to be depicted. Thus they had to be eliminated, or made into composites, or in the case of The Jolson Story, given new names (Ruby Keeler became "Julie Benson").
With all these barriers to accuracy, we can easily ask why producers and screenwriters even bothered. I supposed the compensating factors of prestige and box-office performance (colourful musicals with all-star casts, war films or costume dramas that win Oscars, etc.) were, and are, considered more important than historical faithfulness. So to that end, I wouldn't tell someone to watch movies to learn about historical facts in the way one would read a history book.
But that doesn't mean that films cannot teach history. It's an oblique kind of teaching, and you have to work hard at it, but it works in its own way. You lean about social customs, the kind of slang that was in use, an approximation of daily life (when the film is set in contemporary times), what subjects were valued based on the kinds of films that were given large budgets, et al. That can provide as valuable an education in its own right as half a dozen history courses.
-HA
