What Does It Mean To Be A True Historical Film: Film as Historical Representation?
Story By: Shawn Kurtz
The year is 1939. Those of Jewish origin have been dehumanized as well as blaming Germany’s failure in World War One. To rectify this a man by the name of Adolf Hitler has assumed control of Germany promising to return Germany to former greatness and glory. Part of his plan was called the “Final Solution” which involved the extermination of every Jewish man, woman, and child. Eliminating the Jewish people as they were considered vastly inferior to those of the “perfect Aryan race”.
Life is Beautiful is one of countless films that have attempted to capture the essence of the Holocaust and relay it to an audience. And in fact done it quite successfully being nominated for best directing, film editing, original screenplay and best picture. Also winning best music, dramatic score, and best foreign film at the seventy first academy awards. The film has been accepted and well received throughout the world, grossing almost 230 million worldwide. It is a comedy directed by Roberto Benigni, it centers around Guido Orefice (Benigni) an Italian Jew and his wife
Dora (Nicoletta Braschi) and his son Giosue (Giorgio Cantarini) during the Holocaust. It focuses heavily on the outrageous and juvenile antics of Guido to downplay the seriousness of the events occurring in the world around him.
In Wright’s article “Don’t Touch My Holocaust’: Responding to Life is Beautiful ” she both criticizes and praises the film. Praising the story it tells and the themes it presents to the audience. However, she questions whether Life is Beautiful is indeed an accurate and authentic representation of the Shoah as well as other so called Shoah art. Wright starts her article and argument off by listing a few different questions and
reservations that someone may have about Shoah art. Both movies as well as other forms and mediums that do exist. Questions ranging from the authenticity and validity of certain accounts to who truly has the right to create such representations and images. Then go along with the many questions there are also many criticisms that are stated at the same time. With each form of art that is used to represent the Shoah or Holocaust, there are certain criticisms that are inevitable. Wright illustrates the many negative opinions associated with Shoah art in general. And according to many critics “there is an unbridgeable gap between art and the extraordinary atrocities of the Shoah” (20). In basic terms art, which is considered to be beautiful and moving should and cannot be used to illustrate such evil. And to receive enjoyment from these images is morally and ethically appalling.
However with these few statements we can not truly discover why films such as Life is Beautiful are so heavily scrutinized. Now if we narrow down from these broader topics to more defined, criticisms the answer becomes more clear. One of the major criticisms for that Life is Beautiful is that it is a true comedy with a laughable and outrageous main character and at points containing over the top plot points and story lines. An idea that does not merge well with such a serious and dark time according to many critics. Wright combats these beliefs by first bringing in other films that blended comedy with the dark tones of the Holocaust, films and movies that have received mixed results. Movies such as Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator which is a satire of the Nazi regime and Hitler himself and Lina Wertmuller's Seven Beauties .However a trump card for the critics is Jerry Lewis unreleased film The Day the Clown Cried . A film in which a captured clown must perform and lead Jewish children into gas chambers.
This comedy tries to put a “positive” spin on the final solution with comedy and laughter and ultimately failing and creating a piece that can be argued as “tasteless” overall. For Wright herself, she believes that laughter instead of harming actually aids these films. Wright quotes Alison Ross, who believes that “Humor may be threatening or liberating” and that comedy and satire “may temporarily dissolve social rules and
boundaries, diffusing tensions between groups and individuals” (22). A trait that is pulled off perfectly and is exactly what makes Life is Beautiful so great and successful. Something that seems lost on many critics. This is Wright's next major point. That critics are simply missing the point of the film itself. Life is Beautiful is not intended to be a factual an authentic account of the Shoah. But instead is more of a story or fable with compelling themes such about love and family. She adds that a true recreation and representation of the Shoah that is authentic and accurate to history and textbooks is impossible, in all actuality this idea is a fantasy.
Now Wright has mostly been positive in her review of Life is Beautiful . Explaining that even though that it is not a true and authentic representation of the Shoah. Examining not the context, but the story itself. How it truly focuses on the family aspect of those affected by the Holocaust. However she does present reservations on the medium in which Life is Beautiful is presented. That “film shares several elements found at the center of fascism” (27). First being that “Film played an integral part in the Nazi project” (26). She examines on how the film was a medium that was used to belittle and dehumanize the Jewish population, making it easier for the german people when it came time for them to eradicate the entire Jewish population. And that presenting a representation of the Holocaust in film form is almost ironic. She continues on by claiming that the film has a greater connection to fascism. That film has many “nationalistic and authoritarian tendencies” (27) and is “fundamentally authoritarian in nature” (27). Since film provides both sound and visuals, it allows no room for imagination or individualized thinking. Wright states that unlike the written works of Charles Dickens as well as other authors and poets films and movies provide “less
room for the creation of individualized meanings” (27).
Next is her assessment that the film and movies are a passive experience. To watch a movie we as viewers first buy a ticket. Grab a drink and some butter smothered popcorn. Walk into the theatre, pick out a seat and wait for the movie to begin. Then say this film is a documentary or a director's vision of a Holocaust representation. Where harsh conditions and terrible actions are pictured and thrown onto center stage. A person can witness these events as they occur and go home sound of mind since they do not have to live them. knowing that what was projected on screen was not reality. Wright explains this through her examination of the film The Last Days . A movie in which five Hungarian Jews relive their experiences and relay their stories to the camera and the audience. Wright explains that these interviews taken from the comfort
of the interviewees post war American homes. “Viewers are presented with an inappropriately easy experience, aesthetically speaking” (28). Her final criticism is how Life is Beautiful almost implies that this convoluted story with over the top characters and plots could almost seemingly have existed. Serving “to imply that there is some element of verisimilitude in what is being presented” (28). With cameras capturing all the actions, emotions, and verbal communication from very real actors or people one could easily find themselves entranced with the story being told. Allowing viewers to easily misconstrue what is being presented as real. As their eyes seemingly tell the body and brain that these events are happening in real time while they sit in the middle of the action.
Wright wraps up her argument with an analogy. Comparing the Holocaust with other events in history from long ago to illustrate that we are not far from the tales and accounts of survivors fading away. And the event itself will be lost in history as time passes and eventually could be completely forgotten by modern society. And to solve this problem “historians,philosophers, theologists and others of good will”, and not
filmmakers and directors, must be tasked to “discover new ways of rerepresenting the holocaust” (30). It is crucial that we do so as the current ways of representation are too problematic. As these mediums contain facist beliefs or ideals without us realizing and in a sense promote fascism and an authoritarianism way of thinking. And we need to continue to evolve and change so that we may learn from these beliefs and ideals and films “Propagandistic, persuasive aspects can be used for good and not evil” (30).
In all Wright presents four main points in her analysis of Life is Beautiful along with other Holocaust representations and Shoah art. First Graham claims that comedy and humor in certain areas can be advantageous rather than detrimental to the film. A statement that can be defended with the various films, not just Life is beautiful , created about the Shoah that are of an amusing and humorous nature. Ones in which laughter
is used to downplay and softens the seriousness of the plot and or “back story”. And to some this dismissal can definitely feel offensive and tasteless. Such is the case with the Day the Clown Cried . It can be argued that Shoah representations that use comedy are not offensive and in fact could be considered quite considerate, showing images that are less dark and graphic out of respect to the audience. Then there is a major
question and criticism of whether Life is Beautiful is indeed accurate to the time period. While someone could be correct in stating that Life is Beautiful is certainly an inaccurate representation of the Holocaust and its effects on the Jewish populace. However in Wright’s eyes Life is Beautiful is more of a fable or story that focuses more on the aspects of love and family rather than illustrating the Holocaust as a whole. Wright's, who has been extremely positive in her review she still has a few complaints. The main 1objection with the film being used to illustrate the Shoah is that film is in itself is a form of fascist medium. An argument which could go one of two ways. In some ways film is a fascist form of art as it is authoritarian in nature by showing viewers certain images so that they cannot think individually or express creativity and imagination. In most cases this can be true, but on the flip side there are films and or other mediums that cause viewers to think more, for example a film such as Inception or Edvard Munch’s The Scream.
Fast forwarding to another era in history that deals with the same ideas of superiority and supremacy. The Civil Rights movement started in 1954 and ran through 1968. During this time period, many African American men and women protested the treatment of African Americans by the white citizens as well as the government and create a society where all people were equal despite their race and ethnicity. Rallies and protests sprung up to combat not only the idea that blacks and whites must be segregated and separated but also the belief that those of a different color or ethnicity other than white were inferior and should “take a back seat”. The Help is one of the few films that explores this era and time period. Directed by Tate Taylor tells the story of aspiring journalist and author Skeeter Phelan (Emma Stone) who writes a story to
expose what it was like to be an African American maid in the southern town of Jackson, Mississippi. She enlists local African American house maids Aibileen Clark (Viola Davis) and Minny Jackson (Octavia Spencer) to tell her their stories of what it was like to be a black servant to white families. Eventually helping to spread the wor and illuminate on the mistreatment of not just black maids but of all African Americans.
In Allison Graham's article “We Ain’t Doin’ Civil Rights: The Life and Times of a Genre, as told in The Help ” she criticises the film The Help as an inaccurate and problematic representation of the Civil Rights era. That instead of focusing on the Civil Rights the film targets more of the “sisterhood” and the bonds that exist between the colored maids or help and how they get back at their “gossipy white” bosses. And in all
reality The Help is an inaccurate historical “chick flick”. Graham's first argument towards the inaccuracy of the film is that a white woman, Skeeter, not an African American woman is positioned as the “hero” and main focus of the civil rights movement in Jackson, Mississippi. Skeeter is apparently the only person who is really and truly moved by the mistreatment of African Americans into action to expose these horrible
conditions. A fact that in reality is very untrue as during this time, many rallies and protests occurred throughout the United States were those who were colored were inspired by the likes of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X to fight for equal treatment for all races and ethnicities. A subject that is barely even touched on in the film. With a few broadcasts from an African American and Civil Rights activist, Medgar Evans.
Broadcasts that were in fact, historically inaccurate themselves since the one that was aired was actually from a different year and in fact most of Evans “historic addresses have not surfaced” (53) and the one that was shown in the film may have never aired in Jackson at all. Despite this Skeeter, in one scene, is positioned sitting in the middle of her family's help appears to be the only one who seems to be affected or moved by it. A stark contrast from the novel in which Skeeter catches a lone black maid by the name of Pascagoula observing Evans message .
However, in the movie “Skeeter is positioned as the primary audience for civil rights news” (54) and “her interests...and her actions introduce the figure of Medgar Evers into the narrative” (54). Graham goes further in stating that from this angle to work that historical continuity suffers greatly. As when the movie was being converted from page to screen things and events had to be condensed a certain amount. In the novel these events take place over two years while in the movie everything occurs in the span of only one year to fit in the time allotted. Continuing with the inaccuracy of television to create authenticity in historical films. Graham states that this practice is very problematic. She examines the form of what a Civil Rights film should aim to be,consisting of two central ideas. “The reluctant champion” usually a white southerner “whose cultural estrangement provokes social and political upheaval in a deep southern community” (55) and “the reliable witness” a
“source of incriminating evidence against the community” (55). More often than not, the “reliable witness” is a television where Civil Rights news is presented to the white hero.
And the film, which popularized this style is Mississippi Burning . With its main contribution being the use of television to try and create a believable reality to viewers. Through this comparison of civil rights films a common theme of historical falsehood is prevalent. Alan Parker, the director of Mississippi Burning , filled in scenes where actors were cast to portray “reporters” from “Network News” (57). An effort to convince the audience that what they are witnessing was not a film or movie based around actual events but instead a documentary on events as they happen. And now from these films, most people can only conjure up “a handful of formalized tableaux or ‘romantic images’ as Barack Obama called them” (57). Graham continues by expressing that “many Americans now tended to recall the Civil Rights Movement as ‘the grainy black and white footage that appears every February during Black History Month ’ in other words as a television program” (58). Implying that most people get information about the Civil Rights only through the viewing of, more often than not, inaccurate Civil Rights films. Graham's next point is her biggest. That the use of the word “stories” is a form of trivialization. She begins by confirming that throughout the film the word and phrase of “stories” is used to represent different mediums and narratives. The first being Aibileen and then are some television programs referenced throughout the film as when Minny sets up a television in front of Hilly’s mother so she can “watch her stories”. And afterwards the “term ‘story’ is introduced as a synonym for soap operas” (61).
Programs that are ripe with over the top drama and humor. So now the belief that these “stories” will contain some sort of dramatic event that is bound to be humourous. Viewers get a taste of this in one story in particular. Minny, who used to be the help for Hilly, is fired for using the “white” bathroom in HIlly’s house. To get back at her former boss, she makes a pie from her excrement and serves it to Hilly as an apology. She gleefully watches as Hilly consumes the pie and states “Pie is good as always Minny”.
This tale is eventually and reluctantly added to Skeeter’s book. Viewers are then treated to a montage of African American and white women stumbling across this story as they read the novel. In every scenario, these woman are left cackling like hyenas barely able to breathe, the only exception is Hilly herself, who screams in horror as she sees her greatest humiliation. The novel Skeeter writes “becomes a popular sensation in Jackson because of its gossip value” (61). A value that is contradictory to real accounts. As in reality telling these stories Minny and Aibileen would have definitely faced repercussions for their actions. Such was the case of Booker Wright an African American waiter . Who told a personal story and of numerous accounts of mistreatment from white patrons to NBC producer Frank De Felitta. And after this story was published “Wright lost his job, nearly died from being pistol whipped by a policeman, and watched his small business burn to the ground” (63). However this sense of danger does not seem present in The Help . Even after Hilly finds out and tells her friends that Aibileen had helped in the making of the book the worst thing that happens is that she is fired.
However, in reality telling these stories would have most likely ended with brutal attacks, harassment, and the possible deaths of Aibileen, Minny and the other maids for speaking out against their white “masters”.
The Help , in essence, is historical fiction. A story based around the civil rights movement. However this does not stop viewers from believing and taking this film as reality and truth. It is such a well crafted and cinematic film that it creates a sense of false reality. So much so that people flock to Jackson, Mississippi ,a town that has changed little since the 1960’s, in droves “to take ‘ The Help ’ tour” (64). One that
consists of Hilly's House as well as Skeeters farm. Which are actually carefully crafted and designed sets that are blended along with actual places and buildings to help create a sense of validity. The use of television and actors to create continuity with real life events has helped perpetuate this falsehood.
Graham presents a mostly negative critique of not only The Help but other civil rights films as well. Graham firsts argues against the idea of “historical” civil rights movies. And if one is attempting to make a historical film it is important to make sure that fits the timeline of when it is taking place. In this case, anything from characters to events must be or attempt to create some uniformity to history. Even a film based around an event or time period, or in other words historical fiction, it is still important to try to make the film as accurate as possible, but some aspects of historical accuracy will suffer due to the main focus on the story being told. For example, in the film Selma it is more imperative that it is more historically correct. Since its focus is on events and people that have actually existed. While in The Help it does not really matter. For say some aspects are not valid or authentic, again, because the story it tells is told with the Civil Rights as the background. So scenes such as the broadcasts from Medgar Evers, though they are historically inaccurate, they still help move along the plot. Graham clearly states that the use of television is problematic. As its very use is to draw in the audience and make them believe that what they are watching is indeed real. However television does not have to be historically accurate. It can be argued that television as being the “reliable witness” can be advantageous in some cases. As it can provide the audience with the time period when the film takes places. Providing background information and context to the story. Or it could help to advance the plot of the film.
Then there is the “classic” civil rights film format is that the story is centered around a white “hero” and not a black character. This can be very problematic as it implies that the main focus of Civil Rights were those of white origin and not for those of color. When in all actuality it was because of white Americans that the Civil Rights Movement was necessary. Next is Graham's point that the stories are of a trivial nature. One that could be argued as solid and valid. For the stories and tales of the maids are funny and intended to get back at their white bosses. And these colorful narratives are quite contradictory to history. This idea can be extremely problematic along with the use of television to create
authenticity. As it may in fact depict and create a false history which is very believable. Finally Graham points out that many people are in love with this story. As they convince themselves that all the places and scenes from fictional Jackson actually occurred. Now there is nothing wrong with someone enjoying the story that The Help tells. It is a very well crafted film that tells its story very well. Viewers may also learn about the past as to not repeat the failures of the generations before. However there can be a problem with those who see the film and wish it was real or wish that they could live in the fantasy world depicted. Such as those who travel in packs to the real Jackson, Mississippi hoping to get a glimpse of the fictional version. In all wishing to live in this fictional world rather than the real one that surrounds them everyday.
Going back in time to another time in history where African Americans were subjugated. During the 1800s the United States were split in two. The Southern half and the Northern half. In the South slavery and racism was extremely prevalent. A place where over 4 million slaves toiled in slavery and endured mistreatment from their white masters. The north, however, existed as the opposite. In this region African American men, women, and children were free. 12 Years A Slave directed by Steve McQueen is one of the few movies that attempt to represent this era and time. McQueen’s film tells the story of Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) a free African American man from upstate New York who was kidnapped and sold into slavery. Northp is captured by bounty hunters after he earns a job working as a violinist. He is then sold off to
plantation owner William Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch) who later trades him to another owner by the name of Edwin Epps (Michael Fassbender). He endures mistreatment and witnesses horrible acts until an abolitionist from Canada (Brad Pitt) who helps him escape from the life of a slave.
In Manohla Dargis article “The Blood and Tears, Not the Magnolias: ‘ 12 Years A Slave ’ Holds Nothing Back in Show of Suffering” she praises the film as not only a well crafted and cinematic movie but also for being a true and authentic representation of slavery in the United States.
One major praise that Dargis gives is that 12 years a Slave is unique in its interpretation and presentation. As it does not pull any punches in illustrating the horrible imagery of American slavery. Dargis explains that “one of the major shocks of ‘ 12 Years a Slave ’ is that it reminds how infrequently stories about slavery have been told on the big screen” (3) with few exceptions, such as Richard Fleischer’s Mandingo and tells “a very different tale of the Old South” (3) as shown in Gone With The Wind .
With McQueen willing to show extremely graphic and disturbing images or scenes. Such as the countless whipping scenes where the audience is forced to listen to the crack of the whip and witness the horrible, stomach turning welts and gashes created after each blow. Or the few scenes where the lynching of slaves is presented in full graphic detail. This even includes the failed hanging of Solomon himself. For a whole day Solomon is shown struggling to survive swinging slightly and emitting pained and choked noises while other slaves are too scared to approach. Then there is the scene depicting the apparent raping of a slave named Patsey by her master Edwin Epps. By showing these images McQueen appropriates “the very film language that has been historically used to perpetuate reassuring fabrications about American history” (3) and
“demolishes its canards, myths, and cherished symbols” (3). And it is because of this historical accuracy that makes 12 Years A Slave so successful. Its willingness to present such dark imagery and stick to the source material is what separates itself from the pack. Before in films such as Gone with the Wind slavery stories were mostly told from the perspective of the white “masters” or even from the point of view of slaves but were comical or joyful in their nature. Films whose main focus were on “loveable masters…or cheerful slaves” (3). This approach is a part of the idea that most directors are reluctant to present viewers with such gruesome illustrations. So they can “keep audiences in their seats and “not force them from the theater,sobbing” (2). However McQueen takes a different approach by recreating “scenes of slavery’s extreme
privations and cruelties, but also its work rhythms and routines...along with the unsettling intimacies it produced among the owners and the owned” (4).
Dargis argues that 12 Years A Slave is the cream of the crop or the golden standard in terms of historical representations of slavery and the Civil War Era. First she claims that it is unique in the fact that it presents such dark imagery without hesitation. A strategy that can, if done properly, would allow an audience to learn from these past tragedies and wrong doings. Such as the scene in which Solomon is sent to retrieve items for Mrs. Epps and stumbles across a gang of white males lynching two slaves. As Solomon walks by in the background, but still clearly visible the two men are hoisted up as they gasp for breath and suddenly they drop, the sounds of their necks breaking clearly audible. Next is how 12 Years in comparison to other films is extremely accurate to the time period. Since the film is just another that fits under the phrase of “based on a true story” as it recalls the accounts and experiences of Solomon Northup during his captivity as a slave ,from his capture by bounty hunters through his time as an actual slave on the plantations of both Ford and Epps, till his release 12 years later . So in this form of film historical accuracy is extremely important while as in The Help or Life Is Beautiful it was not as imperative. They were films where tales were formed around historical events and not actual recollections of the time itself. While on the flip side 12 Years A Slave is a true story so, unlike the films listed previously, there are few to no historical inaccuracies and if there is are they may be very small or inadequate. However if there were inaccuracies that were large and noticeable than that would in turn be problematic. For example a slavery film based around whites such as Gone With the Wind could be seen as less historically valid as it bases its story around the “oppressors” rather than the “oppressed”. Finally, in the previous films The Help and Life Is Beautiful comedy is used in a massive amoun. In these films it could be argued that this humorous approach can downplay the seriousness of events taking place.
However this “light hearted” and humorous manner is not transferable to 12 Years A Slave . The use of comedy, as in other attempts of slave films, would undo and undermine what McQueen set out to create: an accurate representation of the era of
slavery.
What does it mean to be a true and authentic representation of historical events? With Life is Beautiful and The Help audiences are presented very entertaining that in all are not very authentic. With the directors opting for smaller stories with historical context, serving as the background. While 12 Years A Slave is more definitive as its purpose is clear; to show just how horrific and awful the era of slaves and masters truly was. There are many opinions as to what is acceptable and what is not. Which explains the many varied attempts to create a film that is a true and authentic representation. Thus, there appears that there is no definitive, concise, or concrete answer to the question of what a true historical representation is supposed to be. The stark differences presented in the three films above illustrate and prove that there is no set
formula for historical representations to be successful.
Works Cited
Dargis, Manohla “The Blood and Tears, Not the Magnolias: ‘12 Years A
Slave’ Holds Nothing Back In Show of Suffering” Rev. of “12 Years
A
Slave”,The New York Times
Graham, Allison. “We Ain’t Doin’ Civil Rights: The Life and Times of a
Genre, as told in The Help .” Rev. of The Help, Southern Cultures
Wright, Melanie J. "Don't Touch My Holocaust: Responding to Life is
Beautiful ." Rev. of Life is Beautiful, The Journal of Holocaust
Education 2000: 1930.