Movies as 'History'

Most of my regular readers know that among two of my great passions ranks watching movies and reading up on history. I would be hard pressed to admit which is ranked higher than the other but suffice it to say that they are both rather up there in rank. One would therefore think that when movies seek to combine the two subjects of my passion, I would be ecstatic and for the most part that may be true but there are often occasions where I have been a bit disappointed in what Hollywood has managed to put out. I bring this up because as you may have guessed from the photo accompanying this blog, there is a new movie being released entitled "Public Enemies" which deals with the FBI hunt for gangster John Dillenger (portrayed by Johnny Depp).

The film is directed by Michael Mann whose list of films include "Heat", "Miami Vice", "Collateral", "The Insider" and "The Last of the Mohicans" to name a few. Save for "The Insider" there weren't really any movies in that lot that could be considered historical in nature though "The Insider" did deal with the real life case of Jeffery Wiggand who was a whistle-blower for the tobacco industry. While many critics believe that the portrayal of this real-life incident were fairly accurate, it is safe to say that not everything shown in the film was realistic. But then again that's what we expect isn't it? Most moviegoers these days don't have the attention span to concentrate more than two hours. Any movie going over that time is often looked at with some derrision.

But how can one encompass the life and legacy of someone famous in so short a time? It's next to impossible actually. So what does one do? Simple. Edit and consolidate. Often times for the sake of dramatic purposes, writers and directors will consolidate events and incidents or meetings to encompass a longer duration in a much shorter time. The unfortunate side effect of this practice is that when people look to use movies as an authority on how certain events in history played out then there is bound to be misrepresentation or frustration over the way certain events are portrayed or how they play out.

For example when the movie "300" came out several years ago, one of the main complaints against it was the portrayal of the Persians. Now I won't argue whether the depiction of the Persians were accurate or not but I will say that it helped bring to light the fact that many people don't realize that Persia is now known as Iran. The reason I say this is because many critics and fans of the film were confused as to why the Iranian government (including President Ahmedanijad) were protesting the film. Sad as it is, even a movie that may have stretched the truth may have helped provide a little bit of education to people.

But sometimes what happens is that the license to dramatize 'certain events' can often go overboard and results in more dramatization than historical fact. Certainly it makes for more interesting movie making but then many people accept it to be the truth. This can be both a good and a bad thing. I have always been one who believes that if a movie on history stirs my interest on a subject, I will seek out information and educate myself on the film before accepting what I see blindly. With the case of "Public Enemies" I'm sure there is some artistic license taken but one would think that with Michael Mann being the director there would be more attention to the truth than action. I would simply ask that before you think of Johnny Depp as being the representative of John Dillenger, read a book on the subject too. It can make watching movies on history that much more enjoyable.