Cultures of Histories: Facts, films, and fiction
Simon Stone, The Dig (2021)
Image: Larry Horricks/Netflix
Here from: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/how-accurate-is-the-dig-whats-true-and-false-in-netflixs-sutton-hoo-film-r2nxbh33b
Continuing the archaeological and historical theme of the most recent Bits and Pieces post in another vein…
Many of you have told us that you’ve watched Simon Stone’s The Dig (Netflix) in the last few weeks. In some of the conversations, the issue of historical accuracy was tentatively raised, as it has been - more or less tentatively - in much of the media coverage (see, as but one example: https://www.forbes.com/sites/robsalkowitz/2021/02/03/what-netflix-the-dig-gets-right-and-slanderously-wrong-about-the-sutton-hoo-story/?sh=63032ef51401) . But does a historical film need to be accurate?
We thought this suggested a good opportunity to think about this in a post – not least because our respective takes on history, accuracy, and facts have long been a focus of mutual teasing at Wrightington Towers, even (in fact especially) during eighteen years of friendship before we became a couple.
On a less personal level, it also speaks to a long-standing disconnection between what most people think historians do and what most of them actually do. This disconnection arises from different understandings as to what ‘history’ is. We wondered whether an occasional series on aspects of this might be of interest to you. If not, we may develop this sort of thing on a new website, but in case you might like this sort of thing…
As some of you know, like Robert, I used to be a professional medieval historian. Very early on during my two decades in the biz (from mature student undergrad, via doctoral student, jobbing graduate teaching assistant, and temporary lecturer, to Leverhulme Research Fellow and eventually senior lecturer), I recognized something new happening when people mentioned or recommended a piece of historical fiction, namely a certain hesitancy; almost an expectation that I was going to roll my eyes, scoff, and start banging on about historical inaccuracies and errors.
It’s a truth universally acknowledged that any academic medievalist will have had more conversations about Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975) than they’ve had hot dinners (OK. I’m exaggerating, but not much) - often even started by them. So voila: my obligatory Holy Grail image (here via: https://gointothestory.blcklst.com/great-scene-monty-python-and-the-holy-grail-a12b8650508).
What is less widely known is that a significant proportion of academic medievalists regularly cite this as one of the more accurate cinematic depictions of things medieval (more on which below). Curiously, in my experience, it was rarely mentioned by Local Pub Bores…
A variation on this would often crop up in situations when The Local Pub Bore (a cheap shorthand, but you know the type: hell-bent on one upmanship whenever possible) happened to discover that I was an historian. In this variant, said Local Pub Bore would bring up a particular item of historical fiction (usually a film, except for during The Da Vinci Code’s heyday, but that’s a whole ‘nother story), practically drooling as he* waited for me to start banging on sanctimoniously about accuracy or lack thereof, so that he could demonstrate to me that there were, in fact, precisely the right number of buttons on that particular military coat in that battle scene. The precise nature of the triumphantly-curated stash of facts varied (although it’s fair to say that battles and/or costumes featured strikingly often), but the general gist was consistent.
[* Sorry. But it was usually a he. There’s apparently something about me which convinces a certain type of man that I need taking down a peg or two. Anyway….]
I’m going to put this out there right away. I lived neither down nor up to those expectations. I couldn’t care less if historical fiction is accurate or not – I can and do still enjoy it. As far as I’m concerned, novels, films, video games, whatever… they can all play as fast and loose as they like with The Facts. Actually, the faster and looser the better. I’m far from the first academic - or ex-academic - to say that (and many have said it with far more learning, clout, and hardcore scholarly research under their belts than I could even dream of achieving) and I won’t be the last. But it is still, I think, worth saying.
The thing is, I completely get why people have both versions of these expectations. To a large extent, I think that it’s because a good deal of PR for and media coverage of historical fiction, in all its forms, centres on accuracy, on ‘uncovering the real “X”’, ‘discovering the secret history of “Y”’, ‘telling the true story of “Z” for the first time’, and so on. This is, I suspect, a product of how a piece of historical fiction has to be pitched for production.* I was in sales and marketing before I entered academia, and I understand why that’s seen to be a powerful spin. But I think that it’s egregiously underestimating people.
[* I recently stumbled across a blog which gives jolly interesting insights into the film-making process, and includes a super piece on one of the films mentioned here: http://sex-in-a-sub.blogspot.com/2010/05/robbing-from-poor-writer.html. I’d love to have seen the original film.]
NB ‘The Untold True Story That Inspired The Legend’
The poster for Antoine Fuqua’s King Arthur (2004)
Truth be told, I feel a little guilty about using this particular example (right), because in the field of Arthurian Studies, it’s akin to shooting particularly hapless fish in a barrel, and because I greatly admire several of those involved as people and as artists. Then again, it’s fair game for present purposes, because much was made by the studio of the film’s Realism. Here, finally, we were told, we would get The Real Historical Arthur.
Well (you probably know where this is going…). The headline news is: no, we didn’t. There are far too many problems with the proposition of The Real Historical Arthur for me to deal with here (it’s been done by infinitely smarter people than me, but an entry-level round-up might be a future post…), but for now, this stands as a classic example of the prevailing cultural trend that insists that good historical fiction should be justified (aka greenlit and marketed) by conveying The Truth, stripped of the accretions of myth and inaccuracy.
But here’s the key point: that doesn’t matter. However much media articles like to talk about fusty professional historians getting hot under the tweedy collar about inaccuracy and disregard for The Truth in films, TV series, and novels,* the actual truth is that most actual historians whom I know (and I know a lot) really really don’t need that in their fiction.
[*This isn’t, I must stress, universal, and it’s not only Academics-with-a-capital-A who have a more laid-back attitude on these matters. I very much enjoyed, for example, several entries in Alex von Tunzelmann’s now-defunct Graun Reel History series - see, e.g., her piece on King Arthur here: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2011/jan/27/reel-history-king-arthur-keira-knightley. But the general cultural expectation endures: academic historians get mithered about inaccurate historical fiction.]
I used this image in teaching and academic conferences for a long time, and I’m ashamed to say that the file with provenance and copyright details has gone AWOL over several life, house, and tech moves. I shall find it at some point, but I’m working on the assumption for now that Messrs Scott, Crowe, and Universal have more important things to think about than our little website.
See also, for example, Ridley Scott’s Robin Hood (2010) - tagline: ‘The Untold Story Of How The Man Became The Legend’. Over the years, I’ve shamelessly milked this image to get a cheap laugh in undergraduate/postgraduate teaching and academic conference papers based on my research.* But that’s not because the film played fast and loose with The Facts. Not a bit of it.
[* Yes: it’s clearly from production reels, not the film, but it makes an actual serious point. No really.]
For me, the sticking-point, which made the film fair game in my wonted quest for a cheap laugh from an audience, was the insistence that finally we would be seeing The Real Story. Unfortunately, the quintessential expression of that insistence for this film - in an episode of BBC R5 Live’s Kermode and Mayo’s Film Review - is not currently available, but essentially (as I remember it. And those four words alone suggest another post…), it centred on Magna Carta.
MFC (1215)
Image here from: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lincolnshire-36983621
For reasons with which I shan’t bore you, I have a difficult relationship with Magna Carta.* Notwithstanding, it wasn’t the spectre of fish weirs, ells, and evil customs which bothered me in the press junkets, but rather the insistence that here, finally, is The Truth. What bothers me is that this trope serves to entrench perceived boundaries between academia and non-academic society at large, which has serious implications.
[* or, as it is now known widely in my former academic circles, MFC, for Magna Flipping Carta. Yup. That’s definitely what the ‘F’ stands for. Ahem.]
On one level, I’m no longer an academic, so why does this still bug me? Well, even though I’m no longer getting an income or a role in society from my hard-earned training and experience, even though I no longer have the privilege of introducing young (and equally-welcome less-young!) minds to new ideas and ways of thinking, I still firmly believe in what led me to go into the biz in the first place - viz. that thinking historically, when it’s done well, is exhilarating. It’s fun! But it’s also important for society as a whole. Boiling historical representations down, For The First Time, to what’s Right or Not Right insults everyone’s intelligence. It also reinforces the enduring notion that history is all well and good in its place, but it’s not really a useful subject, is it? Ornamental, one might say. Once the facts about any given period or character have been sifted, sorted, and recorded, what’s the point? We know what happened; job done. Now let’s crack on with something actually useful.
I may not be a ‘stakeholder’ (bleurch) in the university system now, but I remain a stakeholder in society in general, and having had the pleasures of working with generations of undergraduate and postgraduate students and, more recently, getting to know Robert’s students (long-standing and new - welcome all!), I still maintain that people can handle a more interesting attitude towards history. Hell, they may even enjoy it.
But hey. It’s not all about the earnest stuff. In the context of what I’m discussing here, this sort of judgment criterion can put people off watching a good film or encourage them to endure a bad one in the pursuit of The True Story, and as far as I’m concerned, that’s equally important. Life’s too short to waste even a few hours, unless it’s a conscious and well-informed choice to waste those hours, right? A rollicking good historical film can simply be a rollicking good film, playing with characters (real or imagined), ideals, and storylines for the purposes of sheer entertainment. And to get back to our present purposes, it can still be good history. There’s no need to dress historical fiction up in its Finally-The-Truth Sunday best to make it palatable. If we want to be entertained by a scholarly, meticulously researched and footnoted academic monograph or article, there are many wonderful possibilities. There are also many super documentaries.*
[*There are also many less-super documentaries, of course. History documentaries may appear as another post at some point…]
Oh look. Another Monty Python thing…
At this point, you may well be wondering whether this is just my hobby horse. Am I a solitary voice in the wilderness, while all proper medievalists know that medieval history must be treated reverently, with Gloves of Truth, in modern popular culture?
I could, should you wish, point you towards many others’ musings and academic scholarship which would answer this, but for now, a quicker answer: the distinction between real history and reel history is cheerfully acknowledged by academic historians of most persuasions - crucially, with no implication of value judgment either way. Quite simply, they’re different beasts, and that’s OK. Off the top of my head, I can instantly think of excellent scholarship on Blackadder, Ken Follett’s Pillars of the Earth, The Vikings, every King Arthur film you know, Vikings in heavy metal… and that’s just an instant less-than-a-second’s-thought list of works by some of my friends. Is this work academically rigorous? Yup. Does it sneer at inaccuracy in popular culture depictions of the medieval? Not one bit.* Does it contribute meaningfully to broader academic conversations? Absolutely.
[* except, on occasion, when said popular culture is touting itself ridiculously and erroneously earnestly, in which case fair play]
For now, though, I refer you to a piece relating to this particular iteration of Robin Hood’s cinematic career: https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/apr/14/robin-hood-russell-crowe. I don’t want to project my views onto my friends (one of whom features here) and colleagues, but compare and contrast the different takes on the importance of accuracy and facts in this piece. Academic historians are routinely accused of being the gatekeepers of History and Facts. But I hope that you’ll agree that that’s not conveyed in this piece. I don’t know the journalist, and have no idea whether that’s deliberate or not, but regardless, there’s no evidence here of academics getting hot under the collar about Facts or setting themselves up as gatekeepers of history. Nor am I snobbily denigrating historians outwith academia (hell. I’m an historian outwith academia now. As ever, solidarity, one and all!).
Image here from: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/helena-bonham-carter-its-our-duty-to-say-the-crown-is-made-up-58vkh2d7c, and the article itself is also of interest for our present purposes.
The phenomenon is not, of course, confined to the media or to drama with medieval historical content. Recently, for example, our Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and a member of the House of Lords respectively felt it necessary to point out to the masses that The Crown (Netflix) was fictional, i.e. not Actually True, and but '‘one step up from Spitting Image', prompting the Mail on Sunday to lead a campaign for health warning disclaimers at point of broadcast to ensure that the nation doesn’t labour under the delusion that Helena Bonham Carter held tea parties for hidden cousins and corgis on Martinique.* This is, I suggest, a text-book example of assuming the worst of an audience’s critical faculties.
[*It’s just possible that I may not have got all of the details right towards the end there, but the general point stands.]
Even when the PR machine for a piece of televisual historical fiction gleefully proclaims itself ‘anti-historical’, there is still a thirst for sifting out The Facts and The Truth. Explicitly set in “RUSSIA *A LONG TIME AGO”, and “BASED ON HISTORICAL FACTS *SORT OF”, Tony McNamara’s The Great (2020) for Hulu, currently airing on Channel 4 in the UK, has also garnered more nuanced media coverage.
Similarly, Yorgos Lanthimos’ cheerfully anachronistic The Favourite (2018), co-written with McNamara, includes some delightful C18 voguing, adding to the growing canon of anachronistic dance and/or music within historical film making central narrative points.* Interestingly, this interview with McNamara encapsulates a similar attitude towards the relationship between history and fiction as I am discussing here, but from a playwright’s perspective.
[*on which, inter alia, see also Plunkett & Macleane (1999), Moulin Rouge! (2001), Marie Antoinette (2006), and The Great Gatsby (2013)]
This image via https://www.timeout.com/movies/the-big-knights
So are there any films or TV series about the middle ages which don’t set me a-twitching? Quite a lot, actually. I do, however, have a particular fondness for two in particular. The first is a cartoon series which may have slipped by without you noticing it, depending on whether you have children/grandchildren and if so how old they are: Astley Baker Davies’s The Big Knights for the BBC (1999).
Astley Baker Davies, The Big Knights (2015 trailer)
I suspect that few of even its most ardent followers would argue that it’s historically accurate. It gleefully plays with wanton anachronism, and makes no attempt to hide that. See, for example, the trailer for its 2015 re-release (right).
Now at this point, there’s a good chance that you may be tutting at me for being deliberately provocative. Especially if we’ve met. But stay with me a little longer…
It’s most certainly not historically accurate in the traditional sense - not least because it doesn’t even try to exist in any chronological context more specific than “medieval” or “days of yore”. This is completely of a piece with many many historical films. Even those which sell themselves as The True Story (naming no names…). But there’s a strong case to be made for it being historically authentic.
We all have an idea of what medieval is: how it looks, how people talked, what they did, how they fought, etc. etc.. This is often amorphous, and we’re not even necessarily aware that it’s there, but nevertheless, when we see a film, we somehow just know whether it feels medieval or not from our collective cultural understanding of what medieval should be.
And this gets us closer to what I mean by historically authentic or even, indeed, historically accurate. Because that was also the case for an awful lot of medieval people. For much history written in the middle ages, what should/must have happened, what should/must have been said, is as historically valid as what did happen or was said. The number of buttons on a coat, how many soldiers fought at a particular battle, the precise words with which a king addressed his soldiers immediately before a battle… it’s important, but not so much for the precise numbers or words so much as what they convey and why it’s important that they should do so. As many of you will have heard Robert say often, why let the facts get in the way of a good story?
This is not, I hasten to stress, because those medievals were all a bit simple, or just hadn’t worked out how to get it right yet. They simply had a particular, culturally-contingent set of expectations of what History was and what it should do. “What History was” and “what it should do” might initially seem innocuous little phrases, but far from it (another post ahoy…?).
You may have noticed that I’ve used phrases like ‘playing fast and loose with the facts’, ‘playing’, and ‘gleeful’ quite a bit. Which leads me to another of my favourite medieval films which gets a lot Right, in a way which many might find surprising… namely Brian Helgeland’s A Knight’s Tale (2001). I’m far from alone in this - many historians in general and medievalists in particular hold this in great affection, and a good proportion of them cite it as one of the more authentic depictions of medieval themes and mores.*
[*as attested both by the number of times this little piece has been shared by academic friends on Facebook recently, marking the 20th anniversary of the film’s release and by the conversations arising]
How many anachronisms can you see here? I’ve not tried it (we don’t do such things at Wrightington Towers), but I’m pretty sure that it’d make a far more dangerous drinking game than looking out for “It’s been an Amazing Journey, Claudia”s in a whole episode of Strictly Come Dancing.
…and that’s more than OK.
Oops! I did it again. Not every post will be littered with Monty Python.
These anachronisms in themselves don’t necessarily tell us much about the middle ages per se, but they do suggest some very interesting questions about us, and what we want to see in something “medieval”. Anachronisms aren’t a problem. In fact, they can be jolly helpful to an historian. In that respect, they make A Knight’s Tale remarkably close to a lot of history which was written in the middle ages.
Basil Brown and Charles W. Phillips. Photograph by Basil Brown.
Image here via https://blog.britishmuseum.org/inside-the-dig-how-star-studded-film-squares-with-reality-of-sutton-hoo/
To explain that, back to The Dig to wrap up.
If you’ve got this far you may well feel that you’ve earned some facts. For an academic archaeologist’s perspective, see Roberta Gilchrist’s piece here or Rebecca Wragg Sykes’ here . Each of these brief pieces has a different set of points to convey (they are, if you like, presenting their own “story”), and note that there is no intellectual snobbery in either. Still closer to home, in different ways, see this by Sue Brunning, Curator of Early Medieval European Collections at the British Museum and this by Martin Carver, who led the 1983-92 excavations at Sutton Hoo.
I should stress that The Dig did not sell itself in Finally, The Truth terms - and nor did it need to. Instead, it is “BASED ON A TRUE STORY” - which is both safer and far more interesting. There are, as ever, layers to both “based” and “true” here - not least because the film is based on a 2007 novel of the same name, by John Preston (who’d happened to learn that he was related to one of the key protagonists, whose historical role was far greater than that described in both novel and film). But that’s OK. Preston and Stone are telling the stories they want to tell, using historical subject matter as a vehicle through which to do so.
And here’s the thing. Telling the story one wants to tell, using historical subject matter as a vehicle through which to do so is a very medieval thing (which definitely needs a separate post).
History is not merely an attempt to gather and collate all available facts. If it were, there would indeed be little need for more than a handful of professional historians to deal with whatever new evidence happens to turn up in someone’s attic or under the ground. There’s always a creative element, in the sense of selection and interpretation.
In a way, then, I’ve argued against myself. The would-be Truthful films I’ve mentioned here are perhaps historically accurate. But paradoxically, ‘accurate’ and ‘true’ are rather fuzzy words.
To finish, a few questions. What’s your favourite historical film? Have I sullied your memory of it with this post? Might you be interested in further musings on history here? As ever, do please let me know below!
Postscript What about Robert? What’s his take on historical fiction?
Well now, that’s a bit more complicated. Another post, perhaps.…