Invariably, films set in the past are actually about the present, reflecting either the zeitgeist of the time or a narrative that the filmmaker wants to project, whether consciously or unconsciously. First, history is often so complex and multifaceted that a neat narrative of heroes and villains so beloved to cinema cannot fit. Second, it would be nearly impossible to fit everything into the two-hour time frame, so filmmakers would have to pick and choose what the film shows. Third, the dialogue is almost always done in a way that moves the narrative, so material that doesn’t get ignored. Fourth, black and white characters are far more fun than brown ones.
All this means that what cinema claims to be “true” is often just perspective, lacking nuance and context.
Academic history is very similar, but as a picture may be worth a thousand words, the vast visceral effect of cinema makes it particularly important in evaluating it. It is hard to dispute that people view historical events through the lens of films, as far as popular memory goes indistinguishable from popular cinema. For example, the popular belief that World War I was a “wrong way” is due in no small part to the Black Adder Goes Fourth.
It is no surprise that period film—with its great ‘historical truth’—is often a medium for creating or propagating political myths. Films showing grand heroism or victimhood can strengthen national narratives and create historical ‘memories’ that give rise to ‘patriotism’ or help garner votes.
This shouldn’t be a bad thing. Since ‘Truth’ is a film only a perspective, a film that highlights the principles of humanity, decency, democracy and essential equality of all, deserves to be celebrated by all responsible leaders.
Perhaps the most prominent film of this type is Jean Renoir’s masterpiece. la grande illusion Which was released in 1937 to almost universal acclaim. The film tells the story of three French prisoners of war and their eventual escape to various German camps 20 years ago during World War I. It was based on Renoir’s memories of a war-time experience. In the hands of a lesser director, this would have been an opportunity for jingoism and passionate dialogue with action set pieces. In Renoir’s hands, it was a terrifyingly beautiful piece of art about the friendship between class, nationality, language and religion, the artificiality of human boundaries, and the essential humanity of all sides. There were no cartoonish villains, just ordinary people doing their best. As Renoir believed, everyone has their reasons. The richly carved characters are unforgettable: the working-class hero Marechal played by Jean Gabin, the cheerful and generous Jew Rosenthal played by Dalio, the lonely German widow Elsa played by Dita Parlo, the aristocratic Captain de Boulediu played by Pierre Fresne, who She sacrifices her life to escape the lives of her compatriots, and above all, the tragic Captain von Röfenstein played by Erich von Stroheim. The themes Renoir touched, the generosity with which he treats his characters, and the humor and compassion make La Grande Illusion one of the greatest films of all time. The film was released 85 years ago when the Spanish Civil War was raging and Western democracies were headed for a war on fascism. Nevertheless, its message is always relevant. This is why The Grand Illusion won praise from US President Roosevelt, who screened the film at the White House and wanted every Democrat to see it. Mussolini kept a copy in his personal collection. Propaganda maestro Goebbels recognized the damage the film’s message did to his philosophy, declared it “cinematic enemy No. 1” and sought to destroy every print in existence during World War II.
Goebbels also used the format of the period film to promote Nazi values. The infamous Jude Suess, released in 1940 and a huge hit in Europe, was the work of director Veit Harlan, based on the life of Josef Sas Oppenheimer, an employee of Carl Alexander, Duke of Württemberg, who was accused of fraud, embezzlement and treason. went. And in the 17th century was sentenced to death. The film portrayed Sas as a sexually licentious man who was responsible for unfair taxation and brutal oppression of the people. The film ends with the expulsion of all Jews from Württemberg and this closing dialogue: “Citizens of other states never forget this lesson.” Although it was promoted as true history, it was largely based on a novel by Lion Feuchtwanger, with anti-Semitic tropes. Added by Goebbels and Harlan. It was heavily promoted by the Nazi brass. Himmler apparently asked his Schutzstaffel to see the film before the anti-Semitic massacre. There were also incidents of violence against Jews after the screening. After the war, the film was banned in Germany and Harlan was put on trial for crimes against humanity, although he was later released. All actors attempted to disclaim responsibility for the film, claiming that, like Harlan, was coerced by Goebbels.
Not every promotional movie works as intended. Eisenstein’s expressionist Ivan the Terrible films, made in the 1940s, were intended to show a strong leader by Stalin, whose decisive leadership resulted in the Russian Empire taking over Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. Instead, what emerged was a thinly veiled critique of Stalin’s paranoia, absolutism and ruthlessness. By the time of Khrushchev the two parts were banned in the USSR and Eisenstein could never complete his trilogy.
When political leaders promote films, it does little to be true. It is usually just an endorsement of a particular story.
Rahul Narayan is Advocate on Record, Supreme Court of India and Solicitor for England and Wales