History vs. Media

Historical accuracy in popular media is something I am asked about quite a bit. In response, I always contend that there are two different issues at play: historical accuracy and historical authenticity. To explain the difference, let's use an excellent historical film, Stephen Spielberg's Lincoln (2012), and assume these arguments apply to any piece of fictionalized historical media (movie, tv show, video game, etc).

The first is historical accuracy. How closely and correctly does Lincoln depict President Abraham Lincoln's role in introducing then pushing through Congress the 13th Amendment, his battle to secure support for it, his personality, that of his wife, and so on?

Well, some things were very accurate and others were not. For example, the film opens with a soldier reciting the Gettysburg Address back to Lincoln as he sits watching soldiers at a train depot. Yet while celebrated now, in its own day that speech was not particularly famous or talked about; there wasn't (and isn't) even a single agreed-upon transcript of it because several versions exist (albeit with very small differences). Moreover, that interaction between Lincoln and the soldier was never recorded to have occurred; given the poignant nature of it and how beloved Lincoln was in later years, it definitely would have been. So that is entirely fictional.

Second, a main thrust of the film is that Lincoln wanted the 13th Amendment pushed through Congress before the 1864 election because he feared that if he waited, the war might end before slavery was abolished (which would in turn not lead to its abolishment). In reality though, the chances that by 1864 the Civil War would end without complete Southern defeat and slavery going with it were miniscule. Lincoln certainly didn't want the newly-reintegrated southern states to slow the adoption of the 13th Amendment once the war was over but it's not like the abolition of slavery in the US hinged upon when the South lost vis-a-vis the 1864 election. The South was definitely losing by late 1864 and the chances of some negotiated peace that involved the survival of slavery were virtually zero.

Third, there are many minor inaccuracies, such as Sally Field being much older than Mary Todd Lincoln was, Lincoln opposing his older son's entrance into the Army (Lincoln actually supported Todd's joining; it was Mary who vehemently opposed it), the names of most members of Congress who voted against the Amendment (which Spielberg changed for their modern descendants), and of course most of the private conversations that took place in the film. Those were all the product of casting choices and creative license, however excellent those choices were.

That said, many of the actors are scarily close in appearance to the historical figures they played, which was an unnecessary and yet compelling aspect of the film. They show Mary furious that Lincoln allowed Todd to join the Army, albeit in Grant's staff, which was a known bone of contention between the two witnessed by many around them. Lincoln did go visit hospitals often, as did Mary Todd, and the frank nature with which that's treated in the film is so important. The relationships between many characters are fairly accurate (like Lincoln and Gideon Wells) and most of the language used in the Congressional debates depicted in the film was said in real life, both the good and the bad. There were lobbyists who used somewhat questionable tactics to secure "yes" votes, Lincoln did have a good relationship with Grant, he did play with his son in the White House as is seen in the film, Thaddeus Stevens likely did have a romantic relationship with his housekeeper, and there were African Americans present in Congress in the upper gallery when the final Congressional vote was held.

So overall, I'd argue that while the film had its problems, it was fairly historically accurate. One of the best Civil War historians today (Alan Guelzo) gave it a 90% score and I'd say that's pretty fair.

That being so, what's authenticity? Well, this refers to how authentic the film is to the time, place, events, technology, abilities, and historical figures involved. This can be everything from authentically depicting character traits for specific historical figures to how people at a given time spoke, dressed, wore their hair, or even fought. Did they wear that type of suit? Did they speak that way? Are the hair styles correct? Would they have traveled that way? Would they have used that tactic or carried that weapon? Do they have a correct sense of time or space or understanding of the world? In a sense, that's the "atmosphere" created in the media.

In Lincoln, while many of the specific scenes in the film likely did not occur (or occur as they're portrayed), how Daniel Day Lewis portrayed Lincoln is nothing short of astounding. Lincoln was tall, gangly, and walked slightly awkwardly. He had a slight rural midwestern accent to his voice that he would play up at times (likely when it served him). He often quoted scripture even though he was actually not deeply religious (more spiritual, as we'd say today). He had a high, reedy voice that would get higher when he was angry, and he did get angry at times despite his frequent depiction as placidly wise with a deep, authoritative voice. He and Mary Todd did have rousing fights and he did at times threaten her with institutionalization because she likely suffered from manic depression no one at the time had any idea how to treat. He was also notorious for giving strangely short or seemingly random speeches and telling somewhat odd stories, at times stories that appeared to others to have no bearing whatsoever on what was being discussed. A particularly wonderful touch was that they included the George-Washington-portrait-in-the-British-bathroom story because while likely apocryphal, Lincoln was known to tell that story on more than one occasion (he loved it, apparently!). Yet he was also very intelligent—he taught himself law, after all—and he was a very effective leader who used those aforementioned aspects of his personality to his advantage. So while his portrayal is not exactly accurate, it's one of the most authentic on film. It's downright eerie.

Now, which matters more? To a professional historian, one might think both matter equally but actually, I'm willing to surrender accuracy while being comparatively unforgiving about authenticity. Why?

Well, in actual history, things usually took place over longer periods of time, were less streamlined, more confusing (and confused), and involved more people than can effectively be depicted in a movie or TV show. In real life, you often meet people who don't matter to your main story, so to speak, or someone can play a big role in your life but only a very small part of it or for a very short time (which is not easy or convenient for fictionalized story-telling purposes). Things in real life also don't have a narrative arc, or consolidated acts, and yet most of the time media needs a narrative arc with actions that organize the story and drive it forward. This is why real historical timelines are often compressed in movies; characters are amalgamations of multiple actual historical figures (because it's easier for the audience to deal with one person rather than several); one historical figure might be eliminated and their actions "given" to someone else that is depicted; or certain events will be added or removed to help make the overall story make more sense (lots of events in most people's lives in any historical biopic). In The Tudors, for example, Henry VIII is shown to only have one sister but he actually had two; they just consolidated them and eliminated his sister named Mary because they didn't want confusion between his sister Mary and his daughter Mary.

This is to say nothing of the need for a protagonist and an antagonist in media: people need someone to root for and someone to root against. Real life is much more complex, of course, far beyond the capabilities of a two-hour film or even a multi-episode tv series. Because of this, fake historical figures have been created to be the "bad guy" while the bad acts of a protagonist have been softened to make rooting for them easier. This makes perfect sense for screenwriters but can make historians cringe.

In Zulu (1964), an excellent war film about the 1879 Battle of Roark's Drift, solider Harry Hook was portrayed as an anti-hero, a criminal and malingerer who did everything he could to avoid his duties, who then did heroic things under duress. Yet in real life, Hook was a Methodist preacher and teetotaler who was not only described as a model soldier by his comrades, but he'd received a citation (with pay) for good behavior before the battle occurred. According to reports, his daughter was so offended by his portrayal in the film that she walked out of the premier. In a similar case, RMS Titanic First Officer William Murdoch was depicted shooting panicking passengers before committing suicide in James Cameron's Titanic (1997). Yet while Murdoch might have killed himself, many survivors actually noted his outstanding bravery in helping them escape; some historians even contend that more passengers survived who evacuated out of his side of the ship than anywhere else. His family was so upset by what they viewed as a tarnishing of his reputation that the VP of Fox went to Scotland, apologized to his family, and donated some money to a local high school. While these narrative choices are arguably unforgiveable, in general it's necessary to (gently) manipulate historical facts to make a story more engaging.

In any assessment of accuracy vs. authenticity, historians should be far less forgiving of errors in authenticity than accuracy because while no media can be entirely historically accurate (it's just not feasible or really even possible), they should fall back on authenticity to fill in those gaps. This is especially true for fictional stories—so media depicting something that never happened but in the past—because authenticity is the only thing left to make the story work. On one end of the spectrum you have something like Saving Private Ryan or the Sharpe series, the latter of which was a popular historical fiction movie series (adapted from a novel series) about a man fighting for the British in the Napoleonic Wars. The man never existed and thus didn't have the impact that Sharpe did but the "world" and historical events in which Sharpe operated were very authentic to actual events, which made it all work. Obviously the same can be said for Saving Private Ryan. On the other end of the spectrum you have something like Nick Cage's Season of the Witch (2011), which has so many historical errors one would be hard pressed to count them.

Overall, this historian recommends aiming for authenticity over accuracy. Try for both, of course, but one can forgive minor errors as long as the "world" feels real. If that's not what you're aiming for--Monty Python and the Holy Grail or Robin Hood: Men in Tights come to mind--then don't worry too much about either. What's more, to some degree none of this matters: as long as a piece of historical media isn't wildly slanderous and gets people interested in the past, that's a win in my book. People need to learn history and if some names are wrong or actual events are rearranged, those are concessions I'm willing to make.

If you want to see some of Dr. D's historical media recommendations, proceed to the post: History at the Movies: Recommendations.