Just a Movie: How Accurate Do Films Need to Be?
Four of the eight nominees for the Academy Award for Best Picture this year are considered “biopics” (short for biographic pictures): American Sniper, The Imitation Game, Selma, and The Theory of Everything. All four have been subjected to some level of scrutiny for how the films have portrayed their subject matter and its level of historical accuracy. The two films generating the most debate are Selma and American Sniper.
Here is a summary of the controversies surrounding both films:
Selma
This biopic focuses on the five-day Freedom March from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, which ultimately led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1964. There are two issues in the most dispute. First, some people are critical of how the film depicts President Lyndon Johnson as an antagonist figure in the civil rights movement instead of an ally.
In fact, many historians consider the partnership between Dr. King and President Johnson to be one of the most productive in American history, despite the political struggles that did exist to get the Voting Rights passed. The film’s director, Ava DuVerney, has said that her film is not intended to be a documentary and is historically accurate.
The other issue is that King’s actual speeches were altered and do not represent the known speeches given by King. The filmmakers and screenwriters acknowledge that these are not King’s exact words and explain that the changes are minor and do not change King’s meaning. Further, they explain that he King family are very protective of granting permission for the use of Dr. King’s speeches and the film’s budget did not allow for the purchase of the King family’s set permission fees.
American Sniper
This film tells the story of Chris Kyle, a U.S. Navy Seal who served four tours in Iraq and is considered the most lethal sniper in U.S. military history. Just two weekends into its release, the film earned more than $200 million. Some critics say the film dehumanizes the Iraqi people and that women and children were among those Kyle killed.
The filmmakers have stressed that they want audiences to focus more on the plight of the soldier and the effects of war on families and not the political aspects of war. Regardless, the film has sparked a great deal of debate by passionate supporters on both sides, further widening the political divide in our country regarding issues like gun control and foreign policy.
The Challenge of Historical Films
The big business of winning movie awards can sometimes lead to big controvesy; photo: Ingram Publishing/Fototsearch
Films based on real persons and/or events are not uncommon. In fact, Hollywood has a long history of adapting material inspired by true events, and the voting members of the Academy has a long history of recognizing them for their achievement. Distilling a life or a complicated event into a two-hour format is a challenging feat even when the subject matter is not controversial. Determining what audiences will accept or reject is difficult to determine.
Last year’s big winner, 12 Years a Slave, was based on the 1853 memoir of the same name. While the content of the film itself did not generate much overt debate, some did accuse the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) of affirmative action by honoring the film. Argo won Best Picture in 2013 and also came under heavy scrutiny for deviating too far away from the real-life events shown in that movie–the rescue of six Americans during the Iranian invasion of the U.S. embassy in 1979.
Taking liberties with “true stories” goes back even further into Oscar history. The Life of Emile Zola, the 1938 winner for Best Picture, was widely criticized for sidestepping the issue of anti-Semitism. Sometimes it is directors who incite debate because of their tendency toward particular views. Oliver Stone, a staunch anti-war filmmaker, was criticized for liberties he took for his 1991 film JFK.