Liberties with History?

[Christy]

Since we did a little Confederate history on the last episode, I figured I'd throw this out there... I know the Da Vinci Code and the movie I'm going to bring up are different, but they raise some similar issues, so here goes...

You know how everyone went a little nuts over the Da Vinci Code because it's fiction, but uses some historical truths and/or questions and historical/religious figures in it's fictional storyline? You kind of had the "you don't mess with stuff like that" people, the "even though they say it's fiction I believe there's really a conspiracy and that this movie reveals more truths than years of church tradition and history" people, the "I know it's fiction, and I believe that it is categorically factually wrong, but as a story it's interesting" people, and the "I hate it when people twist stories that way leading to confusion among the uninformed" people. (Did I miss anyone?)

So, now we have a movie coming out that (while not religiously oriented) takes real events, real history, real characters, and builds on it in a fictional way to create a history never happened. Could it have happened this way? Maybe, but probably not. Is it exagerrated and biased? Definitely. Such is the relationship between art and hyperbole. Does it raise important questions that we, as a society, need to address? Yes. Will it cause controversy? Absolutely.

Take a look:

www.csathemovie.com/

I'm curious what other folks think about not just this movie, but this kind of movie. I'm all for exploring social relationships, social problems, and social challenges and finding helps, solutions, and new policies to improve the situation for all people (or else I woudn't be going to school for social work-- duh), but I'm inherently resistant to any kind of movie or book that takes too many liberties with historical events. Having not seen this one yet, I don't know whether or not my resistance is justified at all. But I do plan to see it. Looks pretty interesting, and Spike Lee movies are always thought-provoking and well put-together.

One question that I'm not sure of... My understanding of the Civil War is that the South wanted to secede from the Union, not take it over. It wasn't a southern rebellion that sought to capture and take control of northern states, according to what I've read and seen. The CSA was fighting for independence from the Union, not control over it. Does anyone have any good documentation on this, one way or the other? If what I've read about it is right (secession vs. coup d'etat), this movie uses some factual inaccuracies to do a bit of fearmongering about the south. I'm not sure, though, maybe there was some sort of Confederate plan to take over the world, and I just haven't heard about it. Anyone who has links to some good academic resources on it would be welcomed to send them my way.

[tomwbarker]

Christy,

Its funny that you choose CSA as it was written an directed by a Prof. here at KU. I actually went with my wife to see it on its world release opening here in Lawrence. I thought it was a good movie as it makes fun of a lot of stereotypes and shows the extent that there are stiull degrees of racism in our society.

As far as your question is concerned history is based on the most commonly accepted view which is generally created by the dominating group, the "winner." I hate to say it but history is far from having any absolutes.

[Christy]

I agree that it will be a great flick as far as raising issues of stereotypes and racism, Tom, which is why I can't wait to see it. But I hate that racism is always presented as a southern problem, and only a southern problem. Historically, the south has had the most egregious record with racism, but in modern America you see it everywhere. Police brutality happening in big cities in the west, NY, Chicago and stuff-- it's not just in the south. And looking at my family tree, my only ancestors who were slaveowners were in the north, before the family migrated southward. So the whole redneck-bashing thing bugs my rear, particularly since I'm a bit redneck myself, but not a racist. So what if I love bluegrass and clawhammer banjo, speak in southern colloquialisms, love the south, am handy with a gun, have a totally redneck accent a la Joy from My Name is Earl (when I'm not podcasting), and have lived in the south all my life?! Those things don't make me a racist, and to see them continually linked with racism in the media (as if racism is ONLY a problem in the south) really gets on my nerves. Proving a point at the expense of bashing another group is not, in my experience, a particularly solid approach.

[tonyspencer]

An interesting novel, and I'm looking forward to seeing the movie.

Of course part of the controversy is that Dan Brown claims it is all true, but many of the claims have been debunked by Tony Robinson in the UK Channel 4 programme "The Real Da Vinci Code".

Personally, I don't have a problem with this type of fiction - I'm reading a novel at the moment based on the premise that a nuclear conflict occurred between the US and USSR after Cuba in 1962.

Movies however, more specifically Hollywood, have a habit of playing with history and then passing it off as truth, which is a different thing. If something is clearly marked as fiction, no problem. A good case was with the film U571, which purported to show the capturing of an Enigma machine by the US Navy, when it was in fact the (Britiish) Royal Navy who captured it, with help from the Polish underground. After a global outcry, they did at least add a notice to this effect at the end of the movie.

Bob Packett in his History According to Bob has covered some of these issues (he and colleagues were going to walk out during Alexander, but stayed because they knew they would have to correct students on the errors).

Fact is often stranger than fiction, so one wonders why there is a need for Hollywood to sex things up.

Great podcast by the way.