Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies

by Mark C. Carnes

In this widely-acclaimed volume, some of our greatest historians address the facts—and fiction—as seen in Hollywood’s often epic recreations of historical events. Distinghuished historians such as Stephen Ambrose, Antonia Fraser, James McPherson, Gerda Lerner, Dee Brown, Frances FitzGerald, David Levering Lewis, and Simon Schama explore the relationship between film and the historical record. Offering hundreds of movie stills, archival photographs, maps, and other illustrations, along with sidebars on related historical events, Past Imperfect sheds new light on the uses of history in popular culture.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Film, Media Tie In, Pop Culture, Reference, 20th Century

320 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1995

About the author

Mark C. Carnes is Professor of History at Barnard College.

Reviews

[David Crumm · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sorting Fact from Fiction in Film

Recently, I’ve been hearing from friends about the accuracy of a number of movies, which is a common question when a film opens with the words, “Based on a true story.” So, this week, I pulled off my library shelf a go-to volume that I’ve opened up many times over the past three decades. Unfortunately, the Society of American Historians has not updated this volume since it first was published in 1995, but it remains one of my most-re-read books and now I want to share this recommendation with friends on Goodreads as well. I’ve just been re-reading quite a few sections as I’m enjoying some historically themed movies this spring.

Who created this book?

The Society of American Historians was founded in 1939 by Pulitzer-Prize-winning historian Allan Nevins, who taught at Columbia University. Nevins' motive was a chronic annoyance with sloppy nonfiction accounts that were skewed to popular biases of the day. Nevins found that other rigorous historians felt the same way. The Society had its mission and began to expand its reach in dramatic ways through encouraging publications and awarding prizes. A decade or so after its founding, the Society was a driving force in the collaboration that launched American Heritage magazine with Bruce Catton as the Founding Editor. Past presidents of the Society are a Who’s Who of noted historians, including Barbara Tuchman, David McCullough and David W. Blight. This particular book is one of about two dozen volumes the Society has helped to publish throughout its history.

I explain all of that to say: These are heavy hitters weighing in on subjects they have devoted their lives to researching. Although this book was published in 1995 and the writing of history continues to evolve with each new generation, the articles in this book are substantial! A lot of what the 60 historians who contributed to this book have to say are indisputable facts from the historical record, although many of those truths were ignored by Hollywood. I remember first deciding to buy this book when I found that one of my own favorite directors, John Sayles, is featured in the opening section of the book, which is a Q and A about these issues in general.

A wide range of “American” reflections

In keeping with the Society’s mission, the book’s “American” focus is on how “our” Hollywood has distorted the historical record. Given that focus, then, the Society invited historians beyond the scope of “American History” to weigh in on some milestone movies such as The Ten Commandments, two films on Henry V, three films on Joan of Arc and Mutiny on the Bounty.

Throughout my career in journalism, my specialty has been covering religious and cultural diversity, so I am glad that the Society invited Reformation scholar Richard Marius, who wrote a well-respected biography of Thomas More, to pierce the pious whitewash of Thomas More’s life in the play and film version of A Man for All Seasons. In the 1960s, this version of More’s life—as a man of courageous conscience—seemed to tap into British and American cultural assumptions of the era, Marius explains in his article about the Robert Bolt play. British theatergoers raved about the play, prompting the film version. Unfortunately, Bolt charmed his audiences by celebrating More’s courage while ignoring his infamously blood-thirsty record of urging that Protestants be burned for their heresy. Anyone reading about the life of More from a balanced historian, today, will find him a tragically flawed figure who cheered lethal violence against men, women and even children who he viewed as heretics. I was never able to swallow Bolt’s version of More’s story and I’m glad I have a book like this to point other skeptics toward.

That’s just one detailed example in the field in which I specialize. The book examines nearly 100 films, including: Spartacus, Black Robe, 1776, The Alamo, The Molly Maguires, Gallipoli, The Front Page, Sullivan’s Travels, The Grapes of Wrath, Patton, Gandhi, Mississippi Burning and All the President’s Men.

The fun lies in debating with these historians

In this review, I am not claiming every historian in this collection is right about everything. As a lifelong fan of versions of The Front Page, for example, I found as much to debate as to concur with in the chapter on the Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur comedy as it was made and remade and remade by filmmakers over the decades. That chapter was written by Arthur Schlessinger Jr. and he clearly wrote that piece inviting his readers to compare their own opinions with his.

Sadly, the Society never updated this volume. Clearly, I would buy a newly revised edition the moment it went up for pre-sale, but the Society seems to have moved on to other projects. And, because of the book’s date of publication, a Kindle version was never released. Nevertheless, the volume is available from lots of resellers on Amazon and, if you’re curious to add this to your library, I’m currently seeing some used copies for just a couple of bucks. If you love movies and enjoy thinking about how often they skew our sense of what really happened, then there’s a lot of fun for you between these covers.

[Karl · Rating 2 out of 5]

If the historians aim in this collection of essays was to compete to see who could put forth their nitpicks in the most condescending, humorless, and obnoxious way, they all win.

[Jake · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a enjoyable read. It is light enough that one can make a case for calling it a coffee table book. The chapters/articles are short and palatable. It also piqued my interest and got me trying out movies I hadn't before.

Try the following quote. Historian Richard White is talking about why The Last of the Mohicans is far from accurate.

"It is not that all the details are all wrong; it is that they never were combined in this fashion. It's like having George Washington, properly costumed, throwing out the first ball for a 1843 Washington Senators baseball season opener. Sure, there was a George Washington; sure, there once were Washington Senators; sure, the president throws out the first ball; sure, there was an 1843. So what's the problem?"

I love it! This book isn't designed to make readers despise Hollywood or its loose approach to historical accuracy. On the contrary, it is calculated to make film buffs more savvy when it comes to watching film adaptations of historical events and people.

[Graceann · Rating 3 out of 5]

This is a wildly variable book, which is to be expected given the vast number of contributors that took part in its creation. The concept is this: A historian watches a well-known film that tells a story based in his or her area of expertise, and then discusses the accuracy (or, more often, inaccuracy) of the production.

Some of the entries are utterly humorless and the historians clearly don't get the larger picture. Jurassic Park features dinosaurs from the Cretaceous period? That's your biggest problem with it, Stephen Jay Gould? It's a movie, about reanimated dinosaurs that eat folks, no less, and it's meant to entertain, hopefully scaring the heck out of the audience in the process. Anyone who is watching it to get a science lesson has much larger problems than you could solve in a four-page essay. And don't get me started on the issues that Thomas Fleming had with 1776 which, if you didn't know, is a musical based on the days around July 4 and the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. No matter how accurate the rest of the story might have been, and of course it wasn't, because it wasn't a history lecture (again, movie, meant to entertain, etc.) as long as the creators of the film have John Adams warbling a tune, accuracy is far, far down on the list of criteria.

Other historians understand the need to use a bit of artistic license in order to keep a story within the confines of a two-hour film or to give it context and memorability. James McPherson, in his essay on the film Glory, acknowledges that most of the men of the 54th Massachusetts were free, not the escaped slaves that are depicted in the film. He also expresses the understanding that the larger context made this bit of fiction a worthwhile addition to the story. The other corrections he provides are useful for providing backstory but are not judgmental - he doesn't charge the filmmakers with "failing" to provide the information - he just does it himself.

If you haven't seen the film being discussed, reading the essay will spoil it for you. If you love the film being discussed, reading the essay might annoy you ("you just don't 'get it,' do you?") The incessantly humorless adherence to historical fact above all else (including the little necessity of being interesting enough to get audiences into the cinemas) leaves the reader in little doubt as to why very few scholarly historians are mainstream, or even independent, filmmakers (though many provide thoughtful and relevant insights in documentaries).

[Sally Sugarman · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good book for someone who advocates teaching history through popular culture; not exclusively through popular culture, but as an aspect of learning about history. Each of the films is discussed by a historian or someone who has written on the particular subject so knows it in great detail. There are also interviews with John Sayles by Eric Foner and Oliver Stone by Mark Carnes, as well as a strange dialogue written by Simon Schama about The Emperor. Besides making one depressed about American history and how terrible it is, one can see how the dramatic demands of a film conflict with presenting an image of the complexity of historical reality. The notion that in The Longest Day, Zanuck insists on placing explosives on a bridge where there were none on D-Day is an example of this. Both the discussion of his films J.F.K. and Nixon and the interview with Oliver Stone convinces one that he is an unreliable source of history. This would be a useful book to use when using films to raise the types of questions that are valuable to raise. Biographical films seem vulnerable to eliminating the flaws of their subjects. Film is not a medium for complexity and drama that takes place over time which is often condensed to make the story interesting to the viewer. The other point that the book effectively makes is that films cost a great deal of money and making a profit is the reason why films are made. We do need to dig deeper than the easy lessons that films offer us. The sixty-two films that are discussed are only a part of the library of historical films that are available and it would be fascinating to have discussions with students about what more do we need to know about an historical event than a film offers and how might the reality be distorted by the various pressures on film making, such as keeping the audience engaged by focusing on the narrative needs of film as well as the economics involved. This is a book worth having on the shelf as a model of how to think about the questions to ask when watching an historical film.

[Adam Watson · Rating 4 out of 5]

I'm working on creating a high school film class, and when I saw this on the shelf of a used books store, I knew I had to have it.

First of all, I love this sentence from the Introduction's opening paragraph: "All of its three score authors gleefully leapt past chasms of committments, raced to their VCRs, crafted their essays, and returned them by next-day mail." Has there ever been a passage that so quickly dates a nonfiction book?

That aside, this book (published in 1996) is a gem. It's both educational and mostly entertaining, a rare treat. The essay writers are certainly no slouches (Stephen Ambrose! Paul Fussell!) in the history department. Some of the selections are curious -- they are neither good films nor particularly important historical examples -- but overall, well worth a purchase if you can find it. (The interviews with Oliver Stone and John Sayles alone would make it worth it.) With the spate of movies that have come out in the nearly two decades since this was published, I would love to see a new edition.

[Checkman · Rating 4 out of 5]

A series of short essays in which historians examine famous Hollywood movies (Sparatcus, The Great Escape, Hester Street, Bonnie & Clyde etc). Each essay gives a brief synopsis of the movie and then compare the movie events to how it really was. It's a fun reference book and one which I purchased off the shelf back in 1996. Sometimes it's fun to just give the brain some chewing gum and relax.

[Susanna - Censored by GoodReads · Rating 4 out of 5]

This set of essays is a ton of fun, from Stephen J. Gould on Jurassic Park to a summary of The Last of the Mohicans in the form of a Soap Opera Update digest.

I especially like the suggestion that Oliver Stone is an appropriately paranoid director for a movie about the equally-paranoid Nixon.

[Mike Futcher · Rating 3 out of 5]

For his 1995 book Past Imperfect, a contribution to that always-fun hobby-horse of how historically accurate movies are, editor Mark C. Carnes pulled together an impressive line-up of historians and cultural commentators. Beginning with the coup of having popular palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould opine on the accuracy of Jurassic Park (pp31-5), Past Imperfect then jumps forward about 65 million years to deliver a series of chronologically-organised essays on films that depict human history. We get Band of Brothers and D-Day author Stephen Ambrose critiquing The Longest Day and hear the thoughts of Dee Brown, author of Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, on Fort Apache. We have Paul Fussell discuss the Patton biopic: an excellent choice, because (as Fussell is only too keen to relate) he called the real Patton an "asshole" after being forced to listen to the tough-talking general during his wartime service (pg. 245). The calibre of contributors here is high.

Unfortunately, there is not a corresponding increase of calibre in the book. Its multiple contributors, short length of each article, 'did you know?'-style sidebars, and general mood of sedate evenhandedness combine to tame the end product, creating something that feels more like an almanac than anything else. With a few notable exceptions (such as Richard Marius' pugnacious analysis of A Man for All Seasons), Past Imperfect lacks the spikiness that a book of this type should have. It's one thing to not fall for the easy bait of mocking a film for not having the correct number of buttons on a uniform, but the determination of the contributors to be completely fair (the general formula is: admire the film, point out and provide context for the historical flaws) too often results in a nothing-very-much experience for the reader. Unlike other books of this type that I've read, I didn't close Past Imperfect with a list of films I wanted to check out, or revisit. The passion just wasn't there.

Elsewhere, Past Imperfect does expose itself to some of the (perhaps inevitable) criticisms that come the way of a book of this type. But even allowing for the fact that there will always be quibbles about which films were chosen and why, and how they are appraised, Past Imperfect seemed more unbalanced and unusual in its choices than most. There is more discussion of American civil rights and the settling of the American frontier than of the two world wars, despite those two wars (particularly the second) being one of the most popular and plentiful sources of film drama we have. There is also an excess of indulgence of Westerns, many of which are conscious mythology rather than strictly historical.

It is this content on the two world wars which throws into sharpest relief the biggest criticism of Past Imperfect: its Ameri-centrism. With a few exceptions (like those on the Roman world), the articles in this book are almost entirely about American history, and five of the six pieces on World War Two concern American contributions to that conflict (the other is a now-forgotten black-and-white Japanese film). You can't even say this is because Hollywood makes all the movies; there's a bulging stable of British war movies that, as far as Carnes' book is concerned, don't even exist. The imbalance goes beyond discussion of the Second World War, too; I was particularly surprised to note that Zulu, arguably the greatest war film ever made, was only mentioned in passing – and in a sidebar at that, not the main text.

Ultimately, Past Imperfect disappoints more than it excites, even allowing for the inevitable disappointments that result from trying to tackle this topic. But I found it amusing that, in seeing history as a predominantly American story, and World War Two in particular as an American experience, this book on the historical accuracies and inaccuracies of movies fell into one of the most obvious errors and clichés of American movie-making.

[Guy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A collection of essays by celebrated authors discussing both the merits of historical films on the basis of both quality and accuracy. The book is primarily concerned with getting the facts right, and it does, with several added boxed notations in the margins fleshing out details of the events the films are meant to depict, but there is also a fair amount of general film critique in each, so this is not just a book for history buffs. Film fans will enjoy it also.
It would be difficult to breeze through this like a novel or even a regular history book, though, because each film/event is divided into so many separate presentations. Great for picking up and reading one or two entries at a time, though.

[Lee Tracy · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you're a film fan and a history buff, like I am, you'll definitely enjoy this book. Most of the articles are written by mainstream historians, and they are generally well done. Two misfires, however are Stanley Karnow's review of JFK, and Bob Woodward's review of NIXON. Karnow knows nothing about the JFK assassination, and instead focuses on misleading the reader, assuring us that Kennedy would have done the same as LBJ did in Vietnam. Woodward is a poor choice to review Oliver Stone's NIXON, because he props up the official story, and was himself involved in it under fairly suspicious circumstances (as described in the book SILENT COUP).

[William Richardson · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting book comparing how movies and the real events that the movie was about, were different, as Hollywood likes to make sure events are seen as the movie producers and directors think they happened.

[Beth · Rating 3 out of 5]

A very informative book on the accuracy of a number of historical films. However, was a little too dry for my tastes. I thought the authors could have presented the material differently. It reads like a textbook.

[Matthew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although the authors can sometimes be a bit nitpicky, this is a well-informed and interesting book of splendid essays arranged in chronological order of subject.

Vastly superior to George MacDonald Fraser's grotesquely overrated The Hollywood History of the World, this book does not appear to have an agenda or feature authors who want to make their facts fit their theories. However, sometimes assumptions are made based on conventional wisdom even though we do not know for sure certain historical details that we strongly suspect (i.e., the popular speech patterns of a certain group of people who did very little writing).

There is a little bit of snobbery that is popular among lovers of classic film, suggesting that a movie made before 1980 seems almost inherently superior to one made afterwards. The comparison of the cinematically beautiful but historically preposterous My Darling Clementine to the much later Tombstone, a very cleverly written and far more accurate account of Wyatt Earp and the gunfight at the OK Corral, seems very unfairly slanted in favor of the older film simply by virtue of the five decades it has on the newer piece.

Sometimes, the authors get lost in details while missing the big picture. For example, Edward Zwick's 1989 film, Glory depicts the 54th Massachussetts Infantry as being made up almost entirely of former slaves. In fact, it was composed primarily of the sons of free black families in the north. While the authors have complained that this is a weakness in the film, Zwick has made clear that his attempt was to show the black experience in the Civil War rather than remain slavishly devoted to the details of the individual regiment that he had used as a vehicle. The difference lies between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

But these are all minor complaints. All in all, this is a very well researched book that reveals a love of both history and cinema even when they don't love each other.

[Keith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Viewing history through the lens of Hollywood is always an interesting for someone who has studied history. I love movies and I love history which is why I am excited and often times disappointed when a film dealing with a time, place and/or event in history comes out. Many times the film in question is accurate to the spirit but not the facts. Sometime it is not even that. So in reading this book of essays by professional historians I was interested to see what they thought of some of the movies I have seen (and quite a few I haven't). First of all, understand that the majority of the essays were not of the nit-picky "his cuff was 3 inches when it should have been 3 1/2 inches," variety. These are musings on how well or not a film captures the essence of the event in question which is an entirely different issue. Some of the films come off fairly well such as Glory, The Front Page, and The Grapes of Wrath. Others, like Drums Along the Mohawk, PT 109, JFK, and Gone With the Wind are excoriated. Most of the 60 films reviewed fall somewhere in between. What the various authors examine is how much license Hollywood took with the facts, whethter that license was justified, and whether the viewer is getting an accurate view of the event. The book was published in 1995 so some significant films in the genre such as Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, Apollo 13 and others are not included. This is a book for knowledgable film goers and history buffs.

[Sue · Rating 4 out of 5]

If you're a history AND film buff, like me, this book is for you. Each chapter--and the film or films depicting people or events in history--is written by a different author, and offers up both actual historical facts and how accurately the films portray them. In particular I loved the little tidbits on how--and why!--directors chose to deviate from reality. Some of the films I've never heard of and will probably never see, but some of them are practically household fare and it's both stunning and a little scary how much they influence how most people believe these events actually happened. The book also demonstrates how film itself reflects the cultural mores of the time in which it was made; how the history of film itself plays a role.

[John · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a collection of 62 mini-essays by historians on movies based on historical figures or events. The books works very well as an informative guide to both history and the movies, and should appeal to fans of both areas. A few essays are a bit too subjective (for example, the review of Mississippi Burning by William H. Chafe) but many are excellent (for example, William Manchester's review of Young Winston). The only annoying thing in the book was an interview with Oliver Stone. Once you finish it, pick up George MacDonald Fraser's The Hollywood History of the World: From One Million Years B.C. to Apocalypse Now.

[Eric · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting group of essays by historians evaluating the historical fidelity of many popular films. A couple of the essays kind of miss the mark ("All the President's Men" in particular) and the imaginary interview with Napoleon is just plain weird, but overall the good collection. However, this most recent edition is over a dozen years old now. It is seriously screaming out for a new edition. Seriously, if they thought "Tora! Tora! Tora!" was bad, what would they think of "Pearl Harbor"?

[Kiwi Simpson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Interesting collection of published essays that examines how historic films actually relate to history. These essays include facts about the time period, the economic situation (if relevant), and even includes pictures to compare the real character with the one who portrays them in the movies.
Very cool book to skim though after watching a film to see what is and isn't fact, what the film maker chose to leave out or create, and how the film was received by historians and critics.

[Tracey]

Ginnie & SDMB CalMeacham recco

[Larry · Rating 5 out of 5]

Good essays about films based on history. The best chapter is John Mack Farragher's piece on Wyatt Earp and the films that have depicted the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral.

[Wendy · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some interesting essays, but overall a bit on the dry side. I thought it would be more entertaining.

[Andrew · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting series of short essays about important historical films. Informative both on film history and history itself.

[Amyem]

BCID: 180-12304941

http://www.bookcrossing.com/journal/1...