The Ethics of Historical Accuracy in Film

Filmmakers have been adapting historical events and true stories since basically the beginning of cinema. In that time, movies have had varying degrees of historical accuracy and I’d like to look at what ethical concerns that may raise.

Some people may disagree with the idea that this is even a concern. They say “it’s just a fictional movie after all” and that “people should know films aren’t always a good representation of the truth.” But unfortunately, the reality is that people often don’t know or care about how inaccurate movies can be and just assume what they see on film is true to history. If events are portrayed a certain way in popular media, it seeps into the collective consciousness regardless of the truth. This can be especially dangerous with regards to people who are still alive or issues that still have significant reverberations today.


A common argument against this viewpoint is that concessions have to be made for the sake of the plot and I certainly understand where people coming from, especially in regards to big-budget Hollywood films. The studios are spending tons of money and don’t want to take risks in terms of narrative. However, there are a few reasons why I don’t find this argument 100% convincing.

To me, if the true story isn’t interesting enough on its own and needs massive embellishments, maybe it just shouldn’t be made into a film. And of course, many of the people these films are about did live fascinating lives, they just don’t necessarily fit into a tidy three-act structure. But that’s where the artistry of filmmaking comes in. They can still make it compelling with dialogue, performances, cinematography, and all the other stylistic elements of cinema.


If the filmmakers really just feel they can’t make a good film out of the real story, they could just change the names of the people involved and that would solve the issue, at least in my opinion. For instance, the novel and the movie Primary Colors are clearly about the presidency of Bill Clinton, but with names and details altered. I think this communicates clearly to the audience that things are just loosely based on reality.

But it seems as if filmmakers want to use famous real-world figures and events as a crutch. A movie about a fictional monarch isn’t as easily sold to audiences as something about say, Queen Elizabeth.

And to be clear, I’m mainly just talking about things that completely contradict reality. Obviously,
with most historical topics, we don’t know many of the exact details or specific quotes that were said, and admittedly filmmakers have to fill in the blanks to a certain extent. But altering major things is a much bigger deal.

A great example of the dangers of factual imprecision is controversial director Oliver Stone’s 1991 film JFK. Throughout the film, he takes liberties that consistently make the case for a conspiracy regarding Kennedy’s assassination seem like it’s backed up by more evidence than it really is. For starters, Joe Pesci’s character is shown admitting that he was part of a CIA plot to kill JFK, but the real person Pesci was portraying maintained he was unaware of any conspiracy and didn’t even know Lee Harvey Oswald. There are already tons of interesting things about JFK’s assassination; you don’t need to make stuff up to make the story compelling.

This did result in a huge controversy and the film was pretty much pilloried by the press. Obviously, JFK conspiracy theories were already widespread, but this film definitely helped keep them alive in popular culture. And Stone’s movie has even been credited with causing Congress to release documents related to JFK’s murder. So regardless of your opinion on whether or not the theories are true, clearly films like these can have an effect on society’s perception of reality.

In 2015, a film was released about the life of mathematician Alan Turing called Imitation Game. In it, Turing covers up the existence of a spy in order to keep his homosexuality a secret.  This is completely made up to add drama and is basically slandering a war hero. Turing has been dead since the 1950s, but I can’t imagine his living relatives were too happy about this.

On top of that, the filmmakers created tension that wasn’t there between Turing and his superior Alastair Denniston in order to give the movie a villain. This led his family to publicly state that they were deeply offended. A situation like this could have been easily avoided by simply changing Denniston’s name and I can’t really come up with a good excuse as to why the filmmakers didn’t do this.

Historical accuracy led to a controversy about Best Picture winner Green Book. It features pianist Don Shirley, whose brother called the film a “symphony of lies.”

I do think there are a small number of clear exceptions. Take, for example, the 2012 film Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, which is about exactly what you’d imagine hearing the title. Any reasonable person watching such a film should be fully aware they aren’t seeing a realistic depiction of history. The entire premise is a “what-if” situation.

Furthermore, I think there’s an exception to be made for movies that are set in a historical situation like World War Two but with completely fictional characters. There were millions of people involved with the war and we can never know all of their stories. And this doesn’t affect the reputations of real people.

Something like Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds is a good example, which makes clear with its ending that it’s portraying an alternate history. It makes no claim of being based on a true story, and while it does feature real figures like Hitler and Churchill in minor parts,  the main characters are all fictional.

It should go without saying, but it’s not that I dislike all movies that alter history. I thought The Favourite was one of the best films of 2018 and many things were different than in the life of the real Queen Anne.

But I often hear people suggest that filmmakers have no responsibility whatsoever to adhere to the facts, and to me, this is going way too far in the other direction.