Historians, Hollywood Movies, and Ridley Scott's NAPOLEON

There is a new movie out this week about Napoleon Bonaparte. Perhaps you’ve heard of it. Historians are not happy with it, but that should come as no surprise.

Director Ridley Scott’s NAPOLEON, starring Joaquin Phoenix and Vanessa Kirby depicts the French ruler’s rise to power, offers moments from his many military campaigns, and his relationship with Empress Josephine.

After suggesting otherwise, I learned earlier this week on social media that lawyers and doctors also get bent out of shape over the inaccuracies depicted about their line of work in television shows and movies. I should have known better given that we all tend to get a little defensive when our preferred profession is mischaracterized, but perhaps there is something unique about how historians respond in these moments.

We are not talking about a profession as much as a methodology or approach to studying the past. Many historians believe that there is a good deal at stake in how we represent the past in popular culture.

I’ve never really understood the concern. Hollywood movies and other productions are not works of critical history and I suspect that relatively few movies have ever satisfied a cross section of the historical profession and students of history generally.

I still remember the response to Steven Spielberg’s movie LINCOLN in 2012. It included fictional characters; botched the process of how constitutional amendments are passed; and it failed to acknowledge the role that African Americans played in forcing emancipation and the end of slavery. Finally, it created an entirely fictional scene in the first few moments in which three Black soldiers lecture Lincoln on the war, including one who recites for him his own “Gettysburg Address.”

Steven Spielberg’s LINCOLN (Source: House Divided)

I absolutely love that movie.

One scene in NAPOLEON shows his troops lobbing artillery shells at the pyramids outside of Cairo. Apparently, Scott believed it was the quickest way to depict Napoleon’s military campaign in Egypt. I’ve read from military historians that I respect that many of the battle scenes are inaccurate. I have no reason to question their assessments and, for the most part, I just don’t care.

Do I find it problematic that the movie includes this particular scene? No more than I am concerned about the inaccuracies in LINCOLN.

On the one hand, I have no problem with historians speaking out in response to a movie’s inaccuracies. Last week I hosted a discussion about the movie GETTYSBURG in which I offered a critical take. In some cases, it is absolutely essential that we do so, but all too often I get the sense that the outrage comes from an unstated assumption that historians have a monopoly on how the past is represented.

I completely agree with David M. Perry and Matthew Gabriele, who suggest that rather than focus on “what’s right or wrong with a given depiction” historians should “discuss how we can really know anything about the past more generally, and this past in a specific film more specifically, and then talk about why that past matters.”

This is a great way of illuminating the difference between history and Hollywood.

Ridley Scott has certainly not endeared himself to the historical community. When asked about the concerns expressed by some historians, he had this to say.

Probably not the best response and from one perspective it suggests that Scott may not even fully understand what it is that historians do.

But I also heard him offering a glimpse into his process as a movie director. Scott didn’t set out to create an academic work of history. He is attempting to transport his audience back in time for a brief moment.

It is worth reminding ourselves that movies set in the past are works of fiction framed around historical references. There is always the opportunity to learn more and many people do.

A recent survey conducted by the American Historical Association asks people where they get their history. The results are quite interesting.

It’s about what I would expect. People get their history from a wide range of sources, including nonfiction history books, geneaology work, historic site visits, and documentaries. Would I like to see higher numbers for some of these categories? Sure, but I suspect that not much has changed over the years.

Twenty-five years ago historians Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen showed that Americans are deeply engaged in the past in creative and meaningful ways that often escape surveys like the one above.

As historians, we sometimes forget that our representations of the past exist alongside fiction writers, poets, family histories passed down orally from one generation to the next, etc. We can and do find meaning in the past in a wide variety of ways.

Apart from extreme examples, I also don’t believe that as historians we need to save audiences from movies that depict the past inaccurately any more than a work of historical fiction. Art, including movies, is a reflection of where we are as a society and not necessarily where we are headed.

In the end, the only question that matters is…

“Are you not entertained?”