History Lessons

Susan King’s interview with Joseph Roquemore on the accuracy of historical films is a classic revelation of uninformed pretension (“Films Seen Through History’s Lens,” Feb. 6). The author of “History Goes to the Movies” is identified as a “speech writer, corporate communications specialist and history buff.” One thing he obviously is not is an academically qualified historian.

Historians do not waste time questioning a film’s accuracy because they know that movies are made for entertainment, not education. Writers create dialogue; directors construct scenes; actors pretend; and producers count money. Even the creators of documentaries are selective about their “facts.”

Roquemore claimed to know things no one knows. He criticized Willem Dafoe for portraying Jesus in “The Last Temptation of Christ” as a “mumbler and a bumbler,” then added: “According to what we know, he was not like that at all.” According to what who knows? There is no credible historical account of how Jesus spoke or looked. A typical “history buff,” Roquemore focused on trivia when he argued that Mary Magdalene would never have had a tattoo. While he was at it, why didn’t he criticize the characters for speaking English? And what are we supposed to make of his assessment of “Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves” as inaccurate? Robin Hood was not a real person! Duh!

Roquemore apparently knows nothing about the canons of historical research. He resorted to vacuous expressions like “right on the money” and “very accurate” for movies he liked and “wrong in every way” and “just didn’t happen” for those he disliked. He fashions history as he wants it to be, then criticizes films that don’t conform. FORREST G. WOOD

Professor of History, Emeritus

California State University, Bakersfield

*

Roquemore slams “Citizen Kane” for its historical accuracy. This is tantamount to saying that “Galaxy Quest” grossly misrepresents the actual life of William Shatner, or “My Favorite Year” slanders Errol Flynn.

I’ve seen “Citizen Kane” quite a few times, and I guess I’ve always missed the “based on a true story” title card. “Kane” is pure fiction, and though it may have been inspired by the life of Hearst, there are probably almost as many things in it inspired by the life of Orson Welles, or for that matter Herman Mankiewicz. Considering the inside joke involved with “Rosebud,” perhaps you could argue that the film is a satire of Hearst--but that doesn’t change the fact that the subject of the movie is a guy named Charles Foster Kane.

DAVID AVALLONE

Hollywood

*

Roquemore condemns “Dances With Wolves” because “there was no record of any Army officer defecting and living with an American Indian tribe. That just didn’t happen.” Neither did Luke Skywalker’s attack on the Death Star, nor Travis Bickle’s bloody rescue of a young prostitute, nor the theft of German letters of transit in war-torn Casablanca.

There’s a name for this egregious disregard for history. It’s called fiction.

JIM BEAVER

Van Nuys

*

“The Last Temptation of Christ” is based not so much upon the life of Christ as it is portrayed in the Bible (incidentally, a contradictory and convoluted source in itself), but rather upon Nikos Kazantzakis’ novel. How can a film based on a work of fiction be labeled historically inaccurate?

BRONWYN JONES

Los Angeles

*

Though much can be said for poetic license, which has always terrified the literal-minded, we artists need only one word to counter Roquemore’s silly concerns about historical accuracy: Shakespeare. GEORGE DELMERICO

Santa Barbara

*

Eric Harrison’s piece “Truth Isn’t in the Details” (Feb. 6) is quite disturbing. First, it’s bad enough that many Hollywood filmmakers are so far detached from reality and day-to-day life of most Americans that many of the films they create are totally farfetched and unreasonable.

However, when they say they have the right to alter actual events and actual people to suit their movie, it’s going too far. It is not “artistic license” to misrepresent historical facts or inaccurately portray real people for the purposes of a movie. If filmmakers are to use actual events as the basis for their films, they have a responsibility to depict them accurately. The examples of “artistic license” Harrison cites are hardly “details” but pivotal events and significant matters in complex stories. To ignore them, whitewash them or misrepresent them is wrong.

It’s funny: These same filmmakers who take such liberties to rewrite history are the first ones to take exception to even the slightest inaccuracy published about them in a magazine or tabloid.

MARK MIZRAHI

Beverly Hills

*

The thesis of Harrison’s article appears to boil down to this: It’s OK if Hollywood filmmakers tell lies about recent historical events in their pictures, because this will help them to convert other people to their own political opinions. If this article accurately reflects the prevailing point of view in the movie industry--and I suspect it does--it suggests that Hollywood elites harbor a contempt for differing values and belief systems that would make Jerry Falwell blush.

ROBERT G. CARRICO II

Irvine