I must confess that as a film and history buff, I tend to become impatient with films that take
excessive liberties with the facts. Of course, very few films about historical
figures and their activities even scratch the surface of accuracy, although
Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln takes a
reasonably commendable shot at it. Other “historical” films could have been
much more interesting had they hew closer to the facts; the real-life Thomas Becket
not in the 1964 film Becket was a
much more divisive and complex character than the one portrayed in that film. On the other hand, any film about Queen
Elizabeth I inflates her actual role in events during her reign, ignoring the real-life
actors who shaped the era, or portraying them as peripheral characters.
Other historical films simply cannot help being what they
are—fictionalized accounts. Take for example Stanley Kubrick’s epic Spartacus. Very little is actually known
about the non-fiction version of Spartacus, and accounts by his Roman
contemporaries are sparse and superficial, concentrating on the activities of
the Romans who opposed him. In order to make a film out of this with Spartacus
as the focal point, virtually everything about his life had to be invented
whole cloth. I like the Starz cable series “Spartacus,” but virtually everything
in it is pure fabrication, and the “plot” is just a vehicle for lots of sex,
nudity and blood-splattering violence.
Some “historical” films take excessive liberties with facts
so that they “fit” around a fictional character. Take, for instance, Gladiator which featured Russell Crowe in an Oscar-winning performance. I almost
tore out my hair watching the historical inaccuracies of this film. Emperor
Marcus Aurelius was not a “secret” supporter of the old Roman Republic method
of government, which had proved to be utterly incompetent in running an empire
the size and complexity of Rome’s. He was not killed by his son Commodus but by a body ravaged by years on military campaign; he certainly had no intention of handing over rule of the state to the Senate. The
truth was that Marcus Aurelius decided to abandon the “adoptive” model of selecting capable
men as emperors as his predecessors Trajan and Hadrian had done. He named his
son Caesar in 166 AD—making him his de facto
heir apparent, and in 177 named him co-emperor. Why Marcus Aurelius decided that
his megalomaniacal and neurotic son was fit to be emperor is not precisely
known, although he may have feared the outbreak of civil war, which would indeed plague the empire in the third century.
The inaccuracies in Gladiator
don’t stop there. Commodus’ sister Lucilla is portrayed as unmarried and
conspired against her brother after many abuses of her. The reality is that she
was married and conspired with her two lovers-on-the-side to kill Commodus—not because
she opposed her brother’s rule, but supposedly because of her jealousy of his wife. Commodus got wind of the conspiracy and Lucilla was sent into
exile, where she was killed soon afterward. In the film, Commodus is killed by
the general/gladiator in personal combat. In fact the emperor did enjoy
pretending to be a gladiator, often outraging public opinion by his unseemly public
displays. But he was not killed as depicted; the praetorian prefect Laetus—the head
of the emperor’s bodyguard—hatched a plot where Commodus’ mistress would poison
his food. When this failed, the emperor’s personal trainer was recruited to
strangle him in his bath.
Other films have less excuse for historical inaccuracy, particularly
those that describe events of more recent lineage. Kathryn Bigelow’s Iraq War film The Hurt Locker inexplicably won the
Oscar for best picture, probably because it was a down year for Oscar-worthy
movies, and perhaps with a dash of politics thrown in. It’s not particularly creative
film technique was saved somewhat by the unrehearsed performances of the mostly
unknown actors—giving it a more “authentic” feel. Bigelow was motivated to make her latest film, Zero Dark Thirty—similar to the
semi-documentary style of Paul Greengrass’ Bloody
Sunday and United 93—because she “discovered”
that a white female CIA agent was allegedly the key player in finally hunting
down Osama Bin Laden. Most critics are raving about the film’s “technique”—the
hand-held camera “documentary” style that made films like The Blair Witch Project seem “real” to viewers, but they have paid little attention to its accuracy.
Peter Bergen, author of Manhunt:
The Ten-Year Search for Bin Laden and a journalist who has been on this
story since 9-11, has only the foggiest notion of who could have played as big
a role as Bigelow’s red-haired principal did. He recently said that person named
“John” was the principal player in the end who wove the pieces together—and he
definitely was a “man.” There were indeed many players in the hunt for Bin
Laden who were women, but to single them out as the ones “in charge” was
fictional. While much of the criticism of the film has focused on whether it
justified torture, there has been only anecdotal comment on whether it depicts
events as they actually happened, given that its central character is inflated
to become Bigelow’s personal political prop. On December 21, acting CIA director
Michael Morell wrote this memo to the agency in regard to the accuracy of Zero
Dark Thirty:
I would not normally
comment on a Hollywood film, but I think it important to put Zero Dark Thirty,
which deals with one of the most significant achievements in our history, into
some context. The film, which premiered
this week, addresses the successful hunt for Osama Bin Laden that was the focus
of incredibly dedicated men and women across our Agency, Intelligence
Community, and military partners for many years. But in doing so, the film takes significant
artistic license, while portraying itself as being historically accurate.
What I want you to
know is that Zero Dark Thirty is a dramatization, not a realistic portrayal of
the facts. CIA interacted with the
filmmakers through our Office of Public Affairs but, as is true with any
entertainment project with which we interact, we do not control the final
product.
It would not be
practical for me to walk through all the fiction in the film, but let me
highlight a few aspects that particularly underscore the extent to which the
film departs from reality.
First, the hunt for
Osama Bin Laden was a decade-long effort that depended on the selfless
commitment of hundreds of officers. The
filmmakers attributed the actions of our entire Agency—and the broader
Intelligence Community—to just a few individuals. This may make for more compelling
entertainment, but it does not reflect the facts. The success of the May 1st 2011 operation was
a team effort—and a very large team at that.
Second, the film creates the strong impression
that the enhanced interrogation techniques that were part of our former
detention and interrogation program were the key to finding Bin Laden. That impression is false. As we have said before, the truth is that
multiple streams of intelligence led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Laden
was hiding in Abbottabad. Some came from
detainees subjected to enhanced techniques, but there were many other sources
as well. And, importantly, whether
enhanced interrogation techniques were the only timely and effective way to
obtain information from those detainees, as the film suggests, is a matter of
debate that cannot and never will be definitively resolved.
Third, the film takes
considerable liberties in its depiction of CIA personnel and their actions,
including some who died while serving our country. We cannot allow a Hollywood film to cloud our
memory of them.
Commentators will have
much to say about this film in the weeks ahead.
Through it all, I want you to remember that Zero Dark Thirty is not a
documentary. What you should also
remember is that the Bin Laden operation was a landmark achievement by our
country, by our military, by our Intelligence Community, and by our Agency.
Michael Morell
"When I realized at the heart of this 10-year odyssey
was this woman, who had a kind of tenacity and a dedication and courage, I was
excited to take it on," Bigelow gushed to ABC News. As we have seen over the
past four years at least, politics might make for “entertaining” viewing, but
as a reflection of reality, it is a poor substitute of historical truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment