I saw Shadowdancer recently, a film about the troubles in Northern Ireland during the 90’s, and I fear it won’t translate easily to your main target audience.
It makes little effort to provide historical or social context. There is no white text on black background at the start fading from dissolve to set the scene, full of dates and acronyms. There is no explanation of how the conflict between the IRA and the British Government came to be, or what impasse it is in as we join leading lady, Andrea Riseborough, planting a bomb on the London Underground in 1993.
I do not know whether this is because the film, a low budget affair co starring Gillian Anderson and Clive Owen, imagines it’s main commerce will be home grown and therefore already clued up, or whether it expects an audience to self educate itself before or after the film. Or they may feel a story of political and religious strife, played out within the confines of a small community, contains themes that are universal. I suspect the latter.
The film focuses on Riseborough’s internal struggle as she spies on her family in Northern Ireland, in exchange for the protection of her son. It shows the audience how far people will go in order to protect what is most precious to them, whether it is their children or their beliefs, rather then delving deeply into the who/what/why of the conflict.
Regardless, it is a bold and somewhat defiant move, which is complimentary towards the audience and the success of the film lies in the fact it will be as powerful, beautiful and well acted to someone who knows the history, as to someone who doesn’t.
Providing no back-story for a film based on a historical event is a hard feat to pull off, as the audience hits the ground running and it’s the filmmakers job to keep them intrigued, rather then distracted as they fill in the blanks. You do not want an audience accessing diluted internal wikipedia entries and missing the purposeful presentation of events by the director.
Any film that sets itself in a time of recent upheaval and strife where the victims of said conflict are still alive must also tread carefully.
If it is a small-scale human drama, it should show its characters objectively and believably rather then painting them with the broad strokes of right and wrong. Good historical films should depict complex characters, and not simply tell audiences who is good and who is bad, even in hind sight. They should paint the complexities of day to day existence in times of horror and desperation, so the audience can understand it from all angles.
A film such as Downfall about the last few days of Hitler did that very well, depicting him as a tragic figure who swings rapidly between paranoia and stunning denial. We do not need to be told he is bad or evil by the filmmakers (you would hope some things do not need to be said), instead they show us the broken empire and mind he was left with. And it’s a pretty hard watch.
But in saying all this, some historical events should try either stick closely to the facts, or at least have disclosures that they should be viewed with a pinch of salt. Particularly for events that aren’t widely known before they are bought to the big screen in the epic format, or star Mel Gibson. There are some people stupid enough to think his interpretation of William Wallace’s role in the Wars of Scottish Independence should be taken as red.
In the melodramatic film Braveheart, several key events where changed for plot purposes. For example Wallace fathering Edward the III with Queen Isabelle when she would have been a baby at the time of his existence seems unlikely.
You would hope.
But worse, and more then that, Gibson just seems so smug doesn’t he? Like he got off sexually about the whole thing. “Who is the bravest martyr in the whole goddamn world! Mel Gi.. I mean William Wallace.”
Know your audience Hollywood and post disclaimers if you’re going to distort historical facts so. Or at least don’t take away from the efforts of the real heroes by changing important details to make it fit seamlessly into a three act drama, as though it was all that black and white.
Or just have a disclaimer stating: “The star of this film is doing this for all the wrong reasons.”
Forces of Geek is protected from liability under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and “Safe Harbor” provisions.
All posts are submitted by volunteer contributors who have agreed to our Code of Conduct.
FOG! will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement.
Please contact us for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content.
SOCIAL INFLUENCER POLICY
In many cases free copies of media and merchandise were provided in exchange for an unbiased and honest review. The opinions shared on Forces of Geek are those of the individual author.
Back in 1992, the BBC was inundated with complaints after the fictional paranormal investigation program Ghostwatch was broadcast during prime time on October 31st,...
