
Accuracy in Historical Fiction (2013) - luu
https://www.exurbe.com/the-borgias-vs-borgia-faith-and-fear/
======
philipkglass
_In a real historical piece, if they tried to make everything slavishly right
any show would be unwatchable, because there would be too much that the
audience couldn’t understand. The audience would be constantly distracted by
details like un-filmably dark building interiors, ugly missing teeth, infants
being given broken-winged songbirds as disposable toys to play with, crush,
and throw away, and Marie Antoinette relieving herself on the floor at
Versailles. Despite its hundreds of bathrooms, one of Versailles’ marks of
luxury was that the staff removed human feces from the hallways regularly,
sometimes as often as twice a day, and always more than once a week. We cannot
make an accurate movie of this – it will please no one. The makers of the TV
series Mad Men recognized how much an accurate depiction of the past freaks
viewers out – the sexual politics, the lack of seat belts and eco-
consciousness, the way grown-ups treat kids. They focused just enough on this
discomfort to make it the heart of a powerful and successful show, but there
even an accurate depiction of attitudes from a few decades ago makes all the
characters feel like scary aliens. Go back further and you will have complete
incomprehensibility._

This perfectly explains why I like reading historical and anthropological
writing alongside historical fiction and science fiction. People have already
in other times and places _been_ aliens more remote from 20th century middle
class Americans than any rubber-forehead creature Star Trek ever showed.

It also explains why rubber forehead aliens are a lot more popular than really
weird (in belief or biology) aliens [1]. Most people prefer palette-swapped
adventure stories over the dauntingly weird aliens that I love. And that's
fine! People enjoy seeing those adventures and the writers and actors enjoy
having an audience and pay checks. (I generally prefer familiar-sounding music
of certain types over anything labeled avant-garde or experimental. My
appetite for novelty is not unlimited either.)

[1] Apart from the ease and affordability of costuming a human actor vs.
depicting, say, a feathered amphibious octopus creature.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Are they? That's far more for production stereotypes than viewer convenience
or expectations, or at least seems so. Down to current fashion, and the
expectations of the kids in the production team -- or the execs signing off.
The most popular aliens in Doctor Who are dustbins with a sink plunger
(Daleks). One of Star Trek's most popular the tribble. I get _really_ tired of
rubber enhanced blue aliens, with a few forehead bumps, and utterly perfect
English. I'd rather have a few of the sillier ones from the 50's B movies or
B&W Dr Who make a come back than yet another tedious perfect humanoid with
augmentation...

Though I also like to intersperse the fiction with history and
anthropological. I can picture the fiction better, and find I enjoy it more
with a clearer idea of how people actually lived, struggled, died etc. I also
end up judging some of the historical fiction against the actuality too --
some authors are _far_ more accurate than others.

I am sure most productions could go vastly further than they try to, as 95% of
all historical and fantasy (e.g. GoT) drama are 21st century views, mores and
habits in cute -- and in the case of armies perfectly matched and colour
matched -- costume. I think this article does a disservice to what we _could_
show. We could show a much closer representation of actuality without
triggering revulsion, or making racism or sexism acceptable again, spoiling
the show, or losing viewers. Heck, even half the supposed documentaries get
fundamentals wrong! Some accuracy we would indeed struggle with, but I suspect
most could handle and enjoy far more than we're ever given!

Being unfilmably dark didn't stop GoT filming the series climax in the dead of
night, outside. It was unwatchably dark for pretty much a whole episode,
without a poorly lit castle or smoke filled long house in sight.

Overall I think it's more a lack of imagination, or laziness. Adaptation so it
becomes the usual formula with new overlay. I appreciate the rare ones that
are faithful, or do depart from the usual tedium that much more as a result,
and often forgive other glitches or ropy moments. I'm usually much more
damning of poor adaptation than costuming or habit. :)

~~~
philipkglass
I agree with both you and jhbadger that the argument about recording dark
scenes is one of the weakest he makes. I just didn't want to truncate any of
the sentences I was quoting.

What are some examples of successful historical fiction or fantasy on the
screen that aren't just contemporary views, mores, and habits dressed up in
costumes? According to the original article, "Borgia: Faith and Fear" should
count. I watched it _because_ I read this very Ex Urbe article back in 2013.
But nobody else I know watched it except at my recommendation. I knew a number
of people who watched Showtime's The Borgias. I think that The Borgias reached
more viewers. I don't know which one was a better investment, financially.
Maybe the smaller audiences _and_ budgets of Faith and Fear delivered a ROI
equal or better to that of The Borgias.

Audience might tolerate significantly more historicity than they typically get
now. But there doesn't seem to be an audience-driven clamor for more history
in historical drama (at least on the screen; it's easier to find and cater to
niche preferences among readers). It also takes more effort to understand a
period and write for it than to just drape costumes over contemporary
conflicts and ideals. That's one of the reasons that I read more drama than I
watch. Productions for the screen tend to be more small-c conservative about
imitating what succeeded recently, probably because failed experiments are
more costly for movies and TV series than for books.

My favorite short take on ahistorical historical fiction:

[https://pbfcomics.com/comics/now-showing/](https://pbfcomics.com/comics/now-
showing/)

------
watwut
> Even costuming accuracy can be a communications problem, since modern
> viewers have certain associations that are hard to unlearn. Want to costume
> a princess to feel sweet and feminine?

Yeah, speaking about accuracy, they were actually real people, real woman.
While some were sweat dreams, but most had real personality. What about
showing that too. The necessity for cartoon colors will go away.

> The modern eye demands pink or light blue, though the historian knows pale
> colors coded poverty.

Nah, not in adult movie. Even kids shows nowdays can have different colors.

> Want to costume a woman to communicate the fact that she’s a sexy
> seductress? The audience needs the bodice and sleeves to expose the bits of
> her modern audiences associate with sexy, regardless of which bits would
> plausibly have been exposed at the time.

I mean, we are moving again to the real of not really real people, but into
the realm of sexy fantasy instead.

There is reason why shows that have ambition to be more realistic don't show
super sweet gentle princesses with no agenda nor sexy seductress that makes
men go crazy solely by showing up.

