I have been neglecting the History in History on Film

It has been pointed out to me that my history related posts have been few and far between, so this is a perfect opportunity to mention an interesting article by famous historian Antonia Fraser (http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article3446528.ece). Fraser points out while that there is more artistic license than history in the recently released film The Other Boleyn Girl, it is still a fun and interesting movie.

I was impressed that when she met director Sophia Coppola to discuss bringing her biography of Marie Antoinette to the screen, she immediately told Coppola that anyone who wanted to see her vision could read the book, so Coppola should film her vision. As an historian, it is practically a knee jerk reaction to criticize inaccuracies in historical films but she rightly points out that the late George MacDonald Fraser was correct when he commented that Hollywood's version of history is far more vivid and accessible than the works of great historians such as Tacitus and Gibbon.

Fraser (Antonia not George MacDonald) deftly compares The Other Boleyn Girl with the numerous other films that have dealt with Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, showing that even though each of the films has its own flaws, they all serve the purpose of exposing viewers to historical periods that they would otherwise have zero interest in. I have met an endless number of people who said that they routinely dozed through their high school history classes but are more than happy to discuss Hollywood's most recent historical blockbuster. Personally, I consider gritting my teeth a few times in the theater or while sitting on my couch a small price to pay to have people actually talking about history and wanting to learn more. Hopefully, more high school teachers (I am sure some already do) will start incorporating historical films into their lesson plans so that students discuss history instead of nap.