The New York Times this morning has a front page article entitled “As Historical Dramas Mushroom, So Do Complaints About Their Inaccuracies”. It speaks to the “historical” dramas with made up facts, that are meant to look to be historically accurate.

I have been concerned about this for some time. On previous blogs in varying blog posts, on Facebook, and it private conversations, I have railed about fake histories. For years.

The NYT article focuses on the British royal family and The Crown. That’s probably a good one to focus on, although I have watched very little of it. But there are many, many, many examples.

My own practice when I watch a biopic, or any historical drama is to go to my friend Professor Google, a master historian, and check up on the real facts. Then I complain to anyone interested in the film or show about the inaccuracies. While I am always waiting for a response like “Wow, thanks. I had no idea. They shouldn’t do that. What can we do?”, the response I usually get is “That’s interesting”. A “that’s interesting” that usually seems to be “that’s not very interesting at all”. And any response is followed by a remark like “artistic freedom, you know”.

The question is whether or not history is important. Because, like it or not, people these days learn history from these shows and films, not from taking courses or reading detailed biographies or histories. So, the reality of the history becomes the fake reality of the video, not the real history of the legitimate historians.

Now, when Philip Roth wrote “The Plot Against America”, an excellent novel about the presidency of Charles Lindbergh, everyone knew that this was make believe “history”. Same with, say, Sinclair Lewis’ “It Can’t Happen Here”. I have no problem with that. They are clearly fictionalized, and normally written not only to entertain, but to make a moral point, to teach a lesson. A lesson by analogy.

But that is not what you find in modern entertainment. There are hundreds (probably thousands) of examples. The one that comes first to my mind is a drama performed at Theater J about a decade ago called “The New Jerusalem: the Interrogation of Baruch de Spinoza”. Written by the more than talented playwright David Ives, it was a gripping and well performed production. Set in 17th century Amsterdam, a relatively liberal city that housed, in its diverse population, many Jews whose families had been victimized by the Catholic Inquisition in Portugal, it tells the story of Baruch Spinoza, young intellectual who had the temerity to speak out against certain aspects of biblical and rabbinic Judaism and posit a form of philosophy that was remarkably non-sectarian. Spinoza was excommunicated by the Jewish community of Amsterdam, and forced to lead a solitary and impoverished life, eking out an income as a lens grinder, unable to marry (there was no one who could perform a marriage for him) and create a family.

The play centered on a relationship between Spinoza and his girl friend (I don’t think such a girl friend existed), and upon the “trial” after which the Jewish authorities placed its ban on Spinoza. At the trial, various people testified, including – as I remember it – a representative of the Christian community, and Spinoza’s sister (who may or may not have existed) gave an impassioned plea from the audience.

Of course, such a trial never took place and, if the rabbinic authorities had such an open proceeding, it is hard to believe that they would listen to the words of a Christian, or the words of a woman. It was all made up.

I was infuriated by the play – it purported to “tell the story” of Spinoza. It obviously didn’t do that. And the reviews (I just looked again at a few of them) did not at all try to differentiate between the history and the fantasy.

Films, shows, stories about American history are much the same. There was a recent film about Harriet Tubman – a lot of excitement, most of which the real Harriet Tubman was able to avoid. The recent award winning film about Churchill and Dunkirk contained much that didn’t happen. And on and on.

It seems to me, without trying to stifle “artistic freedom” or “artistic license” (whatever that is), attempts should be made to inform the public where the entertainment piece varies from historic truth. Perhaps, when the forum is live theater, it could be done with pieces in the playbill, or separate statements handed out to attendees. Information could be provided to critics who would be writing reviews. Where the play is discussed on line, material could be highlighted talking about the historic distortions.

Much of this could also be done in cases of movies (where there could also be screen shots stating that “the scenes of ____ and ____ are not historical. For a historical account, see _________ or _____”. There are many ways that these “historical dramas” could be converted away from fake news to elements to teach actual history, along with permitting artistic changes for entertainment’s sake alone.

Of course, historians themselves show a bias, as to documentary films, and the like. And when there are distortions here, there needs to be push back to be sure. But this is a different situation (or in some cases a different problem). Maybe I will deal with this on a different posting.