Is it acceptable for directors to present altered versions of historical events?

"Filmmakers," excellent suggestion. Make that change and we are go for launch.

If we change "directors" to "filmmakers," then I'd be OK with the wording. (Sometimes screenwriters are the culprits.)

Jacki's suggestion doesn't work.  If you look at what the affirmative would be...

"Filmmakers should alter historical events in their films."

I would be for...

Is it acceptable for directors to present altered versions of historical events?

issue prior to revisions:

Agree on the deletion of "significantly."

Can we say:

Should filmmakers alter historical events in their films?

"significantly altered" implies a bias to me.  i like to stay away from adjectives in our issues whenever possible

I also agree that this should just be about films. Generalizing it by including all artists is just too broad to me. I like this issue and am happy with the current wording of the issue.

I agree.  I think this should remain focused on film.  It seems that including all arts would make this a little too general.  Perhaps the same issue could be proposed in other topics?

I agree with Marina. Jacki and Nick, there's certainly a lot to be debated around similar issues of revisionism in other mediums. However, I think it's crucial to focus strictly on film here, for the reasons of cinema's visual immediacy that Esperanto points out.

I'd prefer to keep this in film (and include similar issues in other arts-related topics where necessary), as I don't think people will automatically think of filmmakers, novelists, playwrights, etc., when they see the word "artists," but I'll go with the flow if others disagree.

what would everyone think if we did change this up to:

Should artists significantly alter historical events in their work?

nick convinced me that we should open this one up. 

I like the addition of "significantly," Marina.

issue prior to revisions:

I like this question.  It is very specific but I think this could branch off in a couple different directions as well.

Yeah, that works for me.

"versions" of historical events? Brings the syllable count down a couple. I think it's a really good phrasing otherwise, really solves the problems we've been having.

I agree to keep it in 'film'.

Good points, Nick . (I mean to read the Patrick O'Brien series  -- loved the movie! -- and The Alienist was fabulous) but let's do keep the issue here!

Anyway, I like  "significantly altered interpretations of historical events." The question is a bit long-winded, but maybe it's the way to go.

problem is that "allowed" implies they could be "not allowed"... also "artistic license" could be anything. I think i

Films will be made "based on true events" or whatever the term used is... 

"Is it acceptable for movies to present significantly altered interpretations of historical events?"

As far as the wording, what about:

Should movies be allowed artistic license with significant historical facts?

Significant is a little fuzzy, but valuable in that it draws a generally acceptable line: Thomas Jefferson's hairstyle isn't significant, his slave-owning is. That kind of thing.

#ISBN##0393307050##ISBN##0553572997#I'm game to keep it in here because I can agree with you guys that there are differences in the things to be considered.... however...

I strenuously object [...few good men...] to the suggestion that somehow movies are unique in this. I'm on book eight of the Aubrey/Maturin series of historical novels. The bulk of the context is historical and the author changes facts to suit his story. (they're wonderful, by the way, or I wouldn't have made it to book eight...) The Alienist is another such story - even Teddy Roosevelt is in that one. 

Also, if you've never heard of a painting being criticized for distorting historical facts, you've never heard a painting being criticized. One of my favorites, Vista de Toledo, is famous for showing buildings in the wrong place.

Okay, I've come around 180 degrees. Marina and Esperanto, you make a good case. Let's keep it here in film.

I think Marina is totally right; the issues that crop up around historical issues in film are totally different from the ones you encounter in any other medium (novels would be the closest probably, but the visual element makes it a completely different issue). I think to combine them would muddle this one too much. If people really feel the need to debate this for another medium, we can have another issue. It's not really an arts-wide debate.

i'm fine with keeping it in film or art except that marina has a point here.

Nick, I'm a little on the fence about making this an arts issue. I think it's most relevant in film.  Literature is either fiction or nonfiction (and by labeling itself fiction can take as much artistic license as it pleases). I've never known paintings to be criticized for distorting historical facts and generally only a  photo used in a news context is supposed to portray an event correctly, i.e. it's not photographs themselves that are supposed to be truthful; it's the publication running them.

Plays are limited in what they can show, and are generally a more abstract artform, so they don't come under the same kind of scrutiny as film in this regard.

I think it's film's ability to portray realistic scenes and details (unlike stage productions) that makes people believe what they see on screen. I vote for keeping it here, but I'm open to arguments!

Nick, firstly, glad you have renamed "Arts" "Arts & Entertainment." Also, I agree that this is a great topic that we can debate around all artistic forms of expression: novels, painting, stage drama, even photography...

oooh... i think you all were beating around the bush on this one. I think we should abstract out the "movie" part and move it up to the parent topic, "Art" (which I renamed A&E... and people may not like.)

This issue applies to any artistic work that is "based on historical eents", etc.

One could argue that it's not just writers, it's directors too (visual stuff , not just the script). Also, going back to earlier comments: Can one change (alter) a fact? "Distort" is a better word, but I think more loaded.

Should a movie's creators misrepresent significant facts in portraying historical events?

I'm not in love with that either...

the movies themselves do not take artistic license.  you have to use writers.  you can't say "take too much" because it's biased and framed. 

i agree with what esperanto is saying here about degrees.  i just can't come up with a revision using artistic license.

what about:

Should writers change significant facts in films portraying historical events?

Per esperanto, I'd be happy to go back to "artistic license" and I agree that it should be a matter of degree, as no movie (even a documentary) can really portray events exactly as they happened.

Do movies take too much artistic license in portraying historical events?

I like this issue, but then again I'm a nerd. The wording is tricky, though.

1. You can't alter a fact. "Distort" is a better word; other options include "fudge."
2. It's not reasonable to argue that characters in historical movies have to say and do exactly what their characters said and did in real life, so we should word this in a way that excludes that reading of the issue.

Maybe the real question is whether period movies, generally speaking, take *too much* artistic license in portraying historical events. A bit of license is a given in making a movie, but maybe this issue is really a question of the degree.

(Related note: I kind of prefer "artistic license" to "altering/distorting/whatever." It's a term of art, but it also specifically refers to the phenomenon we're discussing here, and I think most people know what it means. i think we should go back to it.)

the films don't alter the facts themselves.  we need to use writers in this context.

Should writers change facts in films portraying historical events?

(i find this issue a little dull too).

issue revision:

---

Per comments (including my own)

---

I used "may" instead of "can" because we know they can (and do)! But you're right, "may" implies permission and "should" is another ball of wax. Maybe the wording could be "is it acceptable for movies to alter facts when portraying historical events?" "Distort" might be too negative.

Maybe we should say "Should movies distort..."  If we ask "may," people could say, "yes, filmmakers may do anything they want."  If we ask "should," then that's another ball of wax.

I like your change to "distort facts" from "artistic license," because it's clearer.  I think a lot of people might have differing opinions about what artistic license actually is (in terms of degree, you know?)

Well, according to Wikipedia, "Artistic license, also known as dramatic license, is a colloquial term used to denote the distortion or complete ignorance of fact, or the changing of an established work that an artist may undertake in the name of art ."

Should the question be: "May movies distort facts in the name of art when portraying...?"

Excellent issue.  I think the consensus seems to be yes -- but I'm sure there are non-film people who would disagree.  In fact, I've definitely seen criticism of some films supposedly "inspired" by true events because they took too much liberty with the facts.

If anything, we might want to work with the language of the question...what exactly is "artistic license?"  Any thoughts?