How cinema forms false historical memory

2024 Author: Seth Attwood | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-16 15:55

Cinema can take the viewer into the past, and sometimes replace history.

Historical plots are one of the most demanded since the invention of cinematography.

So, the first domestic fiction film of 1908, directed by Vladimir Romashkov, was called "The Libertine Freeman" and was dedicated to Stepan Razin. Soon there were such films as "Song of the merchant Kalashnikov" (1909), "Death of Ivan the Terrible" (1909), "Peter the Great" (1910), "Defense of Sevastopol" (1911), "1812" (1912), " Ermak Timofeevich - Conqueror of Siberia "(1914). Many historical films were also released in Europe, among them - "Jeanne d'Arc" (1900), "Ben-Hur" (1907), "The Assassination of the Duke of Guise" (1908).

Later, when cinema became the main weapon of propaganda, historical plots were rethought in the light of the new conjuncture. The genre flourished in the 1950s-1960s, the so-called era of peplums, when antique and biblical subjects became popular in the USA and Italy. At the same time, the Western as a genre was emerging in Hollywood. The last wave of popularity of large-scale historical films came in the late 1990s - early 2000s.

The power of the screen was so great that at times the cinematic image displaced real historical facts from the memory of the audience.

Alexander Nevskiy

The cult film by Sergei Eisenstein, released in 1938, for a long time remained the standard of historical and heroic cinema. Vivid characters, a half-hour large-scale battle in the finale, music by Sergei Prokofiev - all this can impress even the sophisticated modern viewer.

Despite the fact that the shooting took place in the summer, the director managed to create a feeling of winter on the screen. There were even letters from meteorologists asking them to indicate where the filmmakers noticed clouds that were relevant for summer in winter.

The costumes of both Novgorodians and Teutons were stylized for the 13th century, with anachronisms present, possibly intentional, to enhance the image of a warrior. So, on the screen we see late medieval salads, reminiscent of German helmets of the 20th century, swastikas on the miter of a Catholic bishop, and topfhelms for most knights look like iron buckets with slits for the eyes.

However, all this pales in comparison with the ending of the battle, when the knights fall into the water. This is not confirmed in any of the 13th century sources.

The film was also condemned by contemporaries. So, in March 1938, the magazine "Historian-Marxist" published an article by M. Tikhomirov "A mockery of history", in which the author criticized the image of Russia in the film, especially the appearance of militia smerds, the squalor of their homes and the poor appearance of Russian soldiers. The character of Vasily Buslaev, who was an epic hero and had nothing to do with the Battle of the Ice, was also criticized.

Unlike other battles of that time, the Battle of the Ice, in addition to the Russian chronicles, is narrated by the Livonian Rhymed Chronicle, as well as the later Chronicle of Grandmasters. The real political relations of Pskov and Novgorod with the Livonian Order were not as primitive as shown in the film. The parties competed for the lands on which modern Estonia is located, pursuing primarily economic interests. Border skirmishes took place both before Alexander Nevsky and after his death.

The conflict of 1240-1242 stands out against the background of others by the active offensive of the knights on the Pskov lands, as well as the capture of Pskov itself by a small detachment of crusaders. At the same time, history does not know about the atrocities of the knights in the city, so vividly shown in the film. Alexander Nevsky actively launched a counteroffensive, returning Pskov and the captured fortresses, and began raids on the territory of the Order.

The number of participants in the battle did not exceed, apparently, 10 thousand people. From the side of the Novgorodians came the horse militia, the squad of Alexander and his brother Andrei. The participation of some smerds in the battle has not been confirmed, but the Livonians noted a large number of archers from the Russians. In addition, there is a version that there were Mongolian detachments in the Novgorodian army.

The forces of the Order, according to the Livonian Chronicle, were less. At the same time, the recruited militia of Chudi and Estonians did not play a special role in the battle. By the way, they are not shown in the film at all. Instead, a vivid and memorable image of the Russian infantry with spears and shields was created, awaiting an attack from the German knights.

There was no duel between Alexander and the master of the crusaders, but the defeat of the Russian avant-garde Domash Tverdislavich before the battle did take place.

The traitor Tverdilo, who in the film wears armor of a later era, has a prototype in the form of the real Pskov mayor Tverdila, who surrendered the city to the Crusaders. But the episode where Alexander Nevsky says that "the German is heavier than ours," gave rise to the myth of the protective uniform of the knights, because of which they allegedly drowned. In reality, both sides in the 13th century wore only chain mail armor. The author of "Rhymed Chronicle" even separately notes the excellent weapons of the Russian squad: "… many were in shiny armor, their helmets shone like crystal."

Eisenstein's painting formed the myth of both Alexander Nevsky himself and the relationship between Russia and Western Europe in the Middle Ages. And decades after the release of the film and the debunking of myths, the images created by the director relentlessly haunt the viewer.

300 Spartans

Peplum 1962, directed by Rudolf Mate, is considered one of the best films about Ancient Greece. The painting popularized the story of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. e.

The main theme of the film is the confrontation between the "free" Greeks and the "barbarian" Persians. In the story, King Xerxes led a million-strong army to conquer Greece, and only a small group of Spartans with a few allies is ready to repulse him. Selflessly defending the Thermopylae Gorge, the Greeks are forced to retreat after the betrayal of Ephialtes, who showed the enemies a secret path bypassing the gorge. The Spartans, together with a small detachment of Thespians, remain to cover the retreat of their comrades. They will all die.

Persian weapons are shown very conditionally: the guards are dressed in black suits and bear little resemblance to their images from the palace of Darius I in Susa. The participation of chariots and cavalry in the battle is also unlikely. It is possible that the Persians had light cavalry.

As for the Spartans, most of them in the film are beardless men (although the real hoplites were long-haired and wore beards) in the same type of armor with hoplon shields with the Greek letter "L", which means Lacedaemon (the self-name of Sparta), and in red cloaks. At the same time, we hardly see the famous Corinthian helmets covering most of the face. The Thespians, probably so that the viewer can distinguish them from the Spartans, wear blue cloaks.

Leonidas, as the king of Sparta, could not be clean-shaven. And the lambda on the shields probably appeared only in the era of the Peloponnesian War (431−404 BC).

The details of the three-day battle are also far from historical reality: there is no wall that the Greeks built at the entrance to Thermopylae pass; the attack on the Persian camp and the cunning methods of fighting the Persian cavalry do not find confirmation. However, Diodorus mentions that in the final of the battle, the Greeks are really trying to attack the Persian camp and kill Xerxes.

The main myth created by the film concerns the number of participants in the battle. According to Greek sources, the Spartans in Thermopylae were supported not only by Thespians, but also by the warriors of many Greek city-states. The total number of defenders of the passage in the first days exceeded 7 thousand people.

Inspired by Mate's film, Frank Miller created the graphic novel 300, which was filmed in 2007. The picture, even more distant from historical realities, nevertheless became very popular.

Brave Heart

Mel Gibson's 1995 film set the fashion for historical blockbusters. Five Oscars, many scandals, accusations of Anglophobia, nationalism and historical inaccuracy - all this had to go through the "Braveheart". At the same time, the picture is one of the leaders in the list of the most unreliable films in history.

The script is based on the poem "Actions and Deeds of the Outstanding and Brave Defender Sir William Wallace", written by the Scottish poet Blind Harry in the 1470s - almost 200 years after real events, and therefore has little in common with them.

Scottish national hero William Wallace, unlike the movie character, was a small-country nobleman. His father not only was not killed by the British, but even supported them for political purposes.

In 1298, the Scottish king Alexander III died, leaving no male heirs. His only daughter, Margaret, was married to the son of King Edward II of England, but died soon after. This led to a dispute over the succession to the throne. The main rivals were the Scottish Bruce family and John Balliol, the son of an English baron and a Scottish countess, great-granddaughter of King David I of Scotland.

King Edward I Long-Legs of England actively intervened in this dispute and forced the Scottish barons who had lands in England to recognize his suzerainty and choose Balliol as king of Scotland. After the coronation, the newly-made monarch realized that he had become just a puppet in the hands of the British. He renewed the old alliance with France, which led to the British invasion of Scotland.

The Bruce family supported the British during the invasion, the Scottish army was defeated, and Balliol was captured and deprived of the crown. Edward I himself declared himself king of Scotland. This caused the discontent of many Scots, primarily the Bruce, who themselves counted on the crown. It was at this time that Robert Bruce appears on the pages of history: together with the leader of the Northern Scots, Andrew Morey, he begins to wage a liberation war against the British.

In the Battle of Stirling Bridge, the Scots prevailed, but then King Edward defeated Wallace at Falkirk. In 1305, Wallace was captured, tried, and sentenced to death. But the struggle for Scottish independence did not end there, and Robert the Bruce continued the war, leading the Scots to victory at Bannockburn - the most famous battle in the history of the country.

Balliol is not mentioned in the film, and the plot is built around Bruce's biography. The Scots are presented as dirty, unkempt peasants, stripped of armor and in kilts. At the Battle of Sterling, their faces are painted blue, like some ancient Picts. The deliberately shown peasant-barbarian character of the Scottish army is, of course, completely untrue.

The Scottish infantry, and many of the knights, were not much different in armament from the British. In the film, there is a vivid scene of Wallace's use of long spears against the English cavalry. The scene appears to be a reference to the use by the Scots of the shiltrons - large infantry formations of spearmen that the British could only deal with with the help of archers.

During the Battle of Stirling Bridge, the most important element is missing in the frame - the bridge itself! Apparently, the director was more interested in showing the attack of the British cavalry in an open field. The scene is spectacular!

As for the skirts, they appeared only in the 16th century, and Wallace, as a resident of the plain, and not the highlands of Scotland, should not have worn it.

The film also has problems with chronology. Edward Long-Legs dies at the same time as Wallace, although in reality he outlived him by two years. Princess Isabella clearly could not be in a love relationship with Wallace, since she was 10 years old in the year of his death. But should a real creator care about such trifles?

The images of the British are also quite vivid. So, Edward I really was a strong ruler. True, even he did not come up with the idea of introducing the right to the first wedding night in Scotland.

Perhaps weaker than others is Robert the Bruce, who, against the background of Wallace and Edward, looks cowardly and insecure. Quite an impartial image of the future greatest king of Scotland.

After the release of the film, Mel Gibson admitted numerous mistakes and anachronisms, but believed that it was worth going for the sake of entertainment. Since then, disheveled Scottish warriors with painted faces screaming the inspiring word "freedom!" firmly entrenched in the mass consciousness at the mention of the Wallace uprising. And Wallace himself is now in many illustrations certainly armed with a two-handed sword, which in reality he most likely never had.

Konstantin Vasiliev