Random History Movies

The argument built into the genre

Every historical film contains a quiet contradiction. It promises to show you something that really happened, and to do so it has to invent almost everything: the dialogue nobody recorded, the private moments nobody witnessed, the faces, the weather, the exact look on a dying man's face. The genre is a true story assembled almost entirely out of educated guesses.

Press Generate and it hands you one. A few of the films in here:

• Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
• Schindler's List (1993)
• Gladiator (2000)
• The Last Emperor (1987)
• Amadeus (1984)
• 12 Years a Slave (2013)
• Ben-Hur (1959)
• The Pianist (2002)

Whether that invention is a betrayal of history or the only way to bring it to life is a genuine argument, and it is one that historians themselves have had, in public, at length, and not settled.

Drawing a film

1. Press Generate for one film.
2. Ask for a few to pick from.
3. Type into Contains to search the titles, including by year.
4. Copy to keep them.

Where these titles come from

Historical films gathered and checked by hand, across the epic, the biographical and the war film. The tool picks from that pool in your browser.

Every historical film is inaccurate, and has to be

Start with the thing that historians most often say about historical films, which is that they are inaccurate. They distort. They compress ten people into one. They invent conversations. They move events, simplify causes, and give the past a tidy shape it never had.

All of that is true, and here is the uncomfortable part: it is not a flaw that better filmmakers could fix. It is built into the medium.

A film cannot show uncertainty. A history book can write that we do not know exactly what was said, that the sources conflict, that this detail is disputed and that one is a guess. A camera cannot. It has to point at something. When the general gives his speech, the film must choose specific words, put them in a specific mouth, and show them being said, and in doing so it converts a scholarly maybe into a visual certainty. The historian Robert Rosenstone, who spent decades writing history on the page before turning to film, concluded that the deepest problems are not caused by Hollywood or by small budgets, but by the nature of the visual medium itself, which demands a concreteness the historical record almost never supports.

A book can say perhaps. A film can only show. And the moment it shows, it has invented, because the record is full of gaps and a picture cannot contain a gap. Every historical film is therefore a set of specific claims, most of them unprovable, standing in for a past that was messier and less certain than any image can be.

What historians say when they stop complaining

The interesting turn is that some serious historians, having admitted all of this, decided film was worth doing anyway, and even worth doing themselves.

Natalie Zemon Davis, a distinguished historian of early modern France, worked directly on a film about a famous case of imposture in a sixteenth century French village. She knew exactly what the film was giving up. She worried, in writing, about the cost of the medium's powerful simplicity, about where a beautiful and compelling recreation could possibly find room for the perhapses and the mayhavebeens that are the historian's honesty. And she did it anyway, because she saw what film could do that a monograph could not.

What film can do is this. It can show you how the past felt. It can put you inside a moment, in a body, in a place, and let you experience the texture of a life that a book can only describe from the outside. It can make the past matter to people who would never open a scholarly work, and Rosenstone's blunt point was that film shows academics do not own the past. A historical film reaches millions, and it can send some of them to the books afterwards, hungry to know what really happened.

Davis argued that films can speculate, responsibly, about how large forces were lived through locally and in detail, how a peasant or a king actually experienced an event we know only as a date. That is a real form of historical thinking, not a betrayal of it, provided everyone is honest about which parts are known and which are imagined. The problem is that films are usually not honest about that at all.

The people history forgot to write down

There is one thing film can do for history that is close to unique, and it follows directly from the medium's weaknesses.

Written history is built from documents, and documents were mostly made by and about the powerful. Kings were recorded. Generals were recorded. The literate, the wealthy and the victorious left paper behind. The poor, the enslaved, the illiterate, the women whose work was never written down, the ordinary soldier in the line, these people lived and died leaving almost no trace in the archive, which means written history struggles to see them at all.

Film does not need a document to show a face. It can put the invisible people of history back into the picture, can imagine the servant in the corner of the famous room, the family on the losing side, the crowd rather than the man on the balcony. It is guessing when it does this, and the guess can be wrong or self-serving. But it is guessing at something the written record simply left out, and a responsible act of imagination about a forgotten life can be truer to the shape of the past than an accurate account that only ever looks at the top.

So a historical film is at its most valuable, oddly, exactly where the archive is thinnest. Where there is abundant record, the book will always beat the film for truth. Where there is silence, film can at least propose a human being.

Where the line actually is

None of this excuses everything, and it is worth being clear about where the real line falls, because it is not where people usually put it.

The line is not invention versus accuracy. All historical film invents, so a film cannot be condemned merely for inventing. The line is honesty about the invention, and about its direction.

A film that compresses three battles into one, or gives a historical figure invented dialogue that captures something true about them, is doing the necessary work of the genre. A film that reverses who freed whom, that flatters the powerful at the expense of the powerless, that quietly rewrites a defeat as a victory or launders a villain into a hero, is doing something else. Both invent. The difference is whether the invention serves understanding or serves a comfortable lie, and whether the film is candid about being a dramatisation or pretends to be a documentary.

The most useful question to bring to a historical film, then, is not is this accurate, because the honest answer is always partly no. The better questions are: what is it inventing, in which direction, and in whose favour? A film that invents toward the truth of an experience is doing history a service. A film that invents toward a myth is doing the opposite, and the fact that both look equally convincing on screen is exactly why the genre needs watching with your eyes open.

Questions people ask

What does based on a true story actually mean?

Very little, legally or practically. It signals that some real event lies somewhere behind the film, and tells you nothing about how much has been changed. Treat it as a starting flag rather than a guarantee, and assume that anything dramatically convenient may have been invented.

Can you actually learn history from films?

You can learn that a subject exists, why it might matter, and how it may have felt, which is not nothing. What you cannot safely learn is the facts, because you have no way of telling, while watching, which parts are documented and which are invented. The film is best treated as an invitation to the reading, not a replacement for it.

Why do period details matter so much to people?

Because visible accuracy buys trust that the film then spends on invisible invention. Getting the buttons and the buildings right makes an audience believe the dialogue and the motives too, even though those are the parts most likely to be made up. The costume is often more accurate than the history.

Why are there so many films about the same few periods?

Because some eras offer what drama needs: clear stakes, visible conflict, and a shape an audience already half knows. Vast stretches of the past go unfilmed not because they are unimportant but because they resist the dramatic shape a film requires, which is its own kind of distortion of what history actually contains.

References

1. Rosenstone, R. A. The Historical Film as Real History, on the visual medium's demand for concreteness and the claim that academics do not own the past. https://revistes.ub.edu/index.php/filmhistoria/article/download/12244/14998
2. McKernan, L. Film and the historian, on Natalie Zemon Davis and The Return of Martin Guerre. https://lukemckernan.com/2018/11/19/film-and-the-historian/
3. American Historical Association, The Rights and Responsibilities of Historians in Regard to Historical Films. https://www.historians.org/perspectives-article/the-rights-and-responsibilities-of-historians-in-regard-to-historical-films-and-video/