How do you trust cinema?

[librarius_qui]

Some movies come out speaking about the History of a situation.

How much do you trust it, how much do you doubt it, how much do you get curious about the facts it tells.

Have you been badly disappointed at a movie?

[Stargazer86]

I can't think of any historically based movie that wasn't disappointing in the sense that it was inaccurate somewhere. I do greatly enjoy historical movies, but you can't rely on them for the facts. Movies are made to make money far more than they are to educate. You always have to bear in mind artistic license, how sometimes a twist on reality is far more interesting to your average moviegoer, differing historical sources, and a limited time frame.
Also, some historical movies are made about a certain time period and the events that took place, but the actual characters and the plot are fictitious or loosely based on a series of people/events. For example: Gladiator and Gangs of New York
Historical movies often can spark an interest in a subject and encourage one to look further into an event. Whenever I watch historically based movies, my 6 year old asks me all kinds of questions about what's true and what isn't. I can explain to him in my own way as well as look up information with him. He's learned about the Civil War, Revolutionary War, WWII, the Roman Empire etc etc this way.
Some of my favorite historical movies include:
Gangs of New York
Elizabeth I & II
Gladiator
Amistad
13 Days
and many many others. What are some of your favorites?

[BienvenuJDC]

There are too many movies made as propaganda, and people in general believe too much that they see on TV and film.

[ClaesGefvenberg]

How much do you trust it, how much do you doubt it, how much do you get curious about the facts it tells.I tend to be quite dubious about what movies tell me, mainly for the reasons already brought forward by Stargazer86 & BienvenuJDC. Being the curious fellow I am, I often set out to check facts after having seen a movie. In fact, this often happens even if I have been watching the news... They are not always entirely correct (to put it mildly).


Have you been badly disappointed at a movie?Rest assured that I have, and to widen the discussion a bit, not only concerning the facts conveyed, but also when it comes to the laws of physics: They are often abused in the worst possible way in the film world.

/Claes

[librarius_qui]

Whenever I watch historically based movies, my 6 year old asks me all kinds of questions about what's true and what isn't. I can explain to him in my own way as well as look up information with him. He's learned about the Civil War, Revolutionary War, WWII, the Roman Empire etc etc this way.

Wow!! This is very interesting! :)





_ What are some of your favorites?

I can recall very few.

:thumbs_up "The Great Escape" is historically based;

:thumbs_up "King Arthur" (of 2004) isn't a regular one ... Its proposition is slightly different: it's to turn legend into historic possibility. I like it, because it brings forth what can/could have been, from legend;

:thumbs_up "Troy" is very similar to the one just above, only, it proposes to turn myth into historic possibilty (...). However the war between the Greek kingdoms against Troy is history, the (main) book written about it is poor as history, being rather a religious book and (fruit of) a(n oral) literary tradition. Even so, the movie turns the mythic narrative into something that is plausible, it makes the gods invisible, so as to say.



I have, on the other hand, some awful examples:

Worst of them is "Kingdom of Heaven", which tells a completely changed story about all the secondary events of the actual documented history of the period and situation. That movie abhors me :crash:


Lq~

[Stargazer86]

I didn't know that a King Arthur movie came out in 2004. i'll have to check that out. I would definately consider movies about well known myths and legends to be historical.

What is Kingdom of Heaven about?

[librarius_qui]

I tend to be quite dubious about what movies tell me, mainly for the reasons already brought forward by Stargazer86 & BienvenuJDC. Being the curious fellow I am, I often set out to check facts after having seen a movie. In fact, this often happens even if I have been watching the news... They are not always entirely correct (to put it mildly).

Rest assured that I have, and to widen the discussion a bit, not only concerning the facts conveyed, but also when it comes to the laws of physics: They are often abused in the worst possible way in the film world.

/Claes

These two examples are 100% accordingly! (to me), Claes.

Specially in what concerns "sci(ence)"-fi(ction), because, usually there's more (bad) fiction than actual science ...

There's ONE tv series that I consider to have accomplished something interesting in space simulation -- however the plot of the series isn't the most interesting to me but, .. well --, which was Battlestar Gallactica. I find it interesting the sounds of ships in that production, because we have an impression that we can only hear sounds of internal machinery of the ships, and communication noises, and, sometimes, there are scenes in which a ship or a fighter simply glides in the silence ... This is very well accomplished.

(On the other hand, they use the concept of "jump", which I avoid in *my* futuristic writings ... Again .. that's me.)



From this, we can extend to literature as well. Movies based on (literature/fiction) books. Possibly, the least of the weevils ... Except for Ronald Tolkien's ascets.




What is Kingdom of Heaven about?

It's about the taking of Jerusalem by the Persian king, in the second crusade, and a noble history of the defense.

I would love the movie ... if the characters hadn't been so badly [biographically] distorted :sick:

[Virgil]

You can never trust art to reflect reality. Never. I'm with Plato on this. One judges the art as art, development of a theme. But even if the portrayal of a situation is as honest as can be, it is one artist's opinion. It is not history or fact.

[BienvenuJDC]

Also take into consideration that there are books that are historical fiction. The Man in the Iron Mask is based on a real king, Louis Philippe, but there was no twin. The Phantom of the Opera begins as the narrative of an investigative reporter, even though it is based on a real place, it is fiction. I've known some people to openly believe whatever they see, hear, or read. This even applies to the news as Claes comments. The difference is that historical fiction writers, movie writers, and producers are not putting out their work as a documentary...otherwise it would be called a documentary. Historical fiction by its own name is exactly that...fiction, and likewise the movies are fictional.

[Stargazer86]

Historical fiction: cool in movies (if done well) makes me cringe in book form. I just cannot stand historical fiction.

I think I'll pass on the Kingdom of Heaven.

Which reminds me, has anyone ever seen/read The Last Temptation of Christ? The old staunch Irish Catholic in me had a f*cking heart attack, but overall, very intriguing and interesting to look at Jesus as more man than devine. And to look at that region in that time period as more pagan (not in the Wicca/Neopagan sense) and tribal than Western influenced (as portrayed in several made for TV Jesus movies) Fascinating stuff. Although Willem Dafoe could have lost the Boston accent while playing Jesus...

I haven't read the book though. has anyone here read it?

Oh, my last post reminded me...
Braveheart. I freaking love that movie. Always have. And then I read a biography on William Wallace *sigh* *shakes angry fist at Mel Gibson* C'mon...didn't it occur to you that the Battle of Stirling Bridge actually took place on a bridge?! good lord, that movie is riddled with inaccuracies. The reason I thought of this was because of my mention of made for TV Jesus movies. There's one that I remember seeing several times as a kid that they used to show around Easter a lot. The guy who plays Jesus is the same guy who plays the nephew of Longshanks in Braveheart (the one who's head is sent to the king in a box). I haven't looked it up..but I'm pretty sure
And on the subject of historically epic Mel Gibson movies: The Patriot...the guy who plays the evil redcoat soldier is the same guy who plays the blonde curly haired guy in "Top Secret". I'm fairly certain of that one.
Wow..I need to find out names. *Counts* how many times can I say "guy" in one post? geeze...
And in the Patriot, the 2 main American patriots are both played by Austrailians
Just an observation with absolutely no point...

[librarius_qui]

You can never trust art to reflect reality. Never. I'm with Plato on this. One judges the art as art, development of a theme. But even if the portrayal of a situation is as honest as can be, it is one artist's opinion. It is not history or fact.

What Plato didn't think, Virge, is that cinema, sometimes distorts art! 8} .. (And History* as well.)



----
*Documents; for instance (from "Kingdom of Heaven"): it's documented that Balian II, son of Balian I, was married to Maria Comnena, and he had three children. She never commited suicide. Not to mention (many) other things. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balian_of_Ibelin)

[dramasnot6]

Art reflects life and life reflects art,eh?
What scares me is when images of objectified women are the only images of women projected in cinema. This really does have an effect on the audience and how they perceive women in real life. When it comes to social representations of any sort of group, I don't trust mainstream cinema to be politically correct in the least.
Any historical document, even primary sources, tell the story of History in their own way. No historical artifact (primary or secondary, as in fictional film versions of an event) will represent the "factual" version of history necessarily. History is highly constructed no matter how you look at it, and even without "inaccurate" historical dramas people have their stereotypes and misconceptions about the past.

I am conflicted in judging art as having the responsibility to be truthful or as being allowed "artistic freedom" to do as it pleases with history or whatever else. On the one hand, art is a major player in everyone's socialization and does have some moral/ethical responsibility. On the other, it is an important source of creative distortion and imagination.

[Virgil]

The only responsiblity that art has is to be art. And every viewer and connoisieur of art needs to understand that, so everyone is on equal footing.

[Mathor]

i think most works of art that have a historical theme should be seen as such. I dont think many filmmakers or artists try to capture these things AS it happened but more how it COULD'VE happened or how it MIGHT'VE happened. When you read something from history of which there are no pictures or movies or anything to go by you are forced simply to use your imagination. It might not be historically correct, but it is artistically important because based on a person's interpretation of history it moved them to the point that they wanted to make art to express their feelings towards history not simply to say exactly how history was. What importance would other artistic embellishments in movies like Titanic or Ben-Hur or in art like The Last Supper have if not for the emotions attached to situations and events that might not have happened even close to how we imagine they did? I think these events would not have so great an effect on our lives.

[BienvenuJDC]

The only responsiblity that art has is to be art. And every viewer and connoisieur of art needs to understand that, so everyone is on equal footing.

Is literature considered to be art? Should books be historically accurate? Should history books be historically accurate? Obviously, we read books like Homer's Odyssey and Iliad and there are some embellishments. Where is the defining line? Is the producer trying to make you believe that what the viewer is watching is true? If so, then the facts need to be true. Is there a possibility that people will walk away thinking that history was different than it actually was? Then the producer has a responsibility to the audience.

[Mark F.]

The only film (book, painting and any other work of art) you can trust is one that questions its own subjectivity.

[mono]

The only film (book, painting and any other work of art) you can trust is one that questions its own subjectivity.
Wisely said. :nod:

As to the original questions, I rarely trust it, I highly doubt it, and my curiosity only feels satisfied when I consult the primary/original source, rather than a screen. Very few historical films have made quite an impression on me, whether Hollywood-ized or not, but, for the sake of the cinema's inevitable inclination towards commercialization and glamour, I take it all with a grain of salt, since allegedly even Achilles in Troy must not only seem one of the most powerful warriors in Greece, as Homer wrote, but must bear the impressive arse of Brad Pitt.
Sure, I can see the rationale behind making everything much more fabulous; just like in the music industry, to make any profit, a film must sell itself and appeal to many audiences. Troy attracted me as a fan of Homer's epic poetry, and it turned out a not-too-great adaption, but I honestly wonder how the popularity of the film would have compared without Brad Pitt (though I find him a great actor) and Orlando Bloom. The same can go for most of the World War II adaptions, which, though tragic, can end up the most romanticized and contorted plots that subtract from the real story, and end up only there for the palate of the audience.
With very few exceptions, no, I do not trust the cinema. For a prime example, I cannot trust an industry that rewarded the same man (Max von Sydow) for playing Jesus in one film (The Greatest Story Ever Told), Satan in another (Needful Things), and a priest/exorcist in yet another (The Exorcist).

[Mr Endon]

The only film (book, painting and any other work of art) you can trust is one that questions its own subjectivity.


Wisely said. :nod:

I second that.

Actually, my question is, 'why should we trust cinema?'
'Battleship Potemkin' is communist propaganda. 'The Triumph of the Will' is nazi propaganda. Yet both these works are remarkable in their own right.
Art doesn't have to be 'trusted' as a source of factual information.
'All art is quite useless'.
That's why there are documentaries.

[Emil Miller]

I second that.

Actually, my question is, 'why should we trust cinema?'
'Battleship Potemkin' is communist propaganda. 'The Triumph of the Will' is nazi propaganda. Yet both these works are remarkable in their own right.
Art doesn't have to be 'trusted' as a source of factual information.
'All art is quite useless'.
That's why there are documentaries.


This implies that only Communists and Nazis produduced cinematic propaganda, yet there are a number of noteworthey examples of allied popaganda that were produced during the war, such as Henry V, Mrs. Minerver and The Way to the Stars. None of which, cinematically speaking, are as great as Potemkin or Triumph of the Will.

[Mr Endon]

Brian, it really doesn't implying that only Communists and Nazis produced propaganda at all, those are only two examples, and the two most aesthetically accomplished ones that I know. I'm well aware that the Allies, like you said, produced a good deal of propaganda on their own in WWI:


Hate-the-Hun propaganda exemplified by titles like The Kaiser, The Beast of Berlin and The Prussian Cur. In these films mustachioed German officers […] tossed babies out of windows, raped young women and murdered innocent civilians.

In Michael Paris's The First World War and Popular Cinema

And like you said, it wasn't nearly as good.

[Sorry for the pedantic reference, but I didn't have a chance to use this on my essay and had to vent it somehow ;)]

[Mark F.]

Chaplin also produced some propangda during the First World War. What I was getting at was that a real artist produces something that is true to himself, thus something we can trust. I don't really see why people bother with crap such as Troy. If you want to see a good WWII film watch something by Fuller, not by Stephen effing Spielberg, it's really quite simple. I just can't understand people complaining about Hollywood denaturing historical facts, Hollywood has become a massive corporation that will denature anything if it can make a buck.

[Mr Endon]

Your point is about artistic integrity, then? Point well taken. My point was strictly about adherence to facts, and how even the best films can be fanciful and deviate from reality with no loss of factual 'trustworthiness', simply because that's a non-issue in art, as far as I'm concerned.

Here's an example: I saw 'The Insider' yesterday. It's about a very recent media scandal (1995/6) that had to do with an order within CBS not to broadcast a devastating interview on the tobacco industry. Anyway, the point is that it's about real events, and about real people, all of whom are still living today. While I very much appreciate the telling of an actual story I knew nothing about, it was still obvious to me how they had heroised the honest journalist played by Al Pacino and demonised most of CBS's top executives. If I want a more straightforward account of the event I'll look up in the New York Times archive for those news, or watch a documentary, or read a book on it. That's what those mediums are for. What interests me is the actors' performances, the editing, the sets, the photography, the plot, etc.


As for the kind of 'trust' you mean: yes, I also believe that the artist must be true to his own vision, whatever that might be (as opposed to say formulaic goldmines). Thus I guess we could trust in a product that is spawned by the artist himself rather than by the expectations of an industry.

[Mark F.]

What I mean is that all art is only a representation, as Magritte puts it, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe." If an artist doesn't understand that he'll only be deluding himself. How can anyone hope to get to the truth of any single event, there is no truth, only one's understanding of what happened.

[Mr Endon]

Absolutely. Incidentally, that's probably my favourite painting! I guess Magritte is the ultimate painter for literature lovers.

[mono]

I guess Magritte is the ultimate painter for literature lovers.
A fine choice, yes, and this seems besides the fact and purpose of the thread, but let us not forget Brueghal. His "Landscape with the Fall of Icarus," a tribute to the tale from Ovid's Metamorphoses:

http://poetsnotebook.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/brueghal-icarus.jpg

As for the kind of 'trust' you mean: yes, I also believe that the artist must be true to his own vision, whatever that might be (as opposed to say formulaic goldmines). Thus I guess we could trust in a product that is spawned by the artist himself rather than by the expectations of an industry.

What I mean is that all art is only a representation, as Magritte puts it, "Ceci n'est pas une pipe." If an artist doesn't understand that he'll only be deluding himself. How can anyone hope to get to the truth of any single event, there is no truth, only one's understanding of what happened.
These almost imply that artists, whether screenwriters, directors, or actors/actresses, do not belong in historical films. Saying historical films and acted-out documentaries on past events do not appear as artistic as a comedy or tragedy states that Shakespeare's Henry VIII does not classify as artistic as A Midsummer Night's Dream or Macbeth, though they all fit under the category as both stageplays and screenplays (generations later, of course). Indeed, an "artist must be true to his/her own vision" and I agree that "art is only a representation," but in the case of a historical film or play, the screenwriters, directors, and actors/actresses ought to remain true to not only their visions, but the history itself, whether witnessed or merely documented (such as in the Peloponnesian War); otherwise, it makes a parody of itself.
Hollywood seems especially guilty of this crime of quite literally "parodying" history - not necessarily making a comedy of a tragedy (World War II undoubtedly appears as the most common Hollywood historical subject), but of taking nothing more than elements of history, then forming its own plot. Screenwriters and directors of films like Pearl Harbor, Titanic, Troy, and Saving Private Ryan would sooner spend millions of dollars on top-notch actors and actresses, props, and traveling than spend, at most, $50 on a history textbook; thereby these artists stay true to their "vision" but ignore the history part.

[Mark F.]

These almost imply that artists, whether screenwriters, directors, or actors/actresses, do not belong in historical films. Saying historical films and acted-out documentaries on past events do not appear as artistic as a comedy or tragedy states that Shakespeare's Henry VIII does not classify as artistic as A Midsummer Night's Dream or Macbeth, though they all fit under the category as both stageplays and screenplays (generations later, of course). Indeed, an "artist must be true to his/her own vision" and I agree that "art is only a representation," but in the case of a historical film or play, the screenwriters, directors, and actors/actresses ought to remain true to not only their visions, but the history itself, whether witnessed or merely documented (such as in the Peloponnesian War); otherwise, it makes a parody of itself.

I don't agree. The way I see it, if I can manage to put it in the right words, a film (or a novel, or a painting...) needs one main idea to drive it on, that's the starting point for me. The story is built around that idea, to express it, and in some cases a historical fact suits a certain idea. But in order for the story (be it true or not) to express his idea in the best way possible, the filmmaker will have to tinker with details, change events, characters, to suit his own vision.
The role of the artist isn't to pretend to be a historian, it's to express a truth he himself feels in the world. If you watch historical films made in Hollywood you're bound to be deceived by some form of vulgarisation, but watch something like Herzog's "Cobra Verde" based on a true character and you'll have a stronger vision of Herzog's own thoughts, made clearer by what he leaves out or invents.
I think fiction can express the truth better than historical reconstructions in most cases, the filmmaker isn't bothered by having to respect facts and gains a greater freedom, allowing him to convey his thoughts in a more powerful matter. Take The Big Red One, a WWII film made by Samuel Fuller, he was a soldier during the War, participated in the north african, italian and french debarcations and was among the first soldiers to see concetration camps. The man knows what he's showing us, yet the film is very romanced and that makes it a lot stronger. Or Guy Maddin's Coward Bend the Knee, a supposedly autobiographical film that doesn't show any true fact that happened to Maddin but gives us his feelings about his childhood.
You mentinoned documentaries, and I don't think there's a big dig difference between fiction and non fiction in terms of film. Watch Herzog's films, the documentaries are haunted by the same kind of characters as his fictions, and the same quest for an extatic truth.

[Mr Endon]

Well films may have a go at historical accuracy, but like Mark said, "The role of the artist isn't to pretend to be a historian". Nor should we "trust" the film as a medium for conveying facts, because that's just not what it's meant to do. I gave you the example of The Insider. It's a good film, but I can tell it has dramatised facts and oversimplified dichotomies. The idea is not to faithfully document an event but to convey the "whistleblower"'s and the journalist's perspectives, which are necessarily biased.

You mention Shakespeare as a writer of history. Yet he wasn't too anchored to facts, he took artistic liberties. That's what I mean by the unreliability of art in terms of facts. In art it's art that comes first, and history second.

[mono]

I don't agree. The way I see it, if I can manage to put it in the right words, a film (or a novel, or a painting...) needs one main idea to drive it on, that's the starting point for me. The story is built around that idea, to express it, and in some cases a historical fact suits a certain idea. But in order for the story (be it true or not) to express his idea in the best way possible, the filmmaker will have to tinker with details, change events, characters, to suit his own vision.
The role of the artist isn't to pretend to be a historian, it's to express a truth he himself feels in the world. If you watch historical films made in Hollywood you're bound to be deceived by some form of vulgarisation, but watch something like Herzog's "Cobra Verde" based on a true character and you'll have a stronger vision of Herzog's own thoughts, made clearer by what he leaves out or invents.
I think fiction can express the truth better than historical reconstructions in most cases, the filmmaker isn't bothered by having to respect facts and gains a greater freedom, allowing him to convey his thoughts in a more powerful matter. Take The Big Red One, a WWII film made by Samuel Fuller, he was a soldier during the War, participated in the north african, italian and french debarcations and was among the first soldiers to see concetration camps. The man knows what he's showing us, yet the film is very romanced and that makes it a lot stronger. Or Guy Maddin's Coward Bend the Knee, a supposedly autobiographical film that doesn't show any true fact that happened to Maddin but gives us his feelings about his childhood.
You mentinoned documentaries, and I don't think there's a big dig difference between fiction and non fiction in terms of film. Watch Herzog's films, the documentaries are haunted by the same kind of characters as his fictions, and the same quest for an extatic truth.

Well films may have a go at historical accuracy, but like Mark said, "The role of the artist isn't to pretend to be a historian". Nor should we "trust" the film as a medium for conveying facts, because that's just not what it's meant to do. I gave you the example of The Insider. It's a good film, but I can tell it has dramatised facts and oversimplified dichotomies. The idea is not to faithfully document an event but to convey the "whistleblower"'s and the journalist's perspectives, which are necessarily biased.

You mention Shakespeare as a writer of history. Yet he wasn't too anchored to facts, he took artistic liberties. That's what I mean by the unreliability of art in terms of facts. In art it's art that comes first, and history second.
Indeed, we seem to disagree, but it makes me frown upon no one. I feel that for a historical film to help me to "trust cinema," as the thread initially addressed, it must follow the history, whether we speak of Shakespeare's portrayal of royalty or Hollywood's interpretation of World War II; originality, apart from history, seems another subject. For a historical film to consider itself a reinactment of historical events, I feel that the art and talent lie upon the acting of the history itself, whether we speak of B.C.E. occurrences or when the Berlin Wall fell, in terms of time capacities. Upon creating a film, a writer and/or director, in a historical sense, has a choice whether to reinact a real-life plot, portray its comedy/tragedy, and show respect towards the lives who experienced that now-perceived, "20/20"-like vision, or whether to write and/or direct of an imaginary plot to conform to his/her vision, doffing the possibly-documented experiences of one who first-hand encountered the comedy/tragedy. We create comedies and tragedies to stimulate emotion, intellect, and what we have created; we create historical screen/stageplays to honor our roots.

[Mark F.]

I don't know. Take the western for example, a historical genre that has become a romanced vision of how the West was won and a full part of the american mythos, but is also frequently used as an allegory of contemporary situations (segregation, McCarthyism...). I don't believe there's such a difference between the genres you mentioned. Both serve "to stimulate our emotions and intellect" as you put it very well, historical pieces use a certain framework, commonly accepted by the audience, to give it a stronger resonance. The fact that it "honors our roots" just prepares us (the audience) even more to receive whatever ideas are being conveyed.

[Mark F.]

Also, not sure this really has much to do with the conversation but it springs to mind, something Tarkovsky says. The idea being basically that, the most important thing (he's talking about putting his own memories on film, which isn't the same as historical facts, but it's in the general idea of accuracy) isn't the facts, you can reproduce something with great attention to detail and still not achieve anything, you have to prepare the viewer emotionally for what he's about to see, because if he's not in the right frame of mind he won't understand a scene as it was intended.

[mono]

I don't know. Take the western for example, a historical genre that has become a romanced vision of how the West was won and a full part of the american mythos, but is also frequently used as an allegory of contemporary situations (segregation, McCarthyism...). I don't believe there's such a difference between the genres you mentioned. Both serve "to stimulate our emotions and intellect" as you put it very well, historical pieces use a certain framework, commonly accepted by the audience, to give it a stronger resonance. The fact that it "honors our roots" just prepares us (the audience) even more to receive whatever ideas are being conveyed.
No kidding! Talk about a manipulation of the past - Western films. I should like to see Hollywood create some sort of neo-Western romance, starring Jessica Simpson and Jason Biggs about the Donner party! :lol: The frequently-romanticized versions of "how the West was won," a popular phrase, gives a perfect example - notice how few historical films we see from a Native American's perspective in proportion to John Wayne films alone - talk about pulling the wool over one's eyes.
Point taken, nonetheless, that "historical pieces use a certain framework, commonly accepted by the audience, to give it a stronger resonance," as you said. Some films, sounding similar to Tarkovsky's style, classify as historical films, but document in a narrative style according to the screenwriter, director, or main character's memories, films like Polanski's The Pianist, Spielberg's Schindler's List (one of his fewer decent films), or Annaud's Seven Years in Tibet. The record of historical events often come from at least one eye, and who's eye appears the most accurate, especially that something as extravagant as the Peloponnesian War only seems popularized by one historian, Thucydides?

[Mark F.]

Spielberg's Schindler's List is precisely the kind of film I wouldn't trust. It dictates its vision and idea to the audience without forcing said audience to question itself. Back to my first point about trusting films that realise that they are representations and not the truth.
The western genre is more ambiguous than that, a lot of films, albeit mainly post 1950's films question the whole imagery the genre conveyed. Even a director such as Ford who started making typical westerns in the 1920's made more interesting films in the 1950's like The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, questioning the legendary status of the West ("When you have the choice of print the legend or the facts, print the legend!"), or Cheyenne Autumn, follwing the plight of American Indians. Even his films starring John Wayne show an interesting evolution of the main character ("Stagecoach", "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon" and "The Searchers") who becomes more and more disgruntled and ambivalent. Though not historically accurate, through its evolution the genre shows how american society slowly changed its way of looking at its past. I think that tells us a lot more about ourselves than a film that just tries to stay true the facts.