The word “old” in Old Academy Anew ain’t a freak accident; it comes from the pig Latin: that shit happened so you could learn from it. Interestingly, we appear incapable of learning from it, but we do our best to act like we did.
Every medium has its own specific complications, and movies have struggled with substance and purpose since their inception. They started as mere screen adaptations of stage plays; many didn’t even bother to change their titles. It seemed easier to adapt already digested ideas because this is how they began– as products/investments. The artsy part showed up later to help with the aforementioned struggles, eternally in conflict with revenue, only to be defeated by the always profitable propaganda.
Nevertheless, we ain’t here to talk about just any movies but about allegedly historical movies. Education has made History boring; usually a recitation of names and dates with a vague inkling to why we need to know them. Would you buy a ticket for that yawning educational experience after leaving school? Of course not. Movies simply take pre-digested slop and regurgitate it in a visual way for us dumb baby birds to swallow whole.
ACCORDING TO OLD ACADEMY ANEW ABOVE AVERAGE BUT STILL CURSORY INVESTIGATION, HISTORICAL MOVIES CAN BE DIVIDED, AT THEIR SIMPLEST, IN TWO: HISTORICAL PROTAGONISTS AND HISTORICAL EVENTS.
LEADING GENTS AND LADIES
Technically, the leading individual of a historical film did something that changed the curse of humankind; whether in large or small scale depends on the vision and intention of its creators. These could be kings, queens, serial killers, and folk heroes, as well as those who gave us knowledge or fought for liberation. Cleopatra (1963). Caligula (1979). Lady Jane (1986). Malcolm X (1992). Lincoln (2012). Napoleon (2023).
Then filmmakers decided to create a subgenre, the biographical movie, and the public inaptly named it Biopics. Swiftly, a new conflict arose. The original movies, centered on an individual, somewhat tried to keep them within the context of known data (never facts). Biopics, on the other hand, became more speculative and fanatical, with many even sanitizing the figures to the point of not just lying by omission but fabricating events.
We’ve already established that History as information is boring as fuck, and pure data won’t be exciting for the average spectator; thus, cinema needs to fill the blanks left by the known with either art or propaganda, sorry, “intention.” The older the figure, the fewer facts available. And I’m using facts here in the sense of knowledge or information based on real occurrences.
If you pay attention, there’s a subtle but powerful difference between data and facts, and it is never more apparent than in film. Entertainment would romanticize (or demonize) the knowledge/information of an individual to serve their intention; and that’s before each consumer pour their on bias and perspective into the mix.
OLD ACADEMY ANEW WILL SHOW YOU WHY NOT EVERY STORY IS HISTORY AND WHY CINEMA NEEDS TO FIND A BETTER WAY TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE.
The situation here is fictionalizing the life events of a real figure. When you fill the blanks with fiction, you usually overplay your hand, precisely because there is no one left to stop you. Joan of Arc (1948) versus Cleopatra (1963). One has visions, the other a cunning understanding of human nature. Which one do you think is better? No. Forget that. Which one is fairly remembered today?
Women are a special case because, until surprisingly recently, were mostly brought to the screen by men. Imagined, written, and directed by dudes, logic indicates there were missing components in that equation. In the same way the viewer puts their bias, those creating the story put theirs. Contrary to what the latest generation insists on spouting, men and women ain’t the same; we have different and sometimes completely opposite life experiences. One isn’t more valid than the other, but it’s never a perfect balance of sameness.
And, now that the ladies have the opportunity to put forward their stories through their own lens, they’ve chosen revenge. Here’s where the “history” in historical movies gets twisted. Instead of rising above the mess left by previous artists, they’ve simply turned their female protagonists into male archetypes. Yawn. Just a few examples are Harriet (2019), The Warrior Queen of Jhansi (2019), and The Woman King (2022). To summarize, extremes ain’t cute, regardless of what lies between the legs.
EXCESS IS GENDERLESS, BUT NO ONE WANTS TO SAY IT ALOUD. OLD ACADEMY ANEW AIN’T AFRAID TO TELL IT LIKE IT IS. YOU WANNA MAKE SHIT UP? CALL IT FANTASY, NOT HISTORY.
Don’t think I forgot the dudes. Double fisting the exaggeration wagon is Ridley Scott with Napoleon (2023) and Gladiator II (2024). Never fear, we’ll get to that Coliseum BS soon enough. Alexander (2004), My Friend Dahmer (2017), and Sully (2016) are prime examples of imagination and ego filling the blanks.
The question of whether or not “artistic license” should apply to the accounts of real people’s experiences is moot. Art shouldn’t be restricted/controlled/censored, yet not every random thing thrown at a screen is art.
EVENTFUL PERSPECTIVE
Then, the machinations of the individual turn to the events of time and/or place; wars, movements, rebellions, and even discoveries become fertile soil for interpretation. Of course, narratives don’t follow situations but characters. Well, perhaps not in last 10 years; nevertheless, we need someone within the movie to guide us through the experience.
If the notion of filling the blanks in historical lives is presupposed at this point, it soars tenfold in regard to events. Here, we encounter addition, subtraction, tergiversation, and manipulation to accomplish intention, no matter how many extra bombs, bogus locations, insinuated connotations, or anachronisms it takes.
Propaganda also expands to the point of obfuscating reality in almost every historical event in film. This ain’t mere arty misconstruction but intentional distraction with a goal; which rarely happens to be entertainment– never mind education.
AFTER A BRIEF SUMMARY BROWSING OF THE 100 MOST PROFITABLE MOVIES OF THE LAST TEN YEARS, OLD ACADEMY ANEW HAS DISCOVERED AN ALMOST COMPULSIVE OBSESSION WITH WAR FILMS. CINEMATIC HISTORY SEEMS TO THRIVE ON CONFLICT AND BLOOD.
We learn the location of battlefields and the names of generals commanding clashing forces, and we’re fed the intentions of countries, studios, scriptwriters, and a smattering of directors. 300 (2006), Pearl Harbor (2001), The Thin Red Line (1998), and Gallipoli (1981); all these films follow people but are about events and focus on discourse: Good versus Evil. Sadly, most villains think they are the good guys– who happened to become villains, depending on who’s telling the story.
Thus, we jump into stuff technically/allegedly based on historical knowledge. Troy (2004), The Year of Living Dangerously (1982), Gladiator (2000), The Last of the Mohicans (1992); these tell stories embedded in specific historical times through fictional characters adorned with the embellishments of grandeur and goal.
One of those lands us on the goshdarn Colosseum. The Gladiator that launched the new century got a part 2, twenty-four years later. Why? Fuck knows. Creative bankruptcy, perhaps. Both films are fallible misdirection of History, coalescing several individuals to create a main character and reimagining others. In both, fiction not only fills the blanks but patches them so hard– it’s Viagra for plastic surgeons.
According to a Screen Rant article from November, 4th, 2024, “Since the film was released in 2000, Gladiator‘s historical accuracy has been one of the primary talking points; some disregard the film due to its exaggerated aspects; while others insist true history should not impact how epic filmmaking is perceived.”
HISTORY IS A FOUNTAIN. OLD ACADEMY ANEW THROWS A COIN IN THAT FOUNTAIN TO MAKE A WISH WHILE HOLLYWOOD USES IT TO WASH THEIR GREEDY ARMPITS.
TRUE HISTORY should not impact how EPIC FILMMAKING is PERCEIVED. Then why use “true History” as your hook? Scott could have called the Romans, Papiriams and the Colosseum, Bowlemem to remove the historical veneer. Western civilization has always had a love-hate relationship with Ancient Rome. Especially with the “empire” part of that whole shebang.
But it ain’t all just twenty-first-century shenanigans. Quo Vadis (1951) is defined by Wikipedia as “American religious epic historical film set in ancient Rome during the final years of Emperor Nero’s reign.” So, basically a Sunday School production with all the bias and trappings of a post WWII conservative propaganda.
Interestingly, historical facts tell us that all fukken empires fall, regardless of geographical location and language. The data to avoid following the missteps of the great ancient (and not so ancient) nations is at hand.
A year before Gladiator, The Mummy (1999) came out, and not a single person calls it a “historical movie,” and there was more research for historical accuracy in Brendan Fraser’s vehicle than in Riddle Scott’s mammoth film. As per usual, it’s all about intention. Nevertheless, Scott lost all good (and convoluted) intentions for Gladiator 2 (2024). We’re not intending a review here, just commenting on the fact that any coating of semi-historical adherence was lost to hubris and old age.
OLD ACADEMY ANEW HAS ONE MISSION: TO LOOK AT THE PAST TO UNDERSTAND THE SHIT-SHOWS OF TODAY. APPARENTLY, WE’RE THE ONLY ONES DOING SO.
BROKEN KNOWLEDGE
In a decade when films have become lectures, twisting/deconstructing history has turned into a favorite pastime. As creators, we have the right to augment, diminish, distort, and even break reality. Nevertheless, History is the one thing that needs to be embraced as is. Perhaps remove a little blood stain here and there; scratch a couple of peccadillos to make a life more digestible; change someone’s height for marketing purposes; but, fuck me, we cannot bleach and perfume it to the point of being a completely different beast.
And let’s not even mention the “Based On A True Story” moniker; those get away with more shit and shrug away any discomfort they create. Them Menendez bros still breathe, and fanfiction of their lives got streamed like they died in the Dark Ages.
Proper History ain’t entertainment; it’s knowledge. The Bread and Circus of the fabled Roman Empire had evolved into Judgement and Parasocial Attachment. Admiration had turned into either ownership or disdain. And movies twisting History ain’t helping that case.
We look for facts on the internet. The data that feeds the internet comes from humans who create it with intention. These ain’t trees that you stumbled upon in Nature. This is purposely planted information– whether with a noble or nefarious objective, it’s anyone’s guess.
According to that (hopefully not nefarious) information available on the World Wide Web, we’re living many parallels with the 1920s. And guess what happened at the end of that decade? The Great Fucking Depression. This time is gonna be streamed, and people are gonna off themselves while recording little videos.
THIS DIATRIBE DOESN’T END IN DOOM AND GLOOM. OLD ACADEMY ANEW IS HERE TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE NUDGE TOWARD A HEALTHIER, MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE FUTURE.
Believe or not, we’re already somewhat heading in the right direction. As of the time of this installment, 2025 box office numbers show an increasing “Done with your Bullshit” from moviegoers. And that’s the proper thing to do, scream displeasure with our wallets.
“Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it” is a concept known but mostly ignored. And cinema is doing its part to impair our ability to remember. No one is asking the people involved in making movies to be neutral on every issue. What we don’t want/need/care for is using movies to lecture and/or blame us; much less to intentionally skew our understanding of events. We want entertainment, not Tinsel Town’s position on current/past affairs. And, as mention before, true History is not entertainment, but knowledge.
So, we propose a remedial (you thought I was gonna say Holistic, didn’t you?) approach to historical interpretation. More research and assistance from credited sources. No more “My grandma told me about Cleopatra’s race” evidence but verifiable data when available. Fill the blanks with the plausible. You can adorn it a bit, but don’t filterfuck it to death. These are movies, not profile pictures for hookup apps.
OLD ACADEMY ANEW ONLY ASKS HOLLYWOOD FOR A MODICUM OF RESPECT FOR THE PUBLIC’S TIME AND RESOURCES.
Entertainment shouldn’t mean: lies, propaganda, and cash-grabs. It shouldn’t include lazy writing, agenda, and vengeance. Give us effort. Enchant us with creativity. Wow us with insight. Creators have the right to infuse their pieces with their essence. Still, everything doesn’t need to be personal; or so focused on the creator’s identity it loses appeal for the public at large. The balance between looking inward and accepting outward deserves a return. That pendulum needs to stop swinging so slowly because creators keep it hostage.
Let’s put Honor and Inspiration back in HISTORY, so it ain’t only STORY.
Cheers.