As I’ve already said somewhere on here: I write everything by hand in a notebook in black & red flair pens because I read Tarantino does & I’m a total goof like that. This is from my personal collection of notes. I wrote this to (hopefully) make a helpful framework for myself when writing screenplays that take on history in some way, and if I ever get my shit together financially and make a film. I’m sharing this in case it potentially helps some other writer/director out there.
In my opinion, there are 3 main ways filmmakers can approach history in film.
The First:
TRADITIONAL HISTORY
What I like to call “TRADITIONAL HISTORY” means your standard run-of-the-mill approach. The average biopic about a leader, a singer, a president, a famous historical figure, or a person that wasn’t famous the director thinks we should know, etc. This type of movie doesn’t really do anything new with the form, and that’s fine because its audience does not expect it to. It’s a film designed for teachers to use in classrooms, and the older crowd that goes to see everything during awards season.
For example, with a film like LINCOLN Spielberg takes a very classic, straightforward approach. While watching this type of movie you can imagine how a teacher’s post-film questionnaire would go, “What did Lincoln mean when he said ‘this amendment is that cure’ in the film?”
LINCOLN is very obviously a much different film than ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE HUNTER. Although they may share the same characters and settings…they’re clearly two completely different films with different goals.
The Second:
REVISIONIST HISTORY / Quentin Tarantino
This is the one that has probably ruffled the most amount of feathers in the last decade or so of film history, and that is largely due to Tarantino. A film that fits the bill of “REVISIONIST HISTORY” is basically if you were to take your average “TRADITIONAL HISTORY” film and do whatever you want with the facts. This is both a good thing and a bad thing; “REVISIONIST HISTORY” means you’re allowed to get a little more creative with your subject matter, but it also means you’re handling a very delicate balancing act. As Tarantino stated when promoting OUATIH: he knew he was taking a chance with it, and it could possibly be seen as being in “poor taste.”
To illustrate how much of a delicate line you’re on as a filmmaker when taking on a “REVISIONIST HISTORY” work, here’s an example (and don’t get mad at me, because this is coming from a hardcore QT fan). For me, a film like INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (although tremendously entertaining) arguably does not work. Although it starts off perfectly, I have always struggled with the “Hitler gets killed” stuff. To me that has always been dumb and immature. I get that it’s a revisionist history film, that’s the whole point, it’s Tarantino, we all hate Hitler, and that’s what we’re all there to see……But it has always felt completely absurd to me. It takes the idea of revisionist history and just smashes it against a brick wall into a million pieces.
On the other hand, a film like DJANGO UNCHAINED works perfectly for me. I’m well aware of the criticism the film has received, and the fact that it has been referred to as a “spaghetti Western.” At the time DJANGO was released Spike Lee famously announced he would not be seeing it for that reason, and understandably so. If I was showing a class a film on slavery and I had to choose between DJANGO UNCHAINED or 12 YEARS A SLAVE, I’d have to go with McQueen’s film.
So why do I think a film like DJANGO works and BASTERDS doesn’t? To me, DJANGO isn’t necessarily the COMPLETE rewriting of history. It’s obviously a fairytale, but it never sets out to change history entirely like BASTERDS does; DJANGO is a film that tells the story of one man and the lengths he has to go for the love of his life. Once he reunites with Broomhilda, there is no end to slavery, only an end to HIS particular quest. Django doesn’t give a shit about saving those enslaved dudes he encounters on the way back to Candyland: they’re still there unfortunately (and even make an appearance after the credits to remind us of that sad fact, in order to further reinforce the coolness & mystique that is Django). It’s as if they’re saying, “Wow, there goes Django: the one man in history to transcend slavery.”
Make no mistakes: I know that DJANGO UNCHAINED is still revisionist history, but I’ve always felt that it is, at the very least, somewhat rooted in realism (regardless of how in love with his dialogue QT is, or how staged and cinematic certain violent scenes are depicted). INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS, on the other hand, feels like revisionist history gone off the rails. I always check out near the end because it doesn’t feel like it has the amount of control it should, and Hitler dying means the rest of world history changes, yet the movie annoyingly ends before we get to see the ensuing results of what the Basterds actually pulled off.
ONCE UPON A TIME IN HOLLYWOOD, Tarantino’s most recent film in the “REVISIONIST HISTORY” part of his career, was handled well. In its approach to painting history with a new brush, to me it was closer to DJANGO UNCHAINED than BASTERDS. The whole film sets up the idea that what we’re seeing at the end could easily be a Cliff Booth hallucination. Tarantino cleverly found a way to get out of any potential criticism of how he depicted things (Bruce Lee scene included) because he can always say, “I never said that’s what happened. This is from the mind of Cliff Booth, who may or may not be telling us the truth. If you believe anything you see that’s on you, not me.” As a result, OUATIH is the most forgiving case of historical revisionism in film I’ve seen due to how carefully Tarantino presents the third act. It’s measured and controlled perfectly, something I feel I cannot say about BASTERDS (once again: sorry about that, don’t send me hate mail please&thanks).
The Third:
IMAGINED HISTORY / PTA
I’m still trying to think of a title I like better than “IMAGINED HISTORY” for this one, but it’ll do for now I think. The other title I thought of going with was “COMPOSITE HISTORY.” This can be described as taking real historical figures or situations, possibly combining them into one person representative of all of them, possibly making up your own details….it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t claim to be a real representation of anyone or anything.
The filmmaker that has popularized this sub-genre the most for me has been the master himself, PTA. The beauty of “IMAGINED HISTORY” is the fact that it does not set out to portray real historical figures or situations, but it also does not shy away from that either. It’s the “having your cake and eating it too” for filmmakers tackling history in their work.
For example, in the BOOGIE NIGHTS commentary, PTA says at one point, “Everyone in the movie kind of represents a story that I really heard about in porn or witnessed.” THERE WILL BE BLOOD is partly based on a book, but people also like to discuss which famous figures Daniel Plainview could have been inspired by and who Daniel Day-Lewis was channelling. When THE MASTER came out everyone made a big deal about it being partly based on L. Ron Hubbard and scientology, despite the fact PTA never really went out of his way to bring attention to that. And PHANTOM THREAD could easily be about a number of famous designers in history (or famous toxic men who happened to be creative in general).
“IMAGINED HISTORY” might be my favourite approach out of the three because it does not require you to be 100% truthful, yet it doesn’t really mean you’re allowed to be irresponsible either (like people have criticized Tarantino’s work of being). It’s an important distinction because it means you have to be mature with your approach (like a Spielberg movie would be), but you’re allowed to include certain aspects you want. That means if you want to make a movie about a famous fashion designer you’re allowed to include a scene that depicts the designer sick in bed hallucinating his deceased mother…as long as you don’t claim it’s a real figure.
In 2016 I wrote a script based on the man who sort of “invented” the suburbs, William Levitt. The script was called LEVITTOWN (which you can read here, if you give a shit). Looking back now, the only thing I’d do differently would be to completely forget about attempting to tell HIS particular story. It would have been far more interesting if I did the PTA approach.
To sum all this shit up, a funny thing happened while thinking about this lately. Tarantino got on a podcast as part of promotion for OUATIH, and in it he discussed the “flaw” he saw in BOOGIE NIGHTS. To him, Burt Reynolds’ character was very obviously and undeniably a stand-in for the filmmaker Gerard Damiano. As such, he had a minor problem with how PTA chose to portray him in one scene. I found Tarantino’s point hilarious because it highlights the key differences between both filmmakers’ approach to history: QT is unable to separate the character from the real person the character is based on (much like how I’m unable to accept the fact that he kills Hitler in BASTERDS), while PTA never explicitly says Reynolds’ character is inspired by Damiano. Tarantino’s inability to make this distinction means he is viewing the film as a “REVISIONIST HISTORY” film closer to his own personal style, rather than the “IMAGINED HISTORY” the film really is.
