History in the Media – Pearl Harbour

Volume 4 | Issue 3 - History in the Public Eye

Article by Rachel Frodsham. Edited and researched by Rob Russell.

You will never find a compilation of ‘films to see before you die’ which doesn’t include an extensive amount of historically-based films, whether it be ‘Saving Private Ryan’, ‘Gladiator’, ‘The King’s Speech’, ‘Schindler’s List’ or ‘Pearl Harbor’. In fact, you can find films on pretty much any period of history, with early medieval represented in King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table, the medieval period shown in Robin Hood, The Tudors based on the early modern period, and countless modern films regarding the two world wars. Various genres of films are covered – ‘Monty Python and the Holy Grail’ and its comedy against tragedies such as ‘Titanic’. But why are these films so popular? I am far from a competent film critic, but looking at these films and how they interpret history, it is easy to see how an historical event can be manipulated to create a Box Office hit.

Recently ‘Pearl Harbor’ was broadcast on British television, and needless to say my social media newsfeeds were full of self-appointed film critics expressing the brilliance of the film. You have to wonder why this is considered as such, is it because of the plot, the romance and relationship which the audience develop with the characters? Or is it because the audience believe they are gaining knowledge of the historical relevance of the attack on Pearl Harbor through entertainment? The film itself is far from critically acclaimed because of its historical inaccuracy, so is it wrong that a film named ‘Pearl Harbor’, set within the context of the Second World War, seems to teach incorrect information to an audience who may be unaware of the true historical reality of the event? This is certainly one of the reasons this films bogged down film critics at the time.

Looking at what was criticised in this film, it was mainly timing, for example showing Admiral Kimmel as being notified prior to the attack whilst playing golf is incorrect. Other effects for dramatization include a battleship mast collapsing onto another vessel, which did not happen in the actual event of Pearl Harbor. The critics even extended to survivors of the attack, with one such survivor stating the film is ‘a piece of trash… over-sensationalized and distorted.’ But the film does not claim to be an exact depiction of the events of Pearl Harbor; in fact it is described as a romance film set within wartime, begging the question of whether accuracy does matter. Certain historical events would surely have to be adapted to dramatise the event and make it a ‘Hollywood’ movie.

Well yes, certain aspects of course have to be omitted. But does this justify all of the inaccuracies? Films are a means of communication to an extremely wide audience. To implicitly teach incorrect facts of the event to an audience who perhaps do not know full details of Pearl Harbour is almost an attack against the memories of the victims. In order to dramatise the film into a Hollywood hit, the director even changed the colours of the Japanese ‘enemy’, in order to differentiate the ‘good guys from the bad guys’. Critics have stated how the film ‘distinguished Americans from Japanese, including the wearing of black clothes, the lack of a social life, family or friends, and the devotion to warring, juxtaposing these with the portraits of Americans’. Without condoning the terrible attacks which were deployed against the Americans by a fascist Japan, sixty years after the attack these implicit racist views were still used within a context of Japanese violence in the Second World War. But aren’t we a bit sick of this by now? Do we not want something a bit more complex, not a standard good guy against bad guy? The Second World War is America’s good war against a bad enemy – fascism. But I’d have thought that sixty years on the director would have surpassed this racism which was ingrained within this, and not tried to depict the Japanese as an alienated culture completely devoid of humanity, but instead a nation which was under the influence of a fascist government within the context of a violent war. But this change was necessary to attract the target audience which would only want to see an attack on their nation by distinctly opposite enemy to themselves.

I suppose my true grievance with this film is the name. ‘Pearl Harbor’. Does that not denote a film about a historical event? This, in turn, suggests that the film is accurately portraying historical events. Realistically, this film is more about the dramatization of the attack on Pearl Harbor for the purpose of entertainment within a broader context of individual romance and friendship, which is fair enough if it doesn’t imply that it will teach the audience of the true event.

But in order to achieve a Box Office hit, this is necessary. A compromise of historical reality may be the price to pay for the success of another Hollywood movie. An audience wants to see unreality rather than the reality – the romance of the plot rather than the reality of wartime. History acts as a background to the plot, moving events along rather than defining the storyline. So by tweaking the historical facts here and there, a director can achieve the movement of plot they desire, rather than being bogged down by history not fitting into their desired storyline. The audience is watching for this storyline, not for the historical accuracy. And at least the awareness of historical events is being brought to the attention of the audience in an accessible way.

I am not denying that within media, certain events and facts may have to be distorted or omitted in order to fit the entertainment value. I’m obviously guilty of enjoying these things myself – a personal favourite of mine being Downton Abbey which of course does not depict a true historical reality. But perhaps the inaccuracy should be made clearer – it is not right to have an audience believe their entertainment value is combined with knowledge of a real historical event.