Even before its release, this fictionalised account of the real-life discovery of Richard III’s remains under a car park in Leicester generated controversy over its use of dramatic licence…
Director: Stephen Frears
Screenwriters: Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope
Based on: The King’s Grave: The Search for Richard III by Philippa Langley and Michael Jones
Overview
The Lost King tells of the somewhat far-fetched, but true, story of how the remains of King Richard III (1452-1485) were unearthed in 2012 under a car park owned by Leicester council. Richard died at the battle of Bosworth and his tomb was later lost, eventually leading to an investigation of what emerged as a likely location, the Leicester car park.
The Looking for Richard: In Search of a King project began in 2009. The process involved historical investigation, archaeological excavation, and DNA sequencing. There were many individuals and organisations involved, including Philippa Langley, secretary of the Scottish Branch of the Richard III Society; other members of the society; Leicester City Council; and the University of Leicester.
In the film, Langley (Sally Hawkins) becomes the plucky protagonist, an amateur historian who is forced to contend with resistance from academia and incredulity from her own family as she spearheads an unrelenting search for the remains and to right a perceived injustice. Richard III does not enjoy a reputation as a benevolent monarch and was portrayed harshly in William Shakespeare’s play.
The Problem
On the surface, The Lost King appears to be one of those simple, quirky ‘little guy against the system’ British films, not unlike The Duke (2020). An outsider, Langley, must fight against the powers that be to achieve her goal, in this case to solve a long-standing historical mystery. Unfortunately, in their bid for dramatic conflict and narrative cohesion, the filmmakers chose to amplify the resistance faced by Langley, which has drawn criticism (and even legal action) by the real-life players.
A perennial question in the world of fact-based film is: do the facts matter? One side suggests that filmmakers can essentially ignore historical facts to create the best possible screen story. The other side argues that historical accuracy is important, not least to give viewers as truthful an account of the events and characters as possible.
The Lost King highlights that while real life might offer up intriguing concepts and premises, it does not deliver a fully formed screen story. In other words, true-life tales often lack that all-important ingredient – conflict. ‘King’s body thought to be under car park; team works together to dig him up’ is not a film that screams ‘dramatic tension’. This forces screenwriters to make difficult choices as they try to shoehorn history into a workable screen story.
In the case of The Lost King, the filmmakers ramped up the conflict and raised the stakes for the protagonist by whipping up antagonistic forces for her to fight against, leading to the real-life players to speak out. Of all the chagrined real-life participants, the most vocal has been Richard Taylor (played by Lee Ingleby), a member of the University of Leicester team involved in the excavation, who was turned into what he called the “villain of the piece”. In fact, Taylor is pursuing legal action against the makers of the film.
The overarching problem is the focus on Langley – who has soaked up a lot of attention for her role in the discovery and enjoys an executive producer credit on the film – at the expense of the other players. As Taylor noted: ‘”If you are going to portray real people, at least involve them.”
However, it’s not just the lack of involvement that irked Taylor and others who were working on the discovery. One of the most “hurtful” aspects of the film for Taylor is a scene in which he is shown mimicking Richard III’s disability (the monarch was posthumously diagnosed as having scoliosis). While this might help to create an antagonist for us to root against, it also has the potential to damage the reputation of the real-life counterpart. This must surely cross an unacceptable moral line, even if the producers have the necessary deep pockets to keep adding zeros to the cheque to make the problem go away.
Indeed, the filmmakers reportedly refused Taylor’s request to add a disclaimer to the film that his portrayal is fictional, suggesting – rightly or wrongly – that Taylor’s complaints fell on deaf ears. Quite ironic given the ‘little guy against the system’ plot.
Overall
While controversy such as this can work to elevate a film’s profile and generate additional interest, is it right for filmmakers to change things at will and to ‘use’ the people involved in the story however they want? In Taylor’s words:
“Tension makes a good story but it doesn’t necessarily make it true.”
A point no doubt his lawyers will make in court, should the lawsuit get that far…