One of the challenges of writing the historical film is that the story is… well historical. This raises the risk that the story will be mired in the past, becoming more a museum piece than a dynamic narrative relevant to a modern audience. So, how do you reconcile these tensions?

Past vs. Present

History is filled with compelling material for fiction. From key events to notable figures, lesser-known characters to eye-opening “stranger than fiction” happenings, there is much gold for a screenwriter to mine.

The problem is that the past is filled with old stuff, such as:

• Outdated ideas
• Discriminatory language used in everyday situations
• Stuffy dialogue
• Stilted interactions
• Unbelievable “they didn’t really used to do that, did they?” moments

None of this is really fodder for contemporary entertainment.

Indeed, there are lots of classic and highly-regarded films which have not aged well for various reasons, from Mickey Rooney in Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961) to the very-much-of-its-era Brief Encounter (1945).

As grown-ups, we can love these films for what they are and not judge them by today’s standards. However, the stark reality is that films (and TV shows) cost a lot of money to make and no-one’s signing checks to make a piece of work which is unlikely to appeal to a modern audience.

This means that as (spec) writers, we need to find a way to take our ideas and make them relevant. While true of all types of stories , this is especially so when that idea takes us back into the deep and distant past.

So, how do you drag the dusty old days into the bright and shiny “now”. The answer is, as Robert McKee succinctly puts it:

“What is past must be present.”

Robert McKee, Story, p83

What does this mean? Well, McKee is referring to the need to find ways to ensure that while the story is steeped in its time period, the narrative is relatable to those watching in this era.

Fortunately, there are tools we can use to do just that, ensuring that our stories have the richness and authenticity of yesterday but with a timeless emotional resonance.

All the approaches to crafting the history film also hinge on research. If you know your time period, you can make the changes you need to present a contemporary story without losing touch with the historical setting. Here are just three ways to bring the past into the present.

Tell a story with “evergreen” issues

While times change, some things don’t. There are universal elements of life which endure as the decades and centuries roll on. It is this common ground on which many writers of the fact-based film rely. Human emotions such as envy, jealousy, love, grief and hatred are universal. This is where drama lives, so developing characters struggling with these emotions can lead to a contemporary story.

Similarly, social issues around justice, inequality, power, poverty and discrimination can be found throughout history. This is where the historical film can come into its own, offering insight into “how things used to be”.

This provides an opportunity to both reflect on how far we’ve come as a society and also how far we still have to go. Indeed, many historical films dramatize a moment in time which moved the needle and pushed society closer to what we have today. One example of this is Hidden Figures (2016).

Hidden Figures

The story of three women of colour who played a pivotal role in the US space programme was always going to be compelling. It also offers ample opportunity to address issues of discrimination on two fronts. As the film is set in the 1960s, these issues are amplified and the stakes raised, amid the Civil Rights Movement and Cold War.

Throughout, we see the women struggle against the system as they advance their careers in NASA. By adopting the multi-protagonist structure, we see these struggles on several fronts, with the added complexity of what they did, two as “human computers” and the third as an engineer. Lives were at stake, as well as the status of the US as a superpower.

While some of the challenges the protagonists face are largely confined to history (in most places, at least), such as separate bathrooms and having to go to court in order to access higher education, some endure. As well as the lingering impact of discrimination in its various forms, there is also the idea of technology making some jobs obsolete. This is a story rooted in its history but with protagonists who face relatable, evergreen challenges.

Go the unconventional route

Who says a history film also has to be a history lesson? There are lots of ways to present what we here refer to “the spirit of the truth”. Relating the past to the present sometimes means picking and choosing events to emphasise a certain theme or point-of-view. The familiar screenwriting tools of timeline compression or alteration and representative characters can all be employed to help tell a historical narrative.

The Post (2017) is an example, with one made-up character representing the sexist attitude of whole the board of the Washington Post, posing another obstacle for publisher Kay Graham. Another is Amadeus (1984), based on a play, which took certain liberties with the composers Mozart and Salieri to create a narrative motivated by the latter’s all-consuming jealousy of his brilliant but buffoonish rival.

However, sometimes this isn’t enough, and a writer must adopt a more offbeat approach to tell the story and make it contemporaneous. Take for example the Alex Cox-directed biographical film Walker (1987).

Walker

This loose interpretation of the life of the 19th century American mercenary leader William Walker, who became the president of Nicaragua, takes many liberties with history. These liberties are not just taken with Walker’s life but also the time period. We see things like soldiers using Zippo lighters and Walker appearing on the front cover of Newsweek and Time magazines (all things which originated in the 20th century)

Given its tongue-in-cheek, even absurd, portrayal, you might think that historians would hate the film. While some probably do, not Robert A. Rosenstone, who, as well as being a historian, was the consultant on the Reds (1981), which was based on his biography of John Reed.

While acknowledging the liberties and absurdities, Rosenstone sees the bigger picture, in terms of how Walker makes us view the past and how it relates to the present. One example is the US’ repeated interventions across the world, in both Latin America and Vietnam. At the time the film was released, the Reagan administration had imposed sanctions on Nicaragua amid rising tensions.

Of the film, Rosenstone wrote that it:

“…creates a William Walker suited to a contemporary consciousness”

Robert A. Rosenstone, Visions of the Past, p141

By brazenly playing with history, the film continually draws us into the present.

Use history as a backdrop to a made-up narrative

Just because history is the setting doesn’t mean it has to be a historical story. There are lots of examples of films and TV shows which have dropped a modern-day story into a historical setting, creating a “soap opera in corsets” vibe.

These thinly-veiled “historical dramas” get all the cache and marketing potential of the period setting without any real acknowledgement of their roots, other than maybe the occasional namedrop of a historical figure or the odd “ye olde” phrase sprinkled into the dialogue.

However, there are also examples of fictional narratives which go to great lengths to blend their original story with an authentic portrayal of its time period. One obvious example is Titanic (1997), which places a fictional love story within the context 1924 sinking of the “unsinkable” ocean liner. Also, keep an eye out for the forthcoming 1992 (2024), which sets a father-and-son crime drama against the backdrop of the 1992 Los Angeles riots. A further example is the Gangs of New York (2002).

Gangs of New York

There is no doubt that director Martin Scorsese (and writers Jay Cocks, Steven Zaillian and Kenneth Lonergan) went the extra mile to make this historical drama authentic. This included employing a historical consultant, history professor and even an archaeologist to get the details right.

Mostly set in New York in 1862, it focuses on the violent Five Points area, characterized by lawlessness and brutality. Inspired by the non-fiction 1927 book, Gangs of New York, by Herbert Asbury, the film uses a fictional narrative of a son seeking revenge for the murder of his father. The story selects elements of historical fact, fiction and “inspiration” to construct its narrative.

Anyone researching this period would come away with an accurate understanding of the city at the time. The narrative also weaves in current issues, such as the attitude to immigrants. However, the whole thing is wrapped up in a relatively simple dramatic narrative driven by family relationships.

To sum up…

As we started with a McKee quote, it seems fitting to end with another:

“The only legitimate excuse to set a film in the past… is anachronism”

Robert McKee, Story, p83

Anachronism is defined in the dictionary as “something not in its correct historical or chronological time” or “an error in chronology”.

Its relevance in the screenwriting world is that a history film can be set in its era but should not be of its era.

So, when writing about the past, make it a contemporary piece and not a museum piece by looking at ways to bring your story into the present.

References:

• Robert McKee, Story: Substance, Structure, Style and the Principles of Screenwriting, pp83 (1999)
• Robert A. Rosenstone, Visions of the Past: The Challenge of Film to our Idea of History, pp132-151 (1995)