“It’s pretty silly for ‘The Crown’ to warn that it’s a fictional series. People are not stupid.”

The obsessions of Alex von Tunzelmann (United Kingdom, 1977) have to do with how we see the past in order to understand our present. And that is reflected in two very interesting books that he has published in recent years and about which he will discuss in the There is Festival Arequipawhere she has arrived as a guest.

The first of these books is “Reel History”, a set of movie reviews in which Tunzelmann analyzes how much historical truth there is in these film adaptations of true events. The second book is “Fallen Idols”, in which she reflects on the wave of collapsed statues around the world that was unleashed in 2020. To do this, the historian and screenwriter examines 12 cases of fallen monuments (including Washington, Lenin and Saddam Hussein) and establishes criteria, controversies and differences between case and case.

About those two posts, Trade talked to her.

—Why should we ask a fiction film for historical accuracy?

Well, I think it’s just one of many ways to watch a movie. Actually my position is that filmmakers can make movies however they want. It is not that they are obliged to be precise or rigorous. But when I started to write the texts of “Reel History”, I did it from the perspective of a historian. It was a different way of looking at movies and thinking about why directors make those changes to the original story. There can be many reasons for this: they have to tell a whole story in an hour and a half or two hours, they have to give the film a certain structure, or they need to fictionalize something for legal reasons. But there are also somewhat more questionable reasons, such as propaganda. Sometimes the changes come for political reasons.

—And doesn’t seeing a film with the criterion of historical accuracy make you enjoy it less than you could enjoy it?

(Laughter) Sometimes yes. That is a danger. When you know too much about something, you can end up not fully enjoying it. It happens to me for example with “The Crown”. I really suffer because I know too much about the subject, about what happened and I know what is going to happen. I anticipate too much what I’m seeing. Of course, I still think it’s a great show, that’s not up for discussion. It is more a problem of mine than of the series.

—You mention in the book two filmmakers who are particularly averse to historical accuracy: Oliver Stone and Mel Gibson. What do you attribute it to?

Oliver Stone is a director known for his strong left-wing political views. And Mel Gibson is too, but because of his conservative views. So they come from different sides. And while I think they are very talented filmmakers, they both have a very powerful agenda that they want to communicate. Stone’s “JFK”, for example, invents a lot around the Kennedy assassination case and at times tries to be seen as a documentary. Stone completely changes most of the details about the case because he has a very definite political opinion. The same thing happens with Mel Gibson and his rigid religious positions, as seen in “The Passion of the Christ” or his political views that are clear in “Braveheart” or “The Patriot”, where he is the protagonist. . They are directors who make these films to convince someone of their point of view, and they don’t care if what they say coincides with what happened historically. Maybe he shouldn’t speak for them, and the right thing to do would be for them to answer for it, but those seem to be his priorities. Of course, they have been very successful doing it and have even managed to make quite enjoyable movies; but I think it’s important to point it out, discuss it, and know that they’re incredibly persuasive.

—You talked about “The Crown” a while ago. And a few weeks ago the producers had to put a warning that it is a work of fiction, due to the criticism received about its rigor. Do you agree with that? Is that enough for you? Or is it useless?

No, I must say it’s pretty silly (laughs). It does not make any sense. A series with actors and actresses, interpreting a script, is obviously a fiction and not a documentary. People are not stupid. I think one thing we need to understand is that we often misunderstand or underestimate viewers. There is a tendency to assume that people will not understand what they see, that they are ignorant and that they cannot understand the differences between reality and fiction. But there is no evidence for this. In fact, the only evidence we have shows the opposite. I’ll explain: in the United States many surveys have been done on what people think about Kennedy’s assassination. They’ve been around since the ’60s, and so there’s a lot of evidence about how people think. In the 1970s, various types of investigations came to light and many people began to believe in conspiracy theories about it, according to those polls. In contrast, after a movie like “JFK” was released, opinions about the case changed by only 1%. The evidence indicates that political events change people’s perspective and that, on the other hand, a movie makes practically no difference. That’s why I say that we should trust the audience more, not thinking that they are too stupid to believe that “The Crown” is not a drama. Furthermore, as a historian I must say that there is no point in learning pure facts and truths. No one could know all these truths by heart. The really important thing is to develop critical thinking to use it when resorting to sources, crossing references, etc. That is what the world needs today, with so many lies swarming around. Forget the movies: lies are even in the newspapers, in politics, and more. In fact, I think that, in a way, one can use historical films to teach that. Comparing the true story with a movie can help us promote analysis.

—Speaking of warnings, in your other book, “Fallen Idols”, you state that the plaques put on statues to clarify historical facts are useless. Could it be that for the same reason as in the movies?

It’s probably for the same reason. But above all that people do not read those plates. If you have a statue placed in an avenue and you put a plaque with an explanation, no one will see it. It is similar to the case of movies, when at the beginning they put that “any resemblance to reality is pure coincidence”. I don’t know if you know, but the reason for that warning was born with a movie from the 30s, “Rasputin and the Tsarina”, which led to a large lawsuit for defamation against MGM and a million dollar lawsuit. Since then, that warning always appears in the movies for legal reasons. But no one reads it or takes it seriously. It does not work. With statues, just like with movies or any work, what we have to do is critically prepare ourselves as much as we can. Ask questions, take a good look at things. And I think people do it in a better way than we think.

—The artistic value of a statue is not a valid criterion to defend it?

Of course yes. I think there are many aspects to consider when looking at a statue and wondering if it should be kept, if we should get rid of it, or if we change it in some way. I think that the artistic theme is extremely important, although it is also subjective, of course. We should have a discussion about that. There are statues that enhance the environment, which people really love; others are incredibly bad and people hate them. There is a very funny one, about which I also wrote, of [la estatua de] Melania Trump in Slovenia. She is ugly, nobody loves her, even the artist who made her said she doesn’t care if people want to take her out. For, I insist, there are many things to consider. Political considerations are important, but artistic and historical considerations matter too. I can give you another example: there is a statue in Trafalgar Square, in London, of King James II. It is a very controversial statue because James II headed the Royal African Company, which had a monopoly on slavery at the time. He was in charge of the slave trade in England for a long time. My particular opinion regarding that statue is that it should be transferred to a museum, because it is historically and artistically quite valuable and particular. It seems to me that there shouldn’t be a statue of a slaver in a public square, but at the same time I wouldn’t want it to be destroyed or anything like that. Every case is different.

“Yes, as you say, statues are old-fashioned creations.” In this 21st century, fewer statues are erected than before? Has that obsession abated?

I think you can still see people erecting statues to this day. Precisely as a result of this wave to tear down old statues is that people began to say “we need new ones to replace them.” And although it is no longer the same, well, I wouldn’t say it’s an obsession, I think people are looking to put something on pedestals that really represents them, and something more imaginative as well. Because there is brilliant work and at the same time we still see some statues, like one of London’s Princess Diana, which I’m sorry to say honestly, is not of great quality. They are not pleasant monuments to see.

—What cases of recent creative statues or monuments could you mention?

There are many. There is currently an interesting discussion in Philadelphia about a statue of Christopher Columbus that is very controversial. There are many statues of Columbus that have been torn down in the last two years, but this one in particular has not been torn down, although it is covered by a large box. And just a couple of weeks ago the Italian community in Philadelphia, who really loved the statue of Columbus, painted the box in the colors of the Italian flag. So now it is something else, a totally different monument. I find that interesting. I think that, in a sense, the big box is the best solution (laughs). In Ukraine, before the invasion, many statues of Lenin began to be removed. But there is an especially cool intervention that turned an image of Lenin into a Darth Vader. I am very much in favor of such creative responses.

—If movies and statues lie about history and the past, aren’t those lies about the present more dangerous?

I think they can be equally dangerous. There are many dictators putting up statues of themselves, for example. This happens all the time. Like in North Korea, where there are an incredible number of statues of their leaders. And that’s scary, of course, because they’re obviously trying to build an agenda and that’s not part of the story yet. It is something very present. LHistory is often used politically to try to create particular versions of history. And if you notice, the history that is represented in the movies is always about the present. It’s not really a reflection of history. Even in much more benign matters, like when people get upset that in every movie there is some excessively feminist character and stuff. But if that happens it is because there are people who want to see it. And today’s movies aren’t made for the people of the past. They are made for today’s audiences. And when we discuss whether a statue should be kept or removed, the question has nothing to do with whether people in the past were happy to live with it. Rather, it has to do with us in the present, if we want to live with them today.