Quick Rant: "Historical Accuracy" in Fiction and Why It's Stupid

I was thinking about writing a Facebook note today about this very subject, but then I thought: why not share it with the whole world? Or at least the quark of a percentage of it that reads the blog. The concept I'll be addressing today is not just historical accuracy but some aspects of "realism" in general that some internet people like to attack. So I hope you enjoy the visual sound of my voice as much as I do.

Right then, I'll start by talking about an aspect of fiction that I always keep in mind but that few others do. What you're watching isn't our world. No matter how much it looks like our world or tries to feel like our world, it isn't. Now of course you're sitting there and thinking "umm...this is true..." and wondering if I've finally lost my tenuous grip on reality. Everyone knows it's not our world because they're watching it on TV or on a movie screen, but they don't really think about all the implications that go along with that knowledge. And I'll use an unusual example: The Office. People have complained because the characters often go to Chili's to eat (and for the Dundies) but there apparently is not a Chili's in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Know what else isn't really in Scranton? Dunder Mifflin. And you can search far and wide for Toby Flenderson, H.R. Representative for Dunder Mifflin Scranton but I guarantee you won't find him. Because he doesn't exist. But what else does that mean? It means that his parents don't exist either. In fact, every single person in his bloodline from today and back to the beginning of time is an implied fictional character. Which means that the world of the show is probably at least a little different from ours, since there are thousands of people in it stretching throughout history who never existed in our world. And they all interacted with the world around them and changed it. That's just Toby's lineage. Add to that the histories of every other character on The Office that has ever been, whether they be regular, recurring, guests, or just extras. Add to that characters who are mentioned but never seen, such as the founding members of Dunder Mifflin (although we did meet one of them) and Michael's former boss who died off-screen in one episode. Every single one of those people adds thousands of ancestors to the world's history. Which would make their world pretty freaking different from ours. So is it not possible that at some point one of those people butterfly effect-ed a Chili's into Scranton, Pennsylvania?

As Neo would say: whoa.

Now, obviously none of this was in the minds of the people involved with the show (except maybe Rainn Wilson). But it speaks to a lot of common complaints that people have about a lot of shows and they always annoy me. All that matters is continuity within the show itself. There was a similar complaint during 24 that the D.C. Metro station didn't look like the actual one in real life. My snarky answer to that is: really? They couldn't halt transportation in the most important city in the world for a whole day to film two scenes of a TV show? Shocking. But if you take into account what I just explained then it means even more here. After all, not only are there a lot of major world events on 24 that never happened in real life, but there are also a lot more characters from a lot more countries. This fundamentally changes a ton about that fictional universe to set it aside from ours. So I'd say the Metro can look different and it makes sense. As I said, what matters is the continuity within the show or movie. I would hope that their version of the D.C. Metro looks the same from episode to episode. Did Hitler really die the way he did in Inglourious Basterds? Obviously not. Could he have been if the Basterds had existed? I'd say yeah.

That brings me to the historical aspect of things. I don't think they should soil a good man's name needlessly so I wouldn't be a fan of a portrayal of Abe Lincoln as a pedophile since there's obviously no evidence to support this. But if you can look at a person a few different ways or interpret their actions to suit the artistic vision of your movie, I say go for it. And putting more emphasis on the style of dress of the time or the types of teacups they used rather than on the story itself is crazy. Both would be nice, but if I had to pick one I'd pick the story. I also think we should be free to make things like Inglourious Basterds which completely just change things and go for it. Because honestly, if you believe the events of the movie then I think your mental state is more a danger to the country than the movie is. And for me, it's the equivalent of someone in 2051 watching the caricatured version of President Bush in Transformers and then saying "but wait a second! He was a real President but I can't find anything in my school textbook about these Decepticons!" None of it is real and thus the filmmakers should have some freedom. Movies like Schindler's List are obvious exceptions, since it is intended to educate as well as tell a story. But if all you're doing is spinning an artistic yarn, you should be able to do so to the best of your ability without people whining about how many buttons are on Union Soldier Number 6's waistcoat.

In case you couldn't tell, I dislike people on the internet who make comments about stuff. But I think this shows that I spend more time thinking about a great many things than they do. So if you hear someone complaining about a great show like The Sopranos because the real Satriale's Deli has a bigger selection than the one on the show, I'd be happy to rant to them in person.