Mark C. Carnes

For his 1995 book Past Imperfect, a contribution to that always-fun hobby-horse of how historically accurate movies are, editor Mark C. Carnes pulled together an impressive line-up of historians and cultural commentators. Beginning with the coup of having popular palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould opine on the accuracy of Jurassic Park (pp31-5), Past Imperfect then jumps forward about 65 million years to deliver a series of chronologically-organised essays on films that depict human history. We get Band of Brothers and D-Day author Stephen Ambrose critiquing The Longest Day and hear the thoughts of Dee Brown, author of Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, on Fort Apache. We have Paul Fussell discuss the Patton biopic: an excellent choice, because (as Fussell is only too keen to relate) he called the real Patton an "asshole" after being forced to listen to the tough-talking general during his wartime service (pg. 245). The calibre of contributors here is high.

Unfortunately, there is not a corresponding increase of calibre in the book. Its multiple contributors, short length of each article, 'did you know?'-style sidebars, and general mood of sedate evenhandedness combine to tame the end product, creating something that feels more like an almanac than anything else. With a few notable exceptions (such as Richard Marius' pugnacious analysis of A Man for All Seasons), Past Imperfect lacks the spikiness that a book of this type should have. It's one thing to not fall for the easy bait of mocking a film for not having the correct number of buttons on a uniform, but the determination of the contributors to be completely fair (the general formula is: admire the film, point out and provide context for the historical flaws) too often results in a nothing-very-much experience for the reader. Unlike other books of this type that I've read, I didn't close Past Imperfect with a list of films I wanted to check out, or revisit. The passion just wasn't there.

Elsewhere, Past Imperfect does expose itself to some of the (perhaps inevitable) criticisms that come the way of a book of this type. But even allowing for the fact that there will always be quibbles about which films were chosen and why, and how they are appraised, Past Imperfect seemed more unbalanced and unusual in its choices than most. There is more discussion of American civil rights and the settling of the American frontier than of the two world wars, despite those two wars (particularly the second) being one of the most popular and plentiful sources of film drama we have. There is also an excess of indulgence of Westerns, many of which are conscious mythology rather than strictly historical.

It is this content on the two world wars which throws into sharpest relief the biggest criticism of Past Imperfect: its Ameri-centrism. With a few exceptions (like those on the Roman world), the articles in this book are almost entirely about American history, and five of the six pieces on World War Two concern American contributions to that conflict (the other is a now-forgotten black-and-white Japanese film). You can't even say this is because Hollywood makes all the movies; there's a bulging stable of British war movies that, as far as Carnes' book is concerned, don't even exist. The imbalance goes beyond discussion of the Second World War, too; I was particularly surprised to note that Zulu, arguably the greatest war film ever made, was only mentioned in passing – and in a sidebar at that, not the main text.

Ultimately, Past Imperfect disappoints more than it excites, even allowing for the inevitable disappointments that result from trying to tackle this topic. But I found it amusing that, in seeing history as a predominantly American story, and World War Two in particular as an American experience, this book on the historical accuracies and inaccuracies of movies fell into one of the most obvious errors and clichés of American movie-making.… (más)