Hollywood vs History, Does the media shape our memory?
Let’s talk about history. More specifically, the way that we remember it. You would think history is just a series of facts, right? Things either happened or they didn’t; but then you watch a movie like Oppenheimer, and suddenly, history feels more like a story being retold rather than a collection of cold, hard truths. So, the question is: do movies (and media in general) actually shape the way we remember history, or do they just reflect what we already believe? And if they do shape it, do directors have a responsibility to tell the truth?
Now let’s be honest, most people didn’t learn about the Manhattan Project from a textbook. They learned about it because Cillian Murphy looked really stressed out in IMAX. Movies have this insane power to make history feel real in a way that dates and documents just don’t. They add emotions, drama, and, let's be real, very good-looking actors. The problem? That means they also have the power to change how we remember history. If a movie simplifies events, adds scenes that never happened for dramatic effect, or leaves out certain perspectives, then we start to believe that’s the full story.
For example, Oppenheimer barely mentioned the impact of the atomic bomb on the Japanese population. Does that mean the movie was inaccurate? Not exactly. But it does mean that the version of history we take away from it is incomplete. And if that’s the only version we see, then, over time, that’s the one we will remember.
Some people argue that movies just reflect what we already believe. They say that if a director twists history too much, audiences will call them out on it. But honestly? That’s giving us way too much credit. Most people don’t fact-check historical movies. If a film is well-made, we assume it’s accurate. Hence why people still think Marie Antoinette actually said, “Let them eat cake” (she didn’t).
At the same time, history isn’t always as black and white as we’d like it to be. It’s told by people, and people have opinions. Every historian, journalist, and yes, film director, has to decide which parts of history to focus on and which to leave out. Even a documentary, something that’s supposed to be “objective”, still has a point of view. So, is history always subjective? Honestly, kind of. But that doesn’t mean we should just throw truth out the window.
So, should directors be held responsible for telling the truth? Yes and no. Movies are art, not history textbooks. Their job is to tell a good story, not necessarily to educate. But when you’re making a movie about real people and real events, you have a responsibility to get it right. If a director knows they’re distorting history and they do it anyway, that’s a problem.
At the end of the day, it’s on us to think critically about the version ofhistory we’re being shown. That means questioning what’s missing, looking up real sources, and not just assuming that everything we see on screen is the full truth. Movies can shape the way we remember history, but only if we let them.