I may be in the minority here, but I am a huge history buff. While I can sit in class and find the most obscure information about peasants in rural France or political relations in Renaissance Italy fascinating, I realize many people are the exact opposite. Although it's easy for me to forget to take notes because I'm so engrossed in a historical anecdote my professor is relaying, I understand that many other people would just as soon take a nap than pay attention at all. For those who groan at the thought of opening a history book, there are a growing number of TV shows striving to make history a bit more entertaining.
The latest in this recent trend is the HBO miniseries John Adams."" Based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning biography by David McCullough, ""John Adams"" explores the political and personal life of our second president. The series attempts to infuse an integral time in American history with raw human emotion, eloquent speeches and complicated character relationships.
""John Adams"" operates on drama, which makes the series that much more captivating for the average viewer. Events in history that, for many viewers, seemed stagnant and flat in the pages of a textbook are suddenly made fresh through the magic of television. ""John Adams"" allows viewers to see beyond the accomplishments and roles various major players in history embodied. The series gives insight into the motivations, personality traits and relationships these historical figures may have had. However, it can be hard to tell the difference between historical truth and masterful storytelling.
This loss of historical accuracy isn't just an issue with ""John Adams."" Most shows that spring from actual events are forced to choose between being faithful to what the history books say and shaking the timeline up a bit to keep audiences interested. Showtime's ""The Tudors,"" which follows the reign of England's King Henry VIII, clearly made the choice to substitute entertainment value for truth. The show gained attention not for its portrayal of one of the world's most famous monarchs, but because the show's creators seized the opportunity to play up the young king's raging sex life. Almost every episode features Henry having his way with anything that moves and then some. I can't remember learning anything about Henry's voracious appetite in any of my history courses, but every episode of ""The Tudors"" is dripping with so much scandal I just can't seem to turn away. That is exactly what the show's creators want: An audience that doesn't have to feel guilty about a show's sheer entertainment value because it claims a historical basis.
It may seem like I'm pushing for complete accuracy in all historically-based TV shows, but that's not the case. What would ""Deadwood"" be without its foul-mouthed cowboys? What would ""Rome"" be without its gratuitously bloody battles? These shows wouldn't be the same and general audiences wouldn't be so attracted to them.
Viewers can enjoy these shows but they also need to take them with a grain of salt. There's nothing wrong with the dramatized interpretations of history we see on television, but they're still no substitute for that history book.
Still convinced Henry VIII got action whenever he wasn't chopping heads off? Send your rebuttal to mysliwy@wisc.edu.
