By Amy Grace Upton and Oscar Smith Turton
Introduction
“Oppenheimer Breaks A Major Box Office Record For A Biographical Movie.” This headline, from ScreenRant, describes the sensational biopic that neared $1 billion in just the first eight weeks of its premiere this summer. [1] Historical fiction seems to capture the minds of millions across the globe, and the media we consume reflects it - historically-inspired dramas are abundant, providing their audience with an insight into events of the past. However, these dramas often take liberties with the truth. Additionally, Oppenheimer markets itself off of the creation of the atomic bomb, the use of which led to the deaths of as many as 210,000 people in Japan’s Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945. [2] As much as we may enjoy historically-inspired productions like Oppenheimer, it is also important to explore whether the use of real events, particularly tragedies, in film and TV is ethical , and what can be done to ensure this.
The Socio-Historical Problem
One major concern with using real events in film and TV is that it can spread falsehoods to audiences. Misconceptions people already hold about the past may not be challenged, and may instead be “confirmed”. Witnessing these on TV, particularly in a show/film that is sold as being “based on a true story” or somewhat realistic, serves to compound this issue. To look at an example, U-571 (2000) is an American action film set in 1942. It depicts US soldiers capturing and infiltrating a Nazi submarine (U-571) to capture their Enigma machine. The film received a considerable amount of criticism for its historical inaccuracies; then-Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed with criticisms of the film as an “affront” in the House of Commons. [3] To begin with, the first naval enigma machine was captured off of U-110 by HMS Bulldog on the 9th of May, 1941 in Operation Primrose, carried out by the British Royal Navy [4] - America did not enter the Second World War until December 1941. Secondly, U-571 was never actually captured - it was sunk off the coast of Ireland on the 28th of January 1942. [5] The director of U-571 acknowledged that his film was not an accurate re-telling of events, and was a “distortion” of history, demonstrating his awareness of the problems caused by the film. [6] This emphasises the role that fiction plays in altering the popular perception of history, as it helped sway the public perception of the UK’s and US’ respective roles in the Second World War - the latter of which took credit for an intelligence mission that they, in reality, had no part of. These false narrations can distort and confuse consumers’ concepts of fact and fiction; “differentiating between them is not necessarily an easy task.” [7]
It seems that in order for the audience to determine whether or not the depictions in films and shows are accurate or not, they must have some prior knowledge of the events shown. For viewers with “no background information […] the acceptance of information is the default.” [8] In general, the content we consume “engage[s] with [the] audience's existing understandings of the past” even if “these understandings, or preconceptions, exist as little more than stereotypes or popular myths” [9] - particularly when the producers have similar misconceptions of these historical events. Historical dramatisations can be incredibly powerful - “fictional representation of historical events contributes [more] to emotional involvement with the past through a more creative narration compared to academic historiography.” [10] This problem is exacerbated when we consider that the narratives we consume are controlled by private media giants like Netflix and Disney - “streaming media platforms […] play a fundamental role in […] shaping cultural memory” [11]; in other words, streaming media platforms influence the information we do and don’t receive about the past, irrespective of whether it is actually true or not. The dramas we watch are produced for (and marketed as) entertainment, not documentaries - however, in some cases, we unintentionally treat them as such. In order to keep the narrative focussed, plotlines are often fairly narrow - for example, Oppenheimer relies on three hours of screen time to provide a snapshot into the history of nuclear weapons development, almost exclusively about events unfolding around just one man; therefore, it provides minimal insight into the socio-political events of the 20th century which led to the creation of the atomic bomb.
Historical dramas provide very little nuance and limited context, the combination of which means that the audience will be unable to build a balanced picture (without additional research) of the era depicted, relying on the information that they are being fed, which is itself intended to elicit a specific emotional and narratively ”logical” response.
Paul B. Weinstein presents a model through which one can analyse historical fiction; a fourfold list, each item providing a focus for researchers when analysing the historical value of dramatisations. As one of his four analysis points for interpreting historical fiction, Weinstein places emphasis on the importance of the filmmaker’s opinion in shaping the narrative and setting, and therefore the historical accuracy, of a film. Weinstein encourages researchers to examine the “agenda, values [and] effects” [12] of a film - he stresses the impact that agendas wielded by “those most heavily involved in shaping a film” [13] can have in shaping its presentation. Agenda-setting can be seen in various ways; on the one hand, a cynic might argue that it is all for media producers’ own profits. For example, Netflix’s hit series The Crown has been criticised for its presentation of traumatic events - “the blurry line between fact and fiction in Season 4 […] led some to accuse the streaming giant of ghoulishly taking advantage of the Royal Family’s pain for financial gain.” [14] Other linked agendas include the filmmaker’s influence over the audience’s feelings and emotions. At the end of the day, filmmakers want to sell what they produce, and the best way to do this is to create an immersive and interesting storyline for audiences to buy into, regardless of any inaccuracies. A common example of this is a romanticism between characters that may or may not have actually taken place. As such, historically-inspired dramas in particular can be seen to take liberties with the truth. These liberties often lead to falsehoods being popularised amongst the audiences - individuals and organisations may use their platform to further their own political ideologies, or be seen to follow certain popular beliefs and ideologies, even in childrens’ films. In Disney’s 1995 film Pocahontas, Pocahontas and John Smith were presented as having a romantic relationship; in reality, Pocahontas was only nine or ten years old when Smith arrived and no evidence exists of any romantic relationship between them. In fact, contrary to his charming and caring disposition in the animated film, Smith is reported to have been aggressive and violent towards the Indigenous Americans, purportedly holding chiefs at gunpoint to extort supplies from them. The film glosses over the mistreatment of Native Americans by European colonisers that, in the case of Pocahontas, led to her being kidnapped and taken to Britain as a political tool, to suggest that peace existed between the Native Americans and the European invaders. [15] Disney’s film is a romanticised account of historical events crafted in such a way as to shield their intended audience of young children from the (rather more depressing) truth of the events depicted. As such, whether dramatisations choose to blur the truth or completely distort it, the potential impact on cultural memory and audience’s attitudes towards events are more significant and more subtle than we may realise, watching a production for the first time with no background knowledge. The way the filmmaker intended us to feel inevitably becomes how we feel about the events depicted.
The motivations behind filmmakers altering history can be numerous, as well as ambiguous. The drive of firms and individuals is often to maximise their profits, thus encouraging them to create the most marketable film possible. Filmmakers need to narrow down the plot to make it easy to follow - too many scenes, characters and plot devices will likely detract from the overall enjoyment of the film. By cutting down the content, films also become cheaper and more feasible to produce. In a talk given at the Imperial War Museum, historian Katja Hoyer [16] described the difficulties that technical advisors often face when working on media projects; despite being given accurate information, they often intentionally depict falsehoods to fit the narrative that they seek to portray. For example, Oppenheimer downplayed, and in some respects neglected, the mental health struggles that impacted his relationships and his work, despite them being pivotal to the investigation that led to the revoking of his security clearance. Some depictions deviated from the truth entirely - in the scene where Fergusson announced his engagement to Oppenheimer, Nolan veered away from the rather more violent truth of the interaction; Fergusson, who had attempted to distract Oppenheimer from a resurgence of the depression that plagued him throughout his life, reported that Oppenheimer attempted to strangle him with a belt, a sequence that was omitted from the film entirely. [17] However, this leads to a somewhat misleading portrayal of Oppenheimer’s character, diminishing the all-encompassing nature of his mental health struggles. The intention of the filmmaker can lead to the exclusion of crucial aspects of history, morphing the narrative into one which is misleading or perhaps entirely incorrect.
Is This An Ethical Problem?
So far, we have only discussed that this phenomenon is a problem under certain conditions, and what its impacts are, but we are yet to discuss the ethics of it. Aristotle’s Rhetoric explores the means of persuasion, adopting a tripartite structure:
Ethos - the ethical part of the argument; the speaker must be trusted as a moral character and a credible source.
Logos - the logical part of the argument; proving the alleged truth of the subject matter.
Pathos - the emotional part of the argument, associated with the mental state of the listener. [18]
Often, an effective speaker will appeal to the pathos of their audience, and back up their argument using logos. Aristotle was aware that certain types of rhetoric structures could be used with malicious intent, at the time by demagogues (political leaders) to sway the opinion of the Athenian people. [19] But the same concept could be applied in filmmaking - their “rhetoric” (the storyline) appeals heavily to the pathos of their audience, in order to elicit particular reactions and sway their opinions on matters of historical importance. If the film doesn’t engage with the audience’s emotions, it will not be marketable - hence, filmmakers will write their scripts with a focus of appealing to the audience’s emotions as much as possible, even if this comes at the expense of historical accuracy. If we are being deliberately persuaded in a particular (false) direction, are we, in effect, being lied to?
Ethics is a vast branch of Philosophy, so we will narrow our focus to two metatheories - Utilitarianism and Kantian Deontology. Both of these theories are complex in their own rights, so to summarise the basic premise of each:
Utilitarianism - a morally “good” act is one which generates the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. It focuses on consequences of actions rather than the motivation behind it. [20]
Kantian ethics - a morally “good” act must be committed in accordance with the correct motivation (where acting out of duty is the only correct motivation), irrespective of the consequences. [21]
On the surface of it, we might assume that lying is a simple ethical issue to resolve - it is fundamentally wrong. But is it always wrong? What if we are only being slightly misguided, rather than outright lied to? Kant would agree that the solution is simple - lying (or deliberately misleading someone) is always wrong, thus making the actions of media producers when they distort history morally wrong. He outlines his “Categorical Imperative” based on two formulations - these essentially boil down to “can this act be universalised?” and “does this act treat people with human dignity?”. [22] If the act in question cannot be universalised (i.e., you could not conceive of a world which would not collapse if the act happened in all scenarios, and you could not rationally will the act to happen), then Kant argues you have a perfect duty not to commit said act. According to Kantian doctrine, we have a perfect duty not to lie, and so filmmakers should always be truthful when depicting history.
But if we always tell the truth in films, would childrens’ movies like Pocahontas still be appropriate for their age group? While J.S. Mill (a Utilitarian) argues that lying is rarely justified, because trust is so significant for our happiness, it can occasionally be justified in situations where not telling the truth will prevent significant harm. [23] If young children (the primary audience) were exposed to the truth of Pocahontas’ life, it would not only be a very dark turn away from the romantic nature of Disney movies at the time, but it would also cause net unhappiness amongst both the primary and secondary audiences (parents), and thus be the “wrong” action for Utilitarians like Mill, depending on the way the content was delivered. Surely filmmakers would be justified in modifying and adjusting some elements of the truth to make the content more palatable to the target audience? We could use Mill to argue the counter as well - whether or not adapting the truth to be more palatable is ethical could depend on the extent to which the information is being modified to fit the narrative of the filmmakers’ choosing. For Mill’s branch of Utilitarianism, it will benefit society in the long run to tell the truth, because being truthful (not being misleading in any way) is conducive to happiness generally. Being able to trust that what others are saying is true will produce greater happiness across society. Lying weakens the general capacity for trust, which impedes upon happiness for the general society. [24] If the “facts” included in movies are largely fabricated or exaggerated, but still retain some basis in truth, the deception would erode the trust of society on what is real and what is not - this is not too far removed from fake news. Ultimately, because films vary in their accuracy, it is difficult to generalise whether or not they are being ethical, using Mill’s theory.
We can also consider the second formulation of Kant’s Categorical Imperative (mentioned previously) - the humanity formula. Essentially, this covers whether or not a particular action will treat a person with human respect, or whether they have been used as a mere means to an end. [25] An important distinction to note is that people can be used as a means to an end, provided they benefit themselves and are treated with human dignity - if they are used as a mere means, they will not be treated with dignity, and they will not benefit from the action. Kant holds that lying treats people (in this case, the audience) as a mere means to an end - on this front, it is immoral. Through altered storylines, filmmakers create Baudrillard’s simulacra [26] (signs and symbols in culture and media which create a perceived “reality”). Audiences buy into this simulacra, and while they may benefit from the enjoyment of a production (in Utilitarian terms), the way that media producers mislead audiences is immoral under Kantian ethics.
It could also be argued that the people depicted in films and shows are being used as a mere means to the filmmakers’ end of making money. By crafting a historical simulacra, filmmakers distort real peoples’ life stories in the name of entertainment, and thus do not treat the characters’ real-life counterparts with the human respect and dignity that Kant built into his ethical theory. Even if the real people gave consent to have their life story used (perhaps so that their estate profits from the movie), the depictions may be distorted to fit a particular narrative and motive (as discussed earlier). In this way, they are still being used as a mere means to an end, and thus the creation of a historical simulacra is unethical.
But surely the focus of the fictional media we consume is to entertain, not to inform? For Utilitarians, if the net pleasure gained from consuming inaccurate historical outweighs the potential grievances of the people affected by the misleading depictions, then the act of producing misleading content would be considered ethical (or at least, not unethical), because of Utilitarianism’s basic premise: the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people (according to Bentham). [27] As long as the audience enjoys what they’re watching, does it matter if it’s not entirely accurate? However, this has its own issues - Alexis de Tocqueville’s “tyranny of the majority” [28] can be used here. If the mass audience enjoy consuming The Crown, does this mean that the exposure of the Royal Family’s private pain and suffering should be overlooked so that we can continue to benefit? Is it right that our enjoyment of Pocahontas should, under Bentham’s Utilitarianism, outweigh the pain experienced by Native Americans when they see their history being distorted in a way that minimises the portrayal of colonial abuse? Is teaching children the wrong history justified by the happiness that they could derive from a film? There seems to be something morally wrong with this form of historical oppression by means of re-shaping cultural memory.
Utilitarianism, being less rigid than Kantianism, can also be used to criticise the fictionalisation of historical events using its most basic principle of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Under Bentham’s classical Utilitarianism, the Hedonic Calculus [29] is used to determine how much pleasure an act will generate - these eight “tests” include propinquity (how near or far the pleasure is) and fecundity (the ability to continue producing more pleasure in the future). While in the short term, consuming a movie filled with misinformation may be entertaining, in the long run it could generate confusion and dissonance; the simulacra may not generate more pleasure, but may be reflected upon with distaste in the future, depending upon the severity of falsehoods in the historical depictions.
However, the fecundity test can be used the other way around - Pocahontas is a classic childrens’ film and has brought joy to many young children for nearly thirty years. This again raises the question of whether Utilitarianism’s doctrine, which could promote oppression of the minority, is the right one to consider?
So is it ethical to fictionalise real events? It depends. While Kantian Deontology may be stringent, and does not account for the protection of particular groups of people (like children) from some of the horrors of history, a Utilitarian account (taking films on a case-by-case basis) falls into the issue of oppressing minority grievances to satisfy the majority. Ultimately, it is difficult to know where to draw the line; Kantian Deontology might be a more useful doctrine to follow in this case, because the duty to tell the truth will lead to a more educated (as well as entertained) audience in the long run - if done correctly, historical fiction can still be entertaining and accessible to a larger audience, without compromising the accuracy of the retelling.
Can There Be Benefits to Historical Fiction?
While historical fiction often fails to convey the truth of history, it can serve as an effective tool to nurture interest and encourage individuals to undertake their own research, acting as a “stepping stone” [30] to the past. The increased accessibility of digital media enables far more people to expose themselves to history. Television allows individuals to engage in history in a unique way, allowing them to see the past brought to life before their eyes. Irrespective of the accuracy of the media in question, historically-based fiction provides its audience with a glimpse into the past. This is particularly impactful for individuals who consume less historical literature (potentially due to limited literacy capability) as it provides them with an opportunity to engage in history that they would seldom have access to otherwise. Digital media has the ability to “bring a subject to the attention of people who did not know much about it before, and encourage them to ask questions and seek further information,” [31] rendering it a valuable tool to improve the public understanding of certain events. This idea of a “stepping stone” is accepted by some media firms; Netflix’s The Crown has been supplemented by podcasts, including The Crown: The Official Companion, Volumes 1 and 2, which feature historian Robert Lacey, [32] the respected author of several books on British Royal history. Overall, historical fiction is designed to be simplified, thus making history accessible to a wider range of people. It is readily accessible online, can be translated and subtitled, and is specifically programmed to accommodate people of different ages and interest levels.
Can we prevent dramatisations from damaging the public understanding of history? Films almost always feature a disclaimer of sorts, often something that informs the audience (particularly those in the legal profession) that the media they are about to consume “is a work of fiction. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead or actual events is purely coincidental.” [33] These disclaimers exist to prevent media firms from being sued, [34] acting as a form of legal deterrent. However, to the layperson consuming whatever media is presented before them, the events depicted can seem all too real. This becomes particularly apparent for historical dramatisations; Netflix’s The Crown was criticised heavily for how it chose to “blur the lines between historical accuracy and crude sensationalism,” [35] according to Dame Judi Dench. Her views were not exclusive: John Major, who had served as the Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1990 until 1997, viewed The Crown as a “barrel-load of nonsense,” [36] while Secretary for Culture Oliver Dowden interpreted it as a “beautifully produced work of fiction.” [37] In particular, Major's experience as Prime Minister adds a level of credibility to his review, as he had interacted personally with members of the Royal Family, particularly Queen Elizabeth II - the show's focal point. These reviews, some rather scathing, highlight the dangers posed by close-to-life media; the threat of fiction being construed as reality (a simulacra) emphasises the importance of clearly identifying the former in such a way to prevent its content from gaining a foothold with the public, particularly those who lack the critical thinking skills to challenge information presented before them (or those who regularly frequent Twitter).
Concluding Thoughts
This might look like an exceptionally long-winded way to say that the ethical nature of historical dramatisations is variable. However, it seems as though the necessary conditions for a historical film to be ethical are very specific, with a focus on retaining the truth; because many filmmakers will prioritise their own profits and the entertainment value of their work over the historical accuracy, we will conclude that, generally speaking, what we have seen so far has been unethical under both Kantian and Utilitarian terms. While some individuals may go to great lengths in order to learn the truth of historical events, this does not counteract the numerous others who choose not to do so, continuing to passively accept the information they consume to be true. There is scope for historically-based films to be produced ethically - for example, Pocahontas could have been written in a way which retained its historical accuracy, while incorporating Disney’s wistful romantic appeal for children. A potential way to do this could have been to incorporate that she was already married, and was forcibly taken away from her parents and her husband by the British to be made an example of as a “civilised savage” - this would retain its historical accuracy, treating the real Pocahontas with Kant’s human respect, while painting the British colonists as the enemy that Disney movies require to create a compelling plot that children can easily engage in.
At the end of the day, filmmakers will continue to create historically inaccurate films, while individuals like us will continue to criticise them. But with people becoming increasingly vocal online, criticising the portrayal of history in media, there is some possibility that filmmakers will adapt their methods and begin to create compelling historical films which focus on upholding their historical accuracy. Until that day, people like us who are far too invested in all of the details (rather than the overall enjoyment) will continue to have a way to annoy our relatives at the dinner table.
Bibliography
Brennan Klein, “Oppenheimer Breaks A Major Box Office Record For A Biographical Movie” (2023) ScreenRant, https://screenrant.com/oppenheimer-movie-box-office-record-biopic-comparison/?scrlybrkr=63e13207#:~:text=Oppenheimer (Accessed 12 October 2023)
Alex Wellerstein, “Counting the dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki” (2020) Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, https://thebulletin.org/2020/08/counting-the-dead-at-hiroshima-and-nagasaki/ (Accessed 12 October 2023)
BBC, “U-boat film an 'affront', says Blair”, 2000, BBC, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/781858.stm (Accessed 12 October 2023)
Alex von Tunzelmann, “U-571: You give historical films a bad name” (2009) The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/feb/25/u-571-reel-history (Accessed 12 October 2023)
“German submarine U-571”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_submarine_U-571#Fate (Accessed 12 October 2023)
“U-571 (film)”, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U-571_(film)#cite_note-ayer-admits-16 (Accessed 12 October 2023)
Renira Rampazzo Gambarato & Johannes Heuman, “Beyond fact and fiction: Cultural memory and transmedia ethics in Netflix’s The Crown” (2022) Chapter: “Inter-Medial Dimension: The Transmediality of The Crown”, Sage Journals, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13675494221128332 (Accessed 11 October 2023)
Katherine Anne Donahue, “Fact Through Fiction: A Case Study of Televised Historical Drama's Influence on Audiences' Perceptions of the Past” (Published on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries, Boston College, 2014), p.81 (Accessed 9 October 2023)
Ibid, p.80 (Accessed 9 October 2023)
Renira Rampazzo Gambarato & Johannes Heuman, “Beyond fact and fiction: Cultural memory and transmedia ethics in Netflix’s The Crown” (2022) Chapter: “Cultural Memory”, Sage Journals, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13675494221128332 (Accessed 9 October 2023)
Ibid. (Accessed 9 October 2023)
Paul B. Weinstein, ‘Movies as the Gateway to History: The History and Film Project’, The History Teacher, Volume 35, no.1 (Nov. 2001), p.43-44
Ibid. p.43
Renira Rampazzo Gambarato & Johannes Heuman, “Beyond fact and fiction: Cultural memory and transmedia ethics in Netflix’s The Crown” (2022) Chapter: “Intra-Medial Dimension: The Blurred Lines of The Crown”, Sage Journals, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13675494221128332 (Accessed 10 October 2023)
Meera Baswan, “The True Story Behind Disney’s Pocahontas” (2023), The Indigenous Foundation, https://www.theindigenousfoundation.org/articles/the-true-story-behind-disneys-pocahontas (Accessed 24 October 2023)
Hoyer, Katja. "IWM In Conversation with: Katja Hoyer." IWM London. Presented 10 October 2023
Ben Platts-Mills, “Who was the real Robert Oppenheimer?” (2023), BBC, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230712-robert-oppenheimer-manhattan-project-nuclear-scientist-atomic-bomb (Accessed 28 October 2023)
Christof Rapp, "Aristotle’s Rhetoric", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/#:~:text=Ch.%202%3A%20Rhetoric,true%20(logos) (Accessed 26 October 2023)
Christof Rapp, "Aristotle’s Rhetoric", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2023 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/#:~:text=Still%2C%20can%E2%80%99t%20the,5%2C%201304b21%E2%80%931305a15) (Accessed 26 October 2023)
Jeremy Bentham, “Chapter I: Of The Principle of Utility”, Part VI in An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1781 ed.) ed. by Reed Edu, https://www.reed.edu/humanities/hum220/syllabus/2010-11/Bentham-Principles.pdf p.2 (Accessed 28 October 2023)
Paul Blaschko, Justin Christy, Meghan Sullivan, Sam Kennedy, “Do Your Duty: Kant” (year unknown), Section: “Kant's Moral Philosophy: A Brief Overview”, God and The Good Life: University of Notre Dame, https://godandgoodlife.nd.edu/digital-essays/do-your-duty-kant/#:~:text=For%20Kant%2C%20a%20moral%20agent,be%20made%20into%20universal%20laws (Accessed 28 October 2023)
Robert Johnson and Adam Cureton, "Kant’s Moral Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/ (Accessed 28 October 2023)
David Brink, "Mill’s Moral and Political Philosophy", Section 3.2: “Categories, Rights, and Utility”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2022/entries/mill-moral-political/ (Accessed 28 October 2023)
Ibid.
Robert Johnson and Adam Cureton, "Kant’s Moral Philosophy", Section 6: “The Humanity Formula”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2022 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#HumFor (Accessed 28 October 2023)
Jean Baudrillard, “Simulacra and Simulations”, ed. Mark Poster (Stanford; Stanford University Press, 1988), https://web.stanford.edu/class/history34q/readings/Baudrillard/Baudrillard_Simulacra.html, p.166-184 (Accessed 28 October 2023)
Jeremy Bentham, “A Fragment on Government”, Chapter: “Preface”, ed. Jonathan Bennett 2017, https://www.earlymoderntexts.com/assets/pdfs/bentham1776.pdf p.2, second paragraph (Accessed 28 October 2023)
Alexis de Tocqueville, “Democracy in America: Historical-Critical Edition”, vol. 2, Chapter 4: “Of Political Association in the United States”, Liberty Fund, 1835
Jeremy Bentham, “Chapter IV: Value of a Lot of Pleasure or Pain, How to be Measure”, Part IV in An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1781 ed.) ed. by Reed Edu, https://www.reed.edu/humanities/hum220/syllabus/2010-11/Bentham-Principles.pdf p.7 (Accessed 28 October 2023)
Katherine Anne Donahue, “Fact Through Fiction: A Case Study of Televised Historical Drama's Influence on Audiences' Perceptions of the Past” (Published on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries, Boston College, 2014), p.81-82, quoting Ann Rigney, Utrecht University, Netherlands; quoted in Byrne, 2013, p.16: “stimulate public interest in history in a positive way, acting as a ‘stepping stone that motivates’ the viewer to find out more.” (Accessed 9 October 2023)
Robert Brent Toplin and Jason Eudy, “The Historian Encounters Film: A Historiography.” OAH Magazine of History, vol. 16, no. 4, 2002, pp. 7–12. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25163542 (Accessed 26 October 2023)
Renira Rampazzo Gambarato & Johannes Heuman, “Beyond fact and fiction: Cultural memory and transmedia ethics in Netflix’s The Crown” (2022) Chapter: "Introduction", Sage Journals, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/13675494221128332 (Accessed 9 October 2023)
Sarah Philip, “The forgotten reason why so many movies end with a disclaimer that everything is fictional” (2021), Film Stories, https://filmstories.co.uk/features/the-forgotten-reason-why-so-many-movies-end-with-a-disclaimer-that-everything-is-fictional/ (Accessed 27 October 2023)
Ibid.
Alexandra Del Rosario, “A Netflix notice reminds viewers, and Judi Dench, that ‘The Crown’ is fictional” (2022), LA Times, https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/tv/story/2022-10-21/netflix-the-crown-disclaimer-judi-dench-backlash (Accessed 28 October 2023)
Ibid.
Ibid.