Imagine there was a film that was produced about the Third Reich. However, this film decides to ignore historical fact and decides to whitewash the main characters, who happen to be Nazis. Instead, the film shows the Heer, the German Army “liberating” the Baltic states from Soviet control. The main characters are portrayed as heroic and the Holocaust is barely mentioned at all, except for one scene in which the main character tries to tell the Fuhrer that murdering people is bad. Aside from being downright idiotic as a concept, a motion picture like this would be dangerously offensive. Millions of people would be rightfully offended, particularly Jewish and Polish people, and theaters across the civilized world would refuse to even show the picture. With all of this in mind, then why on earth was “The Woman King”, a film with a similar concept released?
“The Woman King” takes place in the Kingdom of Dahomey during the 19th Century and centers on the Agojie, a group of female warriors who are also known as the Dahomey Amazons, which are led by General Nanisca (Viola Davis, “The Suicide Squad”). The film was promoted as some sort of second “Black Panther,” and upon its release on Sept. 16, the film was immediately praised. But most people seemed to ignore some rather glaring issues with this motion picture, particularly with how the history behind the film is represented.
The Kingdom of Dahomey was a militaristic society that was involved in the slave trade. The people that the Dahomey conquered were immediately enslaved, and the new slaves were then sold to the Europeans as part of the Trans-Atlantic slave trade. After slavery was abolished in the British Empire in 1833, the Royal Navy started to patrol the coast of Africa to enforce the end of the slave trade. Slavery persisted in Dahomey, and they attempted to continue the slave trade, regardless of the British blockade. In the film, the Agojie are depicted as liberating Dahomeian woman from slavery, when in actuality they participated in slave raiding and were instrumental to Dahomey’s slave industry. “The Woman King” barely acknowledges the Kingdom of Dahomey’s role in the slave trade, aside from one scene in which Viola Davis’s character Nanisca decides to tell King Ghezo (John Boyega, “Breaking”)that slavery is bad. That is it.
“The Woman King” is not the first film to have a blatant disregard for history, “The Patriot” is just as terrible. Released at the beginning of the new millennium, the film stars Mel Gibson (“Father Stu”) as a farmer who decides to rebel against his evil English overloads after a loved one was murdered. The film exaggerates the war crimes of the British Army, particularly in one scene in which the British burn down a church full of civilians, which there is not enough proof to know if that happened. All the while, the American rebels are depicted as good and vitreous. Ignoring the blatant disregard for history, “The Patriot” is a terrible film and a blatant rip off of “Braveheart,” which also stars Gibson.
Both films were well received by critics and audiences, and it is rather worrisome as both films claim to be based on historical fact. People who know nothing of the history behind these films, will think that what is depicted in the film itself is what actually happened historically. These films should not be praised, but instead called out for practically lying to people. Producers and directors need to be more responsible when and if they direct a period drama.
Image from Sony Pictures Entertainment via Youtube
