How to write a historical epic/biopic

I've been working on one of these magnificent beasts for a while now - in fact much too long - so I thought I'd try and give you the benefit of my battles. I'll use the earlier review I did of William and Harold (a 2010 Brit List script by John Hodges) to add some specificity to my observations (please read it if you're not familiar with e 1066 story).

First off, don't do this at home! Turning reality into Fiction is a headscrew backward thing and you're bound to get blasted either from fans of the real historical time/incident/life, or criticized by professionals for not making it dramatic enough. And it probably won't be made anyway. It's a thankless task.

But, if you're determined, and you've got a great story which many people already know of (therefore a pre-existing customer base), which ideally hasn't been filmed before, you still have to answer one fundamental question, hopefully before you start.

WHY? The most aggravating, persistent and often the first question I get from professionals is: Why tell this story now? What makes it relevant to todays' man on the street?

Now I hate this question, partly because I'm still searching for an answer, and partly because I think there may be a defect in its assumption (still working on that though). "Why not", I'm tempted to answer glibly. Or "Because it's a fantastic story" is the other one. But these don't wash. One part of me thinks that it's hard to justify the reason behind telling the story without telling the story itself, and then, why not just tell the story? Another thinks the answer is "universal themes" and that it's a fantastic story - shouldn't that be enough?  But then one has to understand that specificity here is the key. What about the themes of the story will affect today's audience and why? As a period piece is one of the most expensive types of film to produce I guess they're entitled to an answer. However, I'm intrigued as to how Braveheart (I imagine it was the focus of "freedom"), Gladiator and Elizabeth answered these questions beyond the all encompassing -  it's a great story? Any ideas? 

William and Harold has a get out clause from this question - it's not a spec. However, if you look a bit wider you'll find that there are another 3 or 4 1066 projects being developed at the moment. Why? It most be more than a coincidence surely? Zeitgeist? That's descriptive, not analytic. One factor is the mental real estate - most English people and many others know the story. Another factor is that there's never been a film of this before. Maybe the (British) industry felt it needed an epic and this was the most likely answer? I think also it's a little thing with dates. The events of 1066 were a watershed, and having just entered the 21st century, maybe it just feels right. Another answer might be that it's about the nation state and national identity in a time when many (not me) feel under threat from the European Union and multiculturalism. Possibly. Or just rank bullshit.

So, you've answered your sceptics (well done there) and go on to embark on this historic voyage. The first major problem most historical biopics encounter is lack of story drive. Now, there is most definitely story there, but I mean story in that the protagonist has a definite goal and has to overcome obstacles to achieve it.

The problem with reality is people rarely have specific gaols, and therefore their actions do not  / cannot reflect a specific goal, which leaves the writer with a narrative consisting of unrelated incidents which while they may be intensely exciting and wonderfully written in their own right, are effectively little more than a few 15 minute shorts stuck together using the same characters. This is the many headed hydra you now have to decapitate. So, before creating a monster, beat out your story and make sure it has focus. Each event / incident (except the inciting incident) should be caused by your protagonist (even if at a remove/by mistake) and should naturally cause the next event of the film - the events should follow each other cumulatively, with the Protagonist at the heart of the film, crescendoing at the climax. Sucking eggs, I know, but once you've immersed yourself in research and have all these wonderful asides and tangents to tell that's the birth of the hydra. So focus, people, focus!

In William and Harold the writer introduces a love element between Harold and William's wife. Why? It's a complete fiction so what could ever justify it dramatically? How about the story drive.

Without this love element it would be a story about greed. Two men fighting over wealth (England) - which, let's face it, is a turn off. The protagonist has to have an aspirational gaol - in this case love - but honour, altruism etc will all suffice, though love is the most powerful.

Harold in this script falls for William's wife, and the author cleverly answers a question here that has puzzled historians for decades. To set the scene:

Harold has just defeated the Viking invasion of Harald Hardrada in Yorkshire. He learns that William has crossed the channel and is camped near Hastings, laying ruin to the local area. He force marches south, losing many men of the way, and with hardly a break in London marches out to battle William. And loses.

Now, in reality, if Harold had stayed in London over winter it would have accomplished two things. William would have been weakened, both in that his supply lines would have been stretched if not broken, and with the resultant weak of his soldiers' moral - they came to conquer and instead had to spend winter in a freezing tent.

Further, Harold could have raised a huge army from across England, harassed the Normans with guerrilla tactics and lightning raids if he had wintered in London. Had he done all this history could be very differ. But he didn't, and the writer has to tell us why.

My personal answer would be a form of honour. The rivalry between the two men is widely documented, and also provides a story driver suitable for the age. But John Hodges (writer of William and Harold) decided instead to set-up a love story between Harold and William's wife, and made that the main reason Harold attacked William so quickly. Harold knows she is there, and can't bear for her to be so near yet so far, so he attacks before he is ready  and loses.

It's a very elegant answer - it solves one of the main riddles of Harold's reign while adding an emotional through line / story drive to the whole film (the love affair is set-up in the first act). And it works very well.

This brings me to the second main headache of historical films. Accuracy and truth.

To my mind accuracy can be compromised in favour of the truth behind the story, but then the question is which story? Are you telling the established history or a new spin on it - and if so, how well founded is that spin? If it's merely to entertain and make the story work then I'm not so convinced. If it's to do those things but ultimate to discover the truth (as you see it) then you should be on firmer ground.

So what to show, omit, change and invent? This is less a craft question and ultimately boils down to your sensibility as a writer. As much as I admire the elegance of Hodge's solution in William and Harold (the love story), I think it fails on the truth level. He's invented a love affair (as far as I know there is no evidence for an affair between Harold and William's wife - and I'm pretty familier with the history), and ignored what I think it the heart of the story - the rivalry between the two men - which there is evidence for. For example the contemporary accusation that Harold broke an oath to William to support Willima' ascent to the English throne on the previous King's death - even though this oath was made under duress, when Harold was captive a few years earlier in William's castle. So you've got it all there - oaths, treachery, honour etc. However, it may mean making Harold the bad guy (on account of breaking his word) which probably wouldn't be palatable to an English audience. Like I said, it's hard.

However, from that oath, and the values of the era, I think a strong case can be made for the heart of the story to revolve around these powerful men and their relationship and honour - not around an invented love triangle.

But moving on from that specific example, what I'm trying to say is if the main drive of the story is convincing, then your audience will let you get away with a fair degree of artistic license - for example playing with the timeline, inventing / coalescing characters from a wider spread of people, changing events slightly. If they're unhappy with the underlying story, they're more apt to pick holes - because they want to find something wrong with it as they dislike it.

So be wary before riding into battle with history! A few main main points to keep in mind - know why this story is relevant now, make sure that it is a story - not a series of unlinked events in a characters life, and finally, tell the truth of it, find the story drive - and tell it so convincingly everyone accepts it!

If you're off into history give me a wave as you pass by - and good luck

My review of the Harold and William screenplay can be found here.