Smoke Pfeiffer observed, "Of course, I know of some discussion lists that
are even arguing the historical accuracy of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.


One would hope that those individuals are, in fact, debating how faithfully
Peter Jackson adapted Tolkien's books, but maybe not. Even if we think
charitably of that debate, however, it points out a reality of film. To a
literal purist, movies can't even get fiction right, so how can anyone hope
that they would get history right enough to satisfy some of our academic
ideals. Being a distinctly different medium from the printed word, and
generally limited to no more than a couple hours to tell a tale, a director
must make choices in his or her attempt to tell a compelling story. Even if
they may try get the props right for a period piece, character development
and story-telling will dictate a rather licentious disregard for the
"facts" in their portrayals of historic personages and events.

One would think that putting a contemporary novel on screen could be done
without departing radically from text, but even that is a false hope. A
great example is Sydney Pollack's Three Days of the Condor. For the 1975
film Pollack had to condense the action considerably to conform with normal
running times. Thus, we who never read James Grady's (1974) novel, Six Days
of the Condor,enjoyed its taught suspense immensely while others probably
felt short-changed by half.  There's no doubt of the influence of film on
our perceptions, however, and the power of Hollywood cannot be
understimated.  When the novel was subsequently reprinted, the title was
changed to Three Days of the Condor,though the action still took place over
the span of six days. Go figure on that one for a while.