MARGINAL NOTES

Southland Times, Issue 25314, 18 June 1935, Page 8

MARGINAL NOTES

The other day Mr T. D. Pearce, speaking in the Girls’ Educational week, said that the film “Barretts of Wimpole Street” was historically correct; but, as a matter of fact it is historically inaccurate like most of the historical films. There is documentary evidence—letters to Elizabeth herself—showing that her marriage with Browning and the manner of it was opposed by most, if not by all, of her brothers and sisters, especially by Henrietta, who in the film is shown as an ardent sympathiser. Elizabeth did not leave the Barrett house for ever when she went to marry Browning—as a matter of fact she lived on in the house for several days after her marriage. The important bearing of these facts is that they disclose a condition of things not in keeping with the idea that Barrett was merely a “sanctimonious hypocrite.” Evidently Charles Laughton conveyed that impression, but that is a superficial and inaccurate estimate of Elizabeth’s father, however objectionable he may be in other ways. Barrett had many faults, serious faults—he was cruel, domineering, narrow—but he believed in himself and in what he was doing. He was fanatical in some respects but not a hypocrite. To make him one is to impugn the intelligence of Elizabeth who would have seen through him very quickly. Considered from the platform of 1935 ideas he might be called a humbug, but in his day he was more to be feared than that, and he should be judged in the atmosphere of his own time. The inaccuracy of historical films is going to increase the difficulties of teachers. “Henry VIII” was outrageous, “Catherine of Russia” plain perversion, “The Iron Duke,” in places absolute nonsense. People complain about the film folk amending Shakespeare; why not object to their altering history?

Think of some of the characters blasted by popular history! Nero most likely was not the villian popular history thinks, and certainly the Borgias, unscrupulous and fiendish though they were, did not deserve much that was said of them. Lucrezia Borgia comes down to us as the arch poisoner, a tower of evil, and yet all the direct evidence points in the other direction —that she was an affectionate wife, a weak feminine woman who was used by her ambitious and unscrupulous brothers. Whoever thinks of Judge Jefferies as a brilliant lawyer? He is remembered for the Bloody Assizes only, and the picture of him is received from one tainted hand. Look how the view of Napoleon has changed! Cont imporary portraits drawn by his enemies are no longer believed, and the latest discoveries in the letters to Marie Louise have corrected a false impression that persisted to this day. Napoleon loved her, and she "ratted”on him when adversity struck him. In comparison with the ancient families on Europe’s thrones, Napoleon’s stature is high. Marie Louise sinks in one’s estimation as soon as the facts appear, just as Josephine did. Perversions in history are dangerous whenever they are fed to the unthinking public in a manner to induce credence.