Critics are complaining about ‘Bonnie & Clyde’ occasionally straying from the history books — but should that really matter?
HollywoodLife.com is loving Emile Hirsche and Holliday Grainger‘s new Bonnie & Clyde miniseries — which concludes its two-night premiere Dec. 9 at 9 p.m. on Lifetime, A&E and the History channel — but sadly, not every critic is being so kind.
E! Online points out that, among other things, the outlaws’ biopic is being slammed for its historical inaccuracies. This version makes it seem like Bonnie got Clyde mixed up in a life of crime, when in reality, he already had a criminal history when he met her.
The Boston Herald also took particular issue with Clyde’s visions of his impending demise, which obviously never happened.
Does Historical Accuracy Matter?
Here’s a question: Given that we’re talking about television shows, which are made — first and foremost — to entertain viewers, does it really matter how historically accurate they are? As long as they follow the general outline of the original story, shouldn’t that be enough?
The CW’s Reign came under similar fire shortly after its series premiere — Mary Queen of Scots has neither red hair nor a Scottish accent on the show, for starters — but star Anna Popplewell explained to HollywoodLife.com why we shouldn’t focus too heavily on such details:
“It’s like historical fan-fiction,” she explained of Reign, which could also ring true for Bonnie & Clyde. “You’ve got these people we’ve all heard of, and we’re watching them experience relationships and events that never happened. … We’ve kind of created a new world; it’s fantasy history.”
Seriously, if you want historical accuracy, go read a book.
HollywoodLifers, are you a fan of this new ‘fantasy history,’ or do you wish shows like Bonnie & Clyde were more historically accurate? Drop a comment with your thoughts below.
— Andy Swift