Every film is a period piece.  Whether they know it or not, all moviemakers record history, because there is no reality except the present moment. Everything else is an idea. If you write screenplays and have a vision of what you think the past was like, and that includes events that happened today, you're ready to write a period piece. The problem is, since historical films were popular from the earliest days of cinema, it's become increasingly difficult to write a period piece that's completely flesh and original. What we need, then, is a new an e. This year the five films nominated for Best Picture are all historical dramas. For the independent filmmaker and spec screenplay writer, Elizabeth & Shakespeare in Love are of particular interest. Both films show that it's possible to lens historical drama of epic proportions on a relatively low budget. These films have a limited number of locations, and their power comes from the intrinsic strength of the characters, plot and dialogue. Essentially, fictional characters can seldom compete with the misery of historical personal. What makes these films stand out is their use of modern dialogue and expression, both of which makes the stories palatable for modern viewers without sacrificing common sense.

A reconstruction of what is considered to be historically accurate could be the screenwriter's best friend. The generally accepted structure of human history runs something like this: Man emerged from the Stone Age and began rudimentary agriculture c. 10,000 years ago. From that point on, humanity's "progress" is seen as a slow and not altogether steady march toward the wonders of the modern age. However, it's entirely possible that this view of history is a social construction which sprang from a need to believe that our culture is the greatest achievement in history. One only needs to look at the massive horrors of the century to see that this standard historical paradigm may not only be askew but fundamentally wrong. If so, and there is a mass of evidence to indicate the possibility, then there is a mother lode of rich new ideas for screenwriters in the "reconstructing" of history.

Cultural conditioning tells us that ancient people were basically ignorant. We see this in the stilted, phony dialogue sometimes associated with Hollywood's view of history. Good examples are the two (1934 and 1963) versions of Cleopatra. In both, Hollywood constructed elaborate sets to indicate the engineering grandeur of ancient Egypt. Yet those same Egyptians, who possessed as great a degree of personal comfort as we do (heated floors, hot and cold running water, etc) are presented as nearly incoherent. What's more, neither film ever comes to grips with why Caesar and Mark Antony risked their political (and mortal) lives to possess one woman, other than she had a great body.

The 1963 film presented three of the greatest screen actors ever-Elizabeth Taylor, Richard Burton and Rex Harrison, yet the only thing that rings true are the love scenes between Taylor and Burton. The reason both films fail is that the material doesn't enable the actors to communicate what the greater story is about. As the matriarchal head of her clan, Queen Cleopatra had her own agenda, while she knew both Caesar and Antony deemed the liaison with her to be politically advantageous. In truth, women in ancient times were revered for their spiritual and magical powers. A new angle on this famous story would be the motives of the Greek Queen and the utter sophistication of these characters, a notion not without foundation.

The 1963 Cleopatra included massive sets and a huge budget. TheY2K version can tender a revised theme and, like Elizabeth, could be filmed on a few interior sets with plot, character and dialogue guaranteeing successes the story has proven international appeal. Battle scenes can be done in the same fashion. Ingeniously constructed by Elizabeth director, Shekhar Kaput, and screenwriter Michael Hirst, the film shows the aftermath of a battle; a field strewn with corpses. They then cut to interiors, where the lead characters consider the implications of the convict, much like a play. In this way a screenwriter can reconstruct history with minimal research, drawing upon one's internal resources, as the method actor does, to create realistic characters from every imaginable epoch.

So where does one find the evidence to support a new angle on writing historical screenplays? Suppose that in light of a new historical paradigm the writer interprets the evidence to mean that civilization has been in a constant state of decline over the past 10,000 years, with the 20th Century the lowest point ever reached by humanity. Admittedly the concept may be somewhat difficult to swallow but there is actually ample, even overwhelming evidence to support it.

Elizabeth (1998)

However you flame the question, the new paradigm offers you a new angle on the greatest historical characters and events, all of which can be filmed low budget. The problem here is not one of truth, because the truth is usually subjective anyway, but rather where does one find the evidence to support a new paradigm for writing historical screenplays? It's out there, but don't look to professional historians for help. Reliance on academics for background usually leads to cinematic disasters like Nicholas and Alexandra and is the main reason why Hollywood rightfully goes its own way when it comes to depicting history.

One common misconception is that professional historians, like everybody in the social and physical sciences, are primarily interested in the truth. Sadly, that's often true only when the truth they discover conforms to a generally accepted pattern of events already deemed correct by their peers in the university set. Deviation from the standard paradigm can result in professional ostracism; publishing sources dry up, invitations to speak at conferences disappear, and colleagues stay away, fearing guilt by association.

It's good to note that there are exceptions. Howard Zinn (A Peoples History of the United States), a university trained historian, offers new angles to screenwriters for the entire breadth of US history. Of particular interest is his extensive use of primary source material- diaries, letters, and autobiographies, which can be particularly important to establishing character.

There are a few others like him.

So where else do we go for new stories? I remember a line in Men la Black when Tommy Lee Jones, as a top-secret undercover guy, reveals that the best place to find out what's happening are those tabloid newspapers sold in supermarkets. There's some truth in that-there are worse places to look than the tabs if you're shopping for new angles. Every year or so they can be counted on to reveal a new discovery, like Noah's Ark, from which can spring any number of new screenplay concepts.

Where to go now? If you're on line, hook into the Library of Congress for vast secondary research material. It costs about $200 dollars a year, but you'll never run out of leads. Watch out, though the standard discovery tools in any library will lead to professional historians, and we already know they're not without their agendas. Luckily, there is often primary material available, as well as a plethora of alternative material in bookstores large and small. Big carriers like Borders, Barnes 8t Noble, etc. are good because up-to-date alternatives to the standard paradigm fill their shelves in sections like "metaphysics/paranormal" as well as in the standard histo7 and archeology sections. Most of these books are written by de facto historians/scholars independent of the university system. Small bookstores and university libraries are good if you have time to browse the shelves to find out-of-print gems like The Lust Cities 6f Sodom and Gomorrah. (Hey, there's a new angle right there. Those two cities were actually destroyed by a worldwide cataclysmic event-which was the same reason Noah went to sea.

For more background, and another angle, a quick browse through the archeology section will reveal that large Native American cites abounded throughout pre-Columbian times. Sets like this no longer need to be built. Modern computer generated imagery can recreate those cities, as was seen on Public Television’s documentary series "500 Nations.” We’re not talking about mud huts, but huge, sophisticated cities greater and grander than anything in Europe at the time. A computer-generated 0yby followed by a cut to an interior is all it takes. Roman shipwreck off Brazil and New England indicate the Romans profited from this sophisticated modern system long before Columbus. So once the standard paradigm is shown to be a series of erroneous assumptions taken for granted as fact, your stories placing Noah, or anyone else, in a new historical context are more likely to ring true.

Every era lends itself to a new approach.

Even in this century, taken-for-granted assumptions about the nature of reality can a inhibit our creative talent. For example, it can be argued that the delineation between World War I and World War II is artificial and Euro centered. A detached view could see a majority of this century as one massive world war, with short breaks for re-armament. This alternative view can be a step toward a new historical perspective, and from that, new, original material for cinema. This century is especially fertile ground for a new approach, since many of the participants to great events or the people who knew them are still alive. Academy Award-winning screenwriter William Kelley (Witness) calls this "walking the ground."

This kind of primary research also means hitting the road. There was a great scene in Barton Fink when John Turturro, as screen-writer Fink, holed up in a Hollywood hotel room, finally meets the character he's writing about. Only Fink doesn't let the follow played by John Goodman) get a word in edgewise. Kelley says when you're "walking the ground" you've got to listen, and to do that you've got to spend time on location and let the people learn to trust you. Kelly McGinnis, who played Sarah in Witness, spent two weeks living with an Amish family as preparation for her role, and screenwriter Kelley spent a month in Lancaster with the Amish. The resulting movie is one of the clearest cinematic depletions of Amish life. Through personal primary research, Kelley was able to generate an historical document on film. Now, should one wish to see the Amish way of life, Witness is source material superior to any book on the subject. You can do the same thing and in the age of computer research, and you can even do it holed up in Hollywood. MM