The Irish Times view on historical drama: license to reimagine

Netflix’s House of Guinnes has been accused of reducing 19th century Dublin to caricature and anachronisms

There is, in theory, a clear divide between fact and fiction, between documentary and drama. The reality, though, is rather different. Whenever the past is creatively reimagined for page, stage or screen, that divide quickly blurs.

Storytellers have always stretched or reshaped events to suit their purposes. Shakespeare did not worry about whether his Richard III resembled the man historians would later reconstruct. Tolstoy’s Napoleon is as much a reflection of the novelist’s philosophy as he is a depiction of the emperor himself. More recently and closer to home, Neil Jordan’s Michael Collins showed a car bomb exploding in Dublin Castle, an event that never happened. Jim Sheridan’s In the Name of the Father placed Gerry Conlon in the same prison as his father, Giuseppe, though this never occurred. These inventions were not accidents. They were designed to heighten drama and distil narrative complexity.

Such decisions often prompt objections, particularly when they concern contested history. Netflix’s new series, House of Guinness, has been accused of reducing the realities of 19th century Dublin into caricature and anachronisms. The charges are hardly unique. Any attempt to compress decades of upheaval into a handful of episodes will produce distortions, whether by omission, exaggeration or invention.

The deeper issue is not whether a historical drama is faithful to the archive. The real question is whether it is faithful to a convincing vision, whether the liberties taken reveal something about human experience, or simply flatten it into cliché.

With its raucous soundtrack of contemporary Irish bands, House of Guinness sits squarely within a current fashion for unabashed anachronism in period dramas from Bridgerton to Peaky Blinders. This style permits even more latitude than usual to play fast and loose with the historical record. Audiences can make their own judgments on the results, which can be compelling and entertaining or fatuous and silly. In any case, what they definitely are not is a history lesson.