First off, film was *not* designed to capture an accurate spectrum. If you took a picture of bouquet of flowers, and compared the spectrum of that image to the original's, the spectra would be quite different even if the color reproduction was perfect.
That's because color isn't a physical property like wavelength. It is a physiological response to wavelength. This sounds like splitting hairs, but it's not. Two different mixes of wavelengths can produce the same perceived color if they stimulate the cones in human eyes the same way. Birds and reptiles have *four* primary colors instead of three (we know this by studying the cones in their eyes). By avian standards mammals are color-blind to colors we obviously don't even have names for. If they looked at our "accurate" color pictures, it wouldn't look right to them at all. Starlings that look black to us might appear a deep -- something to other birds.
Second, while the goal for film might be to reproduce the same color response in humans as if they were looking at the original scene (although that's debatable, e.g. Kodachrome, Technicolor), in engineering an objective is only as good as the tests you measure success with. Up until the 1990s, movie studios shot images of models (the human kind) holding color strips to help film technicians to establish a consistent color balance (link with "China Girl" pictures). These were inserted into the prints so you could check that the print was developed properly. But since models in these pictures were *white*, the test only ensured good results for white skin.
Finally film is far from perfect in reproducing human perception. How many times have you seen an amazing scene, shot a picture, and have the picture come out "meh"? You have to understand the properties of the recording and playback media, and consciously take them into account to get a controlled result.