Hollywood and History

In this week’s readings we see different perspectives on cinema and history. Through reading these articles, the main question that appeared to me is how does academic history play in the world of Hollywood? It is interesting to see these author’s perspectives on the importance of historical accuracy and of reaching the general public. Davis believes that perhaps a film should always have a corresponding book, whereas Corley and Rose believe that films such as documentaries should be held to historical accuracy, and Toplin believes that historical films are just another Hollywood genre.
Toplin explores the challenges that history in film creates. Movies such as Schinder’s List and The Patriot are often noted as being those discussed in this genre. The most interesting piece of advice that Toplin offers is to professional historians on page 83 of his article. He warns professionals to not turn away from these mainstream movies because then public discussion of these histories will be left to the unprofessional. This brings up an interesting point that while historians may not always be pleased with Hollywood, it is important for them to remain active in these blockbuster films because if historians turn away, where will history go? It’s bad enough that today we hear critiques of American students not knowing their U.S. history, but what would happen if filmmakers suddenly had complete artistic license?
Toplin also focuses on how historians can use film to elevate their own understandings of history. He states that so much can be learned from studying the production of a film; from its history to the production process. Does this make filmmaking historical? Not necessarily, but it does say something about a type of historical product present in our society.
Davis explores how historians and filmmakers differ and are similar in their history telling. Through looking at the story of Martin Guerre and the film created about it, Davis finds that while some historical inaccuracy is warranted based on budget or for dramatic appeal, she believes there should be a corresponding historical book to pick up the missed pieces left from film production. While this is an interesting idea and I do believe that some people would read these books, it is a stretch to say just how effective this book would be to the public. As we see with recent movies such as the Twilight novel, people view a movie, want to know more and go read a book about it. Often disappointments appear when things in the film have been altered from the truth or the text. Together these two may work well together, but would it reach the general public?
Finally, Rose and Corley focus their argument on the work of Ken Burns and his work Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. In this article, the authors hold Burns accountable for historical inaccuracies because he calls them documentaries. They claim that he creates a one-sided heroism view of these two women and converts historical fact to his narrative style. He has carved out a nice place in the film industry; he has been awarded several honors for his work and is an acclaimed documentary filmmaker. But the authors claim that this all comes at a cost, and they offer the solution that perhaps history should be included with the new social historian approach included and that perhaps even these works should be held accountable for their sources.
All of these articles argue the issue of film and history. I can remember my undergraduate advisor getting so angry at movies such as Disney’s Pocahontas and Forrest Gump because o their historical inaccuracies. In part, I must agree with this perspective. Generations are raised believing a view of history that is wrong; they never go beyond what one person’s view says. Yet, these films do have their benefit in that they do bring history to the people. How many people go on to read more after seeing these films? How many people do these films reach? I almost have to agree with Toplin in the importance of historians remaining involved in this new extension of the field. While it does present new challenges, it reaches a public that increasingly wants to learn with a dramatic flair in 2 hours more than it wants to sit down and read a book.

Terkel and Frisch Review

This week’s readings were from two very different authors and writing styles. Michael Frisch’s A Shared Authority: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History and Studs Terkel’s Touch and Go: A Memoir both cover the topic of oral history. Both cover the topic thoroughly and effectively but with different styles. Studs Terkel took a more personal approach, while Michael Frisch read like a textbook. Through the differences on central theme emerges focusing on oral history and the audience it should and does reach. Public history and oral history are meant to tell a story and make it accessible to the public, and both authors discuss how they have experienced this throughout their careers.
Studs Terkel begins by randomly discussing events at the beginning of his life. The initial approach seems scattered and it took me awhile to understand his purpose and direction. Eventually around chapter five it became clear that Terkel’s intention was to show the lives of people. Through his work with oral history, Terkel strove to show what the subject felt was important, what the person thought was influential to the time and to their lives. Through this method amazing stories and information emerged that were influential to the future historians and to the people telling the story. The truly interesting aspect of oral history that emerges through Terkel’s work is the understanding of the need to be remembered. We all don’t want to be forgotten, we want our stories to have meaning and thus our lives. Terkel’s memoir shows this need and desire. Through the stories of his own life, come the stories of many.
A Shared Authority by Michael Frisch connects back to the work of Studs Terkel and then expands further. While Frisch’s writing style was harder to connect with, it still has its value. Frisch explores events and subjects throughout his career. He too discusses the importance of the audience and often goes back to the same subject as a previous read. The need for historians to work with the public and how it all plays out in this sphere is portrayed here. He explains how this relationship exists even within the field of oral history. I liked how in Frisch’s work we get to connect back to Terkel’s work through his work Hard Times. Frisch and Terkel come to the conclusion that oral history is important because it is the truth as known by those that lived it, even if some of that information is false, it still has value. Frisch offers a unique perspective of balance between history and oral history and their interconnectedness.
Overall, these two works combined offer a perspective on oral history that shows the value of even false information as long as it is in the correct historical framework. While Terkel’s may have been an easier read and entertainingly written, Frisch offers a different style on a similar message. Both books were good introductions into the field of oral history, even if one did take more concentration to read through.

Remaking America

Patriotism, memory, commemoration. These words all participate within a public arena at times, and are exploited and utilized by many different people and groups. The author John Bodnar has written Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century to explore this exact arena. In one of his opening sentences he describes the purpose of his book to be, “the creation of public memory in commemorative activities celebrating America’s past and the dramatic exchange of interests that are involved in such exercises…” (13) Throughout the chapters of this book, Bodnar explores the changes within public memory in America’s history. He focuses on the utilization of different groups and powers to change public memory through commemoration activities. Bodnar begins by looking at the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial. He then moves onto discussing the changes in public memory according to the American Revolution.
Throughout his research and his writing, Bodnar exposes how vernacular memory and official memory are linked and how they are separated. He explains the differences and the way to the two affect each other. Vernacular memory is that memory which is attached at the local level. It is often attached to local events and emotions. Official memory is that which is propagated by the nation-state. Throughout this book, Bodnar directs the reader to his conclusion that often the cultural elite, the powerful, and the merchants control the public memory. He also shows how the government eventually found its way into the vernacular memory as ties weakened. The need to maintain the status quo and structure within society pushed the government into taking over commemoration and pageantry.
Within ethnic memory, Bodnar shows how the need to show patriotism often overtook the need to maintain a vernacular ethnic history. The Irish professionals within the American-Irish Historical Society are used as an example of how ethnic groups tried to show patriotism to link their ethnicities to the American Revolution. It is interesting to note that many ethnic groups used their ethnicity’s links to the American Revolution to legitimate their history and their place in the U.S.
Bodnar shows how symbols can change at times as well, such as that of George Washington and the American Revolution. Throughout this book it becomes clear the importance of the American Revolution to the U.S. and to its own understanding of public memory and commemoration. The pre-eminence of national identity over others becomes clear through his examples and use of the park service’s pageantry.
Overall, this book is effective at showing how public memory is shaped by the powerful and held onto tightly by the officials. While his writing at times is dry and methodical, he does express his point well through examples. He admits in the preface that he comes from a social history background and only came across this topic through research into political expressions of patriotism. He began by looking at the small world and found the big world in charge.