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.
The Final Frontier?
15 years ago
3 comments:
I also agree with Toplin that there is more to analyze than just the movie itself when it comes to historical cinema. Initially, I thought that his argument on the importance of doing "third level" research was a little much. Really, are you saying that reading correspondence about the movie and interviewing the costume designer is really going to contribute to the historical context of the movie? As I read more into Toplin's argument, I realized that performing background research on a movie is like graduate students researching in the archives and writing papers, just on a different topic. Really, it is just bringing the director's thesis to light. It really is important to understand the artistic minds involved in making a movie.
Along the same line, I agree with Davis, and Rose and Corley that films on historical events, people, or issues need to be discussed. As an undergraduate, the history club at the university showed movies such as Gladiator, Titanic, and Schindler's List. Prior to the showing, a history professor would present a lecture on the movie by putting the events in context and posing questions for the students as they watched. Does the director present historical evidence accurately? Are the characters accurate depictions of people during that point in history? I think this was a smart way to promote discussion between the professional historian and students.
I agree that it is important for professional historians to remained attune to mainstream movies in order to keep the films somewhat accurate. If historians just threw up their hands that who knows where the storyline would go. That is one reason I really like the idea of a book to complement a historical film. All of the concepts that have to left on the cutting floor can be addressed by the book. Especially if done in concert with the film production, rather than independently, the book has a chance of exploring these missed opportunities. If done well hopefully the film can motivate people to read the accompanying book as well as go beyond.
I agree with Amanda and Brent that it is extremely important for professional historians to be closely involved with Hollywood movie makers in order to keep these theatrical movies about history somewhat accurate in their story telling. Brent brought up a great point in his commit that when historians just threw up their hands who knows where the storyline is going to go. Look at films like 9/11 and Titanic if someone did not know those were Hollywood films and besides the main event none of the rest of the action in the movie ever took place. The idea brought up about having book to a company a historical film to correct any misinformation or to add in anything that was left out is a great idea in my opinion. These books will allow all the concepts that would have other wise been left out due to time, money, or because it just simply did not fit the storyline will get it place so the people watching the movie can be better informed. My only main concern is that when films are done they are done with the audience in mind and if the movie has anything to do with historical events that can not or will not be covered correctly then Hollywood needs to place a disclaimer on film stating that the events in the movie are not accurate.
Post a Comment