Analysis of this week's readings:
This week's readings all look at the general theme of how film confronts and interprets the past, the relationship between cinema and history, and how film treats history. These three articles all deal with our understanding of the past, and the history, and how to present that history through film. They describe film as bringing history to the public, and thus, shaping their understanding of the past. Davis, Rose and Corley and Toplin all discuss the idea of film and engagement: whether it is engaging history through film, the historian engaging with the film, or in terms of the film engaging with the public.
Movie or Monograph? A Historian/Filmmaker's Perspective
Davis' article drew on her work as a historical consultant. It highlighted film's ability to reach a crowd that otherwise would not know or show interest in historical subjects. This is something I saw repeated in the other articles as well. However, this article als addressed the issue of putting entertainment before the historical accuracy of the film. As a consultant, she had no final say in the historical accuracy of the film.
A Trademark Approach to the Past: Ken Burns, the Historical Profession, and Assessing Popular Presentations of the Past
This article looks at the impact of historical films and documentaries on presenting the past. Rose and Corley looked specifically at Ken Burns and his range of documentaries. One of the more interesting discussions of this article was Burns' lack of controversy. He tends to stay away from unpleasantries and the brutalities. I see him more as an entertainer after reading this. Anyway who shies away from presenting the whole picture, who places their focus on the audience as opposed to presenting the story truthfully and accurately, is an entertainer in my opinion. Doing this, in a way, creates a distorted interpretation of the past.
Cinematic History: Where Do We Go from Here?
This last article addresses ways in which to engage history. Toplin discusses the challenges historians face when presenting the past through film. In this article, Toplin also discusses film's opportunity to expose viewers to the lives, thoughts, and actions of the people of the past. There are opportunities for historians' greater engagement with film. One discussion I found particularly interesting was presenting the past so as to say something about the present. It kind of reminded me of our readings on commemoration.
Conclusion:
I think if these authors looked at Rosenzweig and Thelen’s study they would be shocked to find that people really do not trust the history portrayed through film and cinema. It received an average ranking of 5 out of 10 in terms of trustworthiness. I think that film has a long way to go in terms of gaining trust as a historical source, because before anything else, film is entertainment.
On an even more personal note, I for one cannot enjoy historical films. For instance, Amazing Grace, which has one of my favorite actors in it OF ALL TIME (Ioan Gruffudd, of the Horatio Hornblower series) I just could not enjoy. Why? All because of some silly detail about William Pitt that was just blatantly wrong, not to mention complete inaccuracies regarding social aspects of British life. Regardless, until film places historical accuracy before entertainment and gaining revenue many people will have a difficult time taking what they say to be true.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
Analysis: Touch and Go: A Memoir and A Shared Authorit: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History
This week’s readings both, in a way, highlight some of the concrete themes of this course: Terkel looks at making history personal through his practice of oral history, whereas Frisch examines the idea of shared authority and collaboration among the public and historians. Both, in a less obvious manner, emphasize the construction of history from the bottom-up. And, much like Presence of the Past, they illustrate that history is generated from biographical memory and from personal history and past.
Studs Terkel’s memoir was the more entertaining reading, filled with tangents and obscure references to a day long passed – what’s not to like. (It reminded me of watching Golden Girls and not exactly following the political or social commentary of the time, but loving it all the same.)
What is clearly important to Terkel is the history, or more importantly the story, of people, regardless of status. It seems that Terkel was more interested in the story of the ordinary person. His book includes glimpses into his lifelong work – oral histories and interviews of people often overlooked, but whom he considered just as important to our collective memory and national story. Terkel's individual experiences and personal stories trace and intertwines with a larger narrative of major historical events of the past century, such as the Depression, the rise of major political and cultural figures, elections, the struggles of the past, McCarthyism, wars, and so on.
Terkel’s memoir is the ramblings of a man who has spoken with men and women, both ordinary and extraordinary, who effortlessly weaves the events of his past into our lives, as well as the lives of others long passed. Having read the Good War in a previous class I can appreciate the style of Terkel’s work. Where often he is criticized for not including his questions in the transcript of interviews, it allows the reader an uninterrupted and unobstructed view into their memories and past experiences – much like Studs accomplishes in his memoir.
Michael Frisch gathers a collection of his book reviews, essays, and case studies to drive home an examination of oral history and public history and explores several issues surrounding them. Although I appreciate the wide range of writings, I had a hard time finding the cohesion between them all. At times, it made his message a bit muddled. Although I think his headnotes and introductions did help in establishing a sense of relation.
On the other hand, I enjoyed his presentation through the several different types of articles and reviews. Each of which highlight the importance of sharing authority, as well as criticizing and illustrating some of the challenges present in both fields. I personally found the case studies to be the most interesting. It was nice to have a break in rhythm every now and then. Then again, I do enjoy history education, which is what that first case study looks at in great detail.
These two books, again, introduce this idea of, well, shared authority. It discusses the theme of collaboration, joint ownership, an underlying theme of this course that began on day one with our first readings. These books, especially Frisch’s, also highlight several other relevant themes – collective memory, official history versus vernacular history, which has the authority, and the belief that history is personal.
This week’s readings both, in a way, highlight some of the concrete themes of this course: Terkel looks at making history personal through his practice of oral history, whereas Frisch examines the idea of shared authority and collaboration among the public and historians. Both, in a less obvious manner, emphasize the construction of history from the bottom-up. And, much like Presence of the Past, they illustrate that history is generated from biographical memory and from personal history and past.
Studs Terkel’s memoir was the more entertaining reading, filled with tangents and obscure references to a day long passed – what’s not to like. (It reminded me of watching Golden Girls and not exactly following the political or social commentary of the time, but loving it all the same.)
What is clearly important to Terkel is the history, or more importantly the story, of people, regardless of status. It seems that Terkel was more interested in the story of the ordinary person. His book includes glimpses into his lifelong work – oral histories and interviews of people often overlooked, but whom he considered just as important to our collective memory and national story. Terkel's individual experiences and personal stories trace and intertwines with a larger narrative of major historical events of the past century, such as the Depression, the rise of major political and cultural figures, elections, the struggles of the past, McCarthyism, wars, and so on.
Terkel’s memoir is the ramblings of a man who has spoken with men and women, both ordinary and extraordinary, who effortlessly weaves the events of his past into our lives, as well as the lives of others long passed. Having read the Good War in a previous class I can appreciate the style of Terkel’s work. Where often he is criticized for not including his questions in the transcript of interviews, it allows the reader an uninterrupted and unobstructed view into their memories and past experiences – much like Studs accomplishes in his memoir.
Michael Frisch gathers a collection of his book reviews, essays, and case studies to drive home an examination of oral history and public history and explores several issues surrounding them. Although I appreciate the wide range of writings, I had a hard time finding the cohesion between them all. At times, it made his message a bit muddled. Although I think his headnotes and introductions did help in establishing a sense of relation.
On the other hand, I enjoyed his presentation through the several different types of articles and reviews. Each of which highlight the importance of sharing authority, as well as criticizing and illustrating some of the challenges present in both fields. I personally found the case studies to be the most interesting. It was nice to have a break in rhythm every now and then. Then again, I do enjoy history education, which is what that first case study looks at in great detail.
These two books, again, introduce this idea of, well, shared authority. It discusses the theme of collaboration, joint ownership, an underlying theme of this course that began on day one with our first readings. These books, especially Frisch’s, also highlight several other relevant themes – collective memory, official history versus vernacular history, which has the authority, and the belief that history is personal.
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Analysis: Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century
John Bodnar focuses on the creation of public commemoration and memory in America through the nation’s construction and into the twentieth century.
Bodnar’s prologue on the Vietnam Memorial illustrates several of the major themes that carry throughout the book: the plurality of public memory and commemoration. It is meant to symbolize loyalty and patriotism, national and social unity, order and civic duty. But more importantly public memory is a result of attempts to settle what he terms “official” and “vernacular” intentions.
Remaking America highlighted several areas of commemorative conflict throughout the twentieth century, and across the country. He compared Cleveland and Indianapolis in one chapter, discussed the roles of ethnic communities in rural and urban cities when establishing public memory, addressed commemoration in the Midwestern states, as well as commemoration on a national scale as represented in his discussion of the National Park Service and the national bicentennial celebration. Bodnar discussed local, regional, state, and national stories of commemoration and public memory.
Bodnar examined commemorative efforts throughout the country, and through a variety of events, actions, and celebrations: parades, holidays, monuments, re-enactments, world fairs, centennials, and so on. He discussed how the control over the commemorative events shift over time, from vernacular to official, official to vernacular, as well as how public memory shifts over time. Although, it was clear that Bodnar believed that the official story, of leaders and supporters of the nation-state, often overshadowed, or maintained dominance over the vernacular.
Overall, Bodnar looked at public memory and remembrance in multivocal or pluralistic societies. He did an excellent job at portraying attempts to shape the memory of the past to solidify and strengthen a view or belief of the present. In other words, attempts to shape the past often have intentions and interests that lie in the present. He backed his assertions with several great examples, and he followed these examples over time. I think he utilized not only a good portion of history in order to support his statements, but he also covered a nice portion of the country as well.
The book ends pondering what will become of our public memory now that the Cold War is at an end, and conservatism has minimized state power. How will public memory change? It would be interesting to see what John Bodnar has to say about public memory now…more than 15 years after this book’s publication. It would be nice to see an afterword. There have been some pretty significant memorials over the past few years: September 11th memorial plans and the WWII memorial to name just a couple.
John Bodnar focuses on the creation of public commemoration and memory in America through the nation’s construction and into the twentieth century.
Bodnar’s prologue on the Vietnam Memorial illustrates several of the major themes that carry throughout the book: the plurality of public memory and commemoration. It is meant to symbolize loyalty and patriotism, national and social unity, order and civic duty. But more importantly public memory is a result of attempts to settle what he terms “official” and “vernacular” intentions.
Remaking America highlighted several areas of commemorative conflict throughout the twentieth century, and across the country. He compared Cleveland and Indianapolis in one chapter, discussed the roles of ethnic communities in rural and urban cities when establishing public memory, addressed commemoration in the Midwestern states, as well as commemoration on a national scale as represented in his discussion of the National Park Service and the national bicentennial celebration. Bodnar discussed local, regional, state, and national stories of commemoration and public memory.
Bodnar examined commemorative efforts throughout the country, and through a variety of events, actions, and celebrations: parades, holidays, monuments, re-enactments, world fairs, centennials, and so on. He discussed how the control over the commemorative events shift over time, from vernacular to official, official to vernacular, as well as how public memory shifts over time. Although, it was clear that Bodnar believed that the official story, of leaders and supporters of the nation-state, often overshadowed, or maintained dominance over the vernacular.
Overall, Bodnar looked at public memory and remembrance in multivocal or pluralistic societies. He did an excellent job at portraying attempts to shape the memory of the past to solidify and strengthen a view or belief of the present. In other words, attempts to shape the past often have intentions and interests that lie in the present. He backed his assertions with several great examples, and he followed these examples over time. I think he utilized not only a good portion of history in order to support his statements, but he also covered a nice portion of the country as well.
The book ends pondering what will become of our public memory now that the Cold War is at an end, and conservatism has minimized state power. How will public memory change? It would be interesting to see what John Bodnar has to say about public memory now…more than 15 years after this book’s publication. It would be nice to see an afterword. There have been some pretty significant memorials over the past few years: September 11th memorial plans and the WWII memorial to name just a couple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
