Monday, November 24, 2008

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.

3 comments:

Shelby said...

That was an interesting comment tying the articles back to Rosenzweig and Thelen. It leads you to consider that if so many people know that movies generally aren't historically accurate then why even push for it?

That said, I agree with you about not being able to enjoy movies in which you know there is something historically off. I'm the same way with music. If I see someone playing music in an obviously fake way, it ruins it for me. For me, though, its sad that our knowledge has taken away our ability to enjoy a form of entertainment.

Nicole H. said...

I thought of Rosenzweig and Thelen too while reading these articles (actually I find that most of our reading can relate back to this book...freaky). I wonder if this lack of trust in historical films is why there is no big push to make films more historically accurate. Your comment about the movie Amazing Grace, reminds me of my mom and the movie A Knight's Tale. My poor mom had no idea that the movie had no historical basis whatsoever and did the ONE thing that completely RUINS a historical period movie, incorporating modern day music! She didn't even make it half way through the movie.
Remembering that reminds me of Rose and Corley's critique of Burns' documentary for using contemporary music. However, in this case it is worse because the viewers believe the music they are hearing was composed in that time period. A much griever sin then playing "We Will Rock You" during a jousting match in A Knight's Tale.

Brent said...

Films, due to their far reaching and all encompassing audiences, reveal the past to many people. It must have been maddening to not have any final say over the film despite having had such involvement since the beginning. Which is why I think the idea of a companion book is such a good idea. The parts of the movie that emphasized entertainment rather than accuracy can be discussed and the overall story can be fleshed out. I do feel that Burns’ films have a place but it is, as you said, as an entertainer not a historian. Because he does not attempt to reveal the story in all its complexity he is doing a disservice to this audience. One good thing is that the general public does not view most historic films as historically accurate, otherwise they would be sorely disappointed. It seems that anything you know too much about is hard to enjoy, no one ever presents the material to your satisfaction. I guess ignorance is bliss!