Tuesday, November 25, 2008

My True Reaction to Three Journal Articles on Film and History

I started this week's by reading Natalie Zemon Davis’s “Movie or Monograph? A Historian/Filmmaker’s Perspective.” Throughout her article, Davis encourages historians to grasp the medium of movies and media as a way to access the public about history. Because they have the ability to tell a story through cinematic performances, movies have the potential to narrate about certain people, events, and issues of the past. While movies do have this possible positive influence on the teaching and narrative of history, Davis qualifies that movies often leave out the specifics and instead focus on the historical context of a certain time. This especially bothered her when the costume director of The Return of Martin Guerre decided to dress judges of Parlement in red robes instead of black robes during a trial. Discrepancies like this, explains Davis, should encourage historians to question movies portraying historical events and to research and discuss the topic at hand.


Yes, that makes sense, I thought.


After reading Davis’s article, I moved onto Robert Brent Toplin’s “Cinematic History: Where Do We Go from Here?” Like Davis, Toplin sees the potential of “historical cinema” in accurately portraying history. Through entertaining Blockbusters, the more analytical “experimental movies,” and television specials, historical cinema has interpreted historical people, events, and issues. Toplin does go beyond Davis’s argument, saying that historians need to perform behind the scenes research of various film projects. He encourages historians to read and analyze correspondence, to interview artists on their vision of a certain costume, to discover the director’s vision. By performing this level of research on historical cinema, the meaning and intention of the film is better understood.


I nod in agreement in my cozy chair.


Once I reached Vivian Ellen Rose and Julie Corley’s “A Trademark Approach to the Past: Ken Burns, the Historical Profession, and Assessing Popular Presentations of the Past,” I admit that my blood pressure went up a little. As a Ken Burns junkie, it was hard for me to grasp and understand some of their negative commentary. Sure, I am guilty for crying here and there during The War, a usual response to a Burns documentary which Rose and Corley scoff at. And yes, I admit that I have all the DVDs and the box set of music to The War. So does this make me a horrible person for owning this documentary? Should I feel ashamed for liking this “formulaic” version of telling history?


My finger nails dig into my poor cozy chair. I somehow feel offended.


Yes, I agree that Burns should be more open-minded and apply more of the research the professional historians provide for the documentaries. Yes, historians and history students alike should discuss the discrepancies present in Burns’ documentaries. And yes, it is a little strange that a historian cited Burns in her journal article. Although I agree with Rose and Corley on these issues, I still felt their argument lacked in certain areas. What did those historians who were hired by Burns for the Not for Ourselves Alone documentary truly feel about their experience? Like Toplin discussed, do not directors have creative licenses in writing and creating historical films? Like any historian, is not Burns entitled to create his own argument with the information he is given?


My pulse is back to normal and I have a smile on my face. I just realized something – I am becoming an inquisitive historian.

3 comments:

Shelby said...

Bravo on a very funny blog entry!

As soon as I read the Corley and Rose article, I knew that one would be trouble you, oh Burns Lover but I believe you handled it well. Obviously you aren't the only one who loves him and I will give credit where credit is due, he is certainly creative and a good filmmaker. (I mean he has a whole effect named after him...who can say that??)

The word creative license came up in several of the articles and I think it's interesting to think about in context of a historical film. I suppose when they publish works, historians are technically taking historical license, choosing what to highlight and what not to highlight. Wouldn't moviemakers be allowed the same?With books though, it's much easier to see what they're hiding and how they're slanting their argument (through sources and whatnot) but it's much harder to know when someone is making bogus claims on a movie. All you have to go on is Morgan Freeman's voice and honestly, Morgan Freeman never lies.

AmandaR said...

I love the Ken Burns of this world because they do what academic historians struggle to do anymore: REACH THE PUBLIC. Sure, we as students of history sometimes have to grasp at the thought that others may not peruse the history book aisle of bookstores for fun. We may scoff at the idea of learning from a film without reading twelve books before it. Yet, the truth is the Ken Burns of this world bring about debate, they bring about dialogue and they bring about change in perceptions.I will admit, when it comes to Hollywood and History I often had the Corley and Rose perspective, but without Ken Burns how would we get students and adults outside of the field of history interested?

Especially in this technological world.

Will C said...

I agree with Amanda I too have the Corley and Rose perspective when I comes to historical films or films that deal with history. I consider them to be these two types as being different. Historical films in my opinion are films about history that are factual and meant to be educational. Films that deals with history are like Pear Harbor, Titanic, and 9/11 they are built are part of history but have nothing to do with any factual information. I do however believe that after reading the Ken Burns article he has it right. And the question that Amanda brought up about how else would we be able get students and adults outside of the field of history interested in historical films is very interesting. I believe that is exactly the question Burns is answering in his article. I found all articles extremely interesti ng. Hollywood has some great responsibility when it comes to presenting history in their movies the question I want answered is will Hollywood take the opportunity to present history to be informative or we they continue to make movies that draw people into a story that is not always completely truthful.