Now that the AP exam is behind us, and with only days--perhaps merely hours--before final exams for some and graduation for others, I've invited a guest blogger to offer thoughts and perspectives about historical films. We've discussed point of view and social location quite a bit over the last nine months, and I'd like to continue this line of analysis in a new context.
Read the post below, and complete the questions at the end by leaving your answers in the comments section. We look forward to "watching" how this discussion takes shape.
-----------------------------------------------
History and Hollywood – Strange Bedfellows?
By: Nathan Barber
Downfall. Glory. Schindler’s List. Gladiator. Gandhi. Joyeux Noel. Hotel Rwanda. Henry V. Forrest Gump. What do these movies have in common? All are among my favorite historical films. Forrest Gump is an historical film? Yes, Forrest Gump! If all these films are historical films then what is an historical film, anyway? Why are so many people fascinated by historical films and why do so many writers, directors and producers continue to create historical films? What separates a good historical film from a mediocre or bad one? And, finally, what good are historical films? None of these questions have clear-cut, indisputable answers but let’s take a look at each through the lens of one educator and historical film buff.
What is an historical film? Is it a sweeping war epic that graphically portrays the horrors of war? Is it a period piece filled with beautiful costumes and scenic settings? Is it slow-moving, stream-of-consciousness film created to portray the zeitgeist of a people or a nation at a critical juncture in its history? Is it a story about a single person who waltzes, without a care in the world, through the years making cameo appearances in pivotal historical moments and movements? For me, an historical film can be any or all of these. For me, an historical film can be an epic, a biopic or even a work of fiction set against an historical backdrop.
Why are so many people fascinated by historical films and why do so many writers, directors and producers continue to create historical films? Perhaps the answer to the second question is answered for us in the first. A cynical look at why Hollywood continues to produce historical films suggests simply that moviegoers continue to buy millions of tickets for historical movies. A more hopeful answer might be that writers still have much to say, many stories to tell and much to show us about the people that lived in other times and places. If so, then what about the first question? Generally, people who love history love the stories of history. Even those who don’t love history in an academic sense generally enjoy good stories and interesting characters. This is exactly what Hollywood does for moviegoers: Hollywood tells us stories with interesting characters. Essentially, history is an unending string of stories filled with interesting characters, isn’t it?
What separates a good historical film from a mediocre or bad one? There are as many answers to this question as there are moviegoers, history buffs and film buffs. Does the answer depend on accuracy and realism? If so, then what does “accurate” or “realistic” look like? Does the answer depend on an objective or subjective look at the film’s topic? Does the answer take into consideration the dialogue or cinematography? I’m tempted to say that a great historical film is one that accurately portrays people and events, vividly depicts costumes, architecture and settings, and gives an accurate (whatever that is) snapshot of some time and place I can otherwise only read about. If that’s the case, though, I should, with tears in my eyes, toss my Braveheart DVD immediately.
What good are historical films? Despite the runaround above, I believe historical films hold great value for moviegoers and especially for students and teachers. As long moviegoers remember the caveat that what is depicted on screen is seldom the way the events actually occurred, they are free to glean as much or as little from historical films as they care to. The same applies to students and educators. However, for those in education, historical films can mean countless opportunities to question, analyze and critique elements of the films including the accuracy of details and timelines, the depiction of characters’ personalities and motives, the authenticity of costumes, language and architecture, or the point of view or agenda of the writer, director or producer; in short, for those in education, historical films provide learning opportunities. Historical films can provide visualization of war, poverty, intrigue and even geography with which most 21st century students have no firsthand experience. Furthermore, an historical movie can provide a powerful glimpse into the experiences of others that simply cannot be conveyed with the printed word. This graphic clip from Amistad is a perfect example.
At the end of the day, an historical film can have little value other than entertainment value (i.e. Pearl Harbor) or it can bring into focus for millions of viewers historical images that are both shocking and poignant (i.e. Schindler’s List or Saving Private Ryan). I propose to you that every historical film has some value for a student of history: The average viewer says, “That was a good movie,” while a student of history says, “That’s interesting. I wonder…” and then checks the “facts” for himself.
Choose one of the questions from the beginning of the entry and respond to that question. Additionally, provide a brief list of your favorite historical films. Finally, feel free to comment on anything in this blog entry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
Good historical films are those that bring in millions of dollars from ticket sales by portraying the stories of the past without changing the course of events. If a director can entertain the audience without rewriting history, then the average moviegoer and history student are satisfied. For example, The Lion in Winter gives insight to the way Medieval kings, queens, and princes plotted and schemed with and against one another and how marriages were arranged with political motives. It is, of course, not to be seen as completely accurate, but the major historical events that took place between Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine are true to form. Katharine Hepburn even won an Oscar for her role as Eleanor. Furthermore, in my opinion, some of the best historical movies are the ones that were written during the time period they happened. An example of this is The Queen. This film depicts the death and after math of Princess Diana; however, all the characters in this film are still alive, so is it a true historical film? Although the events may be true, is it too early to make a film about the struggles of the royal family when most of the members are still dealing with the outcome of the events that took place a couple of years ago? Moreover, Jane Austen wrote Pride and Prejudice in the early nineteenth century. Her novel was a commentary on the social life of that time. Her book is a good historical piece because she was able to witness all of the drama of nineteenth century societal England herself. In the past couple of years her novels have been made into movies, particularly Pride and Prejudice, but it has been two centuries since these events took place so her novel provides detailed insight into the lives of the men and women in the early 1800s.
To me, a historical film has to be framed around some part of history. A historical film is a work that presents history in a different context or light, allowing its viewers to question and research the topic in order to find new viewpoints and information. The information in a historical film is presented differently than in a textbook; therefore, the film possesses the capability of being more entertaining so that people would be interested in seeing it and learning more about history. Although the information might not be completely accurate, the basis and center of the film should be true to its original context in order for the film to be considered a historical film. The movie Luther is a historical film. This film depicts Martin Luther, the priest who led the Protestant Reformation, in his battle against the Roman Catholic Church and its hypocrisy. I also consider the movie The Queen a historical film because it recounts the traumatic time for the royal family and all of England after Princess Diana died. The movie Elizabeth: The Golden Age is also a historical film. The film centers on the rumored romance between Elizabeth I of England and Walter Raleigh. However, anyone who watches a historical film should be hesitant in believing all of the information portrayed in the film. –Meagan Smith
If a movie doesn't take place in the future or present, and contains references to aspects of society or events from a previous time period, shouldn't that film be considered historical? If Forrest Gump and other comedies can be classified as historical, then why not any other movie? And when it comes to my favorite movie, by now yall should understand that I maintain a rather objective point of view. Thus, my favorite historical film is The Motorcycle Diaries, since nothing beats a breathtaking bike ride through the Andes..
Almost any film made can be considered a historical film, depending on the manner in which you look at. For example, Gone with the Wind can be considered a social commentary/depiction of the US South during the Civil War. One of my favorite historical film would have to be Memoirs of a Geisha. It dives pretty deeply and relatively accurately into the Japanese culture pre World War II. Another movie that I throroughly enjoy is Spartacus. Haha, while it might not be entirely true to Roman history, it assuredly provides its fair dose of entertainment.
A good historical film, as opposed to a a mediocre or bad one, is one that incorporates the drama and art of a good movie with the historical facts in a way that emphasizes the gravity and importance of the historical event while remaining accurate. I agree that a good historical film is one that "accurately portrays people and events, vividly depicts costumes, architecture and settings, and gives and accurate snapshot of some time and place" but I think that a film also needs to be appealing to the audience and must therefore consider performance and art equal with historical fact.
I believe that a good historical film, as opposed to a medicore or bad one, tastefully and accurately describes an occurence in history while essentially remaining true to established objective fact. Artistic license and creative storytelling are useful in drawing people into the theatres and help expose a wide audience to historical knowledge that they previously might not have been exposed to. The best historical film is Schindler's List.
Historical films are often based on fallacies of historical reasoning. Popular discussions of history often fall back on certain habits of thought that professional historians consider highly problematic. In film history as in history generally, these include the "great man" theory that gives more credit to individuals than to other causes (structural ones, for example, such as economics, technology, and society). To make a more compelling story, a great man like Edison or Griffith or Cassavetes is placed at the center of it. But "great man" history often slights many important issues. Historical films makes the error of assuming that events may have a single cause. Another historical fallacy often found in journalistic film writing is the emphasis on firsts. It seems to make some kind of intuitive sense to try to identify the first instances of important things, but ultimately it is of limited value to the historian because firstness is not an explanatory notion. It doesn't often tell anything about a category to know which instance of it came first.
There are many different ways to assess the significance or quality of a film. That simple fact is missing from the hours of discussion we have had in class.
Commercially, a historical film like The Patriot is a good movie. Artistically, a historical film like The New World is a good film. From an awards standpoint, Gladiator is a good film. As far as documenting historical realism, Schindler's List is a good film. The discussion is insignificant without such a reference point, a meaningless exercise in historical subjectivity. Anyways, you're free to have you own opinion about the matter and discuss it until you can speak no more, but to me, the discussion is fundamentally distasteful. Yet, one fact still remains: Xeris, Carter, Daniel, Laura, etc. have not posted...why am i in the library? It's as illogical as the discussion itself.
Honestly, I really have no idea where to start on this post. I am up in the library and I think I have pink eye. I can barely read the computer screen. All that I am seeing is John in the library with a revolver and I am cracking up. Okay, anyway, I don't really watch historical films. I wish I could get really into them, but they just don't do it for me. Honestly, if the writers wanted to pull one over on me and totally alter fact for entertainment, I probably wouldn't notice. I realize that I am probably not alone in not being able to pick out a blunder in historical films. Therefore, I agree with Parker that a historical film should be fairly accurate with some altering of fact for artistic means. With the film remaining true to the past, audiences could benefit from a history lesson tucked within their movie. I'm off. Thanks!
Post a Comment