This week’s readings Glassberg’s Watching: The Civil War; Toplin’s Cinematic History: Where Do We Go from Here?; Davis’ Movie or Monograph? A Historian/Filmmaker’s Perspective; and Frisch’s Oral History, Documentary, and the Mystification of Power: A Critique of ‘Vietnam: A Television History’ provide a marvelous look at how history is packaged for public consumption and how the techniques used by the filmmakers affects the history being told.
Each of the articles brings a unique contribution to the discussion. The Toplin article does the best job of outlining the issues historians have with cinematic history, i.e. including blockbuster films, how current issues at the time of the filming affect the historical slant, and the extent of political/governmental issues covered by such films. The last line of the article especially intrigued me: “…cinematic artists … are becoming our most influential historians” (p. 91). As luck would have it, I read this article first and followed it with the Davis article, which continued the look at the relationship between filmmakers and historians. Davis’ short piece captures the frustration she had while trying to maintain historical ‘truth’ in the midst of creating a viable, sellable movie. The decision by the wardrobe head to keep the judicial robes red whether for aesthetic reasons or budget reasons was indicative of the whole process. In the end, Davis had no more control over the misleading version of trials in Old Regime France than she did over the color of the robes: expediency and cost made the choice, not historical accuracy.
Glassberg’s article continues his book’s line of discussion of memory trumping fact in the minds of the public. The letters described in the article show that the film was a success because it allowed the audience to continue to believe in the history that they were most comfortable with, e.g. family stories and the history they learned growing up. The few complaints discussed instances where the film departed from what the viewers already believed, e.g. southerners wanted more focus on the issues of state’s rights over slavery. Another issue Glassberg covers well is the use of real photographs and real settings and the effect these had to make the audience accept the film’s authenticity. Again, many of the responses focused on how seeing the film reminded them of visiting the battlefields as children or of photographs from their family albums.
In my opinion, the Frisch article is the most powerful of the four. His step-by-step description and deconstruction of the techniques used in creating the film series on Vietnam read like a detective story. Although he makes it clear he does not feel the producers of the series intentionally set out to create the slant that was ultimately created, he also shows how oral history was used to do just that. By having the ‘common’ people speak about concrete experiences and the ‘leaders’ speak about broader issues, the effect is to give more credence, more historical weight, to the leaders. I’m not sure this is something that can be ‘fixed’ simply by choosing other clips. It’s likely that this is just a normal thing, e.g. you and I when asked our opinion of Strozier will likely focus on our personal experiences of lost books, grumpy reference help, and never arriving ILLs, but President Baron would bring a much different mindset to the question.
The consideration of film, especially the Hollywood version, as a vehicle for exploring, developing, and disseminating history is simply fascinating.
No comments:
Post a Comment