History and Hollywood (Or, The Longest Blog Yet)

History and Hollywood; that is the theme to this week’s readings in public history. The article by Robert Brent Toplin, “Cinematic History: Where Do We Go From Here?” addresses the study of cinematic history, how the study of film has advanced, and how it can (and in some cases already has) evolve into a more thorough research process to discover more about the time period the film was created in then how the film accurately or inaccurately presents the historical people/events/places. What I enjoyed most about Toplin’s article is his notion of second and third level research that moves beyond the study of a film’s historical accuracy to the study of the public reception of the film and the production experience of key figures who worked on the film, and even further, to the study of the history of the production itself. Toplin explores how historians can learn more about cultural, social, political, and economic issues of American history by using these “second and third levels” of research of films. Toplin raises some great points about what can be learned from this more thorough study of film, but I can’t quite make the same leap that he does at the end of his article when he states that “the work of cinematic artists…are becoming our most influential historians” (91). I agree that a lot can be learned from this new study of cinema, but can film makers really be labeled as historians because we are learning more about a time period by studying the production history and public reception of a film? This blogger doesn’t think so.

Continuing on this study of the role of film in public history, Vivien Ellen Rose and Julie Corley’s article, “A Trademark Approach to the Past: Ken Burns, the Historical Profession, and Assessing Popular Presentations of the Past,” looks at historical documentaries more so than big Hollywood movies. Most of Rose and Corley’s article focuses on Ken Burns’ documentary of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony entitled Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. The authors argue that Burns’ documentary creates a simple, one-sided story of these two women and their fight for women’s suffrage by frequently omitting historical facts that do not conform to his narrative, completely disregarding current research of the two women and the women’s rights movement, and using music, photos, and quotes out of context with the narrative. What was really interesting about this article is the authors’ critique of the industry Burns has successfully marketed based on the success of his historical documentaries. Burns has developed in collaboration with others a whole line of educational materials based on his work and has earned numerous awards for his documentaries, including Not for Ourselves Alone which has been labeled “boringly formulaic” and “bland:…lacking controversy.” The authors expose though that these awards are handed down by media groups who have little regard for the actual historical accuracy of the film and so they pose to resolve this by having historians included in the judging of these films and/or having historical associations nominate films that accurately portray the past. The authors also advocate teaching students how to study historical films and documentaries to asses their use of sources, whether the narrative matches the visual being presented, and that historiographical debates are included. I agree with this last solution. Too often, historical documentaries are taken at face value and assumed to be the whole and complete truth on a subject because of their very nature, but Rose and Corley’s article shows that the creator’s of these types of film also flex their artistic muscle just as much as a Hollywood film maker does and should be evaluated with the same scrutiny as any written source.

Finally, Natalie Zemon Davis writes in her article, “Movie or Monograph: A Historian/Flimmaker’s Perspective” about her experience working as a historical consultant with film makers on Le Retour de Martin Guerre. Davis’ experience is a first hand example of the artistic license film makers use to adapt a story to film. Davis not only points out the little flaws in the film portrayal of a historical time period, but also the more glaring flaws that diminishes important features of that time period, misleading the public of the society in that time and place in history. Davis countered the historical idiosyncrasies of the film by publishing a sort of companion book that pointed to the historical evidence that the film was based on and also leaving open room for discussion, which she advocates both professional writing and film should do for its audience.