History and Film

For this week’s readings on the issues surrounding history and film, I found the main theme to be the obligation of the historian as the means to regulate historical accuracy. Really, the obligation of the historian in all aspects of public history has been at the heart of all the readings this semester. I agree with most scholars that suggest historians, whether public or academic, have a responsibility to record history as it was, while using imaginative means to engage people without distorting the truth or imposing interpretations that seek to meet a personal agenda.

This does not mean, however, that I agree with Rose and Corley’s theory that historians should transcend into the filmmaker’s role. Davis’ article illustrated this dilemma where she discussed her role as a historian on the set of Le Retour de Martin Guerre and the power struggles that ensued between her and the producers. It was interesting how her response to resolve inaccuracies was to write a book that explained the distortions and presented the accurate interpretations. This brings me to the point that Toplin makes that historians must take an active role in the discussion of movies. He argues that if historians do not remain in the discussion that it will be the “nonprofessionals who offer glib remarks on television talk shows.” (83)

Just as in other contested cases we have read this semester, it really boils down to the fact that the media will pick up the loudest voice on the topic. In most cases, this is not a person with the credentials to do so, but more so an individual with a personal agenda. I feel the readings, this week especially, argue that, that voice needs to be the historian who can dispel the inaccuracies. This is particularly relevant when dealing with such a high profile medium, such as film.

Film reaches a wide range of audiences and because of its popularity often used as an educational tool. This illustrates another issue brought up in Frisch and Rose Corley about public funds. Should NEH or public monies be used to fund major films and documentaries? Examples of Kens Burns productions and the Vietnam documentary demonstrate the tension between entertainment and obligation to accuracy.

My thoughts on this are that a film’s primary role is to entertain—not to educate, a filmmaker’s role is to create, not to educate and a historian’s role is to interpret, present and educate—not create. Since their seems to be ambiguity as to whether or not a filmmaker should be considered a historian, I would argue, no, because in most cases, they do not have the credentials or training to do so. Therefore, unless a historical film is going to submit to a process that ensures historical accuracies in all areas, then no, a film should not receive public money under the premise that the film is an instructional tool. This is not to say that historical films cannot be used as instructional tools, I actually think they can, but students need to be taught how to question them.

Overall, I thought the readings spoke very well to each other and they present compelling arguments for why this is such an important issue.