Film As A Representation Of History example essay topic

Much what how we represent the past in the present is based upon reconstruction of history through various primary and secondary sources. Indeed the various approaches and methodologies within the discipline of history are divided and diverse. Historiophoty which is the representation of history in visual images and film ic discourse is one of these highly debated approaches and historians today still remain divided over the use of use of film as a valuable representation of history versus written history. I will attempt to very briefly touch upon these arguments, and demonstrate why that despite the shortcomings of historiophoty, film as a historical source cannot be ignored in a society that is becoming increasingly media orientated and that there are aspects in the study of history through film which cannot be represented by written history. Throughout the course of this essay, I will mainly be drawing references to Braveheart and Gallipoli. These 2 films are specifically selected because they attempt to re-create actual documented historical events or periods - which provides interesting grounds for comparison between written and film history, thus revisiting the aforementioned debate.

Finally I will show why I believe Robert Rosenstone's evaluation that "the historical film must be seen not in terms of how it compares to written history but as a way of recounting the past with its own rules of representation" is indeed very apt and valid. The Big Debate A skeptical David Herlihy, in providing arguments against the use of film says that "film, a visual medium, can effectively present the visual aspects of history but not the whole of history". This is indeed undeniably true of the limitations of the film medium. Having to be dictated by a limited timeframe, linear storyline and scenes, film can never fully capture the entirety of history. But like what Rosenstone bluntly points out, "What is missing from written history?

There simply is no medium that can present 'the whole of history'; judged by that standard, all accounts of the past fail". When dealing with the interpretation of a historical source. There are certain aspects that should intuitively be considered. First of all, the subject should be adequately covered, presenting all aspects within the limits of material availability.

Secondly it should conform to the historian's practice of an objective and unbiased representation, seeking to understand rather than to condemn. Thirdly of course, the authenticity of the case must remain largely factually accurate. Any inference and hypothesis presented must be verifiable and substantiated. Judged according to these, the films Braveheart and Gallipoli are indeed found wanting at face value.

The obvious distortion of facts and national bias undermines the film's validity and value as a factual reconstruction of their historical periods. However, we must not forget and might even do good to add a fourth criterion by which to judge these films - how much the film has managed to engage and capture a view's interests so that 'real' history can proceed from where 'reel' history has failed. Tom O'Regan argues that "film-based representations of history - whether they be historical films, mini-series, or documentaries - are providing the vast majority of people with their only experience of history or historical discourse". Certainly in an increasingly multimedia and visual age, this is certainly proving to be true especially with regards to Braveheart.

In an era where world history is highly dictated and influenced by European and Western bias, Braveheart has helped awakened interests in Scottish history and identity. While already a patriot, a legend and declared as Scotland's greatest hero within Scottish history, it is appalling to note that prior to Braveheart, William Wallace was a name unmentioned and unheard of in historical books. Coincidentally, it was only upon the release of the movie, together with its publicized Oscar nominations that there was a surging interests and research into Scottish history. Critics often dogmatically hark upon the fact that films seek to entertain, titillate and often contain gross factual distortions and historical inaccuracies. They maintain that films are merely based upon a desire to conform to mass-appeal and are undoubtedly biased as such. Such critics of film-based history however, fail to acknowledge that all history is 'mediated' in some way.

If written history which is supposed to provide an unbiased representation, why is it that so much of the readily accessible written sources and textbooks seem to take on a Western or European stand? As demonstrated here, film-based history has not only gained access to far larger and more diverse audiences than they could ever do through textbooks. It has only invoked a passion to research history that is not even represented through such written textbooks. Abstracted from "The Historian and Film", Robert Toplin has this to say regarding the issues of debate: "Film-based history demonstrates a greater tendency to portray the past through appeals to the emotions and attention to personalities. Still, proponents of teaching and research with film understand that all historical interpretation (including writing) involves selectivity and creative imagination. They note, too, that some degree of invention is inherent in all docudrama and that the genre, despite its shortcomings, can provide a valuable stimulus to thought when it is done well.

What constitutes a job well done is just beginning to command interest in the field's second level of development". Adding Value to Historical Studies Philosopher Ian Jarvis, argues that interpreting history consists of "debates between historians about just what exactly did happen, why it happened, and what would be an adequate account of its significance". This 'adequate account' is often used to demerit the value of film-based history but fails to see that in actuality, adequateness is indeed very subjective. Traditionalist ic historians often assert (incorrectly) that any interest in film-based history is tantamount to showing disrespect for conventional historical methodology. They do not see that perhaps in fact, film can not only complement but may even add value towards understanding a reconstruction of the past. These historians argue that film is more successful in 'evoking' rather than 'representing' the past and this presents a problem for the historian who works methodologically by collection, organization and verification of verifiable data and facts.

By making use of emotional evocation, film would tend to present situations that exceed this methodology However, as underscored by Rosenstone the study of the visual medium is different from that of the written medium. A dissection of which is the better form would be missing the point and dismissing the merits of both. A more useful and value-adding way would be to not compare the two, but to recognize that a fresh and unique approach is necessary towards gaining new insights from films. As mentioned before by David Herlihy, film cannot capture a historical period in its full entirety. However, film does tend to capture the 'essence' or what Natalie Davis calls the 'spirit of a period'. Conventional definitions of historical authenticity argue that history in any form must remain factually true and substantially accurate.

Natalie Davis however comes up with a new definition of 'historical authenticity' applicable to film-based history. She argues, "Historical authenticity comes first and foremost from the film's credible connection with "the spirit of a period" - in its large forms and sometimes in its small details". In Braveheart, the spirit of the Scottish rebels during the period of English tyranny is easily accentuated and empathically felt. Champions of film-based history will not look to the details regarding Wallace's clothing, actual birthright or his impregnation of King Edward Longshanks' daughter. Rather, they marvel at the cinematography of the movie, revealing the grandeur and pride of Scotland's commoners.

The movie also aptly projects the admiration and respect that Scotland places upon her national legend. Just as war films like Saving Private Ryan presented little in terms of factual historical detail about World War II, it serves to correctly convey the experience of soldiers involved in a long drawn out war. The effectiveness of the visual medium is of such. John E. O'Connor, identifies four broad ways in which historians can work through films. He notes that they can "study film as a representation of history, use it for insights into the social and cultural values of the past, examine it as a form of historical evidence, and study the history of the film and television industries".

What he has not mentioned however is also the fact that film likewise provides insights into the social and cultural values of the present as well. Marshal Flaum recognizes that artistic license that often takes place with feature films and documentaries. He however argues that "even the distortions and lies we often find in that celluloid mirror reveal some inescapable truths not only about those who created the falsity, but about those who demanded it and avidly paid for it at the box office". The film Gallipoli immediately comes to mind with regards to this 'celluloid mirror'.

Gallipoli is as an Australian reconstruction of the famed Anzac legend. It is interesting to note that the source to which the film was based upon is credited to actual military documents and yet how historically accurate does it turn out to be? The film attempts to create a false impression that the Australians were the ones who bore the brunt of the campaign and fight when in actual fact. The British and French forces suffered even heavier casualties. A British officer is highlighted in the film, repeatedly giving the orders for the Anzac unit to charge up the trenches, effectively signing their death warrants. This is a glaring inaccuracy as in fact, it was an Australian officer who orders the attack which sends the Anzac unit to their matured deaths.

If painstaking analyzed and taken apart by traditional methodologies, the film would easily be dismissed as a misrepresentation of history. However, in light of Marshal Fluam's 'celluloid mirror's tand, we begin to see that film-based history is not only a source about the period for which they talk about, but also a source for the period in which they are made. During the course of history, the ever-changing society, its values, concerns and attitudes are reflected in film. When we analyze the period in which Gallipoli was produced, we realize that Australia was a young nation awaking to national consciousness. Through the film's many anti-British sentiments, we begin to understand that this sense of national identity was forged through a common anti-Western stance prevalent at that time.

Many Australian films produced at that time likewise carried similar undertones. Gallipoli not only shows a historian the horrors and futility of the failed Anzac campaign, it also demonstrates a period of Australian nationalism many years later, concerned with the process of Americanization. It is through such a medium of film study, that a historian can add to his understanding of the creation of an Anzac myth in the hearts of every Australian such that the infamous day is declared a national holiday. We cannot deny the merits in using analysis of motion pictures for gaining insights into the general society's attitudes, tensions, and aspirations at a particular time in history Final words Through studying film, we gain a broader understanding of the historical, political, social and cultural contexts within which the films are made and received. Particularly because of its appeal to a mass audience, film has an enormous power to construct and disseminate popular ideas about history. The strength of film lies in its ability to convey atmosphere and to involve the spectator - to 'evoke' history rather than to 'analyze' it and to come up with his own personal interpretation that can be drawn from so many various aspects of film study.

It is amazing when considering the speed at which this information is presented as compared to written history that we cannot simply dismiss this form of studying and opening an access to historical studies.

Bibliography

Davis, Natalie Ze mon. ' "Any resemblance to persons living or dead": film and the challenge of authenticity'. The Yale Review, 76 (1986-87).
Flaum Marshall. Foreword to 'Nuclear War Films', ed. Jack G. Shaheen (Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1979) Herlihy, David.
Am I a camera? Other reflections on films and history'. American Historical Review, 93 (1988) O'Regan, Tom.
Introduction '. In T. O'Regan & B. Shoe smith eds. History on / and /in Film. Perth: History & Film Association of Australia, 1987.
Rosenstone, Robert A. 'History in images / history in words: reflections on the possibility of really putting history onto film', American Historical Review, 93 (1988) Toplin, Robert "The Historian and Film: Challenges Ahead" Perspectives Online (April, 1996) [Web version] " web " White, Hayden.
Historiography and historiophoty'. American Historical Review, 93 (1988).