Robert Brent Topin and Jason Eudy The Historian encounters film.pdf

8/11/2019 Robert Brent Topin and Jason Eudy The Historian encounters film.pdf

1/7

The Historian Encounters Film: A Historiography

Author(s): Robert Brent Toplin and Jason EudySource: OAH Magazine of History, Vol. 16, No. 4, Film and History (Summer, 2002), pp. 7-12Published by: Organization of American HistoriansStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25163542.

Accessed: 01/12/2013 18:59

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Organization of American Historiansis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

OAH Magazine of History.

htt // j t
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oahhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25163542?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25163542?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oah


2/7

Robert

Brent

Toplin

and

Jason

Eudy

The

Historian

Encounters

Film:

A

Historiography

It

is

not

surprising

that

in

recent

decades

historians have

become

increasingly

interested

in

examining

the

presentation

of

history

through

film. Historians

recognize

the

power

ofthe

medium

and understand

that

students

and

the

public

get

many

of

their ideas

about

the

past

from

movie

and television

screens.

Popular

feature films like Braveheart

(1995),

Schindlers

List

(1993),

and

Titanic

(1997)

impressed

viewers

with

their

partisan interpre

tations

of

events,

personalities,

and

controversies.

Well-received

television

documentaries

such

as

Ken

Burns's

The

Civil

War,

helped

to

shape

the

public's

attitude

regarding

an

important

historical

subject.

Historians are also aware that

opportunities

to

view

history

on

the

screen

have

become

more

abundant

in

recent

decades

than

ever

before.

History

is

available

everyday

on

televi

sion

through

programming

on

The

History

Channel,

the Public

Broadcasting

System,

and

a

variety

of

other

information-based

channels.

History-based

movies

are

also abundant

on

television

through

movie

channels

like

Home Box

Office,

American

Movie

Classics,

and

the

Turner Classic Movies Channel.

A

modern

enthusiast of

history

can

easily spend

more

time

examining

screened

history

than

studying

interpretations

of the

past

pre

sented

in

lectures

or

books.

Historians

have

addressed

numerous

questions

about the chal

lenges

of

incorporating

a

study

ofthe

media

into

their

professional

work.

They

have asked:

How

does the

presentation

of

history

on

the

screen

differ from

its

presentation

in

print

?

o what

degree

can

film

instruct

audiences

and stimulate

the

public's

thinking

about

the

past?

Can

film deliver

new

and different

insights?

In

which

ways may

film

grossly simplify

or

misrepresent

the

past?

Does

the

popularity

of

film

represent

a

serious

challenge

to

traditional

modes of

interpreting

history

in

teaching

and

writing?

Which

analytical

skills do historians need

to

develop

in

order

to

work

more

effectively

with film?

John

E. O'Connor made

some

of the

most

impressive

early

efforts

to

promote

the

study

of film and television

in

the

history

classroom. Because

of these

pioneering

activities,

the American

Historical

Association

created the

John

E. O'Connor

Award,

its

first

prize

devoted

to

some

outstanding

achievement

in

filmmak

ing.

In

the

early

1970s,

John

E. O'Connor and his

associate,

Martin

A.

Jackson

created

the

journal,

Film &

History,

and

organized

the

Historians' Film

Committee,

which

attempted

to

promote

the

thoughtful

use

of

film

and

television

in

historical

research

and

teaching.

These

historians

hoped

their efforts would

demonstrate

that

investigation

of

the

mass

media constituted

serious

and

important scholarship. Eventually

the

independent

committee became an affiliated society of the American Histori

cal Association and

began

to

regularly

sponsor

sessions

on

film

and

television

at

each annual

meeting

of

the

AHA. O'Connor

also

wrote

and edited

many

important

publications

that dealt

with

the

use

of

film

for

the

study

of

history.

O'Connor obtained

a

substantial

grant

in

the

1980s

from

the

National Endowment

for the

Humanities

that

supported

his effort

to

bring

both

historians and

cinema

scholars

together

for

a

conference that

addressed the

challenges

that

film

created

for the

history

profession.

Several

presentations

at

that

conference later

appeared

in

O'Connor's edited

book,

The

Image

as

Artifact:

The

Historical

Analysis of

Film and Television

(1990).

O'Connor estab

lished

an

organizational

structure

for the

authors' discussions

in

a

lengthy

introduction

to

the collection

of

essays.

He

suggested

that

historians

could

examine

film

in

four fundamental

ways.

First,

they

could

study

the

moving image

as a

"Representation

of

History."

Movies and documentaries often

portrayed

and

inter

preted

the

past,

and

their

treatments

of

history

deserved critical

attention.

Secondly,

students

could

view

film

as

"Evidence for

Social and Cultural

History."

The

stories

presented

in

movies

and

documentaries

sometimes

revealed the "values" ofthe filmmakers

and

the

concerns

of

society

at

the

time

of

production,

O'Connor

noted.

He

warned, however,

that scholars often make

simplified

judgments

about

the

ways

in

which filmed

stories

reflected the

OAH Magazine

of

History Summer 2002

7

This content downloaded from 190.172.198.166 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:59:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


3/7

attitudes

of

an era.

Thirdly,

O'Connor

suggested

that students of

film could consider

"Actuality Footage

as

Evidence for

History."

He noted that sometimes material from film and television serves

as

the best evidence

available

for the

study

of

specific

historical

events.

Finally,

O'Connor

suggested

that students could

study

"The

History

of the

Moving

Image

as

Industry

and

Art Form."

In

these

investigations

historians could

profit

from research

in cin

ema

studies. Efforts

to

learn

from these

insights

would

require

considerable

effort,

O'Connor

pointed

out,

because historians

need

to

understand

the intellectual

and

theoretical

concepts

of

modern

film

scholarship

(1).

books

and articles

(5).

Film

can

work

effectively

for

explorations

into

history,

White

asserted.

Indeed,

it

could do

some

things

well

that writing does inadequately. David Herlihy offered a less

receptive

response

to

Rosenstone's

generally

positive

commen

tary

on

the

possibilities

of

viewing

history through

film.

Herlihy

said

film,

unlike

scholarship,

did

not

reveal the

source

of

its

evidence

and,

therefore,

often

it

did

not

allow the

quality

of

criticism

leveled

against

narratives.

Nevertheless,

Herlihy

main

tained

that

film

has the

potential

to

vividly

convey

a

sense

ofthe

past

and

help

to

keep

an

interest

in

history

alive?much

like

historical novels

(6).

John

E.

O'Connor

stressed

Film earned

greater respect

in

the halls of

academia

during

the

1980s

and

1990s when

some

of the

principal

journals

of record introduced

an

nually

scheduled

reviews

of films. David

Thelen

established

this

innovation

for The

Journal

of

Ameri

can

History

when he became

general

editor of

the

journal

in

the mid-1980s.

"Movie Reviews"

first

appeared

in

the

December,

1986

issue

of the

JAH

and

continued

in

subsequent

December

issues.

The

review

section's

editor,

Robert

Brent

Toplin,

announced

in

his introduction

that

reviewers

would

consider

the

way

films

made

original

contributions

to

understanding

and

addressed

issues

that

were

the

subject

of debate

by

historians

(2).

In

1989

The

American

Historical

Review

began

reviewing

films

as

well.

Robert

A.

Rosenstone,

the AHR's first

film

editor,

announced

that the

journal

would

"see

to

what

extent

film

can

be used

to

represent,

re

create, talk

about,

and situate us with

regard

to the

John E.

O'Connor,

former

editor

of

Film

&

History,

is

professor

of

history

at New

Jersey

Instituteof

Technology

and

Rutgers

University,

Newark.

the

importance

of

film

and television

for the

study

of cultural

history.

He

argued

that students

needed

instruction

in

critiquing

the visual

media.

History

professionals

also could

profit

from education

in

the

production techniques

of

film,

and

they

could

benefit

from

cross-disciplinary

cooperation

with

cinema

scholars

(7).

Robert

Brent

Toplin

sug

gested

that filmed

history

was

becoming

so

ubiqui

tous

that

it

was

appropriate

to

view

filmmakers

as

historians. The filmmakers'

interpretations

are

dif

ferent

from

the

work of

print-oriented

scholars,

he

noted,

but their

dramas and documentaries often

provide

quite

useful

inquiries

into

the

past

(8).

Not

surprisingly,

in

the later

part

of

the

twentieth

century

historians

gave

increasing

at

tention

to

Hollywood's

treatments

of

history.

Fea

ture

films

were

intriguing

subjects

for

study

because

they

attracted

huge

audiences

and often excited

considerable discussion of historical issues in the

vanished

world of

the

past."

He

emphasized

that films

presented

arguments

about the

meaning

of the

past

that

operated by

rules

that

were

different from those

found

in

written

history

(3).

Rosenstone

made

an

important

contribution

to

that rethink

ing

in

a

provocative

AHR

article

that introduced

a

special

forum

on

film.

In

"History

in

Images/History

in

Words,"

Rosenstone

reviewed

some

ofthe

historians'

positive

and

negative

reactions

to

film,

pointing

to

disagreements

about

whether

history

on

the

screen

could

address historical

questions

with the

sophistication

of formal

scholarship

and with the

attention

to sources

and

historiographical

debates

that characterized

much of the best

academic research.

Rosenstone

suggested

that

film could

stimu

late thinking about history in intriguing ways. An appreciation of

film's

significance

could

not

be advanced

by simplistic

compari

sons

with

interpretations

disseminated

in

books

and articles.

Film

communicated

in

a

unique

manner.

It

presented

a

distinct

chal

lenge

to

historians.

History

in

images

suggested

a

new

"analytic

structure" for

thinking

about the

past

(4).

Four

scholars

offered

responses

to

Rosenstone's

analysis. Hayden

White

argued

that

historical

interpretation

involves

the

arrang

ing

and

shaping

of

stories,

not

the

objective

representations

of

truth.

All historical

explanations

involve

considerable

exercise

of

creative

license,

even

traditional modes

of

interpretation through

national

media. Controversial

movies?such

as

Oliver

Stone's

Platoon

(1986)

and

JFK

(1991)?or

emotionally powerful

mov

ies?like

Steven

Spielberg's

Schindler's

List and

Saving

Private

Ryan

(1998)?received

considerable

attention

in

the

press

and

on

television

programs.

A

blockbuster,

such

as

James

Cameron's

Titanic,

could

promote

the sale of

numerous

books about

an event

depicted

in

the

movies.

History-oriented

films

represent

only

a

small

portion

of

Hollywood's

releases,

but

they

receive

a

great

deal of critical

reception.

From

1986 until

2001,

one or more

ofthe

five

motion

pictures

nominated for

Best Picture

featured

a

story

set

in

the

past.

In eleven of these fifteen

years

a

history-oriented

movie

won

the

Oscar for Best Picture. The eleven history films varied greatly in

the

seriousness of

their

treatments.

In

some

cases

the dramas

related

only loosely

to

conditions

in

the

past,

while

in

other

cases

the films

portrayed specific

people

and historical

situations

in

considerable detail.

History-based

films

that

won

the

top

prize

included

Platoon,

The Last

Emperor

(1987),

Driving

Miss

Daisy

(1989),

Dances WithWolves

(1990),

Unforgiven

(1992),

Schindler's

List,

Braveheart,

The

English

Patient

(1996),

Titanic,

Shakespeare

in

Love

(1998),

and

Gladiator

(2000).

The

year

that

Shakespeare

in

Love

won

the award

was an

especially

notable

one

for

cinematic

history.

All five

nominees

for

Best Picture of

1998 dealt with

8

OAH

Magazine

of

History Summer 2002



4/7

historical

subjects

(the

other

nominees

were

Saving

Private

Ryan,

The Thin

Red

Line,

Life

is

Beautiful,

and

Elizabeth).

Some observers have registered sharp complaints

about

artis

tic

abuses

prevalent

in

Hollywood

films.

Articles

by

Richard

Bernstein

of The

New

York

Times

and Richard

N.

Current,

a

Civil

War

historian,

provide

a

suggestive

sampling

of

some

of the

criticisms leveled

by

journalists

and academicians.

In

an

essay

entitled,

"Can

Movies

Teach

History?",

Bernstein noted that

many

of

Hollywood's

historical

treatments

were

quite

disappoint

ing.

Moviemakers often

got

minor

details

right

in

their

depiction

of

costumes

and

settings,

but

their

stories

about the

past

were

greatly

distorted

(9).

Bernstein focused

on

errors

committed

in

the

making

of

Fat Man and Little

Boy,

a

1989

movie

about

American

efforts

at

Los

Alamos

to

produce

the

first

atomic

bomb. The

movie's

falsehoods

diminished

its

value

as

history,

Bernstein

concluded.

Richard Current

leveled his

complaints

in

"Fiction

as

History:

A Review

Essay", published

in

the

Journal

of

Southern

History.

Current

observed

that historical

dramas

"take

liberties

with the

facts,

or

at

best,

select

those

that have the

greatest

visual effect." Real

ity

and

fantasy

"blend

more

and

more

into

an

inseparable

mix"

in

television and

Hollywood

productions,

he

complained

(10).

Most

scholars, however,

have been less scold

ing

in

their

perspective.

While

they

recognize

that

commercial

films often

simplify

informa

tion,

manipulate

evidence,

and distort the his

torical

record,

they

maintain

that

many

Hollywood

movies

are

worthy

of

professional

study. These scholars find motion pictures in

triguing

not

only

for their

representations

of

history

but also

for

other

insights

that

yielded

from these

investigations.

Edited

works have demonstrated

a

variety

of

ways

that

scholars work with

Hollywood

movies.

John

E.

O'Connor

and

Martin

A.

Jackson

edited

an

important

anthology

in

this

regard

in

1979.

American

History

I

merican Film

showed that

a

study

of

popular

cinema

can

throw

light

on

impor

tant

issues

related

to

American

history.

O'Connor's

and

Jackson's

anthology

featured

essays

on

fourteen commercial films.

Some of

the

chapters

focused

on

period

or

historical

movies,

such

as

The

Big

Parade

(1925)

and

Viva

Zapata

(195

2).

Other

chapters

exam

ined

entertainment

films that

seemed

important

because

their

stories

reflected

concerns

of the American

people

at

the

time

of

their

production.

These

movies

include

Invasion

of

the

Body

Snatchers

(1956),

Dr.

Strangelove

(1964),

and

Rocky

(1976).

American

History/American

Film

is

a

rather

old volume

in

the fast

growing

field

of

historical

scholarship

on

film,

yet

it continues to

hold

up

well

as a

sophisticated

presentation

of the

ways

that

historians

can

examine

Hollywood

as a source

of

insights

on

the

American

past

(11).

Pastlmperfect:

History

According

to

the

Movies

(1996)

is

another

useful

anthology

on

the

subject

of

Hollywood

and

history.

Editor

Mark Carnes

brought together

sixty

outstanding

historians

and

writers

for

a

wide-ranging

discussion

that covered

more

than

one

hundred

popular

motion

pictures.

In his

introduction,

Carnes

points

out

that

many

of the authors first

became

attracted

to

history

when

they

viewed

movies

as

youngsters.

He

suggests

that

movies

"often teach

important

truths

about the human

condi

tion"

(12).

While

the

history depicted

in

motion

pictures

is

certainly

not

accurate

in

every

detail,

it

can

stimulate useful

dialogues

about

the

past.

The authors that

Carnes

assembled

in

this

work

evidently responded

to

his call

for

an

open-minded

view

of

popular

film.

Several contributors

provided generally

favorable

reviews

ofthe

films

they

examined.

Interestingly, though,

some

of

the harshest

criticism

leveled

in

the

book

applied

to

motion

pictures

about

the

experiences

of African

Americans

and

Native

Americans.

The

commentators

objected

to

the

movies'

insensi

tive

portrayals

of

minorities.

Robert

Brent

Toplin

has also

offered

some

generally

appreciative

assessments

of

Hollywood's

treatment

of

history.

Toplin

recognizes

many

of the

complaints

about

artistic

license

in

History B31

Hollywood:

The

Use

and

Abuse

of

the

American Past

(1996),

but he also

observes

that,

"filmmakers

often

approach

histori

cal

subjects

with

genuine curiosity

about

the

past"

(13).

As well

as

focusing

on

the filmmakers'

interpretations

of

history

as

depicted

in

the

final

product, Toplin

investigates

the

production

histo

ries

and considers

how

producers,

writers,

and

directors

struggled

and

often

disagreed

as

they

attempted

to

shape

stories

for the

movies.

He also

places films in the context of their times, observing

that

contemporary

sociopolitical

conditions

some

times

made

a

significant

impact

on

the filmmakers'

storytelling. Toplin's

edited

work,

Oliver

Stone's

USA

(2000),

features

assessments

ofthe

controver

sial

Hollywood

director's

movies

by

scholars

and

journalists

and

includes

Stone's

two

lengthy

responses

to

his

critics

(14).

In

Reel

History:

In

Defense ofHoRywood,

scheduled

for release

in

October

2002,

Toplin provides

a

rationale

for the moviemakers'

exercises

in

artistic

license.

Cinematic

history

is

a

genre,

he

argues,

and

filmmakers have

developed

a

number of successful

strategies

over

the

years

that

help

to

make their

history-oriented

movies

popular.

Critics

who

fail

to

take

account

of these

techniques

can

easily

get

bogged

down

in

complaints

about

petty

details

and

fictional

flour

ishes

while

failing

to

recognize

the

movies'

broader contributions

to

the

public's

thinking

about the

past

(15).

Of

course,

many

film scholars

give

less

attention

to

the

filmmakers'

interpretations

of

history

and

express

greater

interest

in

the

ways

in

which historical

and/or

period productions

serve

as

commentaries

on

contemporary

issues.

Artists,

they

say,

often

use

history

to

suggest

judgments

about modern

economic,

social,

and

political

problems.

Pierre Sorlin offered

a

particularly

strong

statement

of

this

perspective

in

1980. He

said

filmed

history

is

"a

mere

framework,

serving

as a

basis

or a

counterpoint

for

a

political

Robert

A.

Rosenstone,

author

of

several books

on

film,

is

film editor

for

the

American

Historical Review.

OAH

Magazine

of

History Summer 2002

9



5/7

thesis.

History

is

no more

than

a

useful

device

to

speak

of

the

present

time." A

student

of

scholarship

on

historical

film will

find

this poignant

statement

quoted

in

many

books and articles.

Sorlin's observation

is

provocative

but

too

simplistic.

Obviously,

filmmakers often

summon

history

to

fashion

stories

with

meaning

for the

present,

but

their

motivation

for

making

movies

is

hardly

as

one-dimensional

as

Sorlin

suggests.

Teachers

and scholars

treat

movies

superficially

if

they briskly

dismiss

almost all of the

filmmakers'

perspectives

on

history primarily

as

metaphors

that

address

current

issues.

Leger

Grindon

cites

Sorlin

and

applies

his

perspective

engag

ingly

in

Shadows

on

the Past: Studies

in

theHistorical

Fiction

Film

(1994).

Historical

movies

are

products

of the

times

as

well

as

attempts

to

represent

the

past,

observes

Grindon.

In

his

study

of

Jean

Renoir's 1938

movie,

La

Marseillaise,

for

example,

Grindon

sees

the

movie

as more

than

just

an

investigation

of the French

Revolution.

The film's

story

also

serves

to

present

a

passionate

argument

in

behalf

of the

Popular

Front

in

1930s France. Simi

larly,

Warren

Beatty's

Reds

(1981)

represents

more

than

just

a

drama

about

an

idealistic American

who became

involved

in

Russia's

Bolshevik

revolution. Grindon

believes

the movie's char

acterizations

speak

to

divisions and

problems

faced

by

representa

tives

ofthe American Left

in

the

1970s

(16).

In

some

respects,

Siegfried

Kracauer deserves

credit for stimulat

ing

historians'

thoughts

about

opportunities

to

read

subtle

mean

ings

from the

stories

depicted

in

film. Kracauer

published

a

provocative

book

shortly

after the

end of World

War II

that

represented

a

psychological

interpretation

of German

film.

In

From

Caligari

to

Hitler

(1947)

Kracauer

argued

that

films created

during

theWeimar Republic contained significant elements that pointed

toward

the totalitarian

regime

that

materialized

in

Germany

during

the

following

decade.

A

study

of

movies,

then,

could reveal the

psychological

makeup

of

a

society.

Kracauer arrived

at

his conclu

sion

by

examining

motion

pictures

such

as

The Cabinet

of

Dr.

CoIigan(1919),I>.Mahi5e:TheGaTrAkr(1922),Waxu;orks(1924),

and The

Last

Laugh

(1924).

Many

of these

films,

said

Kracauer,

presented

viewers with

a

psychological

choice between chaos and

tyranny.

Of

course,

Kracauer had

the

advantage

of

hindsight.

He

could

select

movies

that fit

into

his

image

of

a

Germany

destined for

dictatorial

rule

(17).

Not

surprisingly,

a

number of

film

scholars

have

challenged

his conclusions. Anton

Kaes',

in

From Hitler

to

Heimat: The

Return

of

History

as

Film

(1989),

offers

a more

sophis

ticated

analysis

of German

cinema

that

examines

the

ways

in

which

Germans

struggled

with their

identity

in

the

post-war

years

through

depictions

of the

Nazi

past

(18).

Some

scholars have

attempted

to

move

away

from

familiar

discussions

about

the

movies

treatment

of

history by

approaching

film from

a

post-modern

perspective.

These

investigators

appreci

ate

movies

that

examine

that

past

in

innovative,

provocative,

and

unorthodox

ways.

They

enjoy

films that break

away

from

Hollywood's

linear

approach

(the

familiar

structure in

which

stories

have

a

recognizable beginning,

middle,

and

end).

Enthusi

asts

of

a

post-modern

perspective appreciate

motion

pictures

that

raise

more

questions

than

they

answer.

They

like

motion

pic

tures

that

leave

matters

unre

solved

in

the

end

(Hollywood,

they

argue,

works

too

frequently

toward

closure,

especially

by

com

posing

stories

with

happy

end

ings).

Post-modernists also

praise

films that shock

viewers

with

images

that

juxtapose

references

to

both the

past

and

the

present.

Sumiko

Higashi

and Robert

A. Rosenstone demonstrate this

kind of

appreciation

in

connec

tion

with

two

films: Walker

(1987)

and

JFK

(1992).

Walker

deals with the adventures

ofWil

liamWalker

in

Nicaragua

in

the

1850s,

the adventurer

who

suc

ceeded

briefly

in

taking

control

of the small Central

American

country

(later

Walker

was

executed

by

Honduran

authorities).

The

movie

includes

some

modern references

in

its

imagery?

including

a

Mercedes-Benz,

a

Zippo

lighter,

a

computer,

a

heli

copter,

and

copies

of

Time,

Newsweek,

and

People

magazines.

In

these and other

scenes

Walker references both

the

Vietnam War

and

the

Sandinista-Contra

conflict

in

Nicaragua

and

suggests

critical

questions

about the

impact

of

U.S. economic

and

military

interventions

in

Latin

America

and the world

(19).

Both Higashi and Rosenstone praise Oliver Stone's JFK, too,

for

its

lively

experimentation.

Rosenstone

acknowledges

that the

motion

picture fudged

some

details about the

Kennedy

assassina

tion,

but he

argues

that

it

effectively questioned

official "truths."

He

points

out

that

the

film confronted audiences with

a

provoca

tive

and

important

question:

"Has

something

gone wrong

with

America

since

the

sixties?" Whatever the

movie's

flaws,

says

Rosenstone, "JFK

has

to

be

among

the

most

important

works of

American

history

ever

to

appear

on

the

screen"

(20).

When

writing

more

broadly

about

the historian's

relationship

to

film,

Rosenstone

suggests

that

teachers and scholars need

to

see

beyond

small

errors

and

distortions

and observe the

big

picture. They

should

recognize,

he

writes,

"that

film will

always

include

images

that

are at

once

invented

and

true: true

in

that

they symbolize,

condense,

or

summarize

larger

amounts

of

data;

true

in

that

they

impart

an

overall

meaning

of the

past

that

can

be

verified,

documented,

or

reasonably argued"

(21).

Both

Higashi

and

Rosenstone

appreciate

Walker,

JFK,

and

other

avante-garde

movies

that eschew

traditional

storytelling

techniques.

They

applaud

filmmakers'

panache

in

mixing

genres,

presenting

odd

juxtapositions,

incorporating

sarcasm

and

humor,

creating

temporal

jumps,

and

generally

promoting postmodern

perspectives

(22).

Movies that

explore

new

modes of

communica

tion

confront

audiences with

a

"multiplicity

of

viewpoints,"

says

Warren

Beatty's

Reds

demonstrates

the

problems

faced

by

theAmerican Left

in

the

1970s.

10

OAH Magazine

of

History Summer

2002



6/7

Rosenstone.

These films

challenge

audiences

to

think

differently,

to

"revision"

the

past

(23).

There

are

numerous

other issues related

to

Hollywood's role in

American life that have

intrigued

historians,

and these themes

can

only

be

addressed

briefly

in

this

introductory

commentary.

Students

of

film

who wish

to

consider the

importance

of the

Hollywood

movie

industry

in

American

culture

over

the twentieth

century

will

find Robert

Sklar's Movie-Made

America

(second edition, 1994)

a

useful

point

of

departure.

Sklar's

popular

study

traces

the

growth

of

the

movie

industry

from

its

early

days

of

appeal

to

immigrants

and

working-class

Americans

to

its

modern

developments, including

the

rise

of

independent-minded

directors who

challenged

the

formulaic

practices

ofthe

big

studios

(24).

Neil Gabler's

An

Empire

of

Their

Own:

How the

Jews

Invented

Hollywood

(1989)

provides

a

provocative

and

ultimately

controver

sial

picture

of the

Jewish

immigrants

who

eventually

dominated

much

of

the

Hollywood

studio

system

(25).

In

Hollywood's

America:

Social

and

Politi

cal

Themes

in

Motion Pictures

(1996)

Stephen

Powers,

David

J.

Rothman

and

Stanley

Rothman

argue, provoca

tively,

that

many

ofthe modern

execu

tives

who dominate

Hollywood

are

more

liberal than

many

of their

critics

imagine

(26).

Historians have

long

been fasci

nated with the

issue

of

censorship.

The

subject

is

appealing,

in

part,

be

cause it connects social issues to

poli

tics.

Historians

and their

colleagues

in

cinema

studies

have

published

numerous

books

and

articles

about

the

campaigns

to

regulate

content in

movies,

particularly

sexual

material.

Garth S.

Jowett's

Film:

The

Democratic Art

presents

a

useful

overview

of

the

subject. Gregory

Black's

Hollywood

Cen

sored:

Morality

Codes,

Catholics,

and the

Movies

(1996)

offers

an

informative

review

of

principal developments

that led

to

Hollywood's

plan

for

self-regulation:

the

Production

Code

(27).

Also,

Kathryn

H.

Fuller,

Ian

C.

Jarvie

and Garth

S.

Jowett

have

compiled

an

instructive

investigation

of

a

particular

controversy

related

to

regulatory

issues

in

Children and theMovies:

Media

Influence

and

the

Payne

Studies

Controversy

(1996)

(28).

Government's

role

in

influencing

the

stories

Hollywood

presented

to

the

public

receives

intelligent

treatment

in

Clayton

R.

Koppes

and

Gregory

D.

Black,

Hollywood

Goes

to

War:

How

Politics and

Propaganda

Shaped

World War

11

Movies

(1990).

Franklin D.

Roosevelt's

administration worked

closely

with

Hollywood

executives

and

artists

in

an

effort

to ensure

that

commercial movies

contributed

to

the

American

war

effort

(29).

Todd Bennett

provides

a

detailed examination

of the

Washington-Hollywood

connection

as

it

related

to one

movie

in

"Culture, Power,

and Mission

to

Moscow:

Film

and

Soviet

American

Relations

During

World War

II."

He

shows

that

American audiences

generally

dismissed

Mission

to

Moscow

as

unmitigated propaganda,

but

Joseph

Stalin and other

Soviet

leaders embraced the movie

as a

flattering vision of their society.

This

positive

reaction

helped

to

bring

a

reintroduction of

Hol

lywood

films

into

the

Soviet Union.

That

development exposed

Russian

audiences

to

pictures

of American

prosperity.

In

the

long

run,

Hollywood

movies

undermined Soviet

arguments

about the

success

of

their

communist

system

(30).

Historians have

devoted less

scholarship

to

documentary

films

(including

the

many

that

appear

on

television),

and there

is

certainly

a

need

for

greater

professional

assessment

of

the

genre.

Erik

Barnouw

offers

a

good

starting

point

for

examining

major

developments

in

documentary

filmmaking

in

a

classic

study, Documentary:

A

History of

theNon-Fiction

Film

(1993)

(31).

John

O'Connor

has

edited

a

useful

anthology

that features stud

ies

of

important

documentary

films:

American

History

I

merican

Televi

sion:

Interpreting

the

Video

Past

(1983)

(32).

A

detailed

examination of

an

influential

documentary

program

can

be found

in

Robert

Brent

Toplin,

editor,

Ken Burns's

The

Civil

War:

Historians

Respond

(1996).

The book

features both

praise

and criticism of

the

popular

television

series

from

a

group

of

prominent

Civil War schol

ars.

At

the

end

of

the volume film

maker

Ken

Burns

and

the

TV series'

writer, Geoffrey Ward, respond to

the

scholar's

comments

(33).

These

are

just

a

few ofthe

many

books and

articles

that

have drawn

attention

to

the

rel

evance

of

film

in

the

study

of

history.

The

outpouring

of this

scholarship

in

recent

years

has

certainly

been

impressive.

After

years

of

relative

neglect

in

the historical

profession,

a

burst

of interest

and

research

occurred late

in

the twentieth

century.

Today,

teachers

and

scholars

no

longer

stand

aloof

from the

moving

image,

as

many

of

their

predecessors

did

in

previous

decades. Historians of

the

twenty-first

century

recognize

that film

and

television

can

project

enormously

influential

visions

ofthe

past.

Accordingly,

they

understand

the

value of

incorporating

a

study

of

the

moving image

in

their classroom

instruction.

Endnotes

1.

John

E.

O'Connor, ed.,

Image

as

Artifact:

The

Historical

Analysis

of

Film and

Television

(Malabar,

FL: R.E.

Krieger Publishing

Company,

1990).

2

Robert

Brent

Toplin, History B;y

Hollywood:

The

Use

and Abuse

of

the American

Past

(Champagne-Urbana:

University

of

Illinois

Press,

1996).

3

Robert

A.

Rosenstone,

"Film

Reviews:

Introduction,"

American

Teachers and

scholars

treat

movies

superficially

if

they

briskly

dismiss almost all of

the

filmmakers'

perspectives

on

history

primarily

as

metaphors

that address

current

issues.

OAH

Magazine

of

History

Summer

2002

11



7/7

Historical

Review

94,

no.4

(October, 1989):

1031-1033.

4

Robert

A.

Rosenstone,

"History

in

Images/History

in

Words:

Reflections

of

the

Possibility

of

Really Putting History

Into

Film,"

American

Historical

Review

93,

no.5

(December,

1988),

1173-1185.

5

Hayden

White,

"Historiography

and

Historiophoty,"

American

Historical

Review

93,

no.

5

(December,

1988),

1193-1199.

6

David

Herlihy,

"Am I

a

Camera? Other

Reflections

on

Film

and

History,"

American

Historical

Review

93,

no.

5

(December,

1988),

1186-1192.

7

John

E.

O'Connor,

"History

in

Images/Images

in

History:

Re

flections

on

the

Importance

of

Film and Television

Study

for

an

Understanding

ofthe

Past,"

American

Historical

Review

93,

no.

5

(December,

1988),

1200-1209.

8

Robert

Brent

Toplin,

"The Filmmaker

as

Historian,"

American

Historical Review

93,

no.

5

(December, 1988),

1210-1227.

9 Richard Bernstein, "Can Movies Teach

History?"

New York

Times,

26

November, 1989,

sec.

2,

1.

10 Richard

N.

Current,

"Fiction

as

History:

A Review

Essay,"

Journal

of

Southern

History

52,

no.

1

(February,

1986),

77-90.

11

John

E.

O'Connor

and

Martin

A.

Jackson,

eds.

American

History/

American Film:

Interpreting

the

Hollywood

Image

(New

York:

Ungar

Publishing

Co., 1979).

12

Mark

C.

Carnes,

ed.,

Past

Imperfect:

History

According

to

the

Movies

(New

York:

Henry

Holt and

Co, 1995).

13

Toplin,History By

Hollywood.

14

Robert

Brent

Toplin,

ed.,

Oliver

Stone's USA:

Film,

History,

and

Controversy

(Lawrence,

KS:

University

Press

of

Kan

sas,

2000).

15 Robert Brent Toplin, Reel History: In Defense of Hollywood

(Lawrence,

KS:

University

Press of

Kansas,

2002.

(Scheduled

fore

lease

in

October, 2002)

16

Leger

Grindon,

Shadows

on

thePast:

Studies

in

theHistorical

Film

(Philadelphia: Temple

University

Press, 1994).

17

Siegfried

Kracauer,

From

Caliban

to

Hitler:

A

Psychological

History ofthe

German Film

(Princeton:

Princeton

University

Press, 1947).

18 Anton

Kaes,

From Hitler

to

Heimat:

The

Return

of History

(Cambridge,

MA:

Harvard

University

Press,

1989).

19

Sumiko

Higashi,

"Walker

and

Mississippi Burning:

Postomodernism Versus

Illusionist

Narrative,"

in

Alan

Rosenthal, ed.,

Why

Docudrama?

Fact-Fiction

on

Film

and

Television

(Carbondale,

IL:

Southern Illinois

University

Press,

1999),

351-352.

20 Robert A.

Rosenstone,

"JFK:

Historical

Fact/Historical

Film,"

in

Rosenthal,

ed.,

Why

Docudrama?,

339.

21

Robert

A.

Rosenstone,

Visions

ofthe

Past:

The

Challenge

of

Film

to

Our Idea

of

History

(Cambridge,

MA:

Harvard

University

Press, 1995),

71.

22

Robert

A.

Rosenstone,

"The

Future

ofthe

Past: Film and the

Beginnings

of Postmodern

History,"

in

Vivian

Sobchack,

ed.,

The

Persistence

of

History:

Cinema,

Television,

and theModern

Event

(New

York

and London:

Routledge,

1996),

205.

23

Ibid.,

206.

24

Robert

Sklar,

Movie-Made America:

A

Cultural

History

of

American

Movies,

second ed.

(New

York:

Vintage

Books, 1994).

25

Neil

Gabler,

An

Empire of

Their

Own: How

the

Jews

Invented

Hollywood

(New

York:

Crown,

1988).

26

Stephen

Powers,

David

J.

Rothman,

and

Stanley

Rothman,

Hollywood's

America:

Social and Political

Themes

in

Motion

Pictures

(Boulder,

Col.:

Westview

Press, 1996).

27

Garth

S.

Jowett,

Film:

The Democratic

Art

(Boston: Little,

Brown

and

Co., 1976).

28

Kathryn

H.

Fuller,

Ian

C.

Jarvie,

and

Garth

S.

Jowett,

Children

and the

Movies:

Media

Influence

and

the

Payne

Studies Contro

versy

(Cambridge,UK: Cambridge

University

Press, 1996).

29

Clayton

R.

Koppes

and

Gregory

D.

Black,

Hollywood

Goes

to

War: How

Politics,

Profits

and

Propaganda

Shaped

World

War 11

Movies (New York: The Free Press, 1987).

30

Todd

Bennett,

"Culture, Power,

and

Mission

to

Moscow:

Film

and Soviet-American

Relations

During

World

War

II,"

The

Journal

of

American

History,

vol.

88,

no.

2

(September,

2001),

489-518.

31

Erik

Barnouw,

Documentary:

A

History

ofthe

Non-Fiction

Film

(New

York: Oxford

University

Press,

1993)

32

John

E.

O'Connor, ed.,

American

History,

American Television:

Interpreting

theVideo

Past

(New

York:

Ungar

Publising

Co.,

1983).

33

Robert

Brent

Toplin,

ed.

Ken

Burns's The

Civil

War:

Historians

Respond

(New

York:

Oxford

University

Press, 1996).

Robert Brent Toplin isa professor of history at theUniversity ofNorth

Carolina

at

Wilmington

where he teaches

film

and United

States

history.

Jason

Eudy

is

a

graduate

student

at

the

University

of

North

Carolina

at

Wilmington.

He

is

concentrating

on

the

study

of

film.

IBSIflRVI^RHiHMIHHIHHHHk

12

OAH

Magazine

of

History Summer 2002


Documents

Robert Brent Topin and Jason Eudy The Historian encounters film.pdf