Why Historical Films can’t/CAN be Good ****************************************************************************************** * Why Historical Films can’t/CAN be Good ****************************************************************************************** On May the 15th, a lecture was held in the Faculty of Arts by Professor Robert A. Rosensto California Institute of Technology, entitled “What Does the Historian Filmmaker Do (to His Inventing Truth on the Movie Screen”. I must admit, before this lecture began, I had my doubts. As a historian and keen Medieval thought to myself, was he really going to try and justify Braveheart? However, Rosenstone argument as to why films are not insufficient because of their supposed careless dealings fact. Using clips from the film Glory, about a unit of African-American soldiers raised du Civil War, Rosenstone argued that films can do more than just entertain us, they are appar legitimate way of doing history. One scene from Glory that he used is the opening, in which you hear words which you automa come from the letters of a real historical figure, Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, who led the Infantry. Except they’re not they’re what we are supposed to imagine he would write. The w generic construction of common motifs from the American Civil War that Americans are famil cob pipes, the blue uniforms, and so on). It’s a kind of “proximate reality” for a histori Essentially, film invents its own truths about the past. Rosenstone showed four other clip none of which actually depict any real historical events (or in the case of one, a real ev it actually happened). Rather, they contain images and metaphors relating to the overall s for example one generalises the experiences of the African-American soldiers in these unit portraying four different dramatic stereotypes: the intellectual, the country boy, the Bla and the wise elder (unsurprisingly played by Morgan Freeman). These metaphors and images, Rosenstone argues, are a crucial part in why “history films” ( call films that are trying to make a sense of history) are useful and beneficial; they all about the past, and they have a strong experiential quality, so that were almost living in according to the latest Neuroscience research, may actually help us learn the history). Hi actually teach a lot, as they can give metaphors which perfectly sum up the zeitgeist of a These generalisations and metaphors exist because the filmmaker needs to create a past tha the demands, practices, and traditions of both visual media and dramatic form; the latter important; the history film is history (as Rosenstone put it, jokingly riffing on a Hitchc “with the boring parts left out”. Otherwise, the film would be less capable of making peop history. The past is just the stuff that happens, and is put into a story to make it more history and film take the past and turn it into history in order to make it more understan of its arbitrariness, history writing and filmmaking are one and the same, though Rosensto that only in certain elements that history and film are the same. Also, as Rosenstone poin can never make a film entirely accurate, as there are certain details you will never know. emphasis on detail can ruin a film; as Rosenstone emphasises with the Adam Chronicles, a T the Adam family who spawned two presidents, and where the dialogue was taken from their pe A slippage of minor details does not matter.

Film is often better at displaying historical ambiguit showing things, other than telling them. The expectations we have about historical films a

We can’t really analyse and evaluate historical films the same way as we would a book, bec won’t work. Film is often better at displaying historical ambiguities by simply showing th than telling them. The expectations we have about historical films are unfair. We can’t ex unbiased, to do what books do, they are constructions (like history books). We should be m the history film, after all, the poor thing has only had a century to develop, whilst the been around for 2000+ years.   Of course, I have my reservations. These metaphors that Rosenstone speaks so highly about influenced in the times that the film was created in, and can give entirely wrong impressi generalisations. In Braveheart for example, the impression is given that there was a unite against those evil nasty pantomime villain-like English; when in fact it was actually more civil war, Highland versus Lowland, just like the Jacobite rebellions. Rosenstone seems to understand that historical films often reflect the prejudices and values of current societ effect, modern culture in a historical setting. For example, we see this in the way that r left out of medieval films or TV productions. In medieval society religion was all importa current society it isn't. Politics and political ideology can also warp and influence hist (Battleship Potemkin and Alexander Nevski anyone?).  Furthermore, many history films seemi be factual retellings of an event, or give people the impression that they are when in fac This, combined with the influence of contemporary politics and prejudices, can give people imagery that are just wrong, giving people incorrect generalisations and impressions of th depicted (a possible solution, and something that came up in the Q&A after the lecture, ma for a historiography for history films, just like you have with written history). Rosenstone’s argument however, is nonetheless original and insightful, and is deserving of Rosenstone, a good history film can provide a complicated vision of the past that demands challenge, a provocation, and a paradox. They can create a counter-discourse that can chan a piece of history. Rosenstone’s favourite history film is Alex Cox’s Walker, because it p as a black comedy and violates all the rules. For these reasons it was derided, but for th it was a brilliant history movie. Rosenstone said we should treat the history film better, isn’t actually any systematic criteria for assessing them; and when have history books eve or completely factually correct? William Francis Hannell is an Erasmus student from Britain (home university: Aberystwyth U Email is wfh(zavinac)hannellfamily.plus.com [ MAIL "wfh(zavinac)hannellfamily.plus.com"]