THE NEW HISTORICISM APPROACH:

Pearl Harbor and The Great Raid

By:

Ms. Sincerelyn Bongcawel Ganob

CHAPTER I

Background and Rationale

War is the darkest occurrence in a country, especially on

human’s life. It is the most destructive conflict between nations

or political communities (en.wkipedia.com). War occurs with no

single particular cause (Wright, 1965). As Rummel (1979) would

put it, war is a particular type of intense violence and what

generally causes, aggravates, and inhibits violence so affects

war.

If there is a study on war, the Second World War is the best

one to begin with since it is considered to be the most

destructive war among other wars. It is a global war, which is

commonly called World War II. It happened from 1939 to 1945. It

is said to have left a lot of damages to human life and

significant properties. The Second World War was officially

started by the Nazi. They invaded the west side of Poland. The

war was finished in 1945 when the United States of America

launched the nuclear missile to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan.

Eventually, Japan surrendered to America, so the war was

officially over in 1945. As a result, most of the countries which

were conquered by Japan were liberated at the end of the Second

World War.

World War II was the most widespread war in history, with

more than 100 million people involved, from more than 30

different countries, serving in military units. In a state of

total war, the major participants threw their entire economic,

industrial, and scientific capabilities behind the war effort,

erasing the distinction between civilian and military resources.

The massive deaths of civilians, including the Holocaust and the

use of nuclear weapons in warfare which resulted in an estimated

50 million to 85 million fatalities made World War II the

deadliest conflict in human history.

There are many historical records through which people can

learn from the past yet most people choose movies as the medium

through which they can do so, for people are visual learners, and

so visual presentations should appeal to the senses. Movies are

good visual presentations that are not only stimulating to

people’s taste, but also to their hearts. Unlike books that takes

so much imagination to enjoy its content, movies can show the

real moving pictures of circumstances. The imagination involved

in reading can be limited to one’s sense of reality yet movies

show even beyond (Kydiam, 2012). Furthermore, a film allows its

audience to boil down history into something more easily

digestible and ethically black and white (McGrath, N. D.).

Movies both reflect and show history for filmmakers make

films based on reality (Eiseman and Lurvey, 1996) (Asimow, 2000).

However, many films that say “based on a true story” are

subjected to the harshest critics and are deemed to be

historically inaccurate for it is said that movies are not

reliable historical documents, yet some movies if compared to

other movies, show history more accurately (McGrath, N. D.)

(Kirkland, 2013). Rosenstone began his paper The Historical Film as Real

History (N. D.) by telling that the critics of historical films are

the professional historians because they say that filmmakers

distort the past by trivializing, and romanticizing important

people, events, and movements. However, Rosenstone argued that

people can learn from the past through films for they create a

historical world with which written word cannot compete. Films

are further disturbing symbols of an increasingly post literate

world. Since films show that academics do not own the past and

they still show history, the researcher pursue the study on the

New Historicism analysis on the two selected movies namely, Pearl

Harbor (2001) and The Great Raid (2005). Furthermore, the author

desires to unlock the reasons of Japanese’ aggressive attack to

the United States of America.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to present the New Historicism analysis of

the movies, Pearl Harbor (2001) and The Great Raid (2005).

Specifically, this study attempts to answer the following

questions:

1. What is the historical background described in the two

selected movies?

2. What specific themes are enumerated in the movies?

3. How are these themes shown in the movie?

4. How relevant is the history portrayed in the selected

movies to real history?

Theoretical Framework

New Historicism is a literary theory based on the idea that

literature should be studied and interpreted within the context

of both the history of the author and the history of the critic

(cliffnotes.com). It concerns with the political function of

literature and with the concept of power, the intricate means by

which cultures produce and reproduce themselves. New Historicists

focus on revealing the historically specific model of truth and

authority reflected in a given work (Delahoyde, N. D.). Moreover,

a New Historicist looks at literature in a wider historical

context, examining both how the writer's times affected the work

and how the work reflects the writer's times, in turn recognizing

that current cultural contexts color that critic's conclusions.

The new historicism developed during the 1980s, largely in

reaction to the text-only approach pursued by formalist New

Critics and the critics who challenged the New Criticism in the

1970s. New historicists, like formalists and their critics,

acknowledge the importance of the literary text, but they also

analyze the text with an eye to history. In this respect, the new

historicism is not "new"; the majority of critics between 1920

and 1950 focused on a work’s historical content and based their

interpretations on the interplay between the text and historical

contexts (such as the author’s life or intentions in writing the

work).

In other respects, however, the new historicism differs from

the historical criticism of the 1930s and 1940s. It is informed

by the poststructuralist and reader-response theory of the 1970s,

as well as by the thinking of feminist, cultural, and Marxist

critics whose work was also "new" in the 1980s. They are less

fact- and event-oriented than historical critics used to be,

maybe because they have come to wonder whether the truth about

what really happened can ever be purely or objectively known.

They are less likely to see history as linear and progressive, as

something developing toward the present, and they are also less

likely to think of it in terms of specific eras, each with a

definite, persistent, and consistent zeitgeist (spirit of the

times). Hence they are unlikely to suggest that a literary text

has a single or easily identifiable historical context.

New historicist critics also tend to define the discipline

of history more broadly than did their predecessors. They view

history as a social science like anthropology and sociology. They

have erased the line dividing historical and literary materials.

Many new historicists have acknowledged a profound indebtedness

to the writings of Michel Foucault. A French philosophical

historian, Foucault brought together incidents and phenomena from

areas normally seen as unconnected, encouraging new historicists

and new cultural historicists to redefine the boundaries of

historical inquiry. No historical event, according to Foucault,

has a single cause; rather, each event is tied into a vast web of

economic, social, and political factors. Like Karl Marx, Foucault

saw history in terms of power, but unlike Marx, he viewed power

not simply as a repressive force or a tool of conspiracy but

rather as a complex of forces that produces what happens. Not

even a tyrannical aristocrat simply wields power, for the

aristocrat is himself empowered by discourses and practices that

constitute power. However, not all new historicist critics owe

their greatest debt to Foucault. Some, like Stephen Greenblatt,

have been most nearly influenced by the British cultural critic

Raymond Williams, and others, like Brook Thomas, have been more

influenced by German Marxist critic, Walter Benjamin.

Applying new historicism on the study of the World War II,

particularly on the movies Pearl Harbor (2001) and The Great Raid

(2005), is a pursuit that transcends the limitation of text-only

approach. The researcher can compare the real situation of Second

World War to the situations presented in the selected movies so

that the comparison will help readers to understand more of the

Japanese, American, and Filipino culture and circumstances during

the war period. In the same manner that the New Historicist

acknowledges that his examination of literature is "tainted" by

his own culture and environment, the researcher recognizes that

his examination of the data for this study is also greatly

affected by his own environment and culture as a Filipino

national.

Conceptual Paradigm

Figure 1

The Two Selected Movies:

Pearl Harbor (2001)

The Great Raid (2005)

New Historicism Literary Theory

Study on the following Elements:

1. Plot2. Setting3. Character

As illustrated in Figure 1, this research is represented by

a flow chart. The chart explains how the study is done. On the

uppermost box contains the two selected movies which are noted in

no particular order, Pearl Harbor and The Great Raid of which all

are based on real historical events.

The second box involves the theory that will be used to

examine study and bring about the outcome of the study. New

Historicism will be used to interpret and analyze the flaws and

controversial points being shown in the selected movies. The

elements will be studied closely to illustrate the final idea,

which is note in the last box, the idea of Japanese, American,

Understanding on thehistory of world war IIand cultures of the three

countries (Japan, America, and

Philippines)

and Filipino cultures, their struggles, and how they behaved

during the World War II.

Significance of the Study

History on films are closer to past forms of history as

oral history, history told by the griots in Africa or history

contained in classic epics. However poetic or expressive it may

be, history on film enters into a world where scientific and

documentary history have long been pursued and are still

undertaken, where accuracy of event and detail has its own

lengthy tradition. This tradition raises history on film to a new

level where all changes and inventions are still relevant to the

truth. The history on World War II in the two selected films show

a totally tragic event in the world that leaves an unforgettable

wound for mankind. The images reenacted in the films replaced

“the eyes looking back the past” to the people today, and offered

shock and sometimes impression on the past event during the

Second World War.

Through this paper, people can see and understand the

cultures prevailing on the films selected on different

perspectives through the new historicism critical device. This

paper emphasizes that reinterpretation of Second World War,

especially the content of this paper involves the battle in Pearl

Harbor, and the Great Raid in Cabanatuan of the Philippines. This

paper will be a precious document which involves various

perspectives on Second World War.

If New Historicism is to be treated as the studies on

anthropology and sociology, then students from various cultures

can explore on the differing cultures of Japanese, American, and

Filipinos through this study. Furthermore, it is significant to

the students, as it teach them history and will give a clearer

view of the past through the study. It may serve as guide for

their own further study of a topic related to this study.

Educators and teachers may utilize the study, as reference,

or a reading material whenever applicable in their lectures.

Teachers of literary criticism may use this study if relevant to

other literary studies especially on studies that utilizes New

Historicism as a critical device. The study will also serve as a

guide for future researches on this literary genre.

Scope and Limitations

This paper is focused on two films about the conflict

between Japanese and Americans during the World War II such as

Pearl Harbor (2001) and The Great Raid (2005) but not limited to the

two mentioned countries where the abovementioned nationals

resided. It will focus on the involvement of Japan and America

during World War.

New Historicism literary theory will be applied to analyze

the elements that are significant from the films. In the same

way, the scene provided in the movies will be carefully studied

to show history itself. New Historicism aims simultaneously to

understand the work through its historical context and to

understand cultural and intellectual history through literature,

which is found in the films. New Historicism is utilized to

critic as it is the most neutral approach. The study also will

consider the social problems, traditions, culture and religion

depicted in the films.

The researcher also used Elements of Tragedy by Aristotle

but the researcher focused on the two elements which are plot and

character, yet excluding the rest of the elements since this

study is neither poetry nor drama. Moreover, the researcher will

use the elements such as setting, and symbolisms.

The author has chosen this particular topic as it satisfies

the curiosity on how the Americans got involved in World War II.

It has been a question why the United States of America did not

intervene in the Holocaust of the Jewish people which was the

tragic event that commenced the World War II. The history behind

the occurrence of World War II is a never-ending interesting

topic. The author wants to have a deeper awareness and knowledge

of the history during World War II, and how Japanese attacked to

begin with and how Philippines got involved.

Definition of Terms

Cabanatuan. The City of Cabanatuan is a city in the province of

Nueva Ecija, Philippines. It is the place where the American

prisoners of war were confined by the Japanese.

Death march. A death march is a forced march of American

prisoners of war and other captives of the Japanese soldiers or

deportees with the intent to kill, brutalize, weaken and/or

demoralize as many of the captives as possible along the way.

Docudrama. A docudrama is a genre of feature film, and staged

theatre, which features dramatized re-enactments of actual

events. 

Documentary. A movie or film that provides a factual record or

report.

Guerillas. Filipino members of a small independent group taking

part in irregular fighting, against larger regular forces of the

Japanese soldiers.

History. The events of the past.

Infamy. An evil or criminal act that is publicly known. President

Roosevelt gave an infamy speech after the deliberate attack of

the Japanese at Pearl. Infamy is a state of extreme dishonor; "a

date which will live in infamy"- F.D.Roosevelt; "the name was a

by-word of scorn and opprobrium throughout the city"

Jingoistic. The state in which the feelings and beliefs on the

thought that one’s country is always right and is always in favor

of aggressive acts against other countries.

Kempeitai. The Kempeitai was the military police arm of the

Imperial Japanese Army from 1881 to 1945. It was not a typical

military police, but a secret police or the Imperial Japanese

military's secret police. Kempeitais are the ones who took over

the watch of the Cabanatuan Japanese camp, after hearing of the

reinforcement of Americans.

Lingayen Gulf. The Lingayen Gulf is an extension of the South

China Sea on Luzon in the Philippines, stretching 56 km. It is

framed by the provinces of Pangasinan and La Union and sits

between the Zambales Mountains and the Cordillera Central. The

Agno River drains into Lingayen Gulf. This is where the American

Rangers set their camp, getting ready to raid the Cabanatuan

camp.

Malaria. An intermittent and remittent fever caused by a

protozoan parasite that invades the red blood cells. The parasite

is transmitted by mosquitoes in many tropical and subtropical

regions. The main cause of the POWs death.

Mores. The essential or characteristic customs and conventions of

a community or society in which a historical film gives

commentaries.

Navy. The warships or fleet in Pearl Harbor that got destroyed

due to Japanese attack.

Pearl Harbor. It is a lagoon harbor on the island of Oahu,

Hawaii, west of Honolulu. Much of the harbor and surrounding

lands is a United States Navy deep-water naval bases. It is at

the same time the title of the 2001 film which is one of the

subjects in this study.

Perspective. The relationship of cultural and historical aspects

of the selected movies to each other and to the whole study.

POW. POW stands for Prisoners of War. They are the American

soldiers who were the prisoners of the Japanese soldiers in

Cabanatuan, Philippines.

Raid. A sudden attack of the American Rangers to a Japanese camp

in Cabanatuan, Philippines in order to rescue the American

prisoners of war.

Ranger. A member of a group of U.S. soldiers specially trained

for making raids on foot to rescue the POWs in Cabanatuan.

Tora, Tora, Tora. Tora literally means tiger. It is a title of

the film directed by Richard Fleischer which actually pertains to

the code-words that were used by the Japanese to indicate that

complete surprise was achieved.

USS Arizona. The battleship of the United States of America

situated in Pearl Harbor which got sank due to the surprise

attack of the Japanese at Pearl.

WWII. World War II, it lasted from 1939 to 1945.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter includes the theory that is being utilized in

the paper. It also cites related literatures that support the

paper’s objectives. Other sources of information are also given,

in particular, studies that have been conducted that are related

to this study.

On the Literary Theory

The term New Historicism suggests that it is a new view to

literature, rooted in historicism (slideshare.net). Historicism

is a concept that aids in the understanding a piece of literature

by knowing the author’s biography, the author’s social

background, and the popular ideologies at the time the literature

is created or written. Therefore, New Historicism is a concept

that encourages a reader of a certain literature to use the

consideration of the ideologies and assumptions of the

literature’s era to find meaning within it.

(michaelmosca.wikispaces.com). Stephen Greenblatt (1980) sums up

what’s New Historicism all about in one sentence by saying, “the

historicity of the text and the textuality of history.”

Greenblatt is simply saying that the text itself represents the

historical era from which it came from, thus making the text as

almost a part of history itself. Furthermore, the framework of

the historical era influences the text being produced and the

cultural aspects it produces.

Concisely, New Historicism is all about integrating

literature and history (Sior, N. D.). It is a theory in literary

criticism that suggests literature must be studied and

interpreted within the context of both the history of the author

and the history of the critic. Unlike previous historical

criticism, which limited itself to simply demonstrating how a

work reflected its time, New Historicism evaluates how the work

is influenced by the time in which the author wrote it. It also

examines the social sphere in which the author moved, the

psychological background of the writer, and the books and

theories that may have influenced him or her. It can be said that

New Historicism often looks for ways in which writers express

ideas or possible opinions within their writing (wisegeek.org.).

When a piece of literature come out portraying or presenting

past events, there are tons of examples of New Historicism hidden

within it. New Historicism shows up in movies because history in

movies are becoming quite the hit nowadays

(michaelmosca.wikispaces.com). History in films shows the real

drama of the real circumstances in the past. However, many still

question whether a particular historical film is historically

accurate, even if every critical viewer knows that a film is not

created in a vacuum. There is a distinction between a film that

has historical subject matter, but was made after the event it

describes, and a film made during the period it describes. Santas

(2002) discussed in his book, Responding to Film: A Text Guide for Students

of Cinema Art that responding to films as part of history does not

require viewers to know the entire history of film nor to consult

history texts before viewing a film. Responding to a film is a

natural act, an experience which should be similar to the

experience of any other work of art.

Movies and New Historicism are connected to one another,

especially for movies that reflect on real past events. The

selected movies have war as theme which is the Pearl Harbor

attack, the destruction of American battleships and soldiers,

great raid and all of which occurred in history of World War II.

With this at hand, the literary criticism New Historicism is very

much applicable to this study.

Related Literature

The sources about World War II and the destruction of such

war in Pearl are endless; however, there is not many particular

literatures related to the film, The Great Raid (2005) that’s why

the researcher chose three among the countless literatures

related to Pearl Harbor (2001) and one literature relevant to The

Great Raid (2005). Most sources are of the same literary genre for

there are many films that are related to the two selected movies

in this study. However, there are a few books online yet the full

text cannot be retrieved. Only through the book reviews that the

researcher got a glimpse on the relevance of those literatures to

the chosen literatures of this study. These books are the

following: At Dawn We Slept (1991) by Gordon W. Prange and Day of

Infamy (2001) by Walter Lord.

The description of the book, At Dawn We Slept hereby states:

“At 7:53 a.m., December 7, 1941, America's national

consciousness and confidence were rocked as the first wave

of Japanese warplanes took aim at the U.S. Naval fleet

stationed at Pearl Harbor. As intense and absorbing as a

suspense novel, At Dawn We Slept is the unparalleled and

exhaustive account of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor.

It is widely regarded as the definitive assessment of the

events surrounding one of the most daring and brilliant

naval operations of all time. Through extensive research and

interviews with American and Japanese leaders, Gordon W.

Prange has written a remarkable historical account of the

assault that-sixty years later-America cannot forget,”

(goodreads.com).

A book review on At Dawn We Slept by Matt on April 10, 2010

reveals the length of years George Prange spent in order to write

a historically accurate book. Prange researched for 37 years by

interviewing just about every important surviving participant,

including Admiral Husband Kimmel, the Commander in Chief of the

Pacific Fleet, and Minoru Genda, the Japanese airman who planned

the attacks. Prange eventually wrote a manuscript that was 3,500

pages long. However, tragically, Prange died, and it was left to

his two assistants (who became co-authors) to forge a book out of

Prange's prodigious work. With that background, one can clearly

say that no doubt that the book is accurate in its historical

claims on the events that occurred during the Japanese attack at

Pearl Harbor.

Critics appreciated Prange not only for his strenuous

efforts in writing the 3 500 pages manuscript for the book At

Dawn We Slept, but also for his acknowledgement that men created

history, not otherwise. What is more captivating is the title of

the book itself for it implies that America was caught napping,

thus the ultimate lesson Prange is evidently saying is that

“unexpected can happen and often does.”

Not only did Prange’s book historically accurate due to his

efforts in making it so, but also for his background as a

historian makes the book even more accurate. The following is the

author’s background:

“Gordon W. Prange was born in Pomeroy, Iowa on July 16,

1910. He studied at the University of Iowa, receiving his

Ph.D. in 1937. That same year, he began his teaching career

as a professor of history at the University of Maryland. In

1942, he was granted a leave of absence from the University

to embark on a wartime career as an officer in the United

States Navy. He was sent to Japan in 1945 as a member of the

American Occupation Forces. He completed his Navy service

soon thereafter, but continued in Japan as a civilian from

1946 to 1951 as chief of General Douglas MacArthur's 100-

person historical staff. When censorship of the Japanese

media by Allied Forces was lifted in 1949 and the Civil

Censorship Detachment disestablished, Professor Prange,

recognizing the historical significance of the CCD material,

arranged for its shipment to the University of Maryland. The

materials arrived at the University in 1950. On September

15, 1978, the Board of Regents of the University of Maryland

passed a motion to name the collection the 'Gordon W. Prange

Collection: The Allied Presence in Japan, 1945-1952.'

Professor Prange continued to teach at the University of

Maryland until several months before his death on May 15,

1980,” (goodreads.com).

Furthermore on the same website mentioned above, it is

stated that Dr. Prange’s manuscript about the attack on Pearl

Harbor is the basis for the film Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970) which

caused Prange to take a leave of absence from the University of

Maryland to serve as technical consultant during the filming.

Such information adheres to the argument of Rosenstone (1995)

that though many professional historians criticized films as

historically inaccurate, there are still hundreds of historians

that have become involved, at least peripherally, in the process

of making films: some as advisers or consultant on film projects,

dramatic and documentary as Dr. Prange; others as talking heads

in historical documentaries.

Another piece of literature that is deemed to be relevant to

the chosen literatures on this study is the book entitled Day of

Infamy (2001) by Walter Lord. Day of Infamy describes the events

before, during and after the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor by

the Japanese and the reactions of the people who lived through

it.

The description of the book states that: “The Day of Infamy

began as a quiet morning on the American naval base at Pearl

Harbor. But as Japan’s deadly torpedoes suddenly rained down on

the Pacific fleet, soldiers, generals, and civilians alike felt

shock, then fear, then rage. From the chaos, a thousand personal

stories of courage emerged. Drawn from hundreds of interviews,

letters, and diaries, Walter Lord recounts the many tales of

heroism and tragedy by those who experienced the attack

firsthand. From the musicians of the USS Nevada who insisted on

finishing “The Star Spangled Banner” before taking cover, to the

men trapped in the capsized USS Oklahoma who methodically voted

on the best means of escape, each story conveys the terror and

confusion of the raid, as well as the fortitude of those who

survived,” (goodreads.com).

There is but a short background on author Walter Lord. He

was an American author, best known for his documentary-style non-

fiction account A Night to Remember, about the sinking of the RMS

Titanic (goodreads.com). Other than that, there are nothing more

which could be considered as data that would allow readers to

deem him as reliable author. Unlike Prange, Walter Lord’s

background does not show that he exerted efforts or his personal

background make his book historically accurate. However, the

reviews of the book show that in one way or another the book

presents historical details that are relevant to the real events

occurring on the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Lord is complimented on his fantastic job of bringing the

readers back to that day of the event, minute by minute almost

(Denise, N. D.). Not only does Walter Lord give readers details

leading up to the attack and the "blow by blow" of the attack,

but he also takes them into the thoughts, reactions, mindsets and

feelings of the actual people. Lord’s work is considered first-

hand account for it seemed to let readers to actually relive that

day with those people in the past again. The book is further

complimented as fascinating and disheartening at the same time

for having learned through it about the mistakes,

miscommunications, and blunders that occurred in past wherein

some of which might have prevented such a tragedy. Moreover, to

think the USA had the information about the attack beforehand but

failed to get it to Pearl Harbor in time! Most reviewers thought

that Lord's book was very tasteful in its description of the

horrors that took place that day on Pearl Harbor.

A film which is relevant to the film Pearl Harbor is Tora!

Tora! Tora! (1970) directed by Richard Fleischer. Dan Pavlides of

Rotten Tomatoes provides the following movie information:

“This 25-million dollar epic collaboration accurately

recreates the events that led to the Japanese attack on the

American naval base during World War II. With Germany's

invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939, the wheels are set

in motion by Japan to plan the attack. After internal

differences in the government, the Japanese quickly mobilize

plans for the assault. Key American personnel ignored

warnings of the possibility of Japanese aggression. The

first part of the film divides scenes from both countries.

Part two contains spectacular battle scenes of the bombing

that destroyed the American naval base of operations in

Hawaii. Governmental errors on both sides add to the

confusion, but the Japanese ultimately carry out the deadly

mission. The film did well in Japan, did not do well in the

United States, and took years to make back the production

costs. It remains an insightful and well-crafted World War

II action drama that was the result of years of negotiations

between the two countries.”

Both backgrounds of the director Richard Fleischer and his

Japanese counterpart Kinji Fukasaku neither show any traces for

which they could be considered as reliable sources for the

accuracy of the historical events presented in the film, nor the

efforts of research to insure historical accuracy. However, many

critics tagged the film as an accurate recreation of the past

events that occurred during the surprise attack of the Japanese

on Pearl Harbor. Fleischer, however is a son of the famous

animator Max Fleischer (Popeye, Betty Boop et. al.) which may

have made him a survivor as Rotten Tomatoes would put it in the

filmmaking industry.

Vincent Canby (1970) from New York Times, in his review on

the film stated that as history is concerned, the film seems a

fairly accurate account of what happened, yet he did not bother

to explain why so. He furthered said that the film as an

entertainment depends on the viewers’ tolerance for history is

mostly presented through some series of pictures. The intimate

dramatic scenes in the film depend principally on the reading of

what are claimed to be official documents, combined,

occasionally, with details. Saying that, he even exemplify the

closure of the American top-secret documents to President

Roosevelt for the reason that he was a poor security risk.

Roger Ebert (1970) started his review on the film by stating

his concern over the film’s screenplay. His comments meant

nowhere far from the word lousy, as a description of the most

expensive film whose final effect of its 25 million is

claustrophobic. He seemed to suggest that Richard Fleischer as a

director could have spent much thought on how to effectively

present the attack on Pearl Harbor in dramatic terms. Concisely,

based on Ebert’s review the film’s historical account seemed to

have no controversy but on the controversy lies at the screenplay

of the film which gives no suspense at all for the chronological

events and the result of the film is totally predictable.

Berardinelli (2014), on the other hand, appreciated the film

so much to consider as rare feature film that attain the trifecta

of entertaining, informing, and educating. He stated that the

film has no discrepancies on historical accuracy for he

complimented the director for sticking to the facts, which is

unlikely to happen to other movies who went away with the

historical fact in order to attain stimulating effects by

fictionalizing or adding embellishments. For Berardinelli, “Tora!

Tora! Tora! elects to be even-handed, presenting both the Japanese

and American sides of the story, and doing so without resorting

to caricatures or cheap shots. The Japanese are not faceless bad

guys, nor are the Americans presented as innocent, blameless

victims.”

The books At Dawn We Slept and Day of Infamy, and the film Tora!

Tora! Tora!, the literatures related to Pearl Harbor (2001), one of

the subjects of this study are altogether deemed to be fairly

historically accurate by some significant reviews. All those

three literatures have the same historical accounts as that of

the film Pearl Harbor (2001), only minus its embellishments for

dramatic and romantic effects. The only literature chosen by the

researcher that is related to the film The Great Raid (2005) is the

book entitled The Most Daring Raid of World War II: D-Day--Pointe-du-Hoc

(2011) by Steven J. Zaloga.

The Most Daring Raid of World War II: D-Day--Pointe-du-Hoc (2011) is all

about the one of the legendary raids in military history-the U.S.

Army Rangers' attack on the German gun battery on Pointe-du-Hoc

in Normandy on D-day in 1944. Such event is vividly presented in

this book which is considered to be an action-packed account.

This book focuses on the World War II mission to scale the cliffs

overlooking Omaha beach and to assault the German coastal

artillery at Pointe-du-Hoc. The beginning construction of the

site, the Allies' planning, and the battle are retold in dramatic

detail, and are supported by 3D maps, period photographs, color

photographs, and interviews with survivors.

Just like the raid in Cabanatuan camp, the D-day raid is

also complimented for being the most daring and successful raid

of all times. However, the book The Most Daring Raid of World War II: D-

Day--Pointe-du-Hoc (2011) is not so much of a work of an art but a

piece of literature that presents historical accounts on that D-

day raid. Moreover, such book is unfortunately doesn’t have

reviews yet. No one has tested its historical accuracy yet. There

are other historical accounts on that raid in Pointe-du-Hoc, just

like that of the raid in Cabanatuan, Philippines that would

affirm that indeed both those raids occurred in history.

Both literatures involved planning, and execution of the

raid. However, in the film The Great Raid, there is not so much time

and effort involved in planning. Even the narrator of the film

admitted that the planning wasn’t exhaustive. The Great Raid

reported less casualties on the Rangers unlike the record of D-

day raid that 1/3 of the Rangers lost their lives. With such

account of greater loss in D-day, it simply implies that the raid

in Pointe-du-Hoc was far more extensive than that of Rangers’

raid in Cabanatuan, Philippines. No wonder why there is but no

extensive planning involved in the raid in Cabanatuan since the

risks weren’t extensive after all. That can be said if both raids

are to be compared. Both literatures presented accounts that

happened during World War II on the same year, yet in two

differing countries. Both Rangers of the two raids were from the

United States of America.

Related Studies

There are various studies which also utilizes New

Historicism as a critical device that are similar to this study.

The researcher simply chose three of these studies which are all

movie analysis. These studies are the following: Casablanca and New

Historicism, The Patriot through the Lens of New Historicism, and New Historicism

in Heart of Darkness. On the other hand, the researcher also utilizes

two studies conducted by the Combat Studies Institute to explore

on the studies of war. The first study is entitled Principles of War:

A Translation from the Japanese by Dr. Joseph West, and Staff Ride Handbook

for the Attack on Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941: A Study of Defending America by

LTC Jeffrey J. Gudmens and the Staff Ride Team Combat Studies

Institute.

Casablanca is a 1942 American romantic film that is set

during World War II which focuses on a man torn love and virtue

(wikipedia.org.). This is the film on Birch’s (N. D.) study

entitled Casablanca and New Historicism. In her study she mentioned

that the director of the film Michael Curtiz depicts the occupied

Moroccan city during the World War II and the ways in which

biases and stereotypes that have been prevalent through certain

historical narratives that permeate in the film. In the light of

New Historicism that considers the history on the date a

literature is published, Birch (N. D.) is right to point out that

the film Casablanca is a propaganda film that coincides the

Allied invasion of North Africa and the capture of Casablanca.

The film was released in 1942 in the midst of the Second World

War, and it went into general release in January of 1943, to take

advantage of the Casablanca conference, a high-level meeting

between Churchill and Roosevelt in the city. As the film is

concerned, it is doubted that there was some bias present in how

the war was retold during the World War II because it was likely

that the film was created on the basis of propaganda film

production.

Taking a closer look on Birch’s study, more doubt arises

since the film seemed to look at the perspective of Vichy-

controlled Moroccan state but most of the perspectives are

through the eyes of non-citizens such as the glorified American

hero Rick, Victor Laszlo, a Czech resistance leader sought by the

Nazis; moreover, there are but only a few actual Moroccans

present in the main plot of the film. The film simply suggests

the reality that Casablanca is a place where others have been

displaced and moved to, however, in the narrative there is no

mentioning of where the Moroccans in fact really were.

Birch (N. D.) particularly complimented on how the film

elements and its different narratives interact to uphold the

stereotypes and traditions of history. Among these stereotypes

are the stereotypes of the black musician, stereotypes of the

black market crime in the third world exotic Morocco, and the

depiction of women and Americans during war time. Nicole

mentioned that New Historicism is the most appropriate critical

approach in understanding Casablanca despite the little slant of

feminism in the film.

The Patriot through the Lens of New Historicism by Zach Williams (N. D.)

is another study that explores the New Historicism in another

history film that portrays a war, only not World War II but a war

between Americans and British during the American Revolution. The

film is entitled The Patriot (2000), an American historical film

directed by Roland Emmerich that depicts a story of an American

swept into the American Revolutionary War when his family is

threatened. “The film takes place during the real-life events of

the Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War but

attracted controversy over its fictional figures and atrocities,”

(wikipedia.org).

Zach (N. D.) in his study stressed that the key to

understanding the interpretation through New Historicism critical

device is to understand the context of what was happening in

America in the time period the film portrayed. Many reviews of

the film shows that the film The Patriot (2000) is meant as a

remembrance of what America represents and how far it had come in

its previous two hundred years. Now, America is a strong nation

which had not been invaded since 1700’s and the British were no

longer the mass power in the world. The film is considered a

remembrance of how America used to be smaller, departing from the

ideology of its father/mother country. The film could have

focused on the image of America before yet it is more of

portraying of what America has become by leaving the truth on the

slaves in the movie behind, and the plight of women during the

time period. The film portrays the kindness of the American to

the slaves, and such kindness is so great apparently that the

character’s family stays with some slaves that are in hiding

during the war. Such portrayal trimmed down the actual race

relations Americans has for the film rather served as a

revelation on how African Americans have come to stay in the

United States in the first place and the acceptance of the

Americans to the Africans not as slaves but as citizens or as

people worth respecting, even if it is not always true yet that

is how it is portrayed in the film. That’s why the film has

become the explanation on the election of the first African woman

who became president of the Parent Teacher Association, and in U.

S. Navy Admiral, and Michael Jordan’s affiliation in basketball,

and many others. The film is but a mystery of the culture of the

time period since it creates a sweet image of a more modern

society.

In short, Zach elaborates the idea that America wanted to

see its current self in the film. Foucault’s notion on what

history is, “in the modern age, history itself, with its emphasis

on narrative, has become the master mode of organization.” The

Patriot (2000) though misleading and in many ways incorrect

considering history, has indeed become the vessel through which

history became the mode of the modern organization of the

American society for the film speaks of what Americans hopes to

think of their country, as fair and righteous. New Historicism in

the study of the film The Patriot (2000) deals with the new idea

that the film presents after checking the historical account of

the time period the film presents. Though the film is considered

by the Time Magazine as one of the Top Ten Most Historically

Misleading Films, the film portrays the idea that the Americans

upholds in this modern era.

Another study that uses New Historicism as a literary device

in understanding the literature is the study of Nicole Birch (N.

D.) entitled New Historicism in the Heart of Darkness. Unlike the

previously discussed similar studies, this one is a piece of

literature in another genre.

Heart of Darkness (1899) is a short novel by Polish novelist

Joseph Conrad, written as a narrative about Charles Marlow’s life

as an ivory transporter down the Congo River in Central Africa

(wikipedia.org.). The researcher of this study is familiar with

the novel since it is one of the subject matters in the English

Literature course which he personally reported in class. Birch’s

study, New Historicism in Heart of Darkness is doing away with

reader-response theory for it utilizes as its title suggests, New

Historicism. Birch admitted that she has read the novel for five

times to enjoy and understand its content, so did the meaning

also. That’s why she mentioned that some people would find it dry

especially when they do not know the history, while others may

find it disturbing considering the subject matter.

Birch in her study restates the definition of New

Historicism to keep track of what she’s doing. She even stated

her professor’s concise definition of theory that says, “It looks

at the way in which history can be objective and the way that

history consists of various truths that are tied to the

narratives of history.” New Historicism abides in the observation

that history is textual, since people nowadays can only read

history, experience it in words and use it to explain the

physical evidence. Nowadays, people don’t have access to the

past, yet have a story about it. Therefore, it is made clear by

Birch that literature must be studied and interpreted within the

context of both the history of the author and the history of the

critic, because the critics understanding of a text must be able

to challenge the main narratives, otherwise history cannot remain

objective.

After making it clear what New Historicism is, Birch goes on

discussing the following:

”New Historicism, when applied to Heart of Darkness, may

then suggest that the narratives of European colonialism are

not objective in the sense that the “truths” of colonization

and the doctrine of imperialism have traditionally shaped

historical understandings of European domination and

superiority.”

The West in most literatures are portrayed as great or

superior, civilized, rational, and educated. Such depiction of

the West is portrayed in the traditional literary framework.

However, in the New Historicism approach on the Heart of Darkness,

Conrad reshaped the traditional understandings and narratives of

colonialism by retelling a narrative of colonialism through

Marlowe point of view a narrative that is often relatively

suspect or skeptical to colonial authority and European

domination. Moreover, New Historicism focus on how the author’s

history might shape his narrative; in such case, Conrad’s own

experiences in the Congo region contributed to his understanding

of colonialism and his depiction of the Congo natives.

Conrad was a Polish-born British novelist, whose parents

experienced so much hardship in their lives. He became an orphan

at the age of eleven, yet he ventured a lot to earn money by

writing and by being a shipmaster. His life experience that

inspired him in making Heart of Darkness was his journey to Congo on

1890. He kept a journal during his visit, condemning colonialism

(gradesaver.com). During his stay in the Congo, he became

acquainted with a colonial officer, whose 1904 Congo Report had

detailed the abuses suffered by the indigenous populations of the

Congo State. Therefore, the journey upriver in Conrad’s Heart of

Darkness closely relates Conrad’s own experiences.

This study not only explores on the studies conducted using

New Historicism as a critical device, but it also explores on

studies of war – from its principles to the study on how to

defend in times of war by referring to past war. These studies

were conducted after the losses of America in World War II,

especially in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The researcher opted to

explore on these studies since this study mainly involves two

great nations, Japan and America.

The study entitled Principle of War: A Translation from the Japanese by

Dr. Joseph West sought and analyzed proven lessons in military

history concerning the principles of war considered particularly

important up to about the end of World War II, compared and

carefully examined well-known ancient and modern books on

military science, and consolidated and systematized the material,

and it is believed to be a good reference for young officers

seeking to study strategy and tactics. This study clearly defines

war or warfare – “war is defined as a clash of opposing wills, a struggle between

beliefs, and victory goes to the party that crushes the enemy’s will and destroys his

beliefs. In other words, warfare is a struggle for victory, using ‘power’ to cause the

opponent’s will to yield and one’s own will to prevail.” Furthermore, this study

stated that the very essence of warfare is power and its maximum

use, and war is nothing less than the seizure of victory.

Principle of War: A Translation from the Japanese is Senri nyumon in

Japan’s original work. The person behind the idea of translating

the original Japanese study on the Principles of War is Colonel

Tsutomu Matsumura, Japanese Liaison Officer at the Command and

General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. He wanted to

share the lively and vivid picture of the art of warfare that

Japan that are studied by Japanese military officers. The chief

reason for the study’s quality lies in the use of specific

historical examples of battles won and lost to illustrate a

particular tactic or principle. In a narrow sense, it reveals the

value of military history when properly applied to abstract

concepts. Many are referring to this study for an entrance exam

for military training. Principles of War explores on the battles

Japan had won in history, it can be therefore said that Japan won

in their previous victories due to extensive planning. Thereby it

can be said that no war is unplanned. No war is without tactics.

That’s why this study calls war as an art in military science.

In connection to planning a war, this study mentioned the

following statement announced during the Russo-Japanese War by

General Tamemoto Kuroki, Commander of the Japanese First Army to

his assembled staff: “In the military operations of the First Army, particularly

the operations at the beginning of the war, if we do not act so that future historians

cannot raise even one point of criticism, we should fail in our samurai duty, ... Since the

plan was made with such care and logic, even if the worst should happen, that would

not be a matter for regret; it would be divine will. ... and I ask that you perform so that

future readers of history will Judge that it was with complete dedication,” (pg. 6).

With such statement, it can be said that it is a Japanese culture

during war to perform military operations after a careful

planning with all dedication to leave a positive legacy that even

future historians and future readers couldn’t even say a word of

criticism. For the Japanese, to be involved in war is to be

courageous and dedicated enough with no single blight of regret

even if the plan won’t turn out well. Therefore, there is no

regret in war for it is a samurai duty to perform well in

military operations; moreover, in war the mind should always look

forward to the future or with reference to the future.

When the study of Principles of War explores on the

techniques and tactics that should be used in war, another study

entitled Staff Ride Handbook for the Attack on Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941: A

Study of Defending America discusses the learning that should be gained

from past losses – Pearl Harbor and World Trade Center incidents.

The author coined it this way, “Not only should we study the tactics,

techniques, and procedures of recent operations, but we also need to study history—

events where we analyze the actions of both attacked and defender so we are better

prepared to handle similar situations that may arise in the future,” (pg. 2).

That’s why it can be said that Staff Ride Handbook for the Attack on Pearl

Harbor, 7 December 1941: A Study of Defending America is a supplementary

study of Principle of War: A Translation from the Japanese.

Staff Ride Handbook for the Attack on Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941: A Study of

Defending America indeed complements with the study on the

Principles of War, for both discusses that war involves planning.

This study discusses the extensive planning that Japan did in

order to attack Pearl Harbor successfully. It even detailed the

comparison between the military organizational charts, and the

number of artilleries of Japan and America. It shows that there

was a great difference in number on America’s artilleries and

that of Japan. For instance, by 1941 Japan had 65 fleet

submarines already while America still had 23 while Japan had

purchased their first submarine from America. Furthermore, this

study explores on America’s vulnerability in the past so that

learning can be gained and America can be better protected

especially on surprise attacks. This study even involved the

surprise attack at the world trade center as a comparison to

Pearl Harbor incident that simply pointed out the problem of

America’s military intelligence.

Just like the study on Principles of War, Staff Ride Handbook for

the Attack on Pearl Harbor, 7 December 1941: A Study of Defending America admits

that war involves extensive planning for the surprise attack of

Japan in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii involved extensive planning on the

part of the Japanese. The authors of the study mentioned that,

“Our enemy had extensively planned the attack, conducted detailed reconnaissance of

its target to determine how to achieve the most destruction, and had innovatively

planned the operation to overcome all obstacles,” (pg. 1). Not only they had

planned the attack so well but they conducted trainings.

“Throughout summer 1941 the First Air Fleet continued a vigorous training program

with aircrews flying numerous missions at Ariake Bay on Kyushu, the southernmost of

Japan’s four main islands, which remarkably resembled Pearl Harbor. The ships

continued maneuvering together, learning to sail and operate as a fleet while the

tankers rehearsed their critical operations. The staff continued to refine the plan based

on updated intelligence (covered in detail at the first stand) and changing

circumstances,” (pg. 55).

The Pearl Harbor attack was a surprise attack for the

Americans even if they have suspected that Japan might attack

America because the United States did not apply the principles of

war and they had prolonged their neutral role from World War I.

The author said that, “The United States had indications that an attack was

possible but had no single agency to gather all of the available information for an

analysis that would suggest an attack. When the attack started, there were indications

that something large was happening, but the word was never spread, and our enemy’s

attack was devastating,” (pg. 1).

In Thomas C. Schelling’s foreword to Roberta Wohlstetter’s

excellent book about our failures before Pearl Harbor, he

described how and why the Japanese were able to successfully

attack the US Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor in 1941. “Surprise, when

it happens to a government, is likely to be a complicated, diffuse, bureaucratic thing. It

includes neglect of responsibility, but also responsibility so poorly defined or so

ambiguously delegated that action gets lost. It includes gaps in intelligence, but also

intelligence that, like a string of pearls too precious to wear, is too sensitive to give to

those who need it. It includes the alarm that fails to work, but also the alarm that has

gone off so often it has been disconnected. It includes the unalert watchman, but also

the one who knows he’ll be chewed out by his superior if he gets higher authority out of

bed. It includes the contingencies that occur to no one, but also those that everyone

assumes somebody else is taking care of. It includes straightforward procrastination,

but also decisions protracted by internal disagreement. It includes, in addition, the

inability of individual human beings to rise to the occasion until they are sure it is the

occasion which is usually too late. Finally . . . surprise may include some measure of

genuine novelty introduced by the enemy, and possibly some sheer bad luck.”

Therefore from both studies, it can be said that war is

never an accident and it can be defended provided that right

principles of war and a good military intelligence are utilized.

The principles of war involves extensive planning, techniques,

and tactics to be utilized in war, while military intelligence

should utilize a single agency to analyze information for

probable attacks that will then prompt military operations to be

prepared to defend probable attacks.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methods used in carrying out the

research work. It includes the research design, the treatment and

the sources of data.

Research Design

The researcher utilized the qualitative descriptive-

interpretative research design. In qualitative approach, the

researcher should gather an in-depth understanding of human

behavior and the reasons that govern such behavior. The

qualitative method investigates the why and how of decision

making, not just what, where, when (wikipedia.org.). The

researcher used the descriptive and interpretative approaches in

the discussion of the two selected movies, Pearl Harbor (2001) and

The Great Raid (2005). It is descriptive for it describes the themes

and the historical background of the selected movies. The

researcher broke down the concepts into different parts from the

themes and the relevance of the movies to historical accounts to

the general understanding of the three differing cultures

presented in the movies. After determining the themes and the

historical background for each movie, the researcher interpreted

them considering the New Historicism theory. Further, the

description and the interpretation of the data that had been

gathered are factual, accurate and systematic.

This study is analytic for it analyzes the following

elements of the film: plot, setting, character, and symbolism.

All these elements were dealt with critically and analyzed in

terms of their distinct form and relevant contribution to the

development of the whole work. The analysis is meant to reveal

the New Historicism in Pearl Harbor (2001) and The Great Raid (2005).

It is through the synthesis of all these elements with all the

background check of both film and authors’ history and its

relevance to the selected movies that New Historicism in the

films is produced. After all, the primary concern of this study

is to determine the New Historicism in Pearl Harbor (2001) and The

Great Raid (2005).

Treatment and Sources of Data

The main data are from the two selected films directed by

American film-makers. All the films are considered to be based on

true events during World War II particularly in Pearl Harbor and

in Cabanatuan, Philippines. The main ideas of the films are the

treason that leads to the awakening of the sleeping giant, and

the struggles and losses of the America. Pearl Harbor (2001) and

The Great Raid (2005) are the two movies used for this paper:

The data that are gathered from the two movies are

supplemented by literary works, studies, articles, journals,

books and online sources. The researcher also picked relevant

information from the books in Detwiller Library of Adventist

University of the Philippines to elaborate and analyze more about

the study.

The process of analysis involves the following:

First, the selected movies are studied and the necessary

points about the history in the films are noted.

Second, the data on the themes and the historical

backgrounds on the films are gathered. Related studies and

literatures from the internet are studied and the data that are

relevant to this study are gathered from them.

Third, the elements of the films which are the plot,

setting, characters, and symbolism are determined. Each element

is distinguished and analyzed as to how New Historicism is

reflected in them. The analyses is through close reading that

concerns close attention to textual details with respect to the

stated element.

Fourth, the historical background and the themes are

interpreted through the application of critical approach in which

a coherent body of thought (New Historicism) are mapped onto the

literary work in order to explain its meaning.

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the analysis of the two selected

movies which shows the historical accounts during World War II,

particularly on the incident in Pearl Harbor of Hawaii and the

plight of both Filipinos and Americans during Japanese regime in

the Philippines. Furthermore, this chapter presents both the

responses to the specific questions of the statement of the

problem and the analysis on the elements of the movies which are

the plot, setting, characters, and symbolisms through the context

of New Historicism Approach.

Pearl Harbor

Pearl Harbor is a 2001 American epic war film whose director

is Michael Bay, producer, Jerry Bruckheimer and writer, Randall

Wallace. The film features a large ensemble cast and is a

dramatic reimagining of The Blitz, Japanese attack on Pearl

Harbor and the subsequent Doolittle Raid. Some special prints

were made from the color negatives using the recently re-

introduced Technicolor dye imbibition printing process

(wikipedia.org).

There are a lot of movie reviews criticizing the historical

inaccuracy portrayed in the film. Roger Ebert criticized the film

as being directed without grace, vision and originality. He

further criticized the film’s liberties with historical facts:

“There is no sense of history, strategy or context; according to this movie, Japan

attacked Pearl Harbor because America cut off its oil supply, and they were down to an

18-month reserve. Would going to war restore the fuel sources? Did they perhaps also

have imperialist designs? Movie doesn't say,” (Ebert, 2001). Similarly, A.

O. Scott of The New York Times wrote, “Nearly every line of the script drops

from the actors' mouths with the leaden clank of exposition, timed with bad sitcom

beats,” (Scott, 2001). On the side of the Pearl Harbor survivors,

many of them considered the film as grossly inaccurate and pure

Hollywood. In an interview done by Frank Wetta, the producer

Jerry Bruckheimer was quoted saying, “We tried to be accurate, but it's

certainly not meant to be a history lesson,” (jstor.org).

Some historians are very detailed in pointing out the

historical inaccuracies of the film. One of these historians is

Lawrence Suid wherein in his review, he particularly detailed as

to the major factual misrepresentations of the film and the

negative impact they have even on an entertainment film (Suid,

2011). Some of the historical inaccuracies pointed out in the

film include the early childhood scenes depicting a Stearman

biplane crop duster in 1923: the aircraft was not accurate for

the period, the first commercial crop-dusting company did not

begin operation until 1924, (Hanson, N.D.) and indeed the U.S.

Department of Agriculture did not purchase its first cotton-

dusting aircraft until April 16, 1926 (National Museum of the

United States Air Force).

The director of the film, Michael Bay in his exposition in

the interview done for the documentary of the National Geographic

Channel which is Beyond the Movie, indicated that there are

several historians from The Pentagon and Army Air Corps who

reviewed the script of the film, and he particularly pointed out

that the essence of the film is not making details about the

first, nor the second or the third wave. Bay simply suggested on

his response to the many criticisms that his film is but an

inaccurate representation of history, is that he emphasized that

he is creating a movie and that his film’s sense is not on the

waves but the sense of the attack and it can be felt upon seeing

the movie. He further detailed that there is even ambiguity in

the data they have gathered from their many consultations with

historians and interviews with Pearl Harbor survivors, and so the

movie will never be entirely accurate on the historical details

with regards to the events that conspire in history (National

Geographic Society, 2001). Indeed, people have different

perspectives and so these differences can inevitably create

discrepancies. As Bay would put it: “no one’s an expert on Pearl Harbor,

because there were so many logs that weren’t really kept back then,” (National

Geographic Society, 2001). Again as the producer of the film,

Jerry Bruckheimer would say, “[the film] is not meant to be a history lesson,”

(jstor.org). Considering the view of New Historicism which

explores on the ideologies, opinions and background of the film’s

author (slideshare.net; michaelmosca.wikispaces.com), this study

only found out that both the director and the producer may not

have direct relation to any survivor of the Pearl Harbor attack

yet it is clearly indicated in the documentary of the National

Geographic Channel that they both found the incident in Pearl

Harbor extremely meaningful. Jerry Bruckheimer mentioned that

even before the movie started, all of the production and

executive crew and actors of the film had a little ceremony where

they threw flowers and said their prayers at Pearl Harbor. They

all have this patriotic sense that all Americans have especially

with regards to Pearl Harbor incident. It is said that such

incident caused all Americans to be united (pacificwar.org;

Morella, 2012).

If the “textuality of history and the historicity of the texts” (Greenblatt,

1980) in New Historicism approach is to be considered, then Pearl

Harbor film is a movie that gives viewers a glimpse of the

momentous event that conspire in history specifically in Pearl

Harbor. Indeed it can be confirmed in history that there was a

surprise attack of Japanese in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, on the

morning of December 7, 1941 (wikipedia.org; Rosenberg, N. D.).

Ebert may have mocked the film’s portrayal of the Japanese’

reason to attack Hawaii by saying: “Would going to war restore the fuel

sources? Did they perhaps also have imperialist designs? Movie doesn't say,”

however, considering the historicity of the film’s text

mentioning about it is indeed true to its historical sense,

though it may not be the main reason for Japan’s attack on

Hawaii. Historically, the U.S. indeed ceased oil exports to Japan

in July 1941, following Japanese expansion into French Indochina

after the fall of France, in part because of new American

restrictions on domestic oil consumption (GPO, 1943). Instead of

looking on the historical discrepancies of the film, this study

focuses on the accurate representation of the film to the

historical fact on Pearl Harbor incident. Another historical fact

that the film showed is that Arizona is one of the ships in Pearl

Harbor that lost in that surprise attack (history.navy.mil). The

film may not be totally exact in historical representation, yet

it still shows the factuality of the attack. The film’s

textuality as reflected on the script simply shows that such

texts are historically inspired. Some critics may say the film is

but an abuse to artistic license due to the fictional

replacements of real people (Padilla and Castagnaro, 2009), but

isn’t it the purpose of artistic license to  distort fact, alter

the conventions of grammar or language, or reword pre-existing

text made by an artist to improve a piece of art?

(wikipedia.org).

As the author of this study it can be said that the reason

of a fictionalized romance story in the film is to alleviate the

painful history in Pearl Harbor for in love there can never be

pain, nor can disaster, nor triviality destroy love, which is one

of the film’s themes. Just like Titanic movie, it will just leave

a sad memory and feelings to viewers if the fictionalized love

story is not integrated in the movie. In fact, the main theme of

the film is love for love conquers all even if it means loving

another man's woman. Love is greatly portrayed in the film by the

love of a man who loves his woman who begat a son from another

man. Moreover, isn’t it love that moves the nurses and doctors to

aid those wounded and dying soldiers during the Pearl Harbor

surprise attack? (blitzkriegbaby.de).Such heroic deeds of the

nurses and doctors are portrayed by film which is historically

correct. Indeed, love compels heroism and sacrifice especially on

the part of the nurses and the doctors in the film. One would

ask, ‘Why serve and be a hero? Why sacrifice when your life is at

stake?’ Well, those nurses and doctors at Pearl Harbor during the

surprise attack did so for they were moved by love. Only love is

the greatest emotion that is known to man that can move people to

risk and do whatever it takes just to show or express it in

action. The main theme isn’t indeed war, although war is still

one of the themes, for war, and pain or damage don't end the

world; nor despair or effing beatings (forumsandtech.com). The

world ends when people do not believe in love anymore.

The plot of the movie indicates the focus of the film which

is the main theme and not really the chronological order of the

first, nor the second or third wave attack of the Japanese. It is

indeed the attack itself which is the sense of the movie and how

such attack moved people into the action of love in the presence

of disaster. Although the plot does not show the emphasis on the

waves of the Japanese surprise attack, it shows that Japan took

time to plan the attack. War, as the theme is not really of the

conventional war where both parties are aware of the declaration

of war, yet the film conveys the message that war is planned; it

is not a sudden occurrence. However, it can still be said that

the surprise attack of the Japanese was more of treason than war.

War can be a theme since such surprise attack happened during

World War II, and such attack is the reason why America, the

sleeping giant as the film’s text says, got really involved in World

War II. Furthermore, as stated in the very beginning of this

study, war is a very destructive phenomenon and it doesn’t have a

single cause. The film shows how destructive war is indeed. The

grieve losses of America from the great losses of human lives to

significant properties are clearly depicted on the film.

Moreover, the film conveyed the irrationality of war’s cause due

to its ambiguous cause. It is too shallow to believe that Japan

attacked Pearl just because America cut off Japan’s oil supply.

War, indeed, doesn’t have a single cause yet certainly political

conflict is one of its causes.

The setting of the film is generally Hawaii and indeed the

production of the film is in Hawaii (wikipedia.org). However, the

setting at the film’s opening indicates the main theme of the

film, where the love of two best buddies is portrayed. When

Danny’s father beat him, Rafe came to help him by hitting the

head of Danny’s father. Such act moved Danny to tell Rafe that

indeed he is his best friend. All throughout the film, such bond

is still portrayed on how those two characters were still

sticking together in training and in duty. The beginning and the

end of the film simply shows that the audience must focus on the

main theme instead of focusing on the inaccuracies of the film

with regards to historical facts. Such two best buddies and the

woman they love are the main characters of the film. It is love

that binds them all. In as much that it must be love that should

bind all Americans.

While the 2001 film Pearl Harbor has many inaccuracies, Ben

Affleck and Josh Hartnett's characters mimic two of the 17 pilots

that were able to reach a plane in time to defend Pearl Harbor

from the sky (dosomething.org). The two best buddies may be

deemed fictionalized representations of real persons in history,

but at least historically speaking, there were two unnamed pilots

who indeed were able to defend Pearl Harbor. There may be

fictionalized characters but the film also involved non-

fictionalized characters. One of the real-life characters in

Pearl Harbor film is Cuba Gooding, Jr. as Dorie Miller who was a

cook in the United States Navy noted for his bravery during the

attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Dorie was the first

African American to be awarded the Navy Cross, the third highest

honor awarded by the U.S. Navy at the time, after the Medal of

Honor and the Navy Distinguished Service Medal. The Navy Cross

now precedes the Navy Distinguished Service Medal (Naval History

and Heritage Command, U.S. Navy). Cuba acknowledged that his

real-life character representation is a great honor, and he

mentioned in his interview in the documentary of the National

Geographic Channel that he really did his best to preserve the

honor and poise of Dorie Miller by doing the action

appropriately. In Cuba’s statements in National Geographic

Channel (nationalgeographic.com), one can say that he is a film

character that has a sense of respect to history, particularly to

the real-life character he’s portraying – a man who is a part of

history.

The betrayal of Danny to Rafe is a symbolism of Japan’s

treason to America by attacking Pearl Harbor in a surprising

manner. The main theme, love is even a symbolism in itself. The

film shows that it is love that moves people to duty and heroic

deeds, not man’s empty praise. It is the same love that unite

couples together that unite a nation. The sun is said to be one

of the symbols representing the Japanese flag (wikianswers.com).

Yet the sun is more of symbolizing hope to the Americans, in as

much as land area is a hope for the pilots when the pilots

travelled back from avenging Pearl Harbor. Dorie Miller as a

real-life character portrayed by Cuba is a symbolism of the

acceptance of the Blacks or Africans as vital people in building

up and protecting a nation. An interview to Dorie’s relative

reveals that indeed such heroic act of Dorie’s opens the door of

opportunities for the Blacks to assume vital roles in the job

market.

There are a lot more symbols in the film wherein most of

them are deemed to be Masonic and Illuminati symbols

(abovetopsecret.com; davidicke.com). However, some movie reviews

have detailed some fascinating symbolisms of the film like that

of David Bruce (2005). The wheelchair of President Roosevelt in

the film signifies a handicap into strength. Bruce detailed that

many films portrayed Roosevelt in a wheelchair but only the Pearl

Harbor film shows a move of strength from handicap. Such strength

was specifically shown in the film when all the US military

leaders had their ‘can’t excuses’ and President Roosevelt

struggled to stand up from the wheelchair exclaiming "Don't tell

me that it cannot be done." Jon Voight, the character who

portrays Roosevelt, received applause for the crew for such

scene. The women who served as nurses are characters which are

symbols in themselves signifying the transformation of women from

being casual as though they are in a holiday vacation in Hawaii,

to carefree nurses on duty whose focus is men, and finally into

being heroic women whose priorities are shifted to real duty in

times of great need. Bruce used pictures to magnify the clarity

of the symbols that those women characters have portrayed.

Another symbol that Bruce pointed out is the revolving door and a

glass door. Bruce said: “Doors represent both closure and introduction. They

also symbolize new dimensions and time passages. Windows present visions of truth

and separation. The film combines these two powerful symbols.”

Paradise Lost is a symbol that Bruce added. Paradise Lost is

a very familiar term since it resembles the seventeenth-century

epic poem by John Milton that is a classic of English literature.

It is about creation, the fall of Lucifer, and the fall of

humans. Milton explains that his purpose is to justify the ways

of God to men. In the film the symbol Paradise Lost is shown in a

scenario where there’s a baseball play at an early Sunday

morning. Bruce justified such symbol by saying: “It's placed in the film

as symbolic of the shift from innocence to devastation. From Paradise to Paradise Lost.

It is the Garden of Eden story couched in an actual historical event. The incoming

Japanese Zeros flying into Pearl Harbor to bomb it are placed against several

foregrounds of innocence: A kids' baseball game, little girls playing like fairies, a cut-

out full size Santa Claus, and two boys hiking on a hill.” As for this study, the

author believes that such baseball game may been put there as one

of the scenes in the film to show that the Japanese attack in

Pearl harbor really came as a surprise for people are totally

unprepared for war for they are just doing what they comfortably

and enjoyably do. It can be said as scenes to show a ‘caught

unguarded’ or ‘caught when the guard is down’ imageries.

Evelyn’s lipsticks and leg stocking for medical tourniquets

are another symbols that signifies the shift of the roles of

women in the film. Generally women are just portrayed to be

sexual objects and are usually shown as models of beauty and

fashion. However, in the film it shows the role of women can be

altered through time especially in times of need. Indeed nowadays

women are not just bystanders and witnesses of events but they

are also life savers. What they used to hold dear for beauty and

fashion have turned out into things of usefulness. Women have now

played significant roles in the society. History can show how the

role of women have shifted from mere sexual objects or

commodities to significant citizens with equitable rights with

men.

The use of a product is strangely used in the film. Coca

Cola bottles were used in the process of blood transfusion. It

can be said that it is another symbol portraying that a simple

commodity that people enjoy can be significantly used in times of

emergency. Some authors may find it hilarious (moviehabit.com;

hackwriters.com), but as for the author of this study it is a

significant symbol representing the usefulness of things that

people just label as mere commodity. Just like women who are used

to be stereotyped as commodities yet now significant workers for

nation-building. In that particular scenario, Evelyn, a woman

nurse is the one assisting during that blood transfusion process.

The Great Raid

The Great Raid is a 2005 war film about the Raid at Cabanatuan

on the island of Luzon, Philippines during World War II. It is

directed by John Dahl and it stars a Filipino actor Cesar

Montano. The principal photography took place from July 4, to

November 6, 2002, but its release was delayed several times from

the original target of fall 2003. The film is adapted from two

books, William Breuer's The Great Raid on Cabanatuan and Hampton

Sides' Ghost Soldiers (wikipedia.org).

The movie is said to be portraying the real-life occurrences

during World War II in the Philippines. For instance, the

realistic efforts of Filipino guerrillas which is highlighted on

a stand at a bridge that delayed Japanese reinforcements. These

units fought alongside Americans against Japanese occupiers

during the war (wikipedia.org). Robert Ebert, a film critic even

noticed the realistic depiction of the movie on the Filipino

guerrillas by saying, “the film gave ‘full credit’ to the Filipino guerrillas who

assisted the Rangers,” (Ebert, 2005). The director is just wise to use

Filipino characters since the setting of the film is in the

Philippines, further it is just expedient to highlight the

efforts of the Filipino guerrillas for the same reason.

Regarding to the movie’s accuracy, Stephen Hunter (2005) of

The Washington Post gave his praise by saying: "The war stuff is first-rate all

the way through. A great deal of effort has been made to achieve a level of

anthropological correctness: The weapons are right, the uniforms are right, the

equipment is right...The raid itself is a dynamo of action filmmaking, exactly like what

the real thing must have been -- swift and brutal, with a lot of shooting and no

prisoner-taking." Roger Moore (2005) of the Orlando Sentinel, on his

movie review have said that the movie somehow comes up with the

exact portrayal of what occurred in history, except for the

fictionalized romance story. He particularly commented on the

film’s characters by saying: “The characters are all real people, and much of

this really happened.” Furthermore on the film’s historical accuracy,

Scott Weinberg (2005) of DVD Talk described the film as "truly an 'old-

fashioned' war movie based on, and adhering very closely to, actual

events that occurred in early 1945. He went on saying: “The Great

Raid is not a hyper-kinetic flash-banger like Pearl Harbor, nor it is a cerebral

rumination like The Thin Red Line; it's just a well-hewn and efficient re-telling of true

story that's worthy of remembrance.” Entertainment Weekly said that the

movie is worth a lot for it tells a true story (Brown, 2005).

However, not all film critics gave positive reviews on the film’s

efforts on trying to achieve a certain level of historical

accuracy for Mike Clark (2005) of USA Today have criticized it

due to "Franco's droning voice-over" for spelling out "every sliver of

historical context.” For a movie’s entertainment factor, The Great Raid

fails to achieve the expected features of a war film, especially

basing its cinematography. No wonder why other film critics such

as Joel Selvin (2005) of the San Francisco Chronicle have said that

the film is very boring.

There are a lot more critics who gave positive reviews over

the film’s historical accuracy. Thus, the movie is a perfect

piece of literature to be analyzed in the context of New

Historicism. Sior (N.D.) said that New Historicism is integrating

literature and history. The Great Raid portrays a real-life raid

that is said to be the greatest raid in American history

(hollywoodjesus.com; Breuer, 2002). Furthermore, New Historicism

explores the background of the literature’s author in order to

affirm the authenticity of the historicity of the literature’s

texts (slideshare.net). Coincidentally, the author of the film,

John Dahl has a sense of connection with the story of the film in

a personal level through his father’s experience in World War II,

particularly on his father’s participation in the liberation of

the Philippines and his mother’s cousin was killed while fighting

in the Philippines. Dahl had always wanted to know more about his

father’s wartime experiences and making the film The Great Raid was

an opportunity to really explore the territory. The more he

learned about the audacious rescue operation and its unlikely

outcome, the more Dahl felt committed to what would become his

most ambitious project to date (hollywoodjesus.com). “My Father

fought in the Philippines so I was immediately attracted to the story,” says Dahl.

“But it also seemed to me that this was a really important untold story from World War

II that had been shuffled to the back pages and ultimately forgotten. To have a chance

to tell the tale of what these real-life, yet truly remarkable people accomplished was

something I was grateful to have. What I really liked about this movie that it reveals

that freedom often comes with a price of sacrifice. And I also think it shows how our

country has been able in the times of greatest need to really go deep and overcome

huge obstacles. We did it in Cabanatuan and we will do it again when needed in the

future.”

All the positive feedbacks on the film’s historical accuracy

can be traced to all the preparations that Dahl and Katz had

made. Dahl delved into so much research to further add to the

visceral realism of the project. Both the director and producer,

John Dahl and Marty Katz respectively took time to meet with as

many survivors and witnesses from the period as they could find –

including talking to the real Captain Robert Prince and even to

several members of the Filipino guerilla movement who proved so

indispensable to the mission -- which only served to inspire them

further. The ring of truth in the film is by the virtue of the

efforts of Dahl and Katz (hollywoodjesus.com; Morrow, 2006;

Murray, N.D.; Saenger, N.D.).

The main theme of the film is the raid itself. From its

careful planning to its successful execution. The raid’s purpose

which is to rescue the Prisoners of War is worth the strain of

careful planning. Although many critics did not like the long

dragging time for the film’s portrayal of the planning for the

raid, this study appreciates the message that the film is

implying. No raid can be successful without careful planning. For

it is anonymously said that ‘if you fail to plan, you plan to

fail.’ The raid happened during World War II, and so war is

inevitably one of the themes of the film. There could never be a

raid if there was an absence of war. War entails a lot of things.

As Lichtenberg (2012) would put it: “War is all about death, yes, but it's

about survival too. More, it can also be about defeat and/or victory.” Indeed the

film clearly shows the gruesome image of death such as the death

of the Filipino villagers who helped the guerillas, the

unthinkable survival of the POW’s and soldiers, and the glorious

victory of the raid.

Alongside with the success of the raid during World War II

in the Philippines are the themes of heroism and sacrifice. The

selflessness of the soldiers involved in the raid is the right

virtue that best portrayed the themes sacrifice and heroism.

Selflessness and love are the compelling virtues that moves

people to do acts of heroism and relentless sacrifice. The long-

distance crawl of the soldiers to the POW camp and the combat of

the Filipino guerillas at the bridge were really acts of heroism

and sacrifice. Such sacrifices were rightly rewarded by the

success of the mission.

Love cannot be erased in Hollywood films. Dahl in many

interviews admitted that Miramax wouldn’t allow a plain

historical film (Morrow, 2006; Murray, N.D.; Saenger, N.D.). The

film is but an action drama with love as one of its themes.

Because of the integration of such theme in the film, it made the

film somehow inaccurate in portraying the full real-life

characters during that raid. Moreover, due to love as a theme a

fictionalized character Major Gibson has to be filled in the

film. Although Nurse Margaret Utinsky is a real-life character,

yet in reality she’s never involved in a love affair with a

soldier in the camp. Integrating love as one of the film’s theme

is the only way to make the film attain its entertainment goal.

Schultz (2005), a History Professor of University of St. Francis

mentioned that the injection of fiction in a historical film is

an adherence to Historical Film Rule number 4 that says: “In any

(historically accurate) dramatic situation, inject a little more (fictional) tension.”

Although an anonymous writer posted in archive forum in

America’s army (archive.forum.americasarmy.com) said: “there are no

symbolic scenes that are supposed to be a deep reflection on the human condition,

etc.... It was just a movie telling the story of a certain event that happened, and a bit

about the people who were involved in it,” this study explores some symbols

that imply something. The Lingayen Gulf that shows a wide shore

that welcomes the American Rangers signifies the openness of

Philippines for help from America. Although prior to Japanese

regime in the Philippines, the Americans infiltrated the

Philippines, the Filipinos are much more comfortable with

American regime than the brutal invasion of the Japanese

(Schultz, 2005). Back then Manila was an Orient of Pearl yet it

changes when the Japanese ruled Philippines. Only the welcoming

wide shore of Luzon makes help accessible. As the film had shown,

the American soldiers particularly the Rangers camped at the

shore. The sands were signifying that they would not tarry

camping without moving into action.

Captain Prince’s description of himself as a ROTC reserve is

not a description to underestimate their capacity nor displaying

their weakness or inability to execute the rescue operation. It

only signifies that although they are raw and untested recruits

with little or no combat experience, they are willing to

sacrifice. Moreover, such description entails the great loss of

America after the surprise attack in Pearl Harbor. It can be

historically traced that the Pacific attack of the Japanese

consequently happened after the incident in Pearl Harbor since

the Japanese thought that they have paralyzed America in the

surprise attack at Pearl Harbor (sparknotes.com).

Quinine, the medicine for malaria serves as a representation

of the sacrifices of the brave nurses who smuggled it to the camp

in order to deliver healing substance for the sick. For the

malaria survivors, quinine is but a very positive symbol for life

and recovery. Such medicine is even used to allure Major Gibson

to admit his love affair with Margaret, however Gibson is firm in

effectively standing for what he believed would both save his

troop and Margaret. His firm decision not to admit is as potent

as the efficacy of the medicine quinine. No matter how self-

sacrificing it is for him to deny the offer of quinine, he stood

his ground. Thinking for the common good is what is in the mind

of Gibson.

Letter is another symbolism of the film that signifies the

authenticity of the film with regards to the historical accuracy

of The Great Raid. On the other hand, the letter that Gibson wrote

for Margaret served as a love confession. Such letter also

represented an unrequited love. Love here did not conquer death

but it makes death sweet. Major Gibson died yet his love is

clearly transcribed in the letter. A book of letters and

inspiration is the Bible. Many times in the film the Bible is

shown. They symbolizes the spirituality of the soldiers and the

Filipino people. The film clearly depicts that spirituality is an

essential part of people’s lives. There is more solid inspiration

in doing sacrifices for the highest glory. The picture of a saint

that a certain soldier kissed is an act of believing into

something much greater than one’s self. Though the mission seemed

to be impossible to accomplish but faith holds unto the miracle

of winning over the impossibility. Towards the end, the other

soldier tried to purchase the picture yet as it was shown

spirituality is an individual pursuit. One cannot buy other

people’s beliefs, nor trade it with temporal things. Successes

are not always attributed to human’s finite capacity, and a

spiritual person attributes successes to the One higher than

one’s self.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings, the

conclusion and the recommendations based on the research work

conducted.

Summary

The two selected movies, Pearl Harbor (2001) and The Great Raid

(2005) showed the historically inspired events during World War

II, wherein the latter is the consequent event of the first. The

two films confirmed the historicity of the films’ texts and they

imply worthwhile messages which are derived from the themes and

symbols of each film.

The setting, the characters, and the plot of both films

supported the integration of literature and history. Moreover,

they concur to the messages implied by the themes and symbols of

each film. The setting set the culture and the characters. The

Great Raid is set in the Philippines thus Filipino characters are

involved, and the culture and attitude of the Filipinos during

that time period of war are portrayed. Pearl Harbor is in Hawaii

thus the lifestyle of the people in Hawaii is also depicted. The

magnificent display of the naval fleets are clearly shown in the

film for the film is set in Hawaii during the World War II. Most

characters of both films are mostly real-life characters as a

result of research, consultations with historians and interviews

with real-life people in history. The plot shows the great effort

of integrating history in the film as accurately as possible.

Only by entertainment’s goal that some scenes in the plot, and

characters are fictionalized, and by the goal of alleviating the

painful past that conspired during the surprise attack at Pearl

Harbor and the self-sacrificing raid in Luzon, Philippines that

makes love as part of the films’ theme.

Both films give the glimpse of what war is like. In war

there’s death, survival, loss, and victory. Moreover, there is

heroism, bravery, and sacrifice. In the absence of self-

sacrificing spirit and love, there can never be acts of heroism,

bravery, and sacrifice. In treason, there is destruction and

losses. There is no glorious victory without careful planning and

spirituality. The symbols supplemented the messages of the

themes. Pearl Harbor (2001) showed the following symbols: wheelchair

that signifies strength in weakness; the sun as hope; the

baseball play at early Sunday morning that signifies the loss of

the beauty of Hawaii Paradise; the leg stocking and lipsticks as

medical aids that signifies the shift of usefulness; and the role

of women and the use of Coca Cola bottles that signifies the

shift of the roles from mere commodities to significant entities

in the society. On the other hand, The Great Raid (2005) showed the

symbols of shore as the welcoming port for help; ROTC description

to the untested yet brave Rangers; quinine as the substance for

healing, life and recovery; letter as the evidence of love and

history; and the Bible and picture of a saint to signify

spirituality or faith to Someone greater than one’s self.

Conclusion

The World War II is a painful human history that united

people and nations, after the gruesome losses of precious lives.

The background of both films is developed through various

historians’ perspectives, interviews, and research, thus making

the history in the films relevant to real history. Despite the

criticism for historical inaccuracies, real history confirms the

occurrences of both events portrayed in the two selected films.

The specific themes in both films are war, raid,

selflessness and love, heroism, and sacrifice. They are shown in

the film through the films’ plots. They are reflected in the

characters, setting, and symbols of the two selected films. The

theme of love can never be eradicated in American films

especially Hollywood films for in love there is no greater pain

and loss that can conquer it. Love can be permanently transcribed

in people’s hearts. Love can compel people to the acts of

heroism, and sacrifice. Therefore, love can be said as the major

theme, wherein the minor themes of heroism and sacrifice are

under it. Love can be painful but it makes the glory sweeter and

life more meaningful. In both films, it is shown that there is

pain in love, but there is also hope and reconciliation in love.

War and the raid as themes are clearly shown in the action of

both films – from the act of planning to execution.

Recommendations

For Students -

The researcher suggests that interpretation of literature

should be well thought. Literature is a very deep topic often

times possessing concealed information that is not brought out

clearly and with slim supporting resources that are hard to

conceive. The researcher also suggest to have knowledge in

history especially when New Historicism is the chosen literary

approach.

For Teachers -

The researcher recommends that teachers should give prompt

time and help to students in studying complex ideas of

literature. They should also accept peculiar ideas which may be

against their personal belief. They should give constructive

criticisms on students’ personal or speculative knowledge.

For Future Researches -

Future researchers consider studying other pieces of

literature other than films in the use of New Historicism

Literary Approach. Moreover, they should choose topics which are

of their interest. They should not be afraid to speak out their

minds and justify their ideas. Profound attention to details must

be done in order to produce a good paper. Ask assistance if

necessary.

REFERENCES

Ambrose, Stephen E., 1998. Pointe-du-Hoc. Link: http://www.worldwar2history.info/D-Day/Pointe-Du-Hoc.html

Audio File, Retrieved: http://www.fdrlibrary.marist.edu/infamy_audio.mp3 .

Brown, Scott. The Great Raid. Entertainment Weekly, August 10, 2005. Link: http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,1092073,00.html.

Breuer, William B. The Great Raid Paperback, May 22, 2002. Miramax, 2002.

Bruce, David and Mike Furches, Pearl Harbor – Memorial Day 2001, Reviews (2005), Pear Harbor, 2000 – 2001 Touchstone Pictures, Link: http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/pearl_harbor.htm.

Bruce Kirkland. Movies like 'Zero Dark Thirty' and 'Lincoln' showHollywood is not reliable for history lessons, January 12, 2013. Link: http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/11/movies-like-zero-dark-thirty-and-lincoln-shows-hollywood-is-not-reliable-for-history-lessons, Retrieved on April 22, 2014.

Clark, Mike. There’s no rescuing ‘Great Raid’. USA Today, August 11, 2005. Link: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/life/movies/reviews/2005-08-11-great-raid-review_x.htm.

Constantine Santas. Responding to Film: A Text Guide for Studentsof Cinema Art, January 2002. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Ebert, Roger. "'Pearl Harbor." Chicago Sun-Times, May 25, 2001. Retrieved: June 25, 2009.

Ebert, Roger. “The Great Raid.” In Memoriam 1942 – 2013, August 11, 2005. Link: http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-great-raid-2005.

GPO, 1943. "Document text", Peace and War, United States Foreign Policy 1931–1941, Washington D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1943, retrieved 2007-12-08.

Gudmens, Jeffrey J. LTC and the Staff Ride Team Combat Studies Institute. Combat Studies Press Fort Leavenworth, Kansas 66027, June 2009.

Jane McGrath. 10 Historically Inaccurate Movies, N. D. Link: http://history.howstuffworks.com/history-vs-myth/10-historically-inaccurate-movies.htm, Retrieved on April 22, 2014.

Hanson, Dave. "Boeing/Stearman Model 75/PT-13/N2S." daveswarbirds.com. Retrieved: June 22, 2010.

Hunter, Stephen. Men with a Mission. The Washington Post, August 12, 2005. Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/11/AR2005081101994.html.

Kydiam S. Statistics on Visual Learners, November 2012 Link: http://www.studymode.com/essays/Statistics-On-Visual-Learners-1211593.html, Retrieved on April 18, 2014.

Lichtenberg, Jacqueline. Worldbuilding with Fire and Ice Part 5: The Great Raid, in Part 4. Alien Romances, July 10, 2012. Link: http://aliendjinnromances.blogspot.com/2012/07/worldbuilding-with-fire-and-ice-part-5.html.

Michael Delahoyde, N. D. New Historicism, Link: http://public.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/new.hist.html, Retrieved on April 22, 2014.

Moore, Roger. Orlando Sentinel, 2005. Link: http://www.orlandosentinel.com/enterntainment/movies/orl-db-moviereviews.

Morella, Michael, 2012. How America Changed After Pearl Harbor -The December of 1941 radically altered America and its global role. Link: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/01/06/how-america-changed-after-pearl-harbor.

Morrow, Paul. An Interview with Great Raid Director, John Dahl. Pilipino Express, June 16, 2006. Link: http://www.pilipino-express.com/history-a-culture/in-other-words/403-great-raid-john-dahl.html.

Murray, Rebecca. Director John Dahl Talks about “The Great Raid” – Dahl on “The Great Raid,” His Cast, and Honoring the True Story. About.com Hollywood Movies, N. D. Link: http://movies.about.com/od/thegreatraid/a/greatraid080405_4.htm.

National Geographic Society, 2001. "Beyond the Movie: Pearl Harbor." Retrieved: March 26, 2009.

National Museum of the United States Air Force. "Monday, January 1, 1900 – Sunday, December 31, 1939." Retrieved: January 18,2011.

Naval History and Heritage Command, U.S. Navy. "Cook Third Class Doris Miller, USN". Retrieved 2014-03-23.

Padilla, Lyle F. and Raymond J. Castagnaro. "Medal of Honor Recipients/Nominees Portrayed On Film: Hollywood Abominations, Pearl Harbor (2001)." History, Legend and Myth: Hollywood and the Medal of Honor, 2009. Retrieved: March 26, 2009.

Pearl Harbor Unites Americans behind President Roosevelt. Retrieved: http://www.pacificwar.org.au/pearlharbor/Pearl_Harbor_unites.html.

RJ Rummel. Causes and Conditions of International Conflict and War, 1979. Link: https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/WPP.CHAP16.HTM, Retrieved on April 22, 2014.

Rosenberg, Jennifer. Pearl Harbor Facts: Facts About the JapaneseAttack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. Link: http://history1900s.about.com/od/Pearl-Harbor/a/Pearl-Harbor-Facts.htm.

Rosenstone, Robert A.. The Historical Film as Real History, Film-Historia, Vol. V, No.1 (1995): 5-23.

Saenger, Diana. John Dahl on “The Great Raid.” Reel Talk, N.D. Link: http://www.reeltalkreviews.com/browse/viewitem.asp?type=feature&id=193.

Scott, A.O. "Pearl Harbor: War Is Hell, but Very Pretty." The NewYork Times, May 25, 2001. Retrieved: June 25, 2009.

Schultz, Cathy. History in the Movies, St. Francis Edu., August 12, 2005. Link: http://www.stfrancis.edu/content/historyinthemovies/great%20raid.htm.

Selvin, Joel, Neva Chonin and G. Allen Johnson. FILM CLIPS/Also opening Friday. SFGate, August 12, 2005. Link:

http://www.sfgate.com/movies/article/FILM-CLIPS-Also-opening-Friday-2648536.php.

Sior, New Historicism, 2008. Link: https://ph.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081019131954AAZhSI3, Retrieved on April 22, 2014.

Suid, Lawrence. "Pearl Harbor: Bombed Again". at the Wayback Machine (archived August 21, 2001) Naval History (United States Naval institute), Vol. 15, No. 4, August 2001, p. 20.

War, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

West, Joseph. Principles of War: A Translation from the Japanese.U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, Combat Studies Institute, January 1969.

Weinberg, Scott. The Great Raid. DVD Talk, December 25, 2005. Link: http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/19432/great-raid-the/.

What is Historicism? Retrieved: https://michaelmosca.wikispaces.com/Historicism

What is New Historicism? Link: http://www.cliffsnotes.com/cliffsnotes/literature/what-is-new-historicism, Retrieved on April 22, 2014.

What is New Historicism?, http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-new-historicism.htm

Williams, Brian, Pointe du Hoc, Link: http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/dday/pointeduhoc.aspx

Wright, 1965: 1284

Wohlstetter, Roberta. Pearl Harbor: Warning and Decision. Palo Alto, CA: Stan- ford University Press, 1962.

Zaloga, Steven J., The Most Daring Raid of World War II: D-Day--Pointe-du-Hoc, The Rosen Publishing Group, 2011.

Birch, Nicole (N. D.), Casablanca and New Historicism; and New Historicism in the Heart of Darkness. Link: http://nicolebirch.wordpress.com/

Heart of Darkness, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heart_of_Darkness

http://www.gradesaver.com/author/joseph-conrad/

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2677684

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artistic_license

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=709266

http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/teach/pearl/aftermath/facts.htm

http://www.blitzkriegbaby.de/nnc/nnc1b.htm

https://www.dosomething.org/news/11-facts-you-and-we-didnt-know-about-pearl-harbor

http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2011/12/doris_dorie_miller_pearl_harbor_hero.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread818394/pg1

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-3821.html

http://www.moviehabit.com/review.php?story=pea_ey01

http://www.hackwriters.com/PearlHarbour.htm

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/movie/great_raid/notes.pdf

http://www.pilipino-express.com/pdfs/inotherwords/060616%20Great%20Raid.pdf

http://archive.forum.americasarmy.com/viewtopic.php?t=180780

http://www.sparknotes.com/history/european/ww2/section8.rhtml