Upload
leo-mercuri
View
223
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/11/2019 Robert Brent Topin and Jason Eudy The Historian encounters film.pdf
1/7
The Historian Encounters Film: A Historiography
Author(s): Robert Brent Toplin and Jason EudySource: OAH Magazine of History, Vol. 16, No. 4, Film and History (Summer, 2002), pp. 7-12Published by: Organization of American HistoriansStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25163542.
Accessed: 01/12/2013 18:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
.
Organization of American Historiansis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
OAH Magazine of History.
htt // j t
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oahhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25163542?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25163542?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oah8/11/2019 Robert Brent Topin and Jason Eudy The Historian encounters film.pdf
2/7
Robert
Brent
Toplin
and
Jason
Eudy
The
Historian
Encounters
Film:
A
Historiography
It
is
not
surprising
that
in
recent
decades
historians have
become
increasingly
interested
in
examining
the
presentation
of
history
through
film. Historians
recognize
the
power
ofthe
medium
and understand
that
students
and
the
public
get
many
of
their ideas
about
the
past
from
movie
and television
screens.
Popular
feature films like Braveheart
(1995),
Schindlers
List
(1993),
and
Titanic
(1997)
impressed
viewers
with
their
partisan interpre
tations
of
events,
personalities,
and
controversies.
Well-received
television
documentaries
such
as
Ken
Burns's
The
Civil
War,
helped
to
shape
the
public's
attitude
regarding
an
important
historical
subject.
Historians are also aware that
opportunities
to
view
history
on
the
screen
have
become
more
abundant
in
recent
decades
than
ever
before.
History
is
available
everyday
on
televi
sion
through
programming
on
The
History
Channel,
the Public
Broadcasting
System,
and
a
variety
of
other
information-based
channels.
History-based
movies
are
also abundant
on
television
through
movie
channels
like
Home Box
Office,
American
Movie
Classics,
and
the
Turner Classic Movies Channel.
A
modern
enthusiast of
history
can
easily spend
more
time
examining
screened
history
than
studying
interpretations
of the
past
pre
sented
in
lectures
or
books.
Historians
have
addressed
numerous
questions
about the chal
lenges
of
incorporating
a
study
ofthe
media
into
their
professional
work.
They
have asked:
How
does the
presentation
of
history
on
the
screen
differ from
its
presentation
in
?
o what
degree
can
film
instruct
audiences
and stimulate
the
public's
thinking
about
the
past?
Can
film deliver
new
and different
insights?
In
which
ways may
film
grossly simplify
or
misrepresent
the
past?
Does
the
popularity
of
film
represent
a
serious
challenge
to
traditional
modes of
interpreting
history
in
teaching
and
writing?
Which
analytical
skills do historians need
to
develop
in
order
to
work
more
effectively
with film?
John
E. O'Connor made
some
of the
most
impressive
early
efforts
to
promote
the
study
of film and television
in
the
history
classroom. Because
of these
pioneering
activities,
the American
Historical
Association
created the
John
E. O'Connor
Award,
its
first
prize
devoted
to
some
outstanding
achievement
in
filmmak
ing.
In
the
early
1970s,
John
E. O'Connor and his
associate,
Martin
A.
Jackson
created
the
journal,
Film &
History,
and
organized
the
Historians' Film
Committee,
which
attempted
to
promote
the
thoughtful
use
of
film
and
television
in
historical
research
and
teaching.
These
historians
hoped
their efforts would
demonstrate
that
investigation
of
the
mass
media constituted
serious
and
important scholarship. Eventually
the
independent
committee became an affiliated society of the American Histori
cal Association and
began
to
regularly
sponsor
sessions
on
film
and
television
at
each annual
meeting
of
the
AHA. O'Connor
also
wrote
and edited
many
important
publications
that dealt
with
the
use
of
film
for
the
study
of
history.
O'Connor obtained
a
substantial
grant
in
the
1980s
from
the
National Endowment
for the
Humanities
that
supported
his effort
to
bring
both
historians and
cinema
scholars
together
for
a
conference that
addressed the
challenges
that
film
created
for the
history
profession.
Several
presentations
at
that
conference later
appeared
in
O'Connor's edited
book,
The
Image
as
Artifact:
The
Historical
Analysis of
Film and Television
(1990).
O'Connor estab
lished
an
organizational
structure
for the
authors' discussions
in
a
lengthy
introduction
to
the collection
of
essays.
He
suggested
that
historians
could
examine
film
in
four fundamental
ways.
First,
they
could
study
the
moving image
as a
"Representation
of
History."
Movies and documentaries often
portrayed
and
inter
preted
the
past,
and
their
treatments
of
history
deserved critical
attention.
Secondly,
students
could
view
film
as
"Evidence for
Social and Cultural
History."
The
stories
presented
in
movies
and
documentaries
sometimes
revealed the "values" ofthe filmmakers
and
the
concerns
of
society
at
the
time
of
production,
O'Connor
noted.
He
warned, however,
that scholars often make
simplified
judgments
about
the
ways
in
which filmed
stories
reflected the
OAH Magazine
of
History Summer 2002
7
This content downloaded from 190.172.198.166 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:59:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Robert Brent Topin and Jason Eudy The Historian encounters film.pdf
3/7
attitudes
of
an era.
Thirdly,
O'Connor
suggested
that students of
film could consider
"Actuality Footage
as
Evidence for
History."
He noted that sometimes material from film and television serves
as
the best evidence
available
for the
study
of
specific
historical
events.
Finally,
O'Connor
suggested
that students could
study
"The
History
of the
Moving
Image
as
Industry
and
Art Form."
In
these
investigations
historians could
profit
from research
in cin
ema
studies. Efforts
to
learn
from these
insights
would
require
considerable
effort,
O'Connor
pointed
out,
because historians
need
to
understand
the intellectual
and
theoretical
concepts
of
modern
film
scholarship
(1).
books
and articles
(5).
Film
can
work
effectively
for
explorations
into
history,
White
asserted.
Indeed,
it
could do
some
things
well
that writing does inadequately. David Herlihy offered a less
receptive
response
to
Rosenstone's
generally
positive
commen
tary
on
the
possibilities
of
viewing
history through
film.
Herlihy
said
film,
unlike
scholarship,
did
not
reveal the
source
of
its
evidence
and,
therefore,
often
it
did
not
allow the
quality
of
criticism
leveled
against
narratives.
Nevertheless,
Herlihy
main
tained
that
film
has the
potential
to
vividly
convey
a
sense
ofthe
past
and
help
to
keep
an
interest
in
history
alive?much
like
historical novels
(6).
John
E.
O'Connor
stressed
Film earned
greater respect
in
the halls of
academia
during
the
1980s
and
1990s when
some
of the
principal
journals
of record introduced
an
nually
scheduled
reviews
of films. David
Thelen
established
this
innovation
for The
Journal
of
Ameri
can
History
when he became
general
editor of
the
journal
in
the mid-1980s.
"Movie Reviews"
first
appeared
in
the
December,
1986
issue
of the
JAH
and
continued
in
subsequent
December
issues.
The
review
section's
editor,
Robert
Brent
Toplin,
announced
in
his introduction
that
reviewers
would
consider
the
way
films
made
original
contributions
to
understanding
and
addressed
issues
that
were
the
subject
of debate
by
historians
(2).
In
1989
The
American
Historical
Review
began
reviewing
films
as
well.
Robert
A.
Rosenstone,
the AHR's first
film
editor,
announced
that the
journal
would
"see
to
what
extent
film
can
be used
to
represent,
re
create, talk
about,
and situate us with
regard
to the
John E.
O'Connor,
former
editor
of
Film
&
History,
is
professor
of
history
at New
Jersey
Instituteof
Technology
and
Rutgers
University,
Newark.
the
importance
of
film
and television
for the
study
of cultural
history.
He
argued
that students
needed
instruction
in
critiquing
the visual
media.
History
professionals
also could
profit
from education
in
the
production techniques
of
film,
and
they
could
benefit
from
cross-disciplinary
cooperation
with
cinema
scholars
(7).
Robert
Brent
Toplin
sug
gested
that filmed
history
was
becoming
so
ubiqui
tous
that
it
was
appropriate
to
view
filmmakers
as
historians. The filmmakers'
interpretations
are
dif
ferent
from
the
work of
print-oriented
scholars,
he
noted,
but their
dramas and documentaries often
provide
quite
useful
inquiries
into
the
past
(8).
Not
surprisingly,
in
the later
part
of
the
twentieth
century
historians
gave
increasing
at
tention
to
Hollywood's
treatments
of
history.
Fea
ture
films
were
intriguing
subjects
for
study
because
they
attracted
huge
audiences
and often excited
considerable discussion of historical issues in the
vanished
world of
the
past."
He
emphasized
that films
presented
arguments
about the
meaning
of the
past
that
operated by
rules
that
were
different from those
found
in
written
history
(3).
Rosenstone
made
an
important
contribution
to
that rethink
ing
in
a
provocative
AHR
article
that introduced
a
special
forum
on
film.
In
"History
in
Images/History
in
Words,"
Rosenstone
reviewed
some
ofthe
historians'
positive
and
negative
reactions
to
film,
pointing
to
disagreements
about
whether
history
on
the
screen
could
address historical
questions
with the
sophistication
of formal
scholarship
and with the
attention
to sources
and
historiographical
debates
that characterized
much of the best
academic research.
Rosenstone
suggested
that
film could
stimu
late thinking about history in intriguing ways. An appreciation of
film's
significance
could
not
be advanced
by simplistic
compari
sons
with
interpretations
disseminated
in
books
and articles.
Film
communicated
in
a
unique
manner.
It
presented
a
distinct
chal
lenge
to
historians.
History
in
images
suggested
a
new
"analytic
structure" for
thinking
about the
past
(4).
Four
scholars
offered
responses
to
Rosenstone's
analysis. Hayden
White
argued
that
historical
interpretation
involves
the
arrang
ing
and
shaping
of
stories,
not
the
objective
representations
of
truth.
All historical
explanations
involve
considerable
exercise
of
creative
license,
even
traditional modes
of
interpretation through
national
media. Controversial
movies?such
as
Oliver
Stone's
Platoon
(1986)
and
JFK
(1991)?or
emotionally powerful
mov
ies?like
Steven
Spielberg's
Schindler's
List and
Saving
Private
Ryan
(1998)?received
considerable
attention
in
the
press
and
on
television
programs.
A
blockbuster,
such
as
James
Cameron's
Titanic,
could
promote
the sale of
numerous
books about
an event
depicted
in
the
movies.
History-oriented
films
represent
only
a
small
portion
of
Hollywood's
releases,
but
they
receive
a
great
deal of critical
reception.
From
1986 until
2001,
one or more
ofthe
five
motion
pictures
nominated for
Best Picture
featured
a
story
set
in
the
past.
In eleven of these fifteen
years
a
history-oriented
movie
won
the
Oscar for Best Picture. The eleven history films varied greatly in
the
seriousness of
their
treatments.
In
some
cases
the dramas
related
only loosely
to
conditions
in
the
past,
while
in
other
cases
the films
portrayed specific
people
and historical
situations
in
considerable detail.
History-based
films
that
won
the
top
prize
included
Platoon,
The Last
Emperor
(1987),
Driving
Miss
Daisy
(1989),
Dances WithWolves
(1990),
Unforgiven
(1992),
Schindler's
List,
Braveheart,
The
English
Patient
(1996),
Titanic,
Shakespeare
in
Love
(1998),
and
Gladiator
(2000).
The
year
that
Shakespeare
in
Love
won
the award
was an
especially
notable
one
for
cinematic
history.
All five
nominees
for
Best Picture of
1998 dealt with
8
OAH
Magazine
of
History Summer 2002
This content downloaded from 190.172.198.166 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:59:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Robert Brent Topin and Jason Eudy The Historian encounters film.pdf
4/7
historical
subjects
(the
other
nominees
were
Saving
Private
Ryan,
The Thin
Red
Line,
Life
is
Beautiful,
and
Elizabeth).
Some observers have registered sharp complaints
about
artis
tic
abuses
prevalent
in
Hollywood
films.
Articles
by
Richard
Bernstein
of The
New
York
Times
and Richard
N.
Current,
a
Civil
War
historian,
provide
a
suggestive
sampling
of
some
of the
criticisms leveled
by
journalists
and academicians.
In
an
essay
entitled,
"Can
Movies
Teach
History?",
Bernstein noted that
many
of
Hollywood's
historical
treatments
were
quite
disappoint
ing.
Moviemakers often
got
minor
details
right
in
their
depiction
of
costumes
and
settings,
but
their
stories
about the
past
were
greatly
distorted
(9).
Bernstein focused
on
errors
committed
in
the
making
of
Fat Man and Little
Boy,
a
1989
movie
about
American
efforts
at
Los
Alamos
to
produce
the
first
atomic
bomb. The
movie's
falsehoods
diminished
its
value
as
history,
Bernstein
concluded.
Richard Current
leveled his
complaints
in
"Fiction
as
History:
A Review
Essay", published
in
the
Journal
of
Southern
History.
Current
observed
that historical
dramas
"take
liberties
with the
facts,
or
at
best,
select
those
that have the
greatest
visual effect." Real
ity
and
fantasy
"blend
more
and
more
into
an
inseparable
mix"
in
television and
Hollywood
productions,
he
complained
(10).
Most
scholars, however,
have been less scold
ing
in
their
perspective.
While
they
recognize
that
commercial
films often
simplify
informa
tion,
manipulate
evidence,
and distort the his
torical
record,
they
maintain
that
many
Hollywood
movies
are
worthy
of
professional
study. These scholars find motion pictures in
triguing
not
only
for their
representations
of
history
but also
for
other
insights
that
yielded
from these
investigations.
Edited
works have demonstrated
a
variety
of
ways
that
scholars work with
Hollywood
movies.
John
E.
O'Connor
and
Martin
A.
Jackson
edited
an
important
anthology
in
this
regard
in
1979.
American
History
I
merican Film
showed that
a
study
of
popular
cinema
can
throw
light
on
impor
tant
issues
related
to
American
history.
O'Connor's
and
Jackson's
anthology
featured
essays
on
fourteen commercial films.
Some of
the
chapters
focused
on
period
or
historical
movies,
such
as
The
Big
Parade
(1925)
and
Viva
Zapata
(195
2).
Other
chapters
exam
ined
entertainment
films that
seemed
important
because
their
stories
reflected
concerns
of the American
people
at
the
time
of
their
production.
These
movies
include
Invasion
of
the
Body
Snatchers
(1956),
Dr.
Strangelove
(1964),
and
Rocky
(1976).
American
History/American
Film
is
a
rather
old volume
in
the fast
growing
field
of
historical
scholarship
on
film,
yet
it continues to
hold
up
well
as a
sophisticated
presentation
of the
ways
that
historians
can
examine
Hollywood
as a source
of
insights
on
the
American
past
(11).
Pastlmperfect:
History
According
to
the
Movies
(1996)
is
another
useful
anthology
on
the
subject
of
Hollywood
and
history.
Editor
Mark Carnes
brought together
sixty
outstanding
historians
and
writers
for
a
wide-ranging
discussion
that covered
more
than
one
hundred
popular
motion
pictures.
In his
introduction,
Carnes
points
out
that
many
of the authors first
became
attracted
to
history
when
they
viewed
movies
as
youngsters.
He
suggests
that
movies
"often teach
important
truths
about the human
condi
tion"
(12).
While
the
history depicted
in
motion
pictures
is
certainly
not
accurate
in
every
detail,
it
can
stimulate useful
dialogues
about
the
past.
The authors that
Carnes
assembled
in
this
work
evidently responded
to
his call
for
an
open-minded
view
of
popular
film.
Several contributors
provided generally
favorable
reviews
ofthe
films
they
examined.
Interestingly, though,
some
of
the harshest
criticism
leveled
in
the
book
applied
to
motion
pictures
about
the
experiences
of African
Americans
and
Native
Americans.
The
commentators
objected
to
the
movies'
insensi
tive
portrayals
of
minorities.
Robert
Brent
Toplin
has also
offered
some
generally
appreciative
assessments
of
Hollywood's
treatment
of
history.
Toplin
recognizes
many
of the
complaints
about
artistic
license
in
History B31
Hollywood:
The
Use
and
Abuse
of
the
American Past
(1996),
but he also
observes
that,
"filmmakers
often
approach
histori
cal
subjects
with
genuine curiosity
about
the
past"
(13).
As well
as
focusing
on
the filmmakers'
interpretations
of
history
as
depicted
in
the
final
product, Toplin
investigates
the
production
histo
ries
and considers
how
producers,
writers,
and
directors
struggled
and
often
disagreed
as
they
attempted
to
shape
stories
for the
movies.
He also
places films in the context of their times, observing
that
contemporary
sociopolitical
conditions
some
times
made
a
significant
impact
on
the filmmakers'
storytelling. Toplin's
edited
work,
Oliver
Stone's
USA
(2000),
features
assessments
ofthe
controver
sial
Hollywood
director's
movies
by
scholars
and
journalists
and
includes
Stone's
two
lengthy
responses
to
his
critics
(14).
In
Reel
History:
In
Defense ofHoRywood,
scheduled
for release
in
October
2002,
Toplin provides
a
rationale
for the moviemakers'
exercises
in
artistic
license.
Cinematic
history
is
a
genre,
he
argues,
and
filmmakers have
developed
a
number of successful
strategies
over
the
years
that
help
to
make their
history-oriented
movies
popular.
Critics
who
fail
to
take
account
of these
techniques
can
easily
get
bogged
down
in
complaints
about
petty
details
and
fictional
flour
ishes
while
failing
to
recognize
the
movies'
broader contributions
to
the
public's
thinking
about the
past
(15).
Of
course,
many
film scholars
give
less
attention
to
the
filmmakers'
interpretations
of
history
and
express
greater
interest
in
the
ways
in
which historical
and/or
period productions
serve
as
commentaries
on
contemporary
issues.
Artists,
they
say,
often
use
history
to
suggest
judgments
about modern
economic,
social,
and
political
problems.
Pierre Sorlin offered
a
particularly
strong
statement
of
this
perspective
in
1980. He
said
filmed
history
is
"a
mere
framework,
serving
as a
basis
or a
counterpoint
for
a
political
Robert
A.
Rosenstone,
author
of
several books
on
film,
is
film editor
for
the
American
Historical Review.
OAH
Magazine
of
History Summer 2002
9
This content downloaded from 190.172.198.166 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:59:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Robert Brent Topin and Jason Eudy The Historian encounters film.pdf
5/7
thesis.
History
is
no more
than
a
useful
device
to
speak
of
the
present
time." A
student
of
scholarship
on
historical
film will
find
this poignant
statement
quoted
in
many
books and articles.
Sorlin's observation
is
provocative
but
too
simplistic.
Obviously,
filmmakers often
summon
history
to
fashion
stories
with
meaning
for the
present,
but
their
motivation
for
making
movies
is
hardly
as
one-dimensional
as
Sorlin
suggests.
Teachers
and scholars
treat
movies
superficially
if
they briskly
dismiss
almost all of the
filmmakers'
perspectives
on
history primarily
as
metaphors
that
address
current
issues.
Leger
Grindon
cites
Sorlin
and
applies
his
perspective
engag
ingly
in
Shadows
on
the Past: Studies
in
theHistorical
Fiction
Film
(1994).
Historical
movies
are
products
of the
times
as
well
as
attempts
to
represent
the
past,
observes
Grindon.
In
his
study
of
Jean
Renoir's 1938
movie,
La
Marseillaise,
for
example,
Grindon
sees
the
movie
as more
than
just
an
investigation
of the French
Revolution.
The film's
story
also
serves
to
present
a
passionate
argument
in
behalf
of the
Popular
Front
in
1930s France. Simi
larly,
Warren
Beatty's
Reds
(1981)
represents
more
than
just
a
drama
about
an
idealistic American
who became
involved
in
Russia's
Bolshevik
revolution. Grindon
believes
the movie's char
acterizations
speak
to
divisions and
problems
faced
by
representa
tives
ofthe American Left
in
the
1970s
(16).
In
some
respects,
Siegfried
Kracauer deserves
credit for stimulat
ing
historians'
thoughts
about
opportunities
to
read
subtle
mean
ings
from the
stories
depicted
in
film. Kracauer
published
a
provocative
book
shortly
after the
end of World
War II
that
represented
a
psychological
interpretation
of German
film.
In
From
Caligari
to
Hitler
(1947)
Kracauer
argued
that
films created
during
theWeimar Republic contained significant elements that pointed
toward
the totalitarian
regime
that
materialized
in
Germany
during
the
following
decade.
A
study
of
movies,
then,
could reveal the
psychological
makeup
of
a
society.
Kracauer arrived
at
his conclu
sion
by
examining
motion
pictures
such
as
The Cabinet
of
Dr.
CoIigan(1919),I>.Mahi5e:TheGaTrAkr(1922),Waxu;orks(1924),
and The
Last
Laugh
(1924).
Many
of these
films,
said
Kracauer,
presented
viewers with
a
psychological
choice between chaos and
tyranny.
Of
course,
Kracauer had
the
advantage
of
hindsight.
He
could
select
movies
that fit
into
his
image
of
a
Germany
destined for
dictatorial
rule
(17).
Not
surprisingly,
a
number of
film
scholars
have
challenged
his conclusions. Anton
Kaes',
in
From Hitler
to
Heimat: The
Return
of
History
as
Film
(1989),
offers
a more
sophis
ticated
analysis
of German
cinema
that
examines
the
ways
in
which
Germans
struggled
with their
identity
in
the
post-war
years
through
depictions
of the
Nazi
past
(18).
Some
scholars have
attempted
to
move
away
from
familiar
discussions
about
the
movies
treatment
of
history by
approaching
film from
a
post-modern
perspective.
These
investigators
appreci
ate
movies
that
examine
that
past
in
innovative,
provocative,
and
unorthodox
ways.
They
enjoy
films that break
away
from
Hollywood's
linear
approach
(the
familiar
structure in
which
stories
have
a
recognizable beginning,
middle,
and
end).
Enthusi
asts
of
a
post-modern
perspective appreciate
motion
pictures
that
raise
more
questions
than
they
answer.
They
like
motion
pic
tures
that
leave
matters
unre
solved
in
the
end
(Hollywood,
they
argue,
works
too
frequently
toward
closure,
especially
by
com
posing
stories
with
happy
end
ings).
Post-modernists also
praise
films that shock
viewers
with
images
that
juxtapose
references
to
both the
past
and
the
present.
Sumiko
Higashi
and Robert
A. Rosenstone demonstrate this
kind of
appreciation
in
connec
tion
with
two
films: Walker
(1987)
and
JFK
(1992).
Walker
deals with the adventures
ofWil
liamWalker
in
Nicaragua
in
the
1850s,
the adventurer
who
suc
ceeded
briefly
in
taking
control
of the small Central
American
country
(later
Walker
was
executed
by
Honduran
authorities).
The
movie
includes
some
modern references
in
its
imagery?
including
a
Mercedes-Benz,
a
Zippo
lighter,
a
computer,
a
heli
copter,
and
copies
of
Time,
Newsweek,
and
People
magazines.
In
these and other
scenes
Walker references both
the
Vietnam War
and
the
Sandinista-Contra
conflict
in
Nicaragua
and
suggests
critical
questions
about the
impact
of
U.S. economic
and
military
interventions
in
Latin
America
and the world
(19).
Both Higashi and Rosenstone praise Oliver Stone's JFK, too,
for
its
lively
experimentation.
Rosenstone
acknowledges
that the
motion
picture fudged
some
details about the
Kennedy
assassina
tion,
but he
argues
that
it
effectively questioned
official "truths."
He
points
out
that
the
film confronted audiences with
a
provoca
tive
and
important
question:
"Has
something
gone wrong
with
America
since
the
sixties?" Whatever the
movie's
flaws,
says
Rosenstone, "JFK
has
to
be
among
the
most
important
works of
American
history
ever
to
appear
on
the
screen"
(20).
When
writing
more
broadly
about
the historian's
relationship
to
film,
Rosenstone
suggests
that
teachers and scholars need
to
see
beyond
small
errors
and
distortions
and observe the
big
picture. They
should
recognize,
he
writes,
"that
film will
always
include
images
that
are at
once
invented
and
true: true
in
that
they symbolize,
condense,
or
summarize
larger
amounts
of
data;
true
in
that
they
impart
an
overall
meaning
of the
past
that
can
be
verified,
documented,
or
reasonably argued"
(21).
Both
Higashi
and
Rosenstone
appreciate
Walker,
JFK,
and
other
avante-garde
movies
that eschew
traditional
storytelling
techniques.
They
applaud
filmmakers'
panache
in
mixing
genres,
presenting
odd
juxtapositions,
incorporating
sarcasm
and
humor,
creating
temporal
jumps,
and
generally
promoting postmodern
perspectives
(22).
Movies that
explore
new
modes of
communica
tion
confront
audiences with
a
"multiplicity
of
viewpoints,"
says
Warren
Beatty's
Reds
demonstrates
the
problems
faced
by
theAmerican Left
in
the
1970s.
10
OAH Magazine
of
History Summer
2002
This content downloaded from 190.172.198.166 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:59:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Robert Brent Topin and Jason Eudy The Historian encounters film.pdf
6/7
Rosenstone.
These films
challenge
audiences
to
think
differently,
to
"revision"
the
past
(23).
There
are
numerous
other issues related
to
Hollywood's role in
American life that have
intrigued
historians,
and these themes
can
only
be
addressed
briefly
in
this
introductory
commentary.
Students
of
film
who wish
to
consider the
importance
of the
Hollywood
movie
industry
in
American
culture
over
the twentieth
century
will
find Robert
Sklar's Movie-Made
America
(second edition, 1994)
a
useful
point
of
departure.
Sklar's
popular
study
traces
the
growth
of
the
movie
industry
from
its
early
days
of
appeal
to
immigrants
and
working-class
Americans
to
its
modern
developments, including
the
rise
of
independent-minded
directors who
challenged
the
formulaic
practices
ofthe
big
studios
(24).
Neil Gabler's
An
Empire
of
Their
Own:
How the
Jews
Invented
Hollywood
(1989)
provides
a
provocative
and
ultimately
controver
sial
picture
of the
Jewish
immigrants
who
eventually
dominated
much
of
the
Hollywood
studio
system
(25).
In
Hollywood's
America:
Social
and
Politi
cal
Themes
in
Motion Pictures
(1996)
Stephen
Powers,
David
J.
Rothman
and
Stanley
Rothman
argue, provoca
tively,
that
many
ofthe modern
execu
tives
who dominate
Hollywood
are
more
liberal than
many
of their
critics
imagine
(26).
Historians have
long
been fasci
nated with the
issue
of
censorship.
The
subject
is
appealing,
in
part,
be
cause it connects social issues to
poli
tics.
Historians
and their
colleagues
in
cinema
studies
have
published
numerous
books
and
articles
about
the
campaigns
to
regulate
content in
movies,
particularly
sexual
material.
Garth S.
Jowett's
Film:
The
Democratic Art
presents
a
useful
overview
of
the
subject. Gregory
Black's
Hollywood
Cen
sored:
Morality
Codes,
Catholics,
and the
Movies
(1996)
offers
an
informative
review
of
principal developments
that led
to
Hollywood's
plan
for
self-regulation:
the
Production
Code
(27).
Also,
Kathryn
H.
Fuller,
Ian
C.
Jarvie
and Garth
S.
Jowett
have
compiled
an
instructive
investigation
of
a
particular
controversy
related
to
regulatory
issues
in
Children and theMovies:
Media
Influence
and
the
Payne
Studies
Controversy
(1996)
(28).
Government's
role
in
influencing
the
stories
Hollywood
presented
to
the
public
receives
intelligent
treatment
in
Clayton
R.
Koppes
and
Gregory
D.
Black,
Hollywood
Goes
to
War:
How
Politics and
Propaganda
Shaped
World War
11
Movies
(1990).
Franklin D.
Roosevelt's
administration worked
closely
with
Hollywood
executives
and
artists
in
an
effort
to ensure
that
commercial movies
contributed
to
the
American
war
effort
(29).
Todd Bennett
provides
a
detailed examination
of the
Washington-Hollywood
connection
as
it
related
to one
movie
in
"Culture, Power,
and Mission
to
Moscow:
Film
and
Soviet
American
Relations
During
World War
II."
He
shows
that
American audiences
generally
dismissed
Mission
to
Moscow
as
unmitigated propaganda,
but
Joseph
Stalin and other
Soviet
leaders embraced the movie
as a
flattering vision of their society.
This
positive
reaction
helped
to
bring
a
reintroduction of
Hol
lywood
films
into
the
Soviet Union.
That
development exposed
Russian
audiences
to
pictures
of American
prosperity.
In
the
long
run,
Hollywood
movies
undermined Soviet
arguments
about the
success
of
their
communist
system
(30).
Historians have
devoted less
scholarship
to
documentary
films
(including
the
many
that
appear
on
television),
and there
is
certainly
a
need
for
greater
professional
assessment
of
the
genre.
Erik
Barnouw
offers
a
good
starting
point
for
examining
major
developments
in
documentary
filmmaking
in
a
classic
study, Documentary:
A
History of
theNon-Fiction
Film
(1993)
(31).
John
O'Connor
has
edited
a
useful
anthology
that features stud
ies
of
important
documentary
films:
American
History
I
merican
Televi
sion:
Interpreting
the
Video
Past
(1983)
(32).
A
detailed
examination of
an
influential
documentary
program
can
be found
in
Robert
Brent
Toplin,
editor,
Ken Burns's
The
Civil
War:
Historians
Respond
(1996).
The book
features both
praise
and criticism of
the
popular
television
series
from
a
group
of
prominent
Civil War schol
ars.
At
the
end
of
the volume film
maker
Ken
Burns
and
the
TV series'
writer, Geoffrey Ward, respond to
the
scholar's
comments
(33).
These
are
just
a
few ofthe
many
books and
articles
that
have drawn
attention
to
the
rel
evance
of
film
in
the
study
of
history.
The
outpouring
of this
scholarship
in
recent
years
has
certainly
been
impressive.
After
years
of
relative
neglect
in
the historical
profession,
a
burst
of interest
and
research
occurred late
in
the twentieth
century.
Today,
teachers
and
scholars
no
longer
stand
aloof
from the
moving
image,
as
many
of
their
predecessors
did
in
previous
decades. Historians of
the
twenty-first
century
recognize
that film
and
television
can
project
enormously
influential
visions
ofthe
past.
Accordingly,
they
understand
the
value of
incorporating
a
study
of
the
moving image
in
their classroom
instruction.
Endnotes
1.
John
E.
O'Connor, ed.,
Image
as
Artifact:
The
Historical
Analysis
of
Film and
Television
(Malabar,
FL: R.E.
Krieger Publishing
Company,
1990).
2
Robert
Brent
Toplin, History B;y
Hollywood:
The
Use
and Abuse
of
the American
Past
(Champagne-Urbana:
University
of
Illinois
Press,
1996).
3
Robert
A.
Rosenstone,
"Film
Reviews:
Introduction,"
American
Teachers and
scholars
treat
movies
superficially
if
they
briskly
dismiss almost all of
the
filmmakers'
perspectives
on
history
primarily
as
metaphors
that address
current
issues.
OAH
Magazine
of
History
Summer
2002
11
This content downloaded from 190.172.198.166 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:59:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/11/2019 Robert Brent Topin and Jason Eudy The Historian encounters film.pdf
7/7
Historical
Review
94,
no.4
(October, 1989):
1031-1033.
4
Robert
A.
Rosenstone,
"History
in
Images/History
in
Words:
Reflections
of
the
Possibility
of
Really Putting History
Into
Film,"
American
Historical
Review
93,
no.5
(December,
1988),
1173-1185.
5
Hayden
White,
"Historiography
and
Historiophoty,"
American
Historical
Review
93,
no.
5
(December,
1988),
1193-1199.
6
David
Herlihy,
"Am I
a
Camera? Other
Reflections
on
Film
and
History,"
American
Historical
Review
93,
no.
5
(December,
1988),
1186-1192.
7
John
E.
O'Connor,
"History
in
Images/Images
in
History:
Re
flections
on
the
Importance
of
Film and Television
Study
for
an
Understanding
ofthe
Past,"
American
Historical
Review
93,
no.
5
(December,
1988),
1200-1209.
8
Robert
Brent
Toplin,
"The Filmmaker
as
Historian,"
American
Historical Review
93,
no.
5
(December, 1988),
1210-1227.
9 Richard Bernstein, "Can Movies Teach
History?"
New York
Times,
26
November, 1989,
sec.
2,
1.
10 Richard
N.
Current,
"Fiction
as
History:
A Review
Essay,"
Journal
of
Southern
History
52,
no.
1
(February,
1986),
77-90.
11
John
E.
O'Connor
and
Martin
A.
Jackson,
eds.
American
History/
American Film:
Interpreting
the
Hollywood
Image
(New
York:
Ungar
Publishing
Co., 1979).
12
Mark
C.
Carnes,
ed.,
Past
Imperfect:
History
According
to
the
Movies
(New
York:
Henry
Holt and
Co, 1995).
13
Toplin,History By
Hollywood.
14
Robert
Brent
Toplin,
ed.,
Oliver
Stone's USA:
Film,
History,
and
Controversy
(Lawrence,
KS:
University
Press
of
Kan
sas,
2000).
15 Robert Brent Toplin, Reel History: In Defense of Hollywood
(Lawrence,
KS:
University
Press of
Kansas,
2002.
(Scheduled
fore
lease
in
October, 2002)
16
Leger
Grindon,
Shadows
on
thePast:
Studies
in
theHistorical
Film
(Philadelphia: Temple
University
Press, 1994).
17
Siegfried
Kracauer,
From
Caliban
to
Hitler:
A
Psychological
History ofthe
German Film
(Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press, 1947).
18 Anton
Kaes,
From Hitler
to
Heimat:
The
Return
of History
(Cambridge,
MA:
Harvard
University
Press,
1989).
19
Sumiko
Higashi,
"Walker
and
Mississippi Burning:
Postomodernism Versus
Illusionist
Narrative,"
in
Alan
Rosenthal, ed.,
Why
Docudrama?
Fact-Fiction
on
Film
and
Television
(Carbondale,
IL:
Southern Illinois
University
Press,
1999),
351-352.
20 Robert A.
Rosenstone,
"JFK:
Historical
Fact/Historical
Film,"
in
Rosenthal,
ed.,
Why
Docudrama?,
339.
21
Robert
A.
Rosenstone,
Visions
ofthe
Past:
The
Challenge
of
Film
to
Our Idea
of
History
(Cambridge,
MA:
Harvard
University
Press, 1995),
71.
22
Robert
A.
Rosenstone,
"The
Future
ofthe
Past: Film and the
Beginnings
of Postmodern
History,"
in
Vivian
Sobchack,
ed.,
The
Persistence
of
History:
Cinema,
Television,
and theModern
Event
(New
York
and London:
Routledge,
1996),
205.
23
Ibid.,
206.
24
Robert
Sklar,
Movie-Made America:
A
Cultural
History
of
American
Movies,
second ed.
(New
York:
Vintage
Books, 1994).
25
Neil
Gabler,
An
Empire of
Their
Own: How
the
Jews
Invented
Hollywood
(New
York:
Crown,
1988).
26
Stephen
Powers,
David
J.
Rothman,
and
Stanley
Rothman,
Hollywood's
America:
Social and Political
Themes
in
Motion
Pictures
(Boulder,
Col.:
Westview
Press, 1996).
27
Garth
S.
Jowett,
Film:
The Democratic
Art
(Boston: Little,
Brown
and
Co., 1976).
28
Kathryn
H.
Fuller,
Ian
C.
Jarvie,
and
Garth
S.
Jowett,
Children
and the
Movies:
Media
Influence
and
the
Payne
Studies Contro
versy
(Cambridge,UK: Cambridge
University
Press, 1996).
29
Clayton
R.
Koppes
and
Gregory
D.
Black,
Hollywood
Goes
to
War: How
Politics,
Profits
and
Propaganda
Shaped
World
War 11
Movies (New York: The Free Press, 1987).
30
Todd
Bennett,
"Culture, Power,
and
Mission
to
Moscow:
Film
and Soviet-American
Relations
During
World
War
II,"
The
Journal
of
American
History,
vol.
88,
no.
2
(September,
2001),
489-518.
31
Erik
Barnouw,
Documentary:
A
History
ofthe
Non-Fiction
Film
(New
York: Oxford
University
Press,
1993)
32
John
E.
O'Connor, ed.,
American
History,
American Television:
Interpreting
theVideo
Past
(New
York:
Ungar
Publising
Co.,
1983).
33
Robert
Brent
Toplin,
ed.
Ken
Burns's The
Civil
War:
Historians
Respond
(New
York:
Oxford
University
Press, 1996).
Robert Brent Toplin isa professor of history at theUniversity ofNorth
Carolina
at
Wilmington
where he teaches
film
and United
States
history.
Jason
Eudy
is
a
graduate
student
at
the
University
of
North
Carolina
at
Wilmington.
He
is
concentrating
on
the
study
of
film.
IBSIflRVI^RHiHMIHHIHHHHk
12
OAH
Magazine
of
History Summer 2002
This content downloaded from 190.172.198.166 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:59:19 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp