"Imagination guided by evidence" - History and Hollywood

In our era of the fast-paced environment and computer technology changing almost every mode of our life, the move, the cinematography and Hollywood for a long time took a leading role to interpret and historically educate our society. The following authors bring their points of view on this phenomenon by analyzing various film productions.

Discussing The Return of Martin Guerre (1982), historian and consultant Natalie Davis looks at the move form the anthropological point of view in the attempt of the moviemakers to reconstruct sixteenth-century life of the French countryside. Despite her ground work as a researcher, the movie obviously appeared with some shortages: manner of speech and conduct of the main characters, system of public trial in the Ancient régime France, appropriate dress, to name but a few. To that extend, discussing historical and cinematic criteria, Davis suggests that the first one embraces the “constructing the image of the past and lines of the historical plot” while the second is responsible for “quality, movement, and cost.” (p. 47). Inability of a director to work with close conjunction with the consultant creates an image of modernity replacing the historical reality. One of the solutions is the suggestion to present historical review on movie in the scholarly journals, but today’s generation of spectators, I am afraid, is looking more for an entertainment rather than a diligent research.

Further, Vivien E. Rose and Julie Corley are attacking the domineering approach in directorship, which was undertook by Ken Burns’ in his Not for ourselves alone: The Story of E. Stanton and S. Anthony (1999). Bringing up the idea that “historians need a public versed in history”, authors suggest for more promotion of the “historical narrative” (p. 50). We could agree, perhaps, that the Burns’ presentation of two famous suffragists (although did not survive to see the 19th Amendment coming into the effect) goes with a standard interpretation of great American heroes (heroines). However, lots of primary materials are misused: off-period photos, inconsistency in music matching the scenes, odd text and the like. “I can see it in such a way,” – is the usual defense of a director against piles of historical research and convincing evidence.
Although move seems educational it does not, by the opinion of authors, necessarily brings “scholarly credibility” (p. 56). It, however, promotes the sale of a product associated with the history of suffragist movement, which is no less important. Just as the above Davis’ article suggests, there is need for more appearance of historians in public, writhing of op-ed pieces and teaching students how to use primary source and analyze documents. Perhaps, there is time when historians having directors and producers only as an instrument for production could make their own historically accurate movies.
How about that for a change?

Although Robert Toplin in his Cinematic History agrees that more and more movie production became available to historians and students alike, he discourses the main question as to what is today’s major vehicle for public to attend history-based movies. He is trying to answer it by investigating movies that interpret history, those as the author calls it, “cinematic history” (p. 81).
The traditional narrative style is still persisting, as the audience wants to be entertained rather then undergo critical thinking, states the author. From another hand, the Hollywood was able to attract its audience by presenting the past in connection with present events (WWI, Vietnam war, the 1960s and so on). Although historians are facing dilemma on the film research, the insisted political agenda undermines, sometimes, such an endeavor. Historians, in the author’s interpretation, research film in three levels: the final product, film’s relationship to actual history, and production behind the scenes. By combining all three approaches – from both the cinematographically accurate and historical (archival) points of view, one can manage to present a whole picture of a historical event. What is missing here is the author’s lack of comparison with historical European movies and the DVD material which is frequently supplied with “how the move was made” feature. Another problem is that all of the commentaries are made postfactum, after the movie hit the screens and snatched its first millions (like it or not, but today’s movies are aimed primarily on the younger audience). What desperately needed is a rightful partnership between consultants and producers and assumption of responsibilities from either side.

Wallace’s Disney World (Section II)

One of the many recent marvels the Disney World is obviously the most renowned feature of American and world culture. Presenting a brief history of these theme parks – Hall of Presidents, EPCOT, Carousel of Progress and others, Wallace researchers the impact, which such features bring upon millions of attendees and moreover, its historical significance and accuracy.
Obviously, being inspired by Colonial Williamsburg, Disney resembles its technique – “transporting visitors back in time”(p. 135). But, as the author notices, it is more of a win-win situation; in its pursuit the corporation presents the history as a great achievement throughout the historical period. No questions needed. True, it is a popular culture (which does not need “negativities” such as war, depression or class struggle), but from the other hand it is an education brought up by an entertainment and a proper museum expo could only bring to it an additional flavor.
In the second part of this installment, the author presents the development of the Disney’s brand – in Europe, in Japan, and everywhere else, mainly aiming for heritage tourism and development. Speaking of controversy, which aroused between historians and park directors, the author stresses a deep impact when the scholars criticized the innovations calling it “sentimentalism by a nature” (p. 165). Further, it created a line of protests from the environmentalists and historic preservationists fighting for authenticity against plastic consumerism. Historians, in fact, concludes the author, should work with the place such as Disney. But just as in the case of Hollywood production, historians should be flexible and assist in recreating the truth while avoiding being preferential.