All three of the articles we read for this week deal with the relationship history has within the cinematic world. All consider the complex issue of the validity and accuracy of history within the world of filmmaking and what role historians should play to increase this accuracy. For Davis, the answer is an accompanying book that complements the film, explaining historical detail that was not portrayed in the film. For Rose and Corley, the answer lies in historians learn and become well versed in the cinematic trade, rather than leaving it up to filmmakers such as Ken Burns. Finally, Toplin believes historians would do better to realize that scholarly history and “cinematic history” are not always the same and that that difference is not always merely a lapse of judgment on the filmmaker’s part.
After reading the three articles, I began organizing my thoughts for this blog by asking myself what I personally thought about historical accuracy in the cinematic medium. And I came to the conclusion that my beliefs for historical accuracy were dependent on the type of cinematic genre being considered. I agree with Davis’ assertion that a historical film should open discussion much like a historical book, but I do not believe that the film needs to be absolutely accurate. There is quite a difference between the documentary and the Hollywood blockbuster as far as my own standards for historical accuracy goes. Thus I found myself agreeing with Rose and Corley’s review of Ken Burns. As a documentary filmmaker, Burn holds a responsible to present history in a concise and entertaining way but one that is also accurate. Burns claims that historians’ work has become esoteric and abstruse and his mission is to save history for the general public. Why, then, does he often leave out important historical events or developments that are crucial to the particular story he is telling? Why, then, does he essentially feed lines to the historians that he interviews, cutting them off if they diverge too much from what he wants to hear? According to Rose and Corley, Burns claims “artistic license” with his work, thus explaining the discontinuities that may arise between the historical record and his documentary. I don’t believe, however, that Burns has much right to claim such if his medium is the documentary. By its very nature, documentaries are suppose to capture life as it truly was, not how Burns would like it to be.
That said, I also believe Toplin is right when he claims that cinematic history is yet one more genre of moviemaking. Movies like the Patriot, Braveheart, or Pearl Harbor are not necessarily devoted to historical accuracy from the get go. Do I believe that they should be able to run free with history? Absolutely not. I do not believe, however, that they hold the same responsibility as Ken Burns’ documentaries do. When I go to see The Patriot, I do not necessarily go to see a completely accurate portrayal of American colonial life. I do, however, expect to see an eventful, interesting story complete with all the genre stereotypes mentioned by Toplin. When I go to see a Ken Burn’s documentary, however, I do expect to get an accurate portrayal of whatever the topic is and take what he says as truth. Historical plausibility and understanding in blockbusters are, as Davis put it, the goal, but are not necessarily required for me to enjoy the movie. I am willing to overlook the fact that the red robes worn in The Return of Martin Guerre are not accurate although the public trial vs. private trial was a major misstep. Maybe Davis’ suggestion of a companion book is a good suggestion, providing history that the film was not able to address although I’m not sure that too many people (unless they are history nerds like we are) would actually go out and make an effort to read this books.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I fully agree with your discussion of Ken Burns. He most certainly has a responsibility to be accurate and truthful. I mean, yes, it is his interpretation of events, I suppose. But that shouldn't lessen his responsibility in the least.
I also agree with the companion book. I seriously doubt there would be any general excitement towards them. I mean, I wish people were that interested in history, but to be honest, they just aren't. If they were, we would have more historical films...that actually were historical.
I agree with your assertion that documentary film makers such as Ken Burns have a responsibility to their audience to be as accurate with the facts of their subject as possible and that "artistic license" should not hold any merit in this genre of films. I also liked Davis's idea of a companion book to historical films, but I agree that there isn't exactly a huge market for that outside of academics liek us and self-proclaimed history buffs. I also really liked Rose and Corley's suggestion that students be taught how to evaluate a historical film or documentary in the same manner that they are taught to evaluate written sources. As they have shown with their critique of Ken Burns, you can't even take documentaries at face value all the time. Knowing this, it is probably a good thing that the general public puts so little trust in film to teach history as we learned from Rosenzweig and Thelen.
Yes, the true nature of Ken Burns upset me in Rose and Corley's article. It was like when I found out Santa Clause wasn't real. It surprised me that while he is attempting to make history more accessible to the public, he is manipulating the most important part - historical fact. But in his own defense, Burns explains that he has artistic license to do so, that all he is doing is channeling manipulated historical evidence into one's emotions and tear ducts (yes, I am guilty of crying during a Ken Burns documentary...). Just because Burns has artistic license to create a documentary as he pleases, shouldn't he also have the license to explicitly tell people that quoting him on historical fact may not be totally accurate?
Staying true to Davis' argument, I will continue to question the works of Ken Burns. While the reality of Burns really burst my bubble, that doesn't mean I'll stop watching The War. In fact, the soundtrack to the documentary is playing on my computer as I write this. Yes, I am still bewitched by the Burnsian spell!
I too agree with the comments on the corresponding book idea. It makes sense in some respects, it would fill in the blanks. It's like the making of a film based on a movie. It brings a picture to the words. A corresponding book brings the words to the picture. Yet, as Kristen noted, it most likely would not have as great of an influence as one may hope. History books have that same stigma that those asked earlier in the class about what they felt about history do. That it's dry or boring. It's truly a shame because delving into the history behind the movies can truly enahance the film, it brings one into the world they're watching beyond their own understanding.
Post a Comment