Posted by Sarah M. on January 01, 2002 at 10:30:00:
In Reply to: The Best Way To Tell A [Historic] Tale? posted by Rich on December 30, 2001 at 07:24:31:
Happy New Year Everyone!!!
Rich, very interesting musings. My two-cents is that history via cinema is essential, and the best we can expect of it is that it depicts history as acturately as possible while still being able to tell the story. It's the story that matters. I think you are saying the same thing, and the way that I look at it is that the acting, filming, sets, costumes, etc. (all that it takes to tell the story well) are what make history real for people. It's one thing to read about it but people, especially those without imaginations, miss the "so what" -- so what does that mean on a personal level? I believe people understand history when someone acts it out for them as cinema does.
This point crystalized for me during my reenacting -- it's no longer a clinical description when actors and movie producers bring it to life. People GET IT then. Titanic, for instance -- everyone had heard the story hundreds of times but how many people could really envision the horror of it? Now we get it. Same with Gettysburg. And LOTM.
Even documentaries are moving this direction -- have you noticed how more and more of them now have reenactors to bring it all to life? I've already been filmed as a Ranger in four documentaries because without us there, people don't get it. (Thank god I don't have to "act" {:>).)
This, of course, is a sad commentary on how little people can get what they need from books any more. I wonder if people are losing their sense of imagination through watching too much TV.
Anyway, that's my two-cents!
LHK,
Sarah M.
: I don't know ... history via cinema. Is it a valid approach? Or, even feasible? Vince's post about "The Patriot" a few days ago (now archived) got me to thinkin' on that very subject. Now, let me tell you, I've done no long term thinking on this, much less any serious research, so, these are just thoughts, valid - maybe - or not ...
: My gut-feling is that film is for enjoyment, first & foremost. So that would seem to preclude it as a valid source of a history lesson, right? For a film to be successful, it must make money ... be seen by many. A dry documentary more than likely won't cut it.
: There have been many so-called historical films ... in the old days we saw stuff like "They Died With Their Boots On," "Gone With The Wind," "Northwest Passage," even John Wayne's "The Alamo" & ""Fort Apache." These types whet your appetite, stir your imagination ... and, in that sense, can be very effective. Many of us got hooked on history in just that way; from viewing these old-timers. But, be that as it may, taken alone, these movies just don't cut it as history ... far too much artistic license and inaccuracies.
: There is another extreme, stuff like "Zulu" and "Zulu Dawn," "Gettysburg," "13 Days to Glory, "Son of the Morning Star" ... Some are more historically accurate than others, but they are pretty good history lessons, by & large, as they stay true to the overall sense of the facts. I like 'em all, but none of them would qualify as a blockbuster motion picture. Why not? What's missing?
: The price of getting the story straight causes most, if not all, of this genre, to come across, to most of the mass audience at large, as a bit sterile ... bordering on documentary. In most viewers' cases, if the interest is not already there, they probably won't really love these films. For me, I was pretty much already fascinated by the history these movies depict, so, I took them in. What about you?
: So, on the one hand, we have too much fantasy, on the other, too much fact.
: Can it be done? Can the two be satisfactorily blended? Can a film reach near-blockbuster status & still be an educational tool, whether deliberatly or not?
: Well, yeah, just look at "Braveheart." But, "Braveheart," too,is ripe with inaccuracies ... and though much more splendid & powerful, cinematicaly, than say, "They Died With Their Boots On," nearly as much a fairy tale. "The Patriot" might fit in this category, as well. I don't know, all of this is a judgement call on my part.
: The answer seems to be in telling a personal, fictional story, within the accurate historical setting of some event. This allows for the attraction of a large audience, but at the same time, allows for some real integrity in the maintenance of the setting.
: Thanks to James Fenimore Cooper, and of course, Michael Mann's retelling in 1992, "The Last of the Mohicans" stands tall as a real ground breaker in this regard ... oh, it's not historically perfect - I think it hard for this formula to be - but it has withstood the rigorous criticisms, and stands still as film detailing a true historical setting providing the intense back drop for an emotionally charged fictional drama.
: Two other films come to mind since ... ready? "Titanic" and "Pearl Harbor." There may be a few more. These two films provide the romance and emotional tug, via a fictional story, that colorize the real life, and tragic, backdrop of the historical setting ... to allow for this backdrop to become real, and not just a straightforward rehashing of events. Works beautifully, and I hope that more and more filmmakers catch on and refine the technique. It allows the 21st Century audience something to closely identify with, and, even if subliminily (I mean, how many of us have as our main purpose in going out to see a movie, to get educated?!), at the same time learn some history.
: I know it works. Neither of those two films broached subjects that I was previously educated on to any degree. Yet both grabbed me, via the emotional hook, and caused me to look further. Unlike the films of my youth, further review mostly validated these films' facts rather than causing me to have to re-"learn" the real-life story! And, "Titanic" was a major blockbuster ... "Pearl Harbor" less so, though the video release is beginning to make up some loss ground. Undoubtedly, the similarity to the events of September 11, 2001 - just about 50 years later - has rekindled the interest!
: Ok ... that's that!