In a message dated 1/26/06 10:48:17 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:
> Hi, Anita--
>
> Thank you (and others) for your thoughtful replies!
>
Dear Eric, Thank you for your kind comments ;-)!!
>
> As devil's advocate, I thought I might tug a bit at one thing you mentioned:
> "Many people start to really learn about history as children by watching tv
> or movies with historical themes." Indeed, I absolutely agree--which is why
> I'm not as concerned at historical inaccuracies on film, because to me the
> chief virtue of historical films isn't their accuracy, it's how they serve
> to hook people into a field that we each find so endlessly fascinating.
>
I understand your viewpoint but I as a living historian, I am concerned with
the accuracy aspect as some folks do view the films as "gospel" rather than
one director/producer's artistic, fictional interpretation of a historical
person or event. I can't tell you how many times I have overheard the "average
Joe Blow" state well it happened in X movie as if the example were true. True
we must get folks hooked on history but it doesn't take THAT much effort to do
it right vs. not doing it right. That is what drives me and many others
crazy! It wouldn't take that much effort in telling the right story or getting
someone's uniform correct. To me it takes away from the movie. True, as a
kid, I was more concerned with the story and maybe that is where we can agree.
If we can get exciting, historically accurate stories told it would go a
long way in improving the cinematic historical film. My reasoning is why the
Smithsonian Institution is now doing historical advising on films as they did
in
"The Patriot". They got rid of the kudzu, trained the actors in handling
18th century firearms and got a large part of the material culture right. The
inclusion of a Gullah maroon village, suggested by the Smithsonian and eagerly
accepted by director Roland Emmerich really brought a little know slice of
history to light. Also the inclusion of black soldiers on both the American
and British sides was a first too!
>
> You went on to say, "From watching film, I wanted to learn more so I started
> to read about it and got more detailed and accurate information." That was
> very much my story as well; my own personal experience has been that my
> understanding of historical events hasn't suffered, because while the films
> inspired me, I learned to look elsewhere for the detailed and accurate
> information.
>
> As a dark confession: I sometimes have the radical thought that no *real*
> harm comes from inaccuracies in historical films: for those to whom history
> means little anyway, it doesn't matter if it's accurate or not (it's likely
> that their sense of historical events is very skewed no matter what they see
> on screen)--whereas for those to whom history comes to mean much, they'll do
> the work to find out the "real" story. I place responsibility in the hands
> of the larger historical and educational communities, rather than on
> filmmakers, to encourage a broad sense of what makes history important, and
> good, and real.
>
> I agree with you on the abdication of the educational community on it's
historical education responsibility to the nation's children. So many more
classes such as economics, psychology and subjects normally covered in college are
being offered in high school. Some of these topics are trendier and "sexier"
than history and sometimes overwhelm the student's schedule. It doesn't help
that history gets reduced to"acts and facts" in the school system's attempt
to satisfy curriculum requirments and national tests. Unfortunately the "acts
and facts" method of historical education is the quickest way to turn anyone
off from the study of history. It gets BORING! Since history by my
definition encompasses what happens to PEOPLE over the course of time, one essential
requirement is to keep the human element in the study of history. If that
is done, it remains a fascinating subject and makes it easier to remember the
required "acts and facts" if you incorporate the impact on a person, a family
or a community.
> This shouldn't be seen as support for inaccuracy--on the contrary, I'd
> always much MUCH prefer them to be accurate however and whenever they can be
> (and am always willing to help them be so). But I don't get bent out of
> shape as an educator and historian when they "get it wrong," for the reasons
> I outline above and in my earlier message--the primary one being that we
> shouldn't look at an art form to be the basis for education.
>
True, I have to tell myself it is just a movie and if I want a good
historical movie, I will watch PBS, BBC or a better than average History channel
documentary.
>
> And with that said, I'll hop off my little film canister box. ;)
>
> --Eric
>
Thanks for your thoughts!
Anita L. Henderson
>
> Eric D. M. Johnson
> Proprietor
> The Village Factsmith Historical Research & Consulting
> http://www.factsmith.com/
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Anita L. Henderson" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 9:46 PM
> Subject: Re: NYT praises "The New World," new version
>
>
> > Dear Eric:
> >
> > I think historians and living historians like myself get heartburn
> > watching
> > Hollywood's attempts at historical interpretations is that they have such
> > a
> > wide audience and a lot of people take look at what appears on film as the
> > truth!
> > Also so many people will go to movies rather than read poetry or go to
> > the
> > National Gallery of Art or MOMA, sad to say. Many people start to really
> > learn about history as children by watching tv or movies with historical
> > themes.
> > I know by personal experience that watching historical films got me
> > interested in history specifically Civil War, Western and WW II. From
> > watching
> > film, I wanted to learn more so I started to read about it and got more
> > detailed
> > and accurate information.
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
