What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?

__________________________________________________________________________

Introduction - the argument

Arguments in respect of the merits of history on
film have proved to be lively as historians and
other academics take up firm positions as to the
advantages and disadvantages of handling
historical events and issues through audiovisual
media - notably film. On one side, for example,
is Arthur Marwick who writes of the 'absurdity of
the notion of "constructing" or "reconstructing"
the past' through film;1 Marwick echoes the
earlier views of Ian Jarvie who, within a
passionately-argued polemic against the
representation of history on celluloid, states: 'Film is not the material of
history. Documents are the material of history'.2 In contrast, Robert
Rosenstone argues that quality historical films 'do not violate the discourse of
history' but add to our understanding through portrayal. 3 Similarly, Robert
Toplin writes that: 'depictions seen on the screen influence the public's view of
historical subjects much more than books do'.4

Clearly opinions are strongly held - perhaps even emotional since some of the
'antis' seem to view film as an unwelcome threat. For these academics, there
are two unshakeable doctrines; both are simple: firstly, filmic representation
can never be a substitute for written history; secondly, qualified historians
should be the sole custodians of historical discourse.

The purpose of this essay, written from the viewpoint of a moderately

supportive viewer of 'history on film', is to explore and assess what it is about
the topic that provokes such expressions of hostility and defensive
enthusiasm. The strengths of film, in an historical context, are examined

1
A. Marwick, The New Nature of History – Knowledge, Evidence, Language, (Basingstoke, 2001),
p.239.
2
I. C. Jarvie, 'Seeing through Movies' in Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 8, (Toronto, 1978), p.
378.
3
R.A. Rosenstone, 'The Historical Film: Looking at the Past in a Postliterate age' in M. Landy (ed.),
The Historical Film - History and Memory in Media, (London, 2001), p.64.
4
R. B.Toplin , History by Hollywood, (Chicago, 1996), preface.

1
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

within the broad category of public consumption and impact. Weaknesses are
considered under the headings of firstly: accuracy, authenticity and invention
and secondly: interpretation. While the essay concentrates on historical
feature films as those that occasion the most discussion, newsreels and
documentaries, representing important elementary components of filmed
history, are also evaluated as genres.
Opposing views
However, as a preliminary, we should review the academic 'contest' between
written and filmed history. Feature and documentary films are, almost by
definition, the principal output of the film-makers' craft and, as such,
conceptually vie with the historiography generated by qualified historians.
Consequently, the end products from both disciplines seek, in the case of
written work from the historian, to contextualise, describe and explain while
the work of the film-maker aims to characterise, portray and represent; all are
laudable approaches towards promoting a wider and deeper understanding of
the past - surely a primary aspiration for all historians. Yet, for some reason,
the written and filmic representations of history are positioned by some as
being incompatible - in particular that history on film is an inferior way of
representation.

Rosenstone, a historian who supports history on film, takes this controversy

head-on arguing eloquently that written history is only one way of presenting
the past and that all representations, whether written or filmed, involve
selection, compromise and a range of distortions according to the predilection
of the author or director. Moreover, provided that film avoids contradicting
established historical knowledge and preferably engages with it, 'filmed'
history offers some significant advantages; written and filmic approaches are
just different ways of representing the past. Films, he believes, are particularly
suitable for depicting the stories of individuals caught up in historical events
since screened narratives 'emotionalize, dramatize and personalize' situations
so that audiences can relate to the protagonists.5 Certainly, films emotionalise

5
Rosenstone, 'The Historical Film', pp.51-69.

2
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

history to an extent whereby a viewer, temporarily suspending his disbelief,

becomes a surrogate eyewitness to the events depicted and can thus
empathise with the human issues portrayed. It is suggested that this attribute
(of engagement with historical humanity), should be thought of as one of the
great strengths of historical film since individualised human aspects of history,
depicted so ably by audiovisual means, are often inadequately presented
within written versions.

So what are the issues that so divide historians as to the merits of history on
film? Most academics who dismiss their value assert that many of their
misgivings are centred around: firstly, inadequate historical methodology;
secondly, dubious authenticity and widespread invention. The theme of this
essay will be to determine the reasonableness of these criticisms.
Newsreels
But before reviewing the feature film-maker's historical output we should take
note of the special position of the newsreel - the genre supplying source
material for the documentary film-maker and the primary means of mass
audiovisual news communication prior to the post-WW2 spread of television.
In this latter capacity, newsreels were a key component within efforts
(conscious and unconscious) to formulate a commonality of public views in
respect of the great events of the day. Newsreels, in advance of feature films,
helped to forge memories to the extent that, even now, many elderly British
people will recall their impressions of (e.g.) inter-war hardship, the General
Strike, the rise of Hitler, the major events of World War Two based upon what
they saw and heard on newsreels rather than what they read in newspapers
or heard on the radio. The reason for this is psychological; we remember what
we see far longer and with greater clarity than what we hear or read.

So that It might be assumed that old newsreel material, shot during a time
when filmic creative techniques were in their relative infancy, could serve as a
'window' through which historians and other interested parties could peer at
the 'reality' of a myriad of post-1895 events and activities - in other words
such footage might serve as primary source input to the processes of
historiography. Indeed, almost immediately following their invention of the first

3
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

successful cine camera and projector in 1895, the Lumière brothers produced
the first film newsreels: short (less than a minute) portrayals of ordinary
people at work and leisure.6

However, while the 'actuality' of the images shown is rarely in dispute (i.e.
they did indeed happen), even unedited footage cannot be said to be a
reflection of 'reality' since, as Pierre Sorlin points out, the newsreel cameras
were frequently positioned as an adjunct to previously-planned occurrences -
parades, sporting events, strikes, political rallies, launchings, royal occasions
etc.7 The contemporary editorial and creative decisions to film a particular
event, even to mount the cameras ‘just there’ and ‘over there’, imply a
sacrifice of spontaneity so that while (for example) scenes of the Alexandra
Rose Day London parade in 1916 have some 'nostalgic' value, filmed material
of the predictable ritual of young women throwing roses into the old Queen's
passing carriage is of little added intrinsic value to historians albeit that the
resulting images might have been infused into public memories. And Richard
Raack also notes that even unedited outtakes from newsreel material do not
represent 'objective reality' since subject behaviour might often be modified as
a result of the presence of a movie camera - particularly during a time when
such technology had 'novelty' value.8 However the inadvertent filming of the
unpredictable provided excellent spontaneous source material for historians.
Would anybody subsequently have been seriously interested in the running of
the 1913 Derby had not the cameras, by chance, caught Emily Davison's
death for the suffragette cause?

But such is not true of the 'unwitting testimony' present within much newsreel
footage - an aspect which is an undoubted strength. As Sorlin notes, newsreel
footage can serve as an excellent source of evidence for the 'unintended
snapshot of their time' so that if the present-day viewer looks 'over the
shoulders' of filmed protagonists, much primary source material of value might

6
: M. Magnusson (ed), Chambers Biographical Dictionary, (5th edn), (Edinburgh, 1990), p.925.
7
P. Sorlin, 'How to Look at an "Historical" Film' in M. Landy (ed.), The Historical Film - History and
Memory in Media, (London, 2001), p.28-31.
8
R. C. Raack, 'Historiography as Cinematography: A Prolegomenon to Film Work for Historians' in
Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 18, No.3 (July 1983), p.416-420

4
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

be observed. Within the 1916 Alexandra Rose Day newsreel for example,
social historians might spot in the crowd following the carriage the solitary
face of a black Briton and might form, or substantiate, or comment upon an
9
interpretation of the ethnicity of Londoners during the period.
Documentaries
Hayden White points out that much historical evidence in the twentieth
century is itself visual (film, TV, photographs) so that historians should stop
treating imagistic evidence as being merely complementary to written material
and should begin considering it as a discourse in its own right.10 Beyond its
functionality as potential source material, archived newsreel footage is used
extensively by documentary film-makers in order to illustrate points being
made and to aid interpretation. As such, while archived newsreel material, for
the viewing public, might bestow an atmosphere of 'authenticity' upon non-
fictional documentary issues, such impressions only emanate from the sense
that, at one time at least, the images represented a form of historical actuality
- albeit with the editorial and creative provisos described previously.

For the creative documentary movie-maker, old

newsreel footage represents a huge repository of
celluloid 'fabric' from which he can selectively
weave a whole spectrum of messages. Consider,
for example, Errol Morris's Oscar-winning 2003
documentary, The Fog of War, in which the 85-
year old Robert MacNamara, acting as a 'talking
head', recalls his early life and his role, as US
Secretary of Defence, in the 1962 Cuban missile
crisis and the 1964-1969 escalation of the Vietnam
war. MacNamara as a commentator is visually 'on screen' for about twenty
percent of the film - the residue being given over to a myriad of film and TV
newsreel clips to complement his words; his voice-commentary runs

9
Topical Budget 252-2: Queen Alexandra's Drive Through London, (1916), British Film Institute, per
website: http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/584159/, [viewed 7th December 2004].
10
H. White, 'Historiography and Historiophoty' in The American Historical Review, Vol. 93, No. 5
(Dec., 1988), pp. 1193.

5
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

consistently throughout - irrespective of what is being shown. As a

documentary, clearly the film relies upon newsreel footage to illustrate, and
sometimes to challenge, MacNamara's commentary. All this clearly 'factual'
material will have been selected, juxtaposed and edited by Morris as director.
Emotive, specially composed music (by Philip Glass) reinforces the
threatening nature of the visual material and MacNamara's sombre words.

Within the film, Morris clearly wanted to portray two key aspects of 1960s
Cold War politics, firstly: the very real risk of nuclear annihilation that existed
during the Cuba crisis and secondly: MacNamara's refusal to take
responsibility for the escalation of hostilities in Vietnam and his eagerness to
blame President Lyndon Johnson as the ultimate decision-maker. Thus the
audience, among many other images, is shown extensive footage of WW2
devastation in Japan and various nuclear 'mushroom' clouds to cement the
first point; and is presented with Johnson and MacNamara news conferences
juxtaposed with defoliating 'Agent Orange' bombing raids in order to (perhaps)
undermine MacNamara's talking-head 'Nuremberg' defence. A subtle strength
of The Fog of War is the way Morris uses edited newsreel footage to subvert
some of MacNamara's more self-approving comments.11

Documentary films using newsreel footage employ manipulative techniques in

order to create a desired impression just as might be expected within feature
films. Only the actors are missing. Of course 'talking head' recollections are
just as vulnerable for film-makers as 'oral testimony' sources can be for
historians yet somehow the image of a 'face on the screen' imparts a degree
of authenticity to the spoken words. As will be shown when discussing
historical feature films, a serious drawback of filmed history is the limited
ability to present alternative interpretations or to embody a challenge to what
is being shown. Thus it is difficult for talking-head documentaries to take
account of misremembrances, memory errors and self-serving positioning.12

11
The Fog of War (2003), Errol Morris (producer/director), Sony Pictures.
12
R.A. Rosenstone, 'History in Images/ History in Words: Reflections on the Possibility of Really
Putting History onto Film in The American Historical Review, Vol. 93, No. 5 (Dec., 1988), p. 1173.

6
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

The Fog of War exemplifies the suggestion that one of the principal strengths
of the film documentary is its ability to engage the audience's emotions and
judgment through the selection, reordering and assembly of filmic evidence so
as to solidify a particular historical explanation or message - within this genre
alone comes the potential for marrying the triple forces of: film-making
creativity, newsreels that record 'actuality' and, if they are willing to participate,
the interpretive skills of professional historians. Many of the weaknesses of
the documentary medium however, are shared with feature films; for example:
manipulative editing can distort the historical truth; a single point of view is
frequently presented with little scope for alternative interpretation; the
resulting documentaries can tend to be shallow and simplistic.
Feature films
Now, to examine feature films and evaluate the principal areas of strength and
weakness under the two headings mentioned within the introduction. Firstly
the positioning and impact of historical feature films as media for public
consumption in contrast to professional historians' written output - texts that
are principally directed towards academia and those individuals who might
have a special interest in the topics discussed. While John O'Connor has
written that: 'most well-educated Americans are learning most of their history
from film or television'13, he might also agree that the mass of the population
only receives any historical information of substance, from what they have
viewed on a screen. Thus, since the inception of the popular cinema, film
producers have taken on, for commercial and artistic reasons, the established
role of the historian and seek to serve a growing number of larger
audiences.14 Is this popularity a strength? Undoubtedly yes but, as with many
successful offerings to masses of people in the past, (tobacco?, fast foods?,
alcohol? propaganda?), such a quest for mass popularity demands a degree
of responsibility.

13
J.E. O'Connor, 'History in Images/Images in History: Reflections on the Importance of Film and
Television Study for an Understanding of the Past' in The American Historical Review, Vol. 93, No. 5
(Dec., 1988), p. 1201.
14
R.B. Toplin , 'The Filmmaker as Historian' in The American Historical Review, Vol. 93, No. 5 (Dec.,
1988), p. 1212.

7
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

The stories of history serve as excellent material for feature films since the
concept of 'truth' or 'actuality' lends significant credibility to any filmic
portrayal. However, the selected filmed historical stories are frequently
chosen in the light of some audience pre-knowledge; a familiarity with the
subject, however cursory, is necessary in order to attract audience masses
and, irrespective of historical or artistic merits, the 'success' of a feature film is
measured by numerical audience ratings and consequential profits -
measures that are driven by entertainment value alone. So that we might ask
ourselves: how successful would Titanic have been as a feature film about a
fictional ship? Would All the Presidents Men have moved so many people as
a portrayal of an imaginary US President being pursued by an invented
zealous press? The answers to each question: - 'not at all' and 'no!'.

Historical themes are omnipresent within the cinematic output of those

countries deemed 'rich' in age-old and contemporary history. Indeed, Monk
and Sargeant write that films set in the past have proved to be essential to the
international commercial success of the British cinema industry. 15 So much
might seem obvious, but the great strength of filmed history is its availability to
a mass of people; from this accessibility many benefits emerge, namely:
public interest in history is enhanced; people become 'informed' in an
inexpensive and entertaining way; further investigation via reading and
discussion is frequently provoked; as films contribute to the formation of
'public memory', people solidify their links to a shared past that binds cultures
together.16 There is little doubt that features which focus on historical themes
have been, and will continue to be, enormously popular and successful.

What are the attributes of the filmic presentation of history that cause such
popularity? We have already noted film's capability for stimulating emotional
engagement with the humanity depicted. In effect, as Sorlin notes, films 'put
the viewer there' into a society to observe a portrayal of how contemporary

15
C. Monk and A. Sargeant, 'Introduction: The Past in British Cinema' in C. Monk and A. Sargeant
(eds.), British Historical Cinema, (London 2002), p.1.
16
Professor Jeremy Black, lecture 3/11/2004, Exeter University.

8
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

participants might have reacted to their own history. 17 Also a viewer often
observes a representation of the subject as a more 'complete' person, i.e.
expanded from the one-dimensional compartment to which written 'history'
has allocated him (or her). Dame Judi Dench's Queen Victoria, for example,
becomes a multifaceted individual: a grieving reclusive widow, a country lady,
a loving woman and an irritated mother within Mrs Brown so that we observe
aspects of a singular humanity far beyond the formulaic imperious royal
persona we have been led to expect by traditional history.18 Whether or not
such filmic depictions are authentic of course will be explored as an area of
potential weakness but the point is made here that such 'holistic' renditions
cement interest and substantially enhance public appeal.
Films as propaganda
Richard Raack believes that the illusion of 'presence' as an audience
witnesses and hears historical situations becomes, in effect, 'experiential' so
that the audience 'feels' the illustrated events of the past. A little overstated
perhaps, but certainly the historical film is able to approximate to the real,
daily lives of its subjects in a way that written history cannot. In short,
historical film attempts a reconstruction of how 'past' people dealt with events,
through allowing insight into their 'words, ideas, images, preoccupations …
and emotions'. 19

But there are some rejoinders to the positioning of extensive public

consumption as a strength of historical film. The director John Sayles argues
that an audience 'experiences a film viscerally'- material doesn't necessarily
have to pass through the mind first - hardly an endorsement for an assertion
that historical film provokes historical thought. While the act of reading an
academic work might be unstimulating, the very nature of the effort required
implies an 'active' role. A darkened cinema however, or even a lecture theatre
is not conducive to note-taking while a film is showing - so that 'active' or
'passive' student involvement is difficult for teachers to monitor. Young
people, whether watching historical films for pleasure or for instruction, should

17
Sorlin, 'How to Look at an "Historical" Film', p.39.
18
Mrs Brown (1997), John Madden (director), BBC Scotland / Ecosse Films.
19
Raack, 'Historiography as Cinematography', p.416.

9
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

be urged to engage with the issues of authenticity and representation as they

watch in order for critical historical thinking to be stimulated.20 Indeed a
potentially negative effect of receiving the majority of historical information
audiovisually is the habit of 'passive viewing' which many, particularly the
young, might be prone to.21

Another area of concern relates to deliberate intention to mislead. If indeed

film is 'the most widely influential mode of historical representation'22 then,
since film-making is outside of professional academic control, the output films
and input sources are immune to peer-judged methodological assessment
and the usual historical methods of analysis and treatment. Does this matter?
- certainly! When we read the comment of
William Goldman (the All the President's Men
screenwriter): 'it's not important what is true,
it's important what the audience will accept
as true'23 - and the opinion of Bob Woodward
(one of the two main journalist protagonists
of All the President's Men): 'a movie has
special power because the history it portrays
becomes the story that people know and
remember'24 (my italics), a highly revealing
indictment of the propaganda power of
movies become revealed. Such an opinion is
ironic given Woodward's well-deserved reputation for seeking truth as an
investigative journalist when juxtaposed against his participation in a self-
serving movie which needlessly distorted some key elements of his (and Carl
Bernstein's) role and omitted, through focusing only upon the first seven
months of the scandal, some important elements of the Watergate history. 25

20
J. Sayles and E. Foner, 'A Conversation between Eric Foner and John Sayles' in M.C. Carnes (ed.),
Past Imperfect - History According to the Movies, (London, 1996), p.21.
21
O'Connor, 'History in Images/Images in History', p.1208.
22
Raack, 'Historiography as Cinematography', p.413.
23
Sayles, 'A Conversation', p.17.
24
Woodward is quoted in Toplin, 'History by Hollywood', p.191.
25
W.E. Leuchtenberg, 'All the President's Men' in M.C. Carnes (ed.), Past Imperfect - History
According to the Movies, (London, 1996).

10
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

But the massed public consumption of filmed history becomes most ominous
when propaganda films are commissioned and overseen by totalitarian
governments. Perhaps the most infamous of these was the 1936
documentary Triumph of the Will directed by Leni Riefenstahl which, in
celebrating the Nazi Nuremberg rally of 1934, utilized a range of advanced,
highly-creative techniques to promote the Führerprinzip, the need for working
people to dedicate themselves to the state and the overall merits of Nazi
ideology. As Rother writes in his biography of Riefenstahl, the film used 'all
the means at its disposal' to heighten the impact of otherwise unwieldy 'rally'
material26 - thus a director's involvement in the filming of actual events, using
many of the creative techniques of feature films, was used, perhaps for the
first time, in order to make a highly-influential (within its domestic audience)
propaganda documentary which would record 'history in the making' for future
generations.

The famous 'arrival' opening to Triumph of the Will, created by the innovative
director, Leni Riefenstahl at Hitler’s behest, is one of the most revealing. Here,
the audience watches Hitler’s aircraft
approach and begin its 'Godlike'
descent through the clouds to address
the Nazi party’s 1934 congress in
Nuremberg. There is no commentary -
just stirring Wagnerian music as the
plane's shadow swoops across the
mass of welcoming citizens. As the
Führer's motorcade proceeds through the adulating, cheering, saluting crowds
we notice that, aside from policemen, they are almost exclusively women and
children - (later at the rally, the masses will be entirely masculine). Throughout
the opening the camera looks up at Hitler and down on his worshipping public.

26
R. Rother, Leni Riefenstahl (translated M. H. Bott), (London, 2002), p.60.

11
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

The message is clear: an adored paternalistic Hitler has arrived; the German
nation’s youth is captivated; the Führer is the guardian of the family, etc.27

Similarly creative is Sergei Eisenstein's 1927 work, October, one of a series of

historical propaganda films he was hired to make by the totalitarian Stalin
government. October reconstructs (using actors and specially-commissioned
crowds), recalls and celebrates tenth anniversary of the 1917 Bolshevik
revolution. The film was notable for its ground-breaking techniques of time-
condensing montage and complex cutting to achieve impressionistic effects.
Eisenstein reduces the roles of the key players within the uprising: (Lenin,
Trotsky, Kornilov, Kerensky) to cameos and reserves the traditional 'hero' role
for the crowd. The film promotes an ideology in a far more subliminal way
than Riefenstahl's recording of the Nuremberg Nazi harangues; Eisenstein
brilliantly juxtaposes the divide between the angry masses and the weak
'puppet' Kerensky government which seems to be only motivated by delusions
of Napoleonic grandeur. Also memorable is the portrayal of the exultant
Tsarist machine-gunner indiscriminately firing upon the crowds gathering in
the Nevsky Prospekt. This image, almost orgasmic in its murderous elation, is
one which certainly will have swayed contemporary audiences towards the
revolution and still has the effect of promoting hostility towards state
suppression today.28
In spite of its propaganda purpose
and its unashamed political stance
as Eisenstein: 'caricatured the
capitalists … and idealized the
workers',29 October stands as an
example of the director’s craft which
is still promoted to students of film
today. Perhaps most memorable is
the Palace Bridge scene where, as

27
Triumph of the Will (1935), Leni Riefenstahl (director), L.R. Studio-Film Berlin.
28
October, (1927), Sergei Eisenstein (director), Soviet Government.
29
S. Eisenstein, Immoral Memories - an Autobiography (translated H. Marshall), (London, 1985), p. x
(preface).

12
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

the bridge is raised in an attempt to prevent the marauding crowds from

storming the Palace, a dead or dying white carriage-horse slithers from the
bascule to plunge into the river below. In his autobiography, Eisenstein notes
that the bridge symbolised the division between the capitalist 'centre of the
city and its working-class suburbs'.30

Aside from their value as evidence of filmic state propaganda, both The
Triumph of the Will and October are historically valuable today inasmuch as
both, in detail, portray seminal events from the viewpoint of one charged with
celebrating those occasions. That both films exhibit high, some say
pioneering, craftsmanship adds to their credentials for portrayal. However, Ian
Jarvie, a historian who deplores the association of film with history, strongly
disputes Eisenstein's skills - stating that his films are: 'almost unwatchable
and crude'.31 However, this is the same Jarvie who dismisses film as
resembling 'poetry rather than prose' for reasons of its imagery and
descriptive bias. Jarvie seems to believe that historical discourse should be
totally confined to written exchanges between historians and that there is thus
no merit in amateur (i.e. non-academic) interpretation using anything other
than fully-footnoted written text.

Thus presumably, Wilfred Owen's poetic representation of the horrors of gas

warfare become historically valueless - ‘Dulce et Decorum Est’ perhaps a
mere juvenile denunciation unworthy of academic attention. By the same
token, the passions underpinning Picasso’s Guernica and Goya’s The
Shootings of May Third 1808, are perhaps for Jarvie, merely the overexcited
illustrations of two painterly Spanish eccentrics. However students interested
in the airborne brutality of the Spanish Civil War or Napoleon’s cruel treatment
of early nineteenth century Spanish revolutionaries have, for many years,
drawn inspiration, knowledge and, perhaps above all, interest from the visual
impact of these two remarkable paintings. These were in many ways the
‘newsreels’ or ‘documentaries’ of their day, representations that portray or

30
Eisenstein, Immoral Memories, p.64.
31
Jarvie, 'Seeing through Movies', p.396.

13
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

allegorise (as opposed to merely record or describe) details of the events

chosen as subjects for depiction.
Accuracy and authenticity
To move on from issues surrounding the public consumption and impact of
filmic history to those attributes which attract some serious concerns -
questions of accuracy, authenticity, invention and reality. History on film is
often accused of compromising truth especially as it relates to time, events
and characters. Critics argue that representations are frequently over-
simplistic and reductive; 'time' is necessarily compressed into one hundred
minutes (or so) and historical complexity is often sacrificed so that action and
romance predominate. Although some generous historians acknowledge the
attention to audiovisual historical detail within images presented, many
cynically argue that this often represents reconstructions of what cannot be
known - conversations, actual artefacts, clothing, relationships, landscapes
etc.; indeed, some argue, is such detail worth knowing anyway? 32

Historical film-makers, while acknowledging that their products frequently

embody inventions, alterations, conflations and omissions, react to such
'authenticity' criticisms by arguing that no medium (i.e. whether filmic or
written) can equate to reality - however audiovisual distortion becomes more
apparent since film is an immediate medium and can never make a general
statement in the same way as a text. Almost by definition, a film must form a
specific portrayal so that it has no choice but to summarize, synthesize,
generalize, symbolize.33 In addition, many film-makers believe historians
judge film using inappropriate criteria and that quests to find comprehensive
accuracy and academic standards of interpretation are invalid.34

However, film-makers are vulnerable to 'authenticity and invention' criticisms

partly as a consequence of their own promotion of 'truth' attributes when their
historical films are trailed or advertised. George Custen notes that Hollywood
promotes 'this film is true' or ‘based on a true story’ sentiments and strives for

32
Sorlin, 'How to Look at an "Historical" Film', p.28-30.
33
Rosenstone, 'The Historical Film', p.61.
34
Toplin, 'The Filmmaker as Historian', p.1212.

14
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

a perceived level of truth and authenticity within its target audience. 'Truth' is
thus a marketable commodity so that producers should not complain too
loudly when their films are shown to have violated their own promotional pre-
publicity.35 Nevertheless, they can justifiably argue that invention is entirely
appropriate since films will always have to conjure stereotypes and scenarios
that best fit available historical knowledge; film-makers are forced to fill any
screen with objects and characters that consolidate the illusion of reality.36

If one major strength of historical films is to show to an audience how

individuals might have reacted to and felt about events of the past, then
providing a 'face for the faceless' is a vital part of filmic story-telling. Exploring
the personal dimension of history is an area rarely attempted by academic
historians yet such portrayals underpin history on film - thus, while it is valid to
criticise a film for blatant inaccuracy or the distortion of known facts, it is
inappropriate to censure an imaginary portrayal that is in keeping with the
established history.
Titanic as history?
Titanic, for example, one of the most commercially successful films ever
made, was notable for its high standards of maritime accuracy and its
constructive use of character invention.37 The film's storyline exemplifies the
view that the best historical films are those which address 'smaller' stories, 38
i.e.: those that fit into a short time period; that focus on an incident-led linear
plot with few prominent characters; with limited 'pre' and 'post'
contextualization issues and few competing interpretations; whereby visual
accuracy is both important and attainable. In an extremely strong assertion of
accuracy standards, the Titanic director, James Cameron, lamenting the fact
that the Titanic legend had become a myth in collective imagination, pledged
a commitment to absolute accuracy and justified his invention of leading
characters. In his preface to Ed Marsh’s account of the making of Titanic,
Cameron writes:

35
G. Custen, Bio/Pics How Hollywood constructed Public History, (New Brunswick, 1992), pp. 32-80.
36
D. Herlihy, 'Am I a Camera? Other Reflections on Films and History' in The American Historical
Review, Vol. 93, No. 5 (Dec., 1988), p. 1189.
37
Titanic, (1998), James Cameron (director), Twentieth Century Fox and Paramount Pictures.
38
Sayles, 'A Conversation', p.24.

15
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

I set out to make a film that would bring the event to life, to humanize it; not a
docudrama but an experience in living history. I wanted to place the audience on the
ship, in its final hours, to live out the event in all its horribly fascinating glory… I
wanted to be able to say to an audience, without the slightest pang of guilt: This is
real. This is what happened. Exactly like this. If you went back in a time machine and
stood on the deck, this is what you would have seen …

And, in defence of his decision to portray the story of the disaster through the
eyes of two romantically-linked invented protagonists, he continues:

to fully experience the tragedy of Titanic; to be able to comprehend it in human terms,

it seemed necessary to create an emotional lightning rod for the audience by giving
them two main characters they care about and then taking those characters into
hell… Jack and Rose. I've woven their romance from the stern to the bow and
through every interesting place and event in between, allowing us to experience the
39
optimism and grandeur of the ship in a way that most of her passengers never did.

The result of Cameron's efforts is a film which ably combines a fictional love
story with a highly detailed and, reputedly, extremely accurate historical
backdrop of the doomed liner and the terrible events that befell her. It is true
that such a historical film cannot, in the way of professional history, explore all
of the issues surrounding such a disaster: intense maritime competition, class
and gender conflicts, mass emigration, marine safety standards etc. - but
these are all at least alluded to so that the genuinely interested viewer will
seek further information having seen the film. Richard Evans states that:
'detailed research and computer-generated imagery equates to an
unprecedented degree of
authentic-looking detail'.40
The Titanic example bears
out his assertion in the form
of previously unwitnessed
(in the absence of powered
flight) computer-generated
aerial views of the liner.41

39
Preface by James Cameron in Ed W Marsh, James Cameron's Titanic, (London, 1998), p. vi.
40
R.J. Evans, 'What is History?- Now' in D. Cannadine (ed.), What is History Now?, (London,2002),
p.11.
41
Titanic image per http://www.moviestillsdb.com/movies/titanic-i120338/7e0daa3e?c=1

16
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

The introduction of Jack and Rose as (albeit unlikely) lower-deck and first-
class passengers and lovers was an inspired method of ensuring that all the
researched detail of: the first-class dining room and quarters, the engine-
room, the lower-class communal areas, the quayside etc. were portrayed
authentically in intricate detail. We have to accept Cameron's assertion that
his film was based on detail furnished by accredited maritime historians and
detailed plans from Harland and Wolff, the original builders. From a mass
comprehension viewpoint, surely computer-generated and fictionally-inspired
visual tours of the ship are at least equal to (and probably more effective than)
the academic perusal of the documents and diagrams that sourced the
portrayal?

Titanic should prove to be a yardstick for future film-making that others will
follow - certainly advanced computer technology implies that any required
level of accuracy can be simulated. Earlier historical films have however
succeeded in providing acceptable levels of accuracy yet have failed to
provide adequate standards of interpretation. We should now therefore
examine 'interpretation' as the final contentious issue between those
historians 'for' and 'against' the concept of history on film.
Interpretation issues
Herlihy notes that the Annales school is not supportive of the 'history of
happenings' since structural causes cannot be adequately depicted.42 As we
have established, 'happenings' are most suitable for filming but one inevitable
weakness of history on film is its ineffectiveness in contextualizing, depicting
complex issues of causation and consequence and proffering multiple strands
of interpretation. Even if this were possible, such a film might be extremely
boring and complicated so that all of the mass audience 'strengths' noted
earlier might evaporate. However film when good, can at least depict the
effects of structural issues upon a group or population - particularly if they
involve visual impact. Starvation, riots, wars, revolutions can all be positioned
in this way - Eisenstein’s October for example skilfully showed the masses

42
Herlihy, 'Am I a Camera?', p. 1190.

17
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

engaging in the overthrow of the Provisional Government, which, as a

structural issue, was expertly depicted through the use of metaphor.

But Herlihy's point is well-taken; asked a straight question 'is filmic history a
substitute for written work', film undoubtedly loses out on interpretation. A
single film can only effectively depict one version of history typically from one
narrative viewpoint. Film can never really argue with alternative interpretations
and, whilst it ably depicts what happened, portrayals tend to be (albeit
necessarily) shallow and there is rarely scope to reflect upon: 'why it
happened'. Pierre Sorlin has likened filmed history to 'a dissertation which
does not question its subject, unlike traditional history' 43 - within filmed history,
events are depicted in a linear way, there are never any alternatives,
'happenings' just happen and any suggested causation for such events tends
to be within the body of the film rather than in reaction to some prior structural
influence outside of the incidents depicted. For example: exactly why were
there insufficient lifeboats on Titanic? What (if any) design defects caused the
ship to sink?

Critics argue that history films address only the established dimensions of
issues - feature film is rarely based upon new research; historians assigned to
production teams tend to be specialists in order to ensure the accuracy of (for
example) uniforms, transportation, battlefield data etc.; as John Sayles notes,
hired historians are retained as 'fact checkers, but not for the big picture or
issues of interpretation'.44 In respect of primary and secondary sources, the
very nature of film precludes students from adopting their 'trained scepticism' -
sources are only rarely evident and therefore never challenged. 45

Ian Jarvie sums up the 'anti' view in respect of interpretation noting that while
films are adequate for telling stories, a historian can embody just one
interpretive view within a film; he is unable to defend that viewpoint, rebut

43
Sorlin, 'How to Look at an "Historical" Film', p.38.
44
Sayles, 'A Conversation', p.23.
45
Occasionally a film-goer might observe some obscure mentions of sources and authorities within the
small print of the credit rolls but there is little to advise as to which sources contributed to which
elements of footage.

18
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

objections and criticise opposing views; he cannot footnote his material to

indicate sources, he cannot portray alternative arguments nor can he evaluate
his sources nor indulge in the weighing of evidence.46

These criticisms have credibility but their usefulness is only valid to those
expecting some kind of functional equality between 'history on paper' and
'history on film'. As Rosenstone notes, good historical films reflect the ongoing
discourse of history; their ability to simplify and stereotype plots and
characters, far from being a weakness, can be a strength. Even though
alternative interpretations are denied and depictions of causation are often
flimsy, films, in contrast to academic books, 'overflow with meanings - multiple
meanings … meanings that cannot be easily expressed in words'.47 That
these are conveyed by gesture, facial expression, tone, body language, even
silence is an alternative way of offering an interpretation. For example,
contrast the filmed scene
with the written word
describing, for example,
how Lieutenant Chard felt
at the river at Rorke's
Drift.

Consider this extract from Alan Lloyd, in his study of the Zulu War:
At about three o'clock in the afternoon, Chard was inspecting the pontoons on the
river when he heard shouting and saw horsemen galloping from Isandhlwana. Putting
their foam-flecked mounts through the water, they reined in beside him and blurted
the news that the camp had been overpowered by the Zulu army, a strong section of
48
which was now marching towards Rorke's Drift.

The Stanley Baker portrayal of how Chard received this news in Zulu surely
imparts an equivalent degree of information? 49

46
Jarvie, 'Seeing through Movies', p.396.
47
R.A. Rosenstone, Visions of the Past, (Cambridge Mass., 1995), p.238.
48
Alan Lloyd, The Zulu War, (London, 1973), p.90:
49
Still from Zulu per https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmPYoKK1zXw

19
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

However, director Cy Endfield’s Zulu is an excellent example of how

otherwise able historical films are weak in interpretation.50 Shot in 1963
entirely from the British Army point of view, the context and causation for the
Rorke's Drift conflict is simply ignored although many of the attitudes which
reflect 1960s neo-post-colonial politics are reflected as the 'imperialist project'
came under some severe artistic scrutiny during that period. Within the film,
we see no reason why soldiers are at the Rorke's drift mission nor why there
is a wider conflict within the Zulu nation. Although much attention has been
given to accuracy of detail and the overall authenticity of the key events
portrayed, few 'deeper' issues beyond the intense conflict are addressed or
even identified. As Sheldon Hall has written, 'the loss of overview is
compensated for in dramatic terms by a close identification with the ground-
level [British] participants'.51 Some sentimentality (Welsh singing,
homesickness) perhaps intrudes too much for the historical purist but
otherwise the interaction between the soldiers is a reasonable, if stereotypical
portrayal. But the absence of any response to even the most fundamental
‘why’ questions is a serious drawback.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it is felt that the strengths of 'history on film' easily outweigh the
disadvantages provided that nobody, especially students, relies on films as
definitive statements of fact and proposers of sundry interpretations. Unless
used unscrupulously (for totalitarian propaganda purposes for example), it is
difficult to see what harm films centred on history can do beyond that
contained within all other types of public discourse. We should consider
historical feature films for what they are: an important component of the
cinematic industry and not an inherently defective version of the art of
scholarly history. Before the Lumière invention (and since), people relied upon
fiction set against a historical backdrop for both entertainment and
information. Thomas Hardy reveals much about small-town agricultural life in

50
Zulu, (1964), Cy Endfield (director), Paramount/Diamond UK.
51
S. Hall, 'Monkey Feathers: defending Zulu' in in C. Monk and A. Sargeant (eds.), British Historical
Cinema, (London 2002), p.119.

20
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

The Mayor of Casterbridge, Zola's Germinal provides wonderful insight into

the misery and conflicts within the Second Empire mining communities in
Northern France. And, of course, Shakespeare’s ‘history’ plays offer a degree
of insight into the emotions and passions surrounding various episodes within
Britain’s royal past. Perhaps we should consider historical feature films in the
same way?

21
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

BIBLIOGRAPHY
TEXTS AND JOURNALS

Carr D., 'Narrative and the Real World' in B.Fay, P. Pomper, R T Vann (eds.), History and Theory -
Contemporary Readings, (Oxford, 1998).

Custen G., Bio/Pics How Hollywood constructed Public History, (New Brunswick, 1992).

Eisenstein S., Immoral Memories - an Autobiography (translated H. Marshall), (London, 1985).

Evans R.J., 'What is History?- Now' in D. Cannadine (ed.), What is History Now?, (London,2002).

Herlihy D., 'Am I a Camera? Other Reflections on Films and History' in The American Historical
Review, Vol. 93, No. 5 (Dec., 1988), pp. 1186-1192.

Jarvie I. C., 'Seeing through Movies' in Philosophy of the Social Sciences, Vol. 8, (Toronto, 1978),
pp. 376-397.

Hall S., 'Monkey Feathers: defending Zulu' in in C. Monk and A. Sargeant (eds.), British Historical
Cinema, (London 2002).

Landy M., 'Introduction' in M. Landy (ed.), The Historical Film - History and Memory in Media,
(London, 2001).

Leuchtenberg W.E., 'All the President's Men' in M.C. Carnes (ed.), Past Imperfect - History According
to the Movies, (London, 1996).

Lloyd A., The Zulu War - 1879, (London, 1973).

Marsh E.W., James Cameron's Titanic, (London, 1998).

Marwick A., The New Nature of History – Knowledge, Evidence, Language, (Basingstoke, 2001).

Magnusson M. (ed.), Chambers Biographical Dictionary, (Edinburgh, 1990).

Monk C. and Sargeant A. 'Introduction: The Past in British Cinema' in C. Monk and A. Sargeant (eds.),
British Historical Cinema, (London 2002).

O'Connor J.E., 'History in Images/Images in History: Reflections on the Importance of Film and
Television Study for an Understanding of the Past' in The American Historical Review, Vol.
93, No. 5 (Dec., 1988), pp. 1200-1209.

Raack R.C., 'Historiography as Cinematography: A Prolegomenon to Film Work for Historians' in

Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 18, No.3 (July 1983), pp. 411-438.

Rabinowitz P., 'Wreckage upon Wreckage: History , Documentary and the Ruins of memory' in
History and Theiry, Vol. 32, No. 2 (May, 1993), 119-137.

Rosenstone R.A., 'History in Images/ History in Words: Reflections on the Possibility of Really Putting
History onto Film in The American Historical Review, Vol. 93, No. 5 (Dec., 1988), pp. 1173-
1185.

Rosenstone R.A., 'The Historical Film: Looking at the Past in a Postliterate age' in M. Landy (ed.), The
Historical Film - History and Memory in Media, (London, 2001).

Rosenstone R.A., Visions of the Past, (Cambridge Mass., 1995).

Rother R., Leni Riefenstahl (translated M. H. Bott), (London, 2002).

22
What are the principal strengths and weaknesses of the treatment of history on film?
__________________________________________________________________________

Sayles J. and Foner E., 'A Conversation between Eric Foner and John Sayles' in M.C. Carnes (ed.),
Past Imperfect - History According to the Movies, (London, 1996).

Sorlin P., 'How to Look at an "Historical" Film' in M. Landy (ed.), The Historical Film - History and
Memory in Media, (London, 2001).

Toplin R. B., History by Hollywood, (Chicago, 1996).

Toplin R.B., 'The Filmmaker as Historian' in The American Historical Review, Vol. 93, No. 5 (Dec.,
1988), pp. 1210-1227.

White H., 'Historiography and Historiophoty' in The American Historical Review, Vol. 93, No. 5 (Dec.,
1988), pp. 1193-1199.

FILMS

Mrs Brown, (1997), John Madden (director), BBC Scotland / Ecosse Films.

October, (1927), Sergei Eisenstein (director), Soviet Government.

The Fog of War, (2003), Errol Morris (producer/director), Sony Pictures.

Topical Budget 252-2: Queen Alexandra's Drive Through London, (1916), British Film Institute, per
website: http://www.screenonline.org.uk/film/id/584159/, [viewed 7th December 2004].

Titanic, (1998), James Cameron (director), Twentieth Century Fox and Paramount Pictures.

Triumph of the Will, (1935), Leni Riefenstahl (director), L.R. Studio-Film Berlin.

Zulu, (1964), Cy Endfield (director), Paramount/Diamond UK.

23