A Trademark Approach to the
Past: Ken Burns, the Historical
Profession, and Assessing
Popular Presentations of the Past
VIVIEN ELLEN ROSE AND JULIE CORLEY This article is an examination of how film media impacts a broader understanding of history. This is mainly done through the examination of a work by Ken Burns titled
Not for Ourselves Alone. The film's main focus is on the efforts of
Elizabeth
Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony in furthering the cause of the early American women's rights movement. The author's critique of this particular film, as well as the larger impact and methodology of
Burn's other work, is used to advance the idea of increased professional/scholarly involvement in the production of historical presentations.
Many of the other articles discussed the need for historians to become more involved with the process of Also, the comment on pictures not matching up with the audio does seem to be a very serious oversight by the filmmakers. While some images might fit better in overall tone with certain aspects of the picture, or if there was a lack of appropriate photographs, if they mislead the audience it should be viewed as a serious flaw in the film.
Some other comments on presentation though seem very odd in context with the rest of the review. For example, the comments on what the leaf transition seemed to be more focused on hidden meaning behind what the leaf motif could represent. Instead of pondering what it meant, it may have been more constructive to actually find out what Burns intended with this recurring theme. Also, one of the main critiques of the film was the idea that the If the film's intent is to focus on the contributions of
Cady and Anthony, then how much of a critique is this? There are many historical texts that focus on only a few characters of a much larger time in history, whether this is due for the intent that the author had for it, length of the work, etc. As such, this critique could be applied to a variety of other pieces, which makes it rather odd that this seems to be a major, if not the most prominent, complaint the reviewers have.
Cinematic History: Where Do
We Go From Here?
ROBERT BRENT
TOPLINThis article looks at the aspects of cinematic history have been studied in the past, and what the author believes should be focused on in the future. The focus of the article is on studying how fiction films have changed in the ways they interpret history in line with the times they are produced. Though overall a very positive (one might go so far as to say cheerful) evaluation of cinematic historiography, the author does feel that certain areas of cinematic history need to be examined further. He sees the need for more wide spread trend in performing more in depth study of how a film is made and what kinds of thought that persons in the production process had when it came to making it. He also feels that the emphasis is too strongly tied to political viewpoints and that labor/social/economic viewpoints should be taken into consideration when
Toplin makes a point about the fact that too many historians spend time commenting on the way a film is composed rather than discussing its historical merits. This is a valid point for many reasons. Such a focus on these factors could detract a historian from bringing his/her expertise to the collaborative effort of making a film. Also, it could serve to somewhat undermine historians general acceptance into the field if the profession is perceived at simply being another set of film critics.
On the other hand, when a historian reads a written piece, is it not distracting when one finds glaring grammatical and spelling errors? When one finds the use of passive voice, is it not aggravating at times (speaking as a person guilty of this more often than not)? Thus is it not surprising that the historian as craftsman find his/herself desiring to point out what they view as basic errors in the fabric of the film? If historians are to become more involved with the production process, that is looking at primary sources that deal with the basis of the process itself, it would help out for them to know what are some of the basics when it comes to making a film.
Movie or Monograph?
A Historian/Filmmaker’s
Perspective
NATALIE
ZEMON DAVIS
This article looks at the use of film itself as a medium for the presentation and dissemination of history. The author examines her personal experience in consulting for a movie. Davis does not seem to advocate total control of the movie making process by historians, at times even sympathizing with the filmmakers struggle to create a story that will be cared about by the viewing audience. However, she does seem to advocate for historians who do work on projects such as these should have more input into the basic research, more control in what is reviewed and increased power when it comes to a final say in what is in the final product. The author does not view film as being a lesser medium than other forms, yet feels that films should be subject to the same set of standards that are expected of more traditional forms of presenting history.
What does one say to a historian who perhaps has not had as successful experiences as the author has had in collaborating with a film project? If they had participated in the production process and they discover that maybe the only reason they were brought on was so their name could be slapped on the ending credits to prove the the studio had "done their homework". While the author has shown the reader how historians might be able to influence film through reviews of particular movies, it would be interesting to see more thoughts on how the film industry could be convinced that having a historian as a part of the in production team of a film would be beneficial. Another question might be is how could reviews from a historical point find themselves engaged in a larger public discussion?
