This week's articles deal with the power of media to shape the public opinion on history. Davis' piece discusses the ability of film to alter how one thinks of a time period. He especially brings up differences with historical fact and fiction. For example, Davis brings up the idea of an open trial. This is brought up to show a major historical error for this time period. This open trial is the exact opposite of trials performed by the Old Regime, which were secretive and disallowed for public discussion and accusation of the defendant. This kind of change can greatly affect about how one thinks of a time period, allowing assumptions to be made by the public about what is correct in history.
Rose and Corley's piece brings up another issue, the manipulation and omission of information by film makers. They bring up the filmmaker Ken Burns and his works. His pieces involving women like Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. These pieces involved historians being interviewed and then edited by Burns and his crew. This ability to edit film and in turn discussion displays the ability for films to be manipulated. This kind of manipulation allows for directors to sculpt a historical message they envision, omitting what does not fit with their view. This ability creates controversy between what historians believe should be included and what the public actually sees.
Is it alright for filmmakers to alter and omit information if they are trying to create an accurate representation? Are they permitted to omit based upon restraints and artistic ground? Should things always be accurate? These are things historians must deal with, especially since it affects public opinions on historical events.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Rose and Corley’s article sparked the most interest in me because I am interested in the role of the filmmaker as both artist and interpreter of history. Because he makes documentaries rather than dramas, historians hold Ken Burns to a higher standard. I think that’s because what he creates is supposed to be factual and true. But the problem is not Ken Burns—it’s the fact that the public likes to get information from the medium of film. I think people really do want to know that what they’re watching is accurate. Historians need to take the reigns and start making more films of their own.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Katy, and through her Rose and Corley. Historians need to control the filmmaking process of a historical film if they want true accuracy. The disconnect here is that only Toplin viewed fictional films with historical points, with Davis slightly so. The rest looked at film as a medium and complained about the lack of control. Burns was attacked because he professed to trying to teach, when he is also trying to make money. Yes, the public has decided through supply and demand that blockbusters get more attention, but we need to differentiate within the genres. Filmmakers can have their "artist license" but they need to admit to taking it. This is what the words "based on actual events" are for, the "based" part being necessary to tell the audience to do some research.
ReplyDeleteI have to disagree here. I don't think the answer is changing the films, I think the answer is in how we educate using the films. The exception here is if a film is being produced for the purpose of education, then yes, filmmakers need to be accurate, or at least be upfront about how and why they changed elements.
ReplyDelete