The readings discussed the relationship between history and its representation in movies and television programs. The various authors explored how history was used to create a form of entertainment and ‘fact,’ and how the creators and viewers interpreted the presentation of history. Each reading examined a different aspect of history in entertainment. Glassberg investigated how the audience viewed the Ken Burns’s Civil War series through letters written to Burns. Glassberg found that the public’s positive response reflected Burns’s portrayal of widely accepted history that did not challenge popular opinions. The series focused on creating an emotional response from the audience, which Glassberg found to be the most important aspect of popular history (108). Davis also discussed how the main focus of popular history is not historical accuracy. Discussing her contribution to a movie about Martin Guerre and book on the topic, Davis argued that creators of popular history have a responsibility to adhere to the elements of the genre. Historians act as contributors to the creation of movies, but the producers, directors, etc., decide what appears in the movie based on factors that contribute to the overall success of their product. Davis argued that historians have a responsibility to comment on the history from a professional standpoint. She wrote, “It’s up to historians, those who have participated in the film and those who have seen it, to bring to debate both an understanding of the possibilities of the film” (Davis 48). Frisch’s chapter exemplified issues in popular history that often go unnoticed by the public. In Vietnam: A Television History, the creators used oral histories as the main authority without questioning the validity of memories or interpretations of the men and women telling their stories. Though oral histories provide an excellent primary source for researchers, professional historians and scholars are the authority on topics that they have painstakingly researched. Frisch’s chapter raised questions about the validity of sources and the presentation/interpretation of situations in popular history. For Frisch, oral history enhances the narrative created by extensive research by scholars; it does not act as an authority.
Glassberg, Davis, and Frisch examined specific examples of popular history. Toplin’s discussion of the film genre and the role of entertainment, cinema elements, and the creators enhanced the other readings by focusing on the film industry. Toplin examined why Hollywood (and independent filmmakers) present specific topics using specific approaches and formulas of representation. I found Toplin’s discussions of the three levels of researching historical films and of acknowledging the genre to be especially poignant. When viewing historical films, it is important to remember that filmmakers need to falsify or invent information, people, and situations to create a powerful representation of an event that fits into a specified time and adheres to the requirements of the genre. As Davis argued, historians need to comment and oppose narratives created in popular history, in order to present histories that do not conform their narratives for entertainment purposes.
You did a nice job of stringing together the main themes of each article to provide a synthesis of all of the readings for this week. I think you're right about how Toplin's and Davis' articles bring out that its really the narratives that need to be corrected, and that historians ought not nit pick on little details about people or places, as long as fictitious situations adhere to the confines of the time period in which they are representing.
ReplyDelete