The Historian Encounters Film: A Historiography

Author(s): Robert Brent Toplin and Jason Eudy

Source: OAH Magazine of History, Vol. 16, No. 4, Film and History (Summer, 2002), pp. 7-12
Published by: Organization of American Historians
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25163542 .
Accessed: 01/12/2013 18:59
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
Organization of American Historians is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
OAH Magazine of History.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 190.172.198.166 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:59:19 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Robert Brent
Toplin
and
Jason Eudy
The Historian Encounters Film:
A
Historiography
It is not
surprising
that in recent decades historians have
become
increasingly
interested in
examining
the
presentation
of
history through
film. Historians
recognize
the
power
ofthe
medium and understand that students and the
public get many
of
their ideas about the
past
from movie and television screens.
Popular
feature films like Braveheart
(1995),
Schindlers List
(1993),
and Titanic
(1997) impressed
viewers with their
partisan interpre
tations of events,
personalities,
and controversies. Well-received
television documentaries such as Ken Burns's The Civil
War,
helped
to
shape
the
public's
attitude
regarding
an
important
historical
subject.
Historians are also aware that
opportunities
to
view
history
on the screen have become more abundant in recent
decades than ever before.
History
is available
everyday
on televi
sion
through programming
on The
History Channel,
the Public
Broadcasting System,
and a
variety
of other information-based
channels.
History-based
movies are also abundant on television
through
movie channels like Home Box
Office,
American Movie
Classics,
and the Turner Classic Movies Channel. A modern
enthusiast of
history
can
easily spend
more time
examining
screened
history
than
studying interpretations
of the
past pre
sented in lectures or books.
Historians have addressed numerous
questions
about the chal
lenges
of
incorporating
a
study
ofthe media into their
professional
work.
They
have asked: How does the
presentation
of
history
on
the screen differ from its
presentation
in
print
? To what
degree
can
film instruct audiences and stimulate the
public's thinking
about
the
past?
Can film deliver new and different
insights?
In which
ways may
film
grossly simplify
or
misrepresent
the
past?
Does the
popularity
of film
represent
a serious
challenge
to traditional
modes of
interpreting history
in
teaching
and
writing?
Which
analytical
skills do historians need to
develop
in order to work
more
effectively
with film?
John
E. O'Connor made some of the most
impressive early
efforts to
promote
the
study
of film and television in the
history
classroom. Because of these
pioneering
activities,
the American
Historical Association created the
John
E. O'Connor
Award,
its
first
prize
devoted to some
outstanding
achievement in filmmak
ing.
In the
early 1970s, John
E. O'Connor and his
associate,
Martin A.
Jackson
created the
journal,
Film &
History,
and
organized
the Historians' Film
Committee,
which
attempted
to
promote
the
thoughtful
use of film and television in historical
research and
teaching.
These historians
hoped
their efforts would
demonstrate that
investigation
of the mass media constituted
serious and
important scholarship. Eventually
the
independent
committee became an affiliated
society
of the American Histori
cal Association and
began
to
regularly sponsor
sessions on film
and television at each annual
meeting
of the AHA. O'Connor
also wrote and edited
many important publications
that dealt with
the use of film for the
study
of
history.
O'Connor obtained a substantial
grant
in the 1980s from the
National Endowment for the Humanities that
supported
his effort
to
bring
both historians and cinema scholars
together
for a
conference that addressed the
challenges
that film created for the
history profession.
Several
presentations
at that conference later
appeared
in O'Connor's edited
book,
The
Image
as
Artifact:
The
Historical
Analysis of
Film and Television
(1990).
O'Connor estab
lished an
organizational
structure for the authors' discussions in a
lengthy
introduction to the collection of
essays.
He
suggested
that
historians could examine film in four fundamental
ways.
First,
they
could
study
the
moving image
as a
"Representation
of
History."
Movies and documentaries often
portrayed
and inter
preted
the
past,
and their treatments of
history
deserved critical
attention.
Secondly,
students could view film as "Evidence for
Social and Cultural
History."
The stories
presented
in movies and
documentaries sometimes revealed the "values" ofthe filmmakers
and the concerns of
society
at the time of
production,
O'Connor
noted. He
warned, however,
that scholars often make
simplified
judgments
about the
ways
in which filmed stories reflected the
OAH Magazine of History Summer 2002 7
This content downloaded from 190.172.198.166 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:59:19 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
attitudes of an era.
Thirdly,
O'Connor
suggested
that students of
film could consider
"Actuality Footage
as Evidence for
History."
He noted that sometimes material from film and television serves
as the best evidence available for the
study
of
specific
historical
events.
Finally,
O'Connor
suggested
that students could
study
"The
History
of the
Moving Image
as
Industry
and Art Form." In
these
investigations
historians could
profit
from research in cin
ema studies. Efforts to learn from these
insights
would
require
considerable
effort,
O'Connor
pointed
out, because historians
need to understand the intellectual and theoretical
concepts
of
modern film
scholarship (1).
books and articles
(5).
Film can work
effectively
for
explorations
into
history,
White asserted.
Indeed,
it could do some
things
well
that
writing
does
inadequately.
David
Herlihy
offered a less
receptive response
to Rosenstone's
generally positive
commen
tary
on the
possibilities
of
viewing history through
film.
Herlihy
said
film,
unlike
scholarship,
did not reveal the source of its
evidence
and, therefore,
often it did not allow the
quality
of
criticism leveled
against
narratives.
Nevertheless, Herlihy
main
tained that film has the
potential
to
vividly convey
a sense ofthe
past
and
help
to
keep
an interest in
history
alive?much like
historical novels
(6). John
E. O'Connor stressed
Film earned
greater respect
in the halls of
academia
during
the 1980s and 1990s when some
of the
principal journals
of record introduced an
nually
scheduled reviews of films. David Thelen
established this innovation for The
Journal of
Ameri
can
History
when he became
general
editor of the
journal
in the mid-1980s. "Movie Reviews" first
appeared
in the
December,
1986 issue of the
JAH
and continued in
subsequent
December issues.
The review section's
editor,
Robert Brent
Toplin,
announced in his introduction that reviewers would
consider the
way
films made
original
contributions
to
understanding
and addressed issues that were
the
subject
of debate
by
historians
(2).
In 1989 The
American Historical Review
began reviewing
films
as well. Robert A.
Rosenstone,
the AHR's first film
editor,
announced that the
journal
would "see to
what extent film can be used to
represent,
re
create, talk
about,
and situate us with
regard
to the
John E.
O'Connor,
former editor
of Film &
History,
is
professor
of
history
at New
Jersey
Institute of
Technology
and
Rutgers
University,
Newark.
the
importance
of film and television for the
study
of cultural
history.
He
argued
that students needed
instruction in
critiquing
the visual media.
History
professionals
also could
profit
from education in
the
production techniques
of
film,
and
they
could
benefit from
cross-disciplinary cooperation
with
cinema scholars
(7).
Robert Brent
Toplin sug
gested
that filmed
history
was
becoming
so
ubiqui
tous that it was
appropriate
to view filmmakers as
historians. The filmmakers'
interpretations
are dif
ferent from the work of
print-oriented
scholars,
he
noted,
but their dramas and documentaries often
provide quite
useful
inquiries
into the
past (8).
Not
surprisingly,
in the later
part
of the
twentieth
century
historians
gave increasing
at
tention to
Hollywood's
treatments of
history.
Fea
ture films were
intriguing subjects
for
study
because
they
attracted
huge
audiences and often excited
considerable discussion of historical issues in the
vanished world of the
past."
He
emphasized
that films
presented
arguments
about the
meaning
of the
past
that
operated by
rules
that were different from those found in written
history (3).
Rosenstone made an
important
contribution to that rethink
ing
in a
provocative
AHR article that introduced a
special
forum
on film. In
"History
in
Images/History
in
Words,"
Rosenstone
reviewed some ofthe historians'
positive
and
negative
reactions to
film, pointing
to
disagreements
about whether
history
on the
screen could address historical
questions
with the
sophistication
of formal
scholarship
and with the attention to sources and
historiographical
debates that characterized much of the best
academic research. Rosenstone
suggested
that film could stimu
late
thinking
about
history
in
intriguing ways.
An
appreciation
of
film's
significance
could not be advanced
by simplistic compari
sons with
interpretations
disseminated in books and articles. Film
communicated in a
unique
manner. It
presented
a distinct chal
lenge
to historians.
History
in
images suggested
a new
"analytic
structure" for
thinking
about the
past (4).
Four scholars offered
responses
to Rosenstone's
analysis. Hayden
White
argued
that historical
interpretation
involves the
arrang
ing
and
shaping
of
stories,
not the
objective representations
of
truth. All historical
explanations
involve considerable exercise of
creative
license,
even traditional modes of
interpretation through
national media. Controversial movies?such as Oliver Stone's
Platoon
(1986)
and
JFK (1991)?or emotionally powerful
mov
ies?like Steven
Spielberg's
Schindler's List and
Saving
Private
Ryan (1998)?received
considerable attention in the
press
and on
television
programs.
A
blockbuster,
such as
James
Cameron's
Titanic,
could
promote
the sale of numerous books about an event
depicted
in the movies.
History-oriented
films
represent only
a small
portion
of
Hollywood's releases,
but
they
receive a
great
deal of critical
reception.
From 1986 until
2001,
one or more ofthe five motion
pictures
nominated for Best Picture featured
a
story
set in the
past.
In eleven of these fifteen
years
a
history-oriented
movie won the
Oscar for Best Picture. The eleven
history
films varied
greatly
in
the seriousness of their treatments. In some cases the dramas
related
only loosely
to conditions in the
past,
while in other cases
the films
portrayed specific people
and historical situations in
considerable detail.
History-based
films that won the
top prize
included
Platoon,
The Last
Emperor (1987), Driving
Miss
Daisy
(1989),
Dances WithWolves
(1990), Unforgiven (1992),
Schindler's
List, Braveheart,
The
English
Patient
(1996), Titanic, Shakespeare
in
Love
(1998),
and Gladiator
(2000).
The
year
that
Shakespeare
in
Love won the award was an
especially
notable one for cinematic
history.
All five nominees for Best Picture of 1998 dealt with
8 OAH Magazine of History Summer 2002
This content downloaded from 190.172.198.166 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:59:19 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
historical
subjects (the
other nominees were
Saving
Private
Ryan,
The Thin Red
Line, Life
is
Beautiful,
and
Elizabeth).
Some observers have
registered sharp complaints
about artis
tic abuses
prevalent
in
Hollywood
films. Articles
by
Richard
Bernstein of The New York Times and Richard N.
Current,
a Civil
War
historian, provide
a
suggestive sampling
of some of the
criticisms leveled
by journalists
and academicians. In an
essay
entitled,
"Can Movies Teach
History?",
Bernstein noted that
many
of
Hollywood's
historical treatments were
quite disappoint
ing.
Moviemakers often
got
minor details
right
in their
depiction
of costumes and
settings,
but their stories about the
past
were
greatly
distorted
(9).
Bernstein focused on errors committed in the
making
of Fat Man and Little
Boy,
a 1989 movie about American
efforts at Los Alamos to
produce
the first atomic bomb. The
movie's falsehoods diminished its value as
history,
Bernstein
concluded. Richard Current leveled his
complaints
in "Fiction as
History:
A Review
Essay", published
in the
Journal of
Southern
History.
Current observed that historical dramas
"take liberties with the
facts,
or at
best,
select
those that have the
greatest
visual effect." Real
ity
and
fantasy
"blend more and more into an
inseparable
mix" in television and
Hollywood
productions,
he
complained (10).
Most
scholars, however,
have been less scold
ing
in their
perspective.
While
they recognize
that commercial films often
simplify
informa
tion, manipulate evidence,
and distort the his
torical
record, they
maintain that
many
Hollywood
movies are
worthy
of
professional
study.
These scholars find motion
pictures
in
triguing
not
only
for their
representations
of
history
but also for other
insights
that
yielded
from these
investigations.
Edited works have demonstrated a
variety
of
ways
that scholars work with
Hollywood
movies.
John
E. O'Connor and Martin A.
Jackson
edited an
important
anthology
in this
regard
in 1979. American
History
I
American Film
showed that a
study
of
popular
cinema can throw
light
on
impor
tant issues related to American
history.
O'Connor's and
Jackson's
anthology
featured
essays
on fourteen commercial films. Some of
the
chapters
focused on
period
or historical
movies,
such as The
Big
Parade
(1925)
and Viva
Zapata! (195 2).
Other
chapters
exam
ined entertainment films that seemed
important
because their
stories reflected concerns of the American
people
at the time of
their
production.
These movies include Invasion
of
the
Body
Snatchers
(1956),
Dr.
Strangelove (1964),
and
Rocky (1976).
American
History/American
Film is a rather old volume in the fast
growing
field of historical
scholarship
on
film, yet
it continues to
hold
up
well as a
sophisticated presentation
of the
ways
that
historians
can examine
Hollywood
as a source of
insights
on the
American
past (11).
Pastlmperfect: History According
to the Movies
(1996)
is another
useful
anthology
on the
subject
of
Hollywood
and
history.
Editor
Mark Carnes
brought together sixty outstanding
historians and
writers for a
wide-ranging
discussion that covered more than one
hundred
popular
motion
pictures.
In his
introduction,
Carnes
points
out that
many
of the authors first became attracted to
history
when
they
viewed movies as
youngsters.
He
suggests
that
movies "often teach
important
truths about the human condi
tion"
(12).
While the
history depicted
in motion
pictures
is
certainly
not accurate in
every detail,
it can stimulate useful
dialogues
about the
past.
The authors that Carnes assembled in
this work
evidently responded
to his call for an
open-minded
view
of
popular
film. Several contributors
provided generally
favorable
reviews ofthe films
they
examined.
Interestingly, though,
some of
the harshest criticism leveled in the book
applied
to motion
pictures
about the
experiences
of African Americans and Native
Americans. The commentators
objected
to the movies' insensi
tive
portrayals
of minorities.
Robert Brent
Toplin
has also offered some
generally appreciative
assessments of
Hollywood's
treatment of
history.
Toplin recognizes many
of the
complaints
about
artistic license in
History B31 Hollywood:
The Use
and Abuse
of
the American Past
(1996),
but he also
observes
that,
"filmmakers often
approach
histori
cal
subjects
with
genuine curiosity
about the
past"
(13).
As well as
focusing
on the filmmakers'
interpretations
of
history
as
depicted
in the final
product, Toplin investigates
the
production
histo
ries and considers how
producers,
writers,
and
directors
struggled
and often
disagreed
as
they
attempted
to
shape
stories for the movies. He also
places
films in the context of their
times,
observing
that
contemporary sociopolitical
conditions some
times made a
significant impact
on the filmmakers'
storytelling. Toplin's
edited
work,
Oliver Stone's
USA
(2000),
features assessments ofthe controver
sial
Hollywood
director's movies
by
scholars and
journalists
and includes Stone's two
lengthy responses
to his critics
(14).
In Reel
History:
In
Defense ofHoRywood,
scheduled for release in
October
2002, Toplin provides
a rationale for the moviemakers'
exercises in artistic license. Cinematic
history
is a
genre,
he
argues,
and filmmakers have
developed
a number of successful
strategies
over
the
years
that
help
to make their
history-oriented
movies
popular.
Critics who fail to take account of these
techniques
can
easily get
bogged
down in
complaints
about
petty
details and fictional flour
ishes while
failing
to
recognize
the movies' broader contributions to
the
public's thinking
about the
past (15).
Of course, many
film scholars
give
less attention to the
filmmakers'
interpretations
of
history
and
express greater
interest
in the
ways
in which historical
and/or period productions
serve as
commentaries on
contemporary
issues.
Artists, they say,
often use
history
to
suggest judgments
about modern
economic, social,
and
political problems.
Pierre Sorlin offered a
particularly strong
statement of this
perspective
in 1980. He said filmed
history
is "a
mere
framework, serving
as a basis or a
counterpoint
for a
political
Robert A.
Rosenstone,
author of
several books on
film,
is film editor
for the American Historical Review.
OAH Magazine of History Summer 2002 9
This content downloaded from 190.172.198.166 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:59:19 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
thesis.
History
is no more than a useful device to
speak
of the
present
time." A student of
scholarship
on historical film will find
this
poignant
statement
quoted
in
many
books and articles.
Sorlin's observation is
provocative
but too
simplistic. Obviously,
filmmakers often summon
history
to fashion stories with
meaning
for the
present,
but their motivation for
making
movies is
hardly
as one-dimensional
as Sorlin
suggests.
Teachers and scholars treat
movies
superficially
if
they briskly
dismiss almost all of the
filmmakers'
perspectives
on
history primarily
as
metaphors
that
address current issues.
Leger
Grindon cites Sorlin and
applies
his
perspective engag
ingly
in Shadows on the Past: Studies in the Historical Fiction Film
(1994).
Historical movies are
products
of the times as well as
attempts
to
represent
the
past,
observes Grindon. In his
study
of
Jean
Renoir's 1938
movie,
La
Marseillaise,
for
example,
Grindon
sees the movie as more than
just
an
investigation
of the French
Revolution. The film's
story
also serves to
present
a
passionate
argument
in behalf of the
Popular
Front in 1930s France. Simi
larly,
Warren
Beatty's
Reds
(1981) represents
more than
just
a
drama about an idealistic American who became involved in
Russia's Bolshevik revolution. Grindon believes the movie's char
acterizations
speak
to divisions and
problems
faced
by representa
tives ofthe American Left in the 1970s
(16).
In some
respects, Siegfried
Kracauer deserves credit for stimulat
ing
historians'
thoughts
about
opportunities
to read subtle mean
ings
from the stories
depicted
in film. Kracauer
published
a
provocative
book
shortly
after the end of World War II that
represented
a
psychological interpretation
of German film. In From
Caligari
to Hitler
(1947)
Kracauer
argued
that films created
during
the Weimar
Republic
contained
significant
elements that
pointed
toward the totalitarian
regime
that materialized in
Germany during
the
following
decade. A
study
of
movies, then,
could reveal the
psychological makeup
of a
society.
Kracauer arrived at his conclu
sion
by examining
motion
pictures
such as The Cabinet
of
Dr.
CoIigan(1919),I>.Mahi5e:TheGaTrAkr(1922),Waxu;orks(1924),
and The Last
Laugh (1924). Many
of these
films,
said
Kracauer,
presented
viewers with a
psychological
choice between chaos and
tyranny.
Of course, Kracauer had the
advantage
of
hindsight.
He
could select movies that fit into his
image
of a
Germany
destined for
dictatorial rule
(17).
Not
surprisingly,
a number of film scholars
have
challenged
his conclusions. Anton
Kaes',
in From Hitler to
Heimat: The Return
of History
as Film
(1989),
offers a more
sophis
ticated
analysis
of German cinema that examines the
ways
in which
Germans
struggled
with their
identity
in the
post-war years through
depictions
of the Nazi
past (18).
Some scholars have
attempted
to move
away
from familiar
discussions about the movies treatment of
history by approaching
film from a
post-modern perspective.
These
investigators appreci
ate movies that examine that
past
in
innovative, provocative,
and
unorthodox
ways. They enjoy
films that break
away
from
Hollywood's
linear
approach (the
familiar structure in which
stories have a
recognizable beginning, middle,
and
end).
Enthusi
asts of
a
post-modern perspective appreciate
motion
pictures
that
raise more
questions
than
they
answer.
They
like motion
pic
tures that leave matters unre
solved in the end
(Hollywood,
they argue,
works too
frequently
toward
closure, especially by
com
posing
stories with
happy
end
ings).
Post-modernists also
praise
films that shock viewers with
images
that
juxtapose
references
to both the
past
and the
present.
Sumiko
Higashi
and Robert
A. Rosenstone demonstrate this
kind of
appreciation
in connec
tion with two films: Walker
(1987)
and
JFK (1992).
Walker
deals with the adventures of Wil
liam Walker in
Nicaragua
in the
1850s,
the adventurer who suc
ceeded
briefly
in
taking
control
of the small Central American
country (later
Walker was executed
by
Honduran
authorities).
The movie includes some modern references in its
imagery?
including
a
Mercedes-Benz,
a
Zippo lighter,
a
computer,
a heli
copter,
and
copies
of
Time, Newsweek,
and
People magazines.
In
these and other scenes Walker references both the Vietnam War
and the Sandinista-Contra conflict in
Nicaragua
and
suggests
critical
questions
about the
impact
of U.S. economic and
military
interventions in Latin America and the world
(19).
Both
Higashi
and Rosenstone
praise
Oliver Stone's
JFK, too,
for its
lively experimentation.
Rosenstone
acknowledges
that the
motion
picture fudged
some details about the
Kennedy
assassina
tion,
but he
argues
that it
effectively questioned
official "truths."
He
points
out that the film confronted audiences with a
provoca
tive and
important question:
"Has
something gone wrong
with
America since the sixties?" Whatever the movie's
flaws, says
Rosenstone, "JFK
has to be
among
the most
important
works of
American
history
ever to
appear
on the screen"
(20).
When
writing
more
broadly
about the historian's
relationship
to
film,
Rosenstone
suggests
that teachers and scholars need to see
beyond
small errors and distortions and observe the
big picture. They
should
recognize,
he
writes,
"that film will
always
include
images
that are at once invented and true: true in that
they symbolize,
condense,
or summarize
larger
amounts of
data;
true in that
they
impart
an overall
meaning
of the
past
that can be
verified,
documented,
or
reasonably argued" (21).
Both
Higashi
and Rosenstone
appreciate Walker, JFK,
and
other
avante-garde
movies that eschew traditional
storytelling
techniques. They applaud
filmmakers'
panache
in
mixing genres,
presenting
odd
juxtapositions, incorporating
sarcasm and
humor,
creating temporal jumps,
and
generally promoting postmodern
perspectives (22).
Movies that
explore
new modes of communica
tion confront audiences with a
"multiplicity
of
viewpoints," says
Warren
Beatty's
Reds
demonstrates the
problems
faced
by
the American Left in the 1970s.
10 OAH Magazine of History Summer 2002
This content downloaded from 190.172.198.166 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:59:19 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Rosenstone. These films
challenge
audiences to think
differently,
to "revision" the
past (23).
There are numerous other issues related to
Hollywood's
role in
American life that have
intrigued historians,
and these themes can
only
be addressed
briefly
in this
introductory commentary.
Students
of film who wish to consider the
importance
of the
Hollywood
movie
industry
in American culture over the twentieth
century
will
find Robert Sklar's Movie-Made America
(second edition, 1994)
a
useful
point
of
departure.
Sklar's
popular study
traces the
growth
of
the movie
industry
from its
early days
of
appeal
to
immigrants
and
working-class
Americans to its modern
developments, including
the rise of
independent-minded
directors who
challenged
the
formulaic
practices
ofthe
big
studios
(24).
Neil Gabler's An
Empire
of
Their Own: How the
Jews
Invented
Hollywood (1989) provides
a
provocative
and
ultimately
controver
sial
picture
of the
Jewish immigrants
who
eventually
dominated much of
the
Hollywood
studio
system (25).
In
Hollywood's
America: Social and Politi
cal Themes in Motion Pictures
(1996)
Stephen Powers,
David
J.
Rothman
and
Stanley
Rothman
argue, provoca
tively,
that
many
ofthe modern execu
tives who dominate
Hollywood
are
more liberal than
many
of their critics
imagine (26).
Historians have
long
been fasci
nated with the issue of
censorship.
The
subject
is
appealing,
in
part,
be
cause it connects social issues to
poli
tics. Historians and their
colleagues
in
cinema studies have
published
numerous books and articles about
the
campaigns
to
regulate
content in
movies,
particularly
sexual
material. Garth S.
Jowett's
Film: The Democratic Art
presents
a
useful overview of the
subject. Gregory
Black's
Hollywood
Cen
sored:
Morality Codes, Catholics,
and the Movies
(1996)
offers an
informative review of
principal developments
that led to
Hollywood's plan
for
self-regulation:
the Production Code
(27).
Also, Kathryn
H.
Fuller,
Ian C.
Jarvie
and Garth S.
Jowett
have
compiled
an instructive
investigation
of a
particular controversy
related to
regulatory
issues in Children and the Movies: Media
Influence
and the
Payne
Studies
Controversy (1996) (28).
Government's role in
influencing
the stories
Hollywood
presented
to the
public
receives
intelligent
treatment in
Clayton
R.
Koppes
and
Gregory
D.
Black, Hollywood
Goes to War: How
Politics and
Propaganda Shaped
World War 11 Movies
(1990).
Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration worked
closely
with
Hollywood
executives and artists in an effort to ensure that
commercial movies contributed to the American war effort
(29).
Todd Bennett
provides
a
detailed examination of the
Washington-Hollywood
connection as it related to one movie
in
"Culture, Power,
and Mission to Moscow: Film and Soviet
American Relations
During
World War II." He shows that
American audiences
generally
dismissed Mission to Moscow as
unmitigated propaganda,
but
Joseph
Stalin and other Soviet
leaders embraced the movie as a
flattering
vision of their
society.
This
positive
reaction
helped
to
bring
a reintroduction of Hol
lywood
films into the Soviet Union. That
development exposed
Russian audiences to
pictures
of American
prosperity.
In the
long
run,
Hollywood
movies undermined Soviet
arguments
about the success of their communist
system (30).
Historians have devoted less
scholarship
to
documentary
films
(including
the
many
that
appear
on
television),
and there
is
certainly
a need for
greater professional
assessment of the
genre.
Erik Barnouw offers a
good starting point
for
examining
major developments
in
documentary filmmaking
in a classic
study, Documentary:
A
History of
the Non-Fiction Film
(1993)
(31). John
O'Connor has edited a
useful
anthology
that features stud
ies of
important documentary
films:
American
History
I
American Televi
sion:
Interpreting
the Video Past
(1983)
(32).
A detailed examination of an
influential
documentary program
can
be found in Robert Brent
Toplin,
editor,
Ken Burns's The Civil War:
Historians
Respond (1996).
The book
features both
praise
and criticism of
the
popular
television series from a
group
of
prominent
Civil War schol
ars. At the end of the volume film
maker Ken Burns and the TV series'
writer,
Geoffrey Ward, respond
to
the scholar's comments
(33).
These are
just
a few ofthe
many
books and articles that have drawn attention to the rel
evance of film in the
study
of
history.
The
outpouring
of this
scholarship
in recent
years
has
certainly
been
impressive.
After
years
of relative
neglect
in the historical
profession,
a
burst of interest and research occurred late in the twentieth
century. Today,
teachers and scholars
no
longer
stand aloof
from the
moving image,
as
many
of their
predecessors
did in
previous
decades. Historians of the
twenty-first century
recognize
that film and television can
project enormously
influential visions ofthe
past. Accordingly, they
understand
the value of
incorporating
a
study
of the
moving image
in
their classroom instruction.
Endnotes
1.
John
E.
O'Connor, ed., Image
as
Artifact:
The Historical
Analysis
of
Film and Television
(Malabar,
FL: R.E.
Krieger Publishing
Company, 1990).
2 Robert Brent
Toplin, History B;y Hollywood:
The Use and Abuse
of
the American Past
(Champagne-Urbana: University
of
Illinois
Press, 1996).
3 Robert A.
Rosenstone,
"Film Reviews:
Introduction,"
American
Teachers and scholars treat
movies
superficially
if
they
briskly
dismiss almost all of
the filmmakers'
perspectives
on
history primarily
as
metaphors
that address
current issues.
OAH Magazine of History Summer 2002 11
This content downloaded from 190.172.198.166 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:59:19 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Historical Review
94, no.4 (October, 1989):
1031-1033.
4 Robert A.
Rosenstone, "History
in
Images/History
in Words:
Reflections of the
Possibility
of
Really Putting History
Into
Film,"
American Historical Review
93,
no.5
(December, 1988),
1173-1185.
5
Hayden White, "Historiography
and
Historiophoty,"
American
Historical Review
93,
no. 5
(December, 1988),
1193-1199.
6 David
Herlihy,
"Am I a Camera? Other Reflections on Film and
History,"
American Historical Review
93,
no. 5
(December,
1988),
1186-1192.
7
John
E.
O'Connor, "History
in
Images/Images
in
History:
Re
flections on the
Importance
of Film and Television
Study
for
an
Understanding
ofthe
Past,"
American Historical Review
93,
no. 5
(December, 1988),
1200-1209.
8 Robert Brent
Toplin,
"The Filmmaker as
Historian,"
American
Historical Review
93,
no. 5
(December, 1988),
1210-1227.
9 Richard
Bernstein,
"Can Movies Teach
History?"
New York
Times,
26
November, 1989,
sec.
2,
1.
10 Richard N.
Current,
"Fiction as
History:
A Review
Essay,"
Journal of
Southern
History 52,
no. 1
(February, 1986),
77-90.
11
John
E. O'Connor and Martin A.
Jackson,
eds. American
History/
American Film:
Interpreting
the
Hollywood Image (New
York:
Ungar Publishing Co., 1979).
12 Mark C.
Carnes, ed.,
Past
Imperfect: History According
to the
Movies
(New
York:
Henry
Holt and
Co, 1995).
13
Toplin,History By Hollywood.
14 Robert Brent
Toplin, ed.,
Oliver Stone's USA:
Film, History,
and
Controversy (Lawrence,
KS:
University
Press of Kan
sas, 2000).
15 Robert Brent
Toplin,
Reel
History:
In
Defense of Hollywood
(Lawrence,
KS:
University
Press of
Kansas,
2002.
(Scheduled
fore lease in
October, 2002)
16
Leger Grindon,
Shadows on the Past: Studies in the Historical Film
(Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994).
17
Siegfried Kracauer,
From
Caliban
to Hitler: A
Psychological
History ofthe
German Film
(Princeton:
Princeton
University
Press, 1947).
18 Anton
Kaes,
From Hitler to Heimat: The Return
of History
(Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
University Press, 1989).
19 Sumiko
Higashi,
"Walker and
Mississippi Burning:
Postomodernism Versus Illusionist
Narrative,"
in Alan
Rosenthal, ed., Why
Docudrama? Fact-Fiction on Film and
Television
(Carbondale,
IL: Southern Illinois
University Press,
1999),
351-352.
20 Robert A.
Rosenstone, "JFK:
Historical
Fact/Historical Film,"
in
Rosenthal, ed.,
Why Docudrama?,
339.
21 Robert A.
Rosenstone,
Visions
ofthe
Past: The
Challenge of
Film
to Our Idea
of History (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard
University
Press, 1995),
71.
22 Robert A.
Rosenstone,
"The Future ofthe Past: Film and the
Beginnings
of Postmodern
History,"
in Vivian
Sobchack, ed.,
The Persistence
of History: Cinema, Television,
and the Modern
Event
(New
York and London:
Routledge, 1996),
205.
23
Ibid.,
206.
24 Robert
Sklar,
Movie-Made America: A Cultural
History
of
American
Movies,
second ed.
(New
York:
Vintage
Books, 1994).
25 Neil
Gabler,
An
Empire of
Their Own: How the
Jews
Invented
Hollywood (New
York:
Crown, 1988).
26
Stephen
Powers,
David
J. Rothman,
and
Stanley Rothman, Hollywood's
America: Social and Political Themes in Motion Pictures
(Boulder,
Col.:
Westview
Press, 1996).
27 Garth S.
Jowett,
Film: The Democratic Art
(Boston: Little,
Brown and
Co., 1976).
28
Kathryn
H.
Fuller,
Ian C.
Jarvie,
and Garth S.
Jowett,
Children
and the Movies: Media
Influence
and the
Payne
Studies Contro
versy (Cambridge,UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996).
29
Clayton
R.
Koppes
and
Gregory
D.
Black, Hollywood
Goes to
War: How
Politics, Profits
and
Propaganda Shaped
World War 11
Movies
(New
York: The Free
Press, 1987).
30 Todd
Bennett, "Culture, Power,
and Mission to Moscow: Film
and Soviet-American Relations
During
World War
II,"
The
Journal of
American
History,
vol.
88,
no. 2
(September, 2001),
489-518.
31 Erik
Barnouw, Documentary:
A
History ofthe
Non-Fiction Film
(New
York: Oxford
University Press, 1993)
32
John
E.
O'Connor, ed.,
American
History,
American Television:
Interpreting
the Video Past
(New
York:
Ungar Publising Co.,
1983).
33 Robert Brent
Toplin,
ed. Ken Burns's The Civil War: Historians
Respond (New
York: Oxford
University Press, 1996).
Robert Brent
Toplin
is a
professor of history
at the
University of
North
Carolina at
Wilmington
where he teaches
film
and United States
history. Jason
Eudy
is a
graduate
student at the
University of
North
Carolina at
Wilmington.
He is
concentrating
on the
study of film.
IBSIflRVI^RHiHMIHHIHHHHk
12 OAH Magazine of History Summer 2002
This content downloaded from 190.172.198.166 on Sun, 1 Dec 2013 18:59:19 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions