Historical Movies

Somebody or other once observed -- rightly, I think -- that watching a historical movie one learns a lot more about the period when the movie was made than about the period which the movie is supposed to be portraying. John Wayne's ludicrous version of what happened at the Alamo not only illustrates the personal bias and (lack of) undertsanding of the director, but also reflects the popular feelings of the times, right down to the inaccurate costuming. Setanta mentioned The Bounty. It's a good movie from a historical perspective mainly because it doesn't make a hero out of Mr. Christian or a villain out of Capt. Bligh. (It's also awfully well done from a cinematic point of view, but that's about art, not history.) But, now, compare the Clark Gable version of Mutiny on the Bounty with the Marlon Brando vehicle. The Gable-Laughton flick is soooo 1940s it probably couldn't have been made quite that way at any other time period. And Brando is tailored for the 1960s and the flower-power generation.

I've shown 'historical' movies in the classroom and will probably do so again. But you have to be very careful to point out where history stops being credible and Holywood conventions enter in. Elizabeth, with Cate Blanchett in the title role, is, indeed, so fraught with historical nonsense that it has little value as history. Good piece of cinema, though, for our times.

Nonsense, those only tell us about the predilections of the author.

Setanta,

I am taking something of a devil's advocate role. :wink:

However I think there is a lot to be said for the phrase "history is bunk" (author ?) . "Normal interpretations" of history often involve anthropomorphic identity with "key players" in order to "understand causes". This is done quite well in a movie. But perhaps historical analysis would be more valid at the "systems level" which allows for evolution of new social structures beyond those "explainable" by individual psychology.

fresco, the "history is bunk' quote is generally attributed to Henry Ford whose only talent in life was making money while making motorcars.

Your notion of the central role of "key players" in the study of history is somewhat dated (more than 'somewhat', in fact). That is how history was taught in the lower forms when I was a wee lad. Today such emphasis on 'the great men' is roundly eschewed in favor of analyzing underlying social and economic trends. Whether this approach aids one in a better understanding is certainly open to debate.

But, more importantly, that view of what the study of history is all about is so narrow as to exclude all serious historians who have never emphasized personality over substance. Historical movies may well emphasize the role of the individual in world events. After all, overpaid actors need great roles to fill. But that is confusing the serious study of history with the popular notion of history as "his story." (And now I;ve forgotten who coined that speciious phrase.)

Fresco, reputable historians, whether of the "popular" or "scholarly" variety provide their sources. You can check those sources and come to the same conclusion, different conclusions, or the conclusion that there is insufficient evidence to warrant a conclusion on the issue under discussion. Your "advocacy" is nothing more than the doubt expressed by the ill-informed, who thereby decide that everyone else is as ill-informed as are they. The fact of what was done at any given time is ultimately unknowable; the fact of what your brother-in-law is doing across town at this moment is ultimately unknowable. You are always free to check the same sources as the author of anything you doubt, and in so doing, you can put into your own hands the threads of many other avenues of inquiry which you will have decided are more pertinent. Most people are taught history rather badly--they suplement this with their own boredom and doubt, and come to the predictable, and silly, conclusion that history is largely made up in the mind of the author. It just ain't so.

MA, i do believe it was our loud feminist sisters in the 1960's who were so ignorant of the English language as to have come up with that "his story" crap. History is derived from the French word histoire which means either history or story, depending upon the context.

Merry Andrew,

Point taken - but I'd love to know what a "serious historian" is, other than one who enjoys the subject matter and can play a skilful "corroboration game" with that particular subject matter.

The point I am making is the general philosophical one that there are no "objective facts" in ANY subject. All "facts" are tailored to some "purpose". For example, it is a generally accepted "fact" that Mohammed had intercourse with a nine year old girl....fact for whom ?...(I doubt whether Salman Rushdie would get himself involved with that one !). Similarly it is a "fact" that Winston Churchill advocated the possible use of poison gas against the Kurds...etc, etc.

However, this is not a philosophy thread, nor a mathematics thread on "systems theory" even though such aspects do delimit the semantic value of a "historical discussion".

From my personal viewpoint, that's philosophical tail chasing. While it is ultimately unknowable what your brother-in-law is doing across town at this moment, if your wife calls you in tears demanding you take action in some matter, you're going to be obliged to make your best judgment as to what must be done. You in turn will be judged within your personal social milieu for how appropriately you acted. Corroboration of historical evidence is no more a game than is the contention of philosophers about what is or isn't ultimately knowable. The same rules of evidence with which your wife will judge your response to your brother-in-laws dilemna are applicable to reading history. When writing history, any author who intends to be taken seriously will be subject to rules of evidence every bit as rigorous as those used in a court of law. It is not simple coincidence that those who seek to attend law school major in history while undergraduates.

errrrr, not sure where you're getting that bit about lawyers majoring in history as undergrads, setanta. That may have been the case some decades ago, but the lawyers I deal with on a daily basis were not history undergrads for the most part. That is, none of the ones I've talked to about their undergrad work were history majors. Some others may have been.

Journalism and undergrad business degrees seem to be most common for lawyers I know who graduated between 10 and 25 years ago. There's also a handful who majored in the environmental sciences. That's becoming a much more common route. Bachelor in an environmental science program, masters program in business, and then a law degree. hmmm, just thinking - we've also got quite a few lawyers in my work circle who were bachelor and masters level nursing grads, and who worked as nurse-managers before going on to law school.

not that this digression has anything to do with the question of using movies as a history learning or discussion point.

Re: Historical Movies

For Turks you should take "Boj na Kosovu" (Battle on Kosovo). You will see how our brave army stoped Turkey on 1389 and saved whole Europe. If we didn't stoped them there, they would conquer the Wien for sure, because Austria was not strong enough then to fight against Turkey

"Ben Hur" is a very good historical movie.

How about Dr. Zhivago?

My favourite historical films are Brazil and Blade Runner.

I'll agree with hobitbob not only with "Piece of Cake" but just about any "Masterpiece Theatre" production. Watching these shows, though they may not be historically accurate, can give you a feeling for the times.

Studying history can be brain numbing after reading a few pages of endless Kings and wars, but there is one book I read annually. It's James Burke's, "The Day the Universe Changed." It chronicles major events, discoveries, and inventions that radically altered history. This book was the basis for the PBS series of the same name, though I doubt that the video is available. I always though the book could be used for a college class.

Actually, I spend very little time on kings and wars. Kings and wars are but a small portion of history, although the History Chanell seems to think differently.

The History Channel is to history what Classic Comics is to literature.

The Battleship Potemkin says a lot about how capitalist oppression is viewed.

Any Shakespeare play says a lot about its historical context:

Any Shakespeare play will tell you a lot about the cultural context of Elizabethan England. But I sure wouldn't use Julius Caesar as an aid in teaching about the genesis of the Roman Empire or Hamlet as an example of life in Medieval Denmark.

I know you asked for movies, but if you want a recommendation from a non-teacher on what might help learning, I recommend doing less of the lecture/movie/reading format and more interaction. Assuming you're teaching to students who can be expected to read at home, very good ways to learn and solidify knowledge are to first read/listen, but then have them discuss the concepts. It may take some structure to get them to do it: split them into groups and have them go through a difficult problem set, or split into groups and do a 'Jeopardy' session of varying difficulty. You learn something better if you teach it or use it to answer questions.

If you want something that will simply get their attention or help them relate, stories can be powerful. Learn them yourself, as a teacher, and describe them vividly - the little things as well as the major events. Make it clear that 2000 years really wasn't that long ago, people were still people and politics and rhetoric were just as heated and seriously fought over as today.

And I just recommended this to someone else, but I like the 'Cartoon History of X' series. I know that there's at least a version for world history and one for U.S. history. It sounds silly, but the narrative form of the comics helps at least me to remember the concepts.

'The OTHER Boleyn Girl' gives a unique historical perpective to Henry VIII palace intrique and it affected the history of England in no small way as England broke with the Catholic Church and the daughter that issued from henryand Anne Boleyn was Queen Elizabeth I one of england's greatest monarchs.

Motocycle Diaries is a film about Che Gueverra the Cuban rebel whose image has been on all of T-shirts. It is his encounter with poverty and exploitation of landowners as he took a one-year leave to tour the South American continment with his cousin on a motorcycle before completing his medical degree.