Can filmed representations of the past contribute to historical knowledge?
“History is a subject primarily concerned with the crafting of narratives,” writes Dipesh Chakrabarty (1998). For this reason above all, filmed representations of history can harbour immeasurable value to the historian and the filmgoer in whatever form they may take, whether it be films, television series or documentaries. They can be very useful for improving historical knowledge for three main reasons, which should be kept in mind throughout this exploration: opening the eyes of new audiences to the themes and events shown in the medium, encouraging historical understanding, and inspiring further research. Different forms of historical film have differing levels of value in this respect — for example, documentaries are generally far more reliable sources of historical information than Hollywood blockbusters; however, overall, filmed representations of the past do indubitably contribute to historical knowledge.
Perhaps the most immediate and direct benefit of historical film is the educational value it can have to audiences with little prior knowledge of the events. Not only are filmed representations of history more accessible to wider audiences than, for example, written discourse, thus satisfying one of the aforementioned criteria, but they are often also invaluable sources of historical data. This is especially prevalent in the case of documentaries such as the 1973-4 series ‘The World at War’, which recounts the history of World War II. Documentaries such as this one, which is highly acclaimed for detailed and accurate historical content, are far more accurate than Hollywood-equivalent films which makes them more useful in contributing to historical knowledge as there is a much lower chance of incorrect information reaching a platform from which it could mislead viewers. In particular, the use of actual footage from moments in history adds a new dimension to the documentary, film or programme by helping the audience to wholly engage with the idea that the story is completely true and therefore helping them to empathise. One DailyMail review commented on the deliberately sparse commentary in ‘The World at War’ as a means of allowing the footage to tell the story itself because the series’ creator, Jeremy Isaacs, recognised that “a visually recorded fact is invincible evidence and therefore has a greater power to move minds”. Moreover, one reason it is often said that a documentary on the Second World War of the quality and size of ‘The World at War’ could never be replicated is due to the inclusion of primary accounts from survivors of the war, most of whom are no longer alive. This is a clear indication that raw footage and primary evidence of historical events are invaluable for education and therefore that filmed representations of the past truly do contribute to historical knowledge. This does not only apply to documentaries; the accessibility and power of all recorded images and videos allow far more meaningful engagement with and better absorption of the events of the story. In fact, the 2010 Spanish film ‘Even the Rain’ (‘También la lluvia’), which takes place around the 2000 Bolivian water crisis, incorporates real archived footage of the riots that took place in Cochabamba. This is insurmountably effective for two reasons: the film’s audience are shocked by the fact that the horror they are watching unfold on the screen actually took place; and, perhaps more importantly, the history which may have previously appeared dry and unappealing to some suddenly becomes incredibly accessible and moving. There is therefore a clear correlation between the visualisation of history and the ability of an audience to understand, connect with and therefore better know the story.
Though there are some limitations to the educational benefits of filmed representations of the past, these ultimately do not detract from the overall value. For example, one seemingly imperishable pattern in history is the fact that, in the words of Winston Churchill, it is written by the victors. This was one perceived drawback of the ‘The World at War’ series: the real-life footage that could be used was very much limited by what had been filmed thirty years prior, as both sides of the conflict generally only filmed their battles when they were winning. Some would argue that this has resulted in historians now lacking a wholly rounded record from the war which could potentially introduce bias and mislead public perception of the events that took place. However, this is rarely the case. In fact, the lack of wholly balanced records of any historical period or events and in any form only encourages historians to dig deeper to find the truth. Even without this benefit, the presence of records from any side of an event can still be of monumental significance as it is very much telling of the attitudes of a group at the time at which the records were created. Moreover, the use of alternative perspectives in historical storytelling causes the historian to not only empathise with an opposing viewpoint but also forces them to analyse and debate the history from a more rounded state of mind — something which Robert A Rosenstone (1988) argues is a very important part of the purpose of the retelling of history. Furthermore, professor Lynn Hunt (2016) argues that all methods of history telling are not immune to bias as “seeing could not take place without a standpoint.” Thus, any negative implications surrounding the presence of a subjective nature to the retelling of a story are not the fault of the medium of storytelling, but of the story itself. Filmed representations of history are no more likely than written ones (especially autobiographies) to permit the existence of a bias which therefore negates this criticism. Therefore, filmed representations of history can indeed contribute to historical knowledge.
A further argument against the value of filmed representations of the past is the fact that historical inaccuracies are far more common on the screen than on the page. The sacrifice of historical authenticity is due to the filmmaker’s need to entertain as wide an audience as possible and to recreate history more with the objective of making an entertaining film above all else rather than one which is factual and educational more than it is entertaining. While it is true that historical truth is often compromised, this too does not necessarily indicate that filmed representations of the past cannot contribute to historical knowledge. The 2017 film ‘Dunkirk’, which tells the story of Operation Dynamo in World War II, is, in the worlds of historian James Holland, “historically all over the place.” To name just one discrepancy in this motion picture, there is a disproportional level of attention paid to the efforts of the “little ships” travelling from Dover rather than the larger ships, of which there were far more in reality than it seems in the film: only five per cent of evacuations from Dunkirk were due to the work of the “little ships”. Another perceived obstacle between the filmgoer and the true history is a blinding adoration of the cinematographic genius of the film. In the case of ‘Dunkirk’, director Christopher Nolan’s high level of technique and his impressive filmography have curbed the ability of some to critique and analyse how historically accurate the film was and debate the relevant issues. This all being true, one cannot deny that ‘Dunkirk’ was still an excellent film for bringing this momentous historical event to the attention of a wider audience which has immeasurable benefits, as previously explored. The 2000 film ‘U-571’, which recounted the Allied operation to seize the enigma machine from the Germans in World War II, has been very widely criticised for its great historical inaccuracy. Then-Prime Minister Tony Blair agreed that this film was “an ‘affront’ to [the] British sailors” involved in the operation. While it could be argued that this could highlight the ability of films to greatly distort history and potentially mislead the millions of people who view them around the world, it is perhaps more apt to note the very high-profile criticism ‘U-571’ received which meant that the British public at the very least became very aware of how inaccurate this film was and were thus able to watch it without believing its events to be fact. Furthermore, in the case of historical inaccuracies being identified, this can often encourage keen historians to research into the truth of the events to supplement the truth (or at times the lack thereof) with their own discoveries; thus they learn both from the film and from the research they carry out as a result of watching it. Therefore, the issue of historical films being misleading and inaccurate in many cases still does not detract from the fact that they are incredibly valuable for allowing wider audiences to engage with the history and to empathise with it.
Historical empathy greatly feeds into historical knowledge. Filmed representations of the past are thought by many to be more useful for audiences to empathise with the figures involved in the story as they provide a visually very detailed, comprehensive and immediate overview of something which could take pages to describe in a written historiography. This therefore links once again with the idea of filmed representations of the past being quite simply the most accessible form of storytelling. Hunt’s argument about the necessity and inevitability of viewpoint only emphasises the great value of filmed history in allowing audiences to access and empathise with an opposing point of view. In films and documentaries about war this is especially significant as it is more likely for either side of the conflict to have a stronger, more nationalistic view on the events of the past. This becomes very clear when considering two films about the same event from either side’s perspective: for example, the 2016 American blockbuster film ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ and the 1971 Japanese epic ‘The Battle of Okinawa’. Although both of these films recount the battle of Okinawa in World War II which was fought primarily between America and Japan, they both have extremely different tones and attitudes. In fact, the tone of each film almost perfectly mirrors the other: in ‘Hacksaw Ridge’, the Japanese soldiers are shown to be barbaric, ruthless and animalistic in their plight to indiscriminately obliterate the Americans, whereas in ‘The Battle of Okinawa’, the Japanese are shown to be scrambling for their lives and protecting their homes and families which were at this point under threat from the American and Allied forces. The highly subjective retelling of this same story in two polar opposite ways can be very useful to historians as it allows increased empathy with the opposing standpoint of a conflict or historical event which in turn creates a deeper and more comprehensive knowledge of events.
It could be argued, conversely, that because differing perspectives often come in different languages they immediately become less accessible to new wider audiences which reduces their value in this respect. For example, ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ is in English but ‘The Battle of Okinawa is in Japanese; given that the vast majority of the American and British populations (two of the countries where ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ made the most money in the box office) do not speak Japanese, it would appear as though there is little opportunity for differing perspectives of such a divisive event as this battle to be shared by both sides. Although ‘The Battle of Okinawa’ did not reach screens in the West in nearly the same way as an American film at the time would have, ‘Hacksaw Ridge’ was released in Japan in the summer of 2017 and Japanese box office revenue suggests that it was (in some respects) surprisingly popular. Therefore, it need not be the case that language barriers prevent the sharing of opposing perspectives. Filmed representations can still contribute to knowledge of history from contrasting standpoints.
One clear indication of the power of film is propaganda. Government use of film as a medium for propaganda over the past century is a testament in itself to how effective film can be in communicating with the public. An example of this is the 1916 film ‘The Battle of the Somme’ which was “definitely a propaganda film” used to increase public support for the war and increase morale of the soldiers in Britain. This film was viewed by 20 million Britons upon release — almost half of the population at the time — which serves as evidence that audio-visual medium has always been one of the most accessible and effective methods through which to tell a story or convey a message to a mass audience. This can be linked, therefore, to the value of film as a way of teaching an expansive audience about history: the medium’s ability to reach a large proportion of the population does not necessarily rely on the content of the film. Over time, propaganda films such as ‘The Battle of the Somme’ become a means of better understanding the sociopolitical atmosphere of a country at the time at which the film was produced; they become historical recounts in themselves and so their value multiplies. The shift in the purpose of film itself into a more respected medium can be traced back to ‘The Battle of the Somme’: its popularity transformed the film industry “from a trashy form of mass-entertainment to a more serious and poignant form of communication.” This demonstrates that film now is indubitably a very important vessel for information which has been exploited by historians across the world. Therefore, even films originally made with deliberate bias can become a valuable resource and contribute to historical knowledge.
To conclude, no matter the form taken by a filmed representation of the past, there is no doubt that in some way or another it can contribute to historical knowledge. Films, documentaries and television series can all showcase an uncontested value to anyone hoping to learn about history in the simplest and most accessible way. Although some types of films are less informative than others — for example, films are more likely to distort the truth (in the interest of making their own plot more exciting) than documentaries (which are made solely for the purpose of informing) — the issue at hand is their ability alone to contribute to historical knowledge. In spite of any criticisms that may arise which could undermine the value of film, one cannot deny that by creating a physical and accessible representation of history they open up the past to anyone and everyone who could want to explore, experience and understand it.
Thank you for reading my entry to the 2018 Newnham College History Essay Competition! If you enjoyed this, you may be interested in reading my thoughts on historical films such as Darkest Hour, Hacksaw Ridge and 13 Hours: the Secret Soldiers of Benghazi. If you would like to be notified when I next upload here, feel free to subscribe over on the Home page.
Bibliography
Dipesh Chakrabarty (1998) Provincialising Europe: Postcolonial Thought and Historical Difference
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-466554/The-World-War-remarkable-TV-documentary-cries-seen.html#ixzz590ukSL1E
http://www.documentarytube.com/articles/how-documentary-films-benefit-the-world
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/columnists/article-466554/The-World-War-remarkable-TV-documentary-cries-seen.html#ixzz590toFg5R
Robert A Rosenstone (1988) History in images/history in words: Reflections on the possibility of really putting history onto film. Vol 95, Issue 5
Lynn Hunt (2014) Writing History in the Global Era
https://inews.co.uk/culture/film/dunkirk-wrong-historian-james-holland/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/781858.stm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=hacksawridge.htm&sort=todateGross&order=DESC&p=.htm
http://www.1914.org/the-battle-of-the-somme-film/