Davis, Toplin, Rose and Corley articles

In her article “Movie or Monograph? A Historian/Filmmaker’s Perspective, Natalie Davis discusses the problems that historical movie makers face. She focuses on how historians act as a type of consultant in the creation historical films. She tells how Hollywood often changes historical facts to get a more dramatic appealing picture that builds drama and keeps the audience engaged she states that their should be corresponding books of historical facts to cover and correct information left out of or contains inaccurate information that occurred during these film productions. Her main argument in my opinion is if people are going to do anything, then they need to do it right. She believes the corresponding books would be a move in the right direction. I believe that some people would read the corresponding book but I realize in most cases, far more people will watch the films than ever read the films corresponding books. It is well know amongst historians that historical accuracy is often eschewed in place of Hollywood drama. This is because the film makers want to produce films that are guaranteed to sell tickets than to tell the whole truth. A great example give was on the movie Pearl Harbor. This is a movie Davis stated a corresponding book was needed to go along with the film on Martin Guerre. I believe the corresponding book would be a noteworthy attempt at correcting all wrongs Hollywood has done during film productions while making films on historical figures, places, and events. However, I question if the corresponding books are produced if it will only be in vain because films almost always out perform literature in dollar amount but literature always out perform films in story told.

The second article I read was Robert Brent Toplin’s “Cinematic History: Where Do We Go from Here?” After reading the Davis article I can see why the Toplin article was assigned as well. The Toplin and Davis are really corresponding together quite well. Both Toplin and Davis advocated understanding the relationship between historical facts and film production is a very logical way. Toplin is a little different than Davis in my opinion because he offers more of an optimistic view of the problems that studios face while decisions on how to present history for entertainment over the need for historians’ need for historical accuracy in these films. What I found odd about this particular article was I could never quite figure out what Toplin was trying to argue. I found it interesting is he is just as much of a proponent for the involvement of historians in the process of producing the Hollywood films of history as he is of holding studios accountable for their portrayal of historic events. Then in another portion of the book he defends the filmmakers’ decisions to stray from telling the historical facts. In doing so the Toplin article does more than the Davis article in telling the story of film production. I like that Toplin argues that historians need to be active behind the scenes and provide these film makers with research for the films they produce. Toplin’s main argument is that these Hollywood films on history should not stand alone and be the essential primary source of review by film critics. In the case of these films Toplin believes it would be best for the critics to include in-depth interviews with any living person directly related to the events the film covered. In essence get a primary source’s view on the events to have something to compare to the events in the film.

The final article I read was Vivien Ellen Rose and Julie Corley’s article, “A Trademark Approach to the Past: Ken Burns, the Historical Profession, and Assessing Popular Presentations of the Past,” unlike the previous two articles this article covered historical documentaries more so than it Hollywood productions. The article covered Ken Burns’ documentary of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony entitled Not for Ourselves Alone: The Story of Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony. I am not familiar with any Ken Burns productions, after reading this article I am not sure what to think of him. I believe this article is a strong criticism of Ken Burns’ and his contributions to the making of documentary films even though I have never seen one. The authors believe that Burns lacks a since of historical professionalism when dealing with the past in the making of his documentaries. The authors also argue that Burns’ tends to create stories that are one-sided especially the documentary he did on Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony and their fight during the women’s suffrage movement. The authors believed that Burns tends to leave or take out historical facts that do not fit with his narrative. They wrote that Burns had completely disregarded any current research of these two women and choose instead to use music, photos, and information out of context because it his narrative better. According to the authors the main problem with Burns is he tends to mold historical content he provides to the viewing public. They also stated that he has his won specific definition of what history making is and how it should be done. What the authors of this article want the reader to know is the Burns’ documentaries are made on the lives of heroes, and it’s their story Burns was to sell to the public. After completing this article it seems to me that the authors’ major problem with Burns is they believe he tends to take only what can contribute to the story he wants to tell in his documentary and leaves out what the authors feel is important elements because it would not flow well in his film. The authors stated that Burns focuses on certain people only, and does not take into consideration new research on the subjects that could change the outcome of the documentary.

Terkel & Frisch

In his book Touch and Go: A Memoir Studs Terkel takes the reader through his life. He starts with his childhood and then tells of his experiences as a law student during the Great Depression. He tells how he started going to the theater at a young age which leads to him becoming an actor himself. He tells about how he not only acted in the theater but also started acting on the radio as well. He tells the reader about his life as a disc jockey after World War II and how he became involved with progressive politics during the McCarthy era. Terkel describes his later life as having a career as an interviewer and oral historian. This is where the heart of the book is in my opinion. Touch and Go is a great book that gives a great insight into life of Stud Terkel. I am not completely sure what an ideal Oral Historian is but having read this book I would say Stud Terkel is an ideal Oral Historian. He had a great sense of social justice and commitment to capture on his every interview he did. Terkel made Oral History into an art form. He had a true appreciation for what he was doing and when interviewing someone he made sure the interviewee felt wanted and needed same time. He wanted them to know he wanted to interview and recorded them. Terkel wanted to record the voices of people who otherwise would not be heard without him.
Michael Frisch book A Shared Authority: Essays on the Craft and Meaning of Oral and Public History was much more academic. This book was a collection of thirteen of Frisch essays. The essays are mostly evaluations of Public History projects in which Frisch argues that the collection in Public History projects go far beyond just Public History because they cover areas of importance in all parts of history and society. Public History collections provide not only information to the audiences that go to view the collections by supplying visual evidence and audio evidence but also show the relationship between the collection and audience.
These two books take vastly different approaches but key on most of the same issues. These two authors were concerned with the audience and the audience’s involvement within Public History collections. Both Terkel and Frisch cover the attempts to actively engage the audience in order to involve them in remembering the past. Terkel’s book was much easier for me to read and much more entertaining. Frisch book like I said earlier was much more academic but provide a great deal of information on the importance of Public History. I enjoyed both of these books very much but having read Terkel I wish I could have gone back in time and read Frisch book. The reason is Frisch became uninteresting to me and I had a hard time trying to finish it.

Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century

In Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism in the Twentieth Century, John Bodnar has presented an interesting look into public events. He shows events on the local, state and national level. These events included the building of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial down to local community fairs. John Bodnar’s views on the Vietnam Memorial carry many of the major themes and issues he uses throughout the book. He uses his ideas to help the reader explore the symbols behind American commemorations over the last century. Bodnar argues in his book that historical consciousness does not necessarily preserve the past, but rather historical consciousness address political matters in the present.

Bodnar uses this book to help the reader understand the concepts behind public memory through the use of vernacular cultural expressions. He explores and explains events that some people may have never heard of before or may not understand all the conflict that took place during the event. In my opinion Bodnar’s use of local, state, and national historical celebrations, shows the struggle that has helped to shape our country’s public memory. Vernacular interest refers to the native beliefs and language of a country has changed over the years. Vernacular interest usually represents diverse and marginalized groups but in recent years has come to represent more then just a small number of the population. Bodnar shows that while culture tends to reflect the ideas of the leaders at all levels of society, it is within these groups other divisive tensions occur in American society. Bodnar identifies these conflicts as being between rural and urban inhabitants, patriotic and leisure celebrations, and national, state, and local goals. These conflicts reverberate throughout the book. Bodnar also demonstrates that the changing power structure in America can be seen in the history of public commemorations.

This book reveals that the planning and implementation of commemorations mirrored the growing complexity of American life. Overall I believe this book is very good and does a wonderful job in explaining how America's struggle with vernacular and official memory has changed over the years. Bodnar has done a wonder job in supporting his arguments by showing the reader that public memory is far more complicated than one would normally think. I like to think of Bodnar’s views as being economic. By this I mean that memories are not free, they have a cost. It is how these cost have been paid for which has caused ethnic cultures to be virtually be eliminated for our nation’s memory. Bodnar has done a good job but at time his book was quite boring and dull. However, Bodnar is effective at showing the reader how public memory has been shaped by the societal elite and developed further by public officials. People interested in the social meaning of public ceremonials will want to read this book.