The Historical Value of Film

By Lauren Ball

Film as an academic medium for historiography has several advantages over textual sources. The phrase, “a picture is worth a thousand words” comes to mind; if so, then film’s value for history should be self-evident. When watching a film or documentary, the average viewer is immersed in a moment in history in a way that reading a text could never accomplish. When viewing film through a historian’s lens, we can be more objective in our observations of footage from the past. As historians, we can identify whether the events being filmed did indeed happen, assuming the footage wasn’t doctored. We must recognize however, that humans are creatures ruled by their senses. We interact with the world visually, thus it makes sense for a visual medium to have a more profound emotional impact on us. Still images via photography can capture iconic moments which on their own can alter the “course of history”. Films about history bring the “past to life” and helps viewers better relate to the characters or events of that past. Narratives within film can be powerful motivators and allow filmmakers and historians to more fully engage with their audience. Non-textual sources such as film and photography are therefore uniquely positioned to communicate the emotional impact of historical events and for historiography, their value cannot be understated. I will discuss film specifically in this essay, both its advantages for history as well as the criticisms against it. I will argue that like historical texts and novels, it does not matter if film as history cannot be proven to be 100% accurate. What matters most are the emotions and thoughts films invoke, the narratives and stories filmmakers and historians choose to remember and value.

Unedited Film and Original Documentation

There are two basic types of film that can be used as historical artifact with an entire spectrum of possible expression in-between. The first is “unedited” or “raw” footage, representation as close to the “true” event as possible and the second is film which has been carefully crafted and shot with some intention in mind, be it propaganda or art. Everything along this spectrum is valuable as a historical artifact, though of course they musta lways be viewed with a critical eye to properly grasp their value. First, let’s examine “unedited” or “raw” footage. Footage of this nature has been used to document history since the end of the 19th century with early examples such as when Thomas Edison famously took a short film of soldiers unloading cargo in Tampa, Florida in May of 1898. These images carry a curious potency to the historian; to quote Janna Jones in her work, The Past is a Moving Picture: Preserving the Twentieth Century on Film, “These moving images resurrected the city and the soldiers in a way photographs could not. Edison’s moving images of a Tampa that existed one hundred years ago were a compelling reminder of how a city’s past can disappear from the landscape and from memory” (Jones, 2012, 3-4).

This sort of footage can bring more poignant memories to light, forcing society to accept the reality of a situation it would rather avoid. For example, footage taken of Jewish internment camps (WWII) was used as evidence for the first time during the Nuremberg trials (1945-1946, trials held by the Allied forces against twenty-two Nazi criminals). Camera operators and filmmakers such as George Stevens, John Huston, Frank Capra, Samuel Fuller and Billy Wilder were deployed to capture the horrific conditions of the war. Filmmakers were allowed into concentration camps to document the atrocities committed there (Wilson, 2012, 7). Nazis soldiers and officers, however unwittingly, aided in their own prosecution by utilizing photographers such as Wilhelm Brasse to take portraits of their victims. “From clandestine glimpses of persecution and extermination snatched by bystanders and underground members and the grinning, shameless, and triumphant images captured by the Nazis and their collaborators to record their ‘mastery,’ to the newsreels and photojournalism of liberation taken as twofold evidence: here is evidence of the unthinkable crimes committed and also literal, judicial evidence collated for the anticipated war crimes trials.” (Wilson, 2012, 22-23). George Stevens’ footage, as well as that of many others, formed the backbone of evidence against many Nazi party members and leaders.

The sheer emotional impact of the haunting images from these camps is staggering. Barbie Zelizer notes, “Although atrocity stories had been around as long as war itself, never before had the press come face to face with such extensive evidence of mass brutality and such an ability to document it. Covering the scenes of horror in the camps required overcoming both assumptions about earlier atrocity stories and inadequate standards that existed for depicting violence in word and image” (Wilson, 2012, 7). Texts may capture a broader theme, a larger story, but film has the ability to narrow in on the particular horrors or scenes of hope from a past occurrence. While texts might be dismissed as exaggerated or misconstrued, the films and photos of the Holocaust taken by Stevens are hard to deny. I argue here for the inherent value in this type of footage, yet will I also address the flaws films such as these share with textual history later on.

The images of the Holocaust provide an important tool for historians. If one of the purposes of studying history is to remember past mistakes and avoid them in the future, then genocide may be the biggest mistake of all to avoid. Even so, Holocaust deniers make headlines to this day (Stack, 2018). As the last of the survivors of the Holocaust die of old age, how are we as a society to remember their pain and loss? “…such material, utilized as evidence, defends against both Holocaust denial and the more understandable desire of society to believe that ‘such things cannot be possible’…” (Wilson, 2012, 21). “Unedited” footage of historical events provides a substantial counterpoint to claims that atrocities have been faked. At least as importantly, looking into the eyes of a prisoner of a concentration camp is extremely emotional and haunting in a way that a textual source could not achieve. “The camera readily changes our audience perspective from zero to internal focalization (when the agent becomes the focaliser). Thus, focalization changes meaning, understanding and explanation” (Munslow, 2007, 50).

This is not to say that unedited footage is not without flaws. For one, current technology undermines the authenticity which is its cardinal virtue. For example, even with the footage taken of Nazi concentration camps, some of the images were staged. “In one instance, Fuller and some fellow soldiers ordered local Germans, under threat of death, to carry out a burial and funeral procession for those who had perished in the camp” (Wilson 2012, 7-8). If one cannot absolutely trust that a film has not been staged or edited, that the images it contains are accurate, what then is the use of such films? To this day we still have some conspiracy theorists who deny the Moon Landings despite “visual evidence” to the contrary. Ricoeur makes the point that, “history ‘reinscribes the time of narrative within the time of the universe’ Without doubt the ‘temporal turn’ is central to historical narrative thinking and practice. Given that the past cannot be re-lived as it actually was (because it no longer exists), all the historian can do is ‘manage’ recorded memories of it by putting them into a narrative and regulating ‘real time’ in the process” (Munslow, 2007, 51). Perfect trust in accuracy is not a viable standard to achieve in any medium, as one can see from the case of the Donation of Constantine, a faked document which was accepted as historical truth for centuries (Popkin, 2016, 48).

Staged Film and Propaganda

What about films that occupy the other end of the spectrum? Films which have obviously been carefully crafted and staged with the intention of manipulating the audience? Films in this sense can be used as a “tool, or even a weapon, for change” (Steven Speilberg, Five Came Back, ep. 1) At the beginning of the World War II, Americans were not interested in European affairs, “Americans want no more war. Most of all, they want no more participation in foreign wars.” (Senator Gerald Nye, FCB, ep. 1). As the war progressed however, it became clear the US would indeed have to participate and the US government needed a way to justify the country’s involvement in the war. Propaganda through films offered a way to unify the country and rally the troops for the cause.** “By the late 1930s, moviegoing had become an essential part of American culture. More than half the adult population went to the movies at least once a week, and before every film theaters played newsreels, which were the only source of visual news at the time” (Narrator, FCB, ep. 1). Propaganda footage could easily be incorporated into the American moviegoers’ field of vision.

Propaganda through film was not a new concept; the German Nazi party had already taken advantage of film’s potential to establish influence over a population with the film Triumph of the Will, by Leni Riefenstahl (1935). “Cinema, in its purest form, could be put in the service of propaganda. Hitler and Goebbels understood the power of the cinema to move large populations towards your way of thinking.” (Francis Ford Cappola, FCB, ep. 1), When filmmaker, Frank Capra, saw the footage from the Nazi film he was both appalled and entranced. Capra was vehemently against Hitler’s agenda. During a public rally in 1939, he told American audiences that, “capitulation to Hitler would mean barbarism and terror.” (Narrator, FCB, ep. 1). Capra had already been collaborating with the US war department to create a series of seven propaganda films called Why We Fight. After seeing Triumph of the Will, Capra decided to use the enemies’ own strategies against them by integrating into his films, footage taken directly from Riefenstahl’s work under a different pro-American narrative (FCB, ep. 1). ‘So, I said, ‘Aha. Let’s let the boys see only their stuff. We make nothing. We shoot nothing. We use their own stuff as propaganda for ourselves’” (Capra, FCB, ep. 1). Capra’s films as well as many others during WWII were able to help forge American pride in the war effort. The films were somewhat misleading and often racist against the German and Japanese people, but extremely powerful politically.

It must be noted that the deceptive nature of these films does not negate their potential use as a viable historical source. For historiography, the value of these films comes not from their accuracy of events, but rather as a way to note the power film has to influence societies, the power to instill fear or hope, and the power to drive wars. One must look at them with a critical eye towards their unreliable narrator. Through a critical lens a historian can still derive knowledge from what the filmmakers wanted to portray and what they unintentionally portrayed. Historian John E. O’Connor proposed four means for analyzing films: “(1) moving-image documents as representations of history; (2) moving-image documents as evidence for social and cultural history; (3) moving-image documents as evidence for historical fact; and (4) moving image documents as evidence for the history of film and television” (O’Conner, 2002, 23).

History Through Film Drama

Historical dramas on the other hand, present a dilemma to historians that is different from propaganda or unedited footage. Richard N. Current, a Civil War historian, observed that historical dramas “take liberties with the facts, or at best, select those that have the greatest visual effect.” He complained, reality and fantasy “blend more and more into an inseparable mix” in television and Hollywood productions (Toplin/Eudy, 2002, 9). Historian, David Herlihy critiqued that, “film, unlike scholarship, did not reveal the source of its evidence and, therefore, often it did not allow the quality of criticism leveled against its narratives.” (Toplin/Eudy, 2002, 8) The fact that many people seem to take historical films as factual can be even more dangerous. Historian Robert Rosenstone notes, “We now know that many people outside the classroom are not learning about history from reading books or from engaging in primary source research; instead, they are learning what they know about the past from engaging with media such as film, web based media, or videogames” (Stoddard, 2010, 84).

As I have said before, criticisms such as these do not negate the use of historical film or dramas so much as shape the way those narratives can be used and taught by historians. Mark Carnes, for example, argues that historical film and dramas are still useful, as they “often teach truths about the human condition.” (Toplin/Eudy, 2002, 9). While the history depicted is certainly inaccurate in every detail, it can stimulate useful dialogues about the past. In The Past is a Foreign Country, David Lowenthal took the somewhat postmodernist stance (see Jacob’s essay on Postmodernist historiography) that any depiction of history incorporates a certain amount of distortion. “Better a misinformed enjoyment of history than none, a lighthearted dalliance with the past than a wholesale rejection of it” (Popkin, 2016, 154-156). Robert Rosenstone argued that it is this inaccuracy of the details which allows the history to feel more immersive. “The camera’s need to fill out the specifics of a particular historical scene, or to create a coherent (and moving) visual sequence, will always ensure large doses of invention in the historical film… All films will include fictional people or invented elements of character…to keep the story moving, to maintain intensity of feeling, to simplify complexity of events into plausible dramatic structure that will fit within filmic time constraints…on the screen, history must be fictional in order to be true!” (Popkin, 2016, 177). If accompanied with sufficient correction of facts, even blockbuster films can have their place in drawing the interest and emotional intensity of students and moviegoers.

It is important to note that film as history can have substantial cultural significance as well. This is usually within the context of history as a source of cultural identity. Take, for example, the role film has played in the lives of African Americans. The film Birth of a Nation* (1915), explored the story of the Reconstruction era within America. The film was largely lauded (including by President Woodrow Wilson), despite being criticized as overtly racist by the NAACP (Popkin, 2016, 108). This and many other popular misrepresentations of African Americans within ‘historical’ dramas of the time, may have caused the thirst for positive cultural identity and a more truthful representation leading to the creation of shows such as Roots (1977), a historical drama tracking the role of Africans in revolutionary American society, Roots was also criticized for potential flaws in accuracy. As Popkin explains, “Skeptics wondered, however, whether the “griots” Haley found in Ghana, who he claimed had told him stories handed down for generations about his ancestor Kunta Kinte, had not in fact made up tales to please their interviewer” (Popkin, 2016, 154) Nevertheless, the appeal of being able to track one’s cultural identity (especially after centuries of erasure) is obvious.

Video Recording in the Present Day

Film has taken on new roles in provoking cultural backlash among African Americans in the present day as well. Once again, “raw” footage comes into play. Live video and dashcam footage taken of the immediate shooting and subsequent death of Philando Castile, an African American man killed by a St Francis, Minnesota police officer, went viral shortly after it was released (Dashcam video of Philando Castile shooting, 2017). There was some ambiguity in the case that followed the shooting. The framing of the videos made some of what occurred mildly unclear and the officer involved was subsequently acquitted of the murder, though whether this was a just ruling by the court is a topic that is still subject to vigorous debate (Smith, 2017). Despite the ambiguity, this did not prevent the footage from being seen as another instance in a long history of police violence towards people of color thus triggering massive protests across the country (Protesters clash with police in St. Paul over death of Philando Castile, CBS, 2016). The videos, for all their potential unreliability as pieces of factual truth, still provided a story which fit into the overall narrative of the Black Lives Matter movement. Supporters of the movement argue that videos which show the deaths of innocent African American men and women via police brutality are extremely valuable to show the public the reality of the situation and curve the extreme racism still present in our society today (LaFraniere/Smith, 2016).

Is Film Reliable?

This critique of film being somehow ‘unreliable’ as a historical source is not unique to film itself. Indeed, any of the critiques that can be made against film as a source can be equally applied to textual sources with some validity. After all, it is just as easy if not easier to fake or misrepresent a text as it is to do with a film. “But the crucial point is that because the historian takes past reality and explains its meaning in a way that makes us experience it, it can only be undertaken through the creation of a particular story space. Subjectivity can be defined, therefore, in terms of the process of narrative making that allows us to experience the past. Every literary act is subjective because it is authored” (Munslow, 2007, 115-116). This does not mean that films are useless as historical sources, any more than it invalidates texts. The postmodernist approach to historiography teaches us that neither film nor text can really avoid being framed as a story by the aspiring historian, and as such all the same rules of narration apply. As British historian Alun Munslow notes, “Because the vast data set that is ‘the past’ cannot be rendered in all its richness, it has to be selectively raided and presented, and the only mechanism for that is narrative. Only once we acknowledge this can we gain a better insight into the complexity of historical explanation and meaning (Munslow, 2007, 97) There is an artistic license inherent in the way films are created, through framing and focal point, just as there are in texts. There is a balance to be struck here, between a fully postmodernist assertion of a narrative fully divorced from any assertions of fact and an Enlightenment era rigidity of truth and form. Munslow refers to historian and film analyst Siegfried Kracauer in explaining this balance, “Kracauer believed (as does Ankersmit today) that we need to understand that, like the photographer, the historian is always trying to balance the empirical with the creative with all the preconceptions and choices that involves.” (Munslow, 2007, 68). Historians are directors, whether they wish to admit it or not. Non-textual forms of history, especially film, will never be purely objective and accurate, but neither will historical novels, texts, or scholarly articles.

Postmodernist arguments about the potential reliability of footage is pointless when it disregards the public’s view of history. History through film will never and can never be one hundred percent accurate (nor can textual history), but that does not mean that all of the historical footage we possess are staged or doctored either. What matters is the narrative and immersion films provide. These stories help us remember and understand the past in a much more visceral, immediate way than texts cannot necessarily achieve. Historical film and movies should still absolutely be subjected to rigorous analysis. However, to say that film is worthless as a historical medium due to its potential or realized inaccuracies is to miss the point of how humanity views itself. Humanity uses the study of history to define and understand its existence, to preserve and honor the memory of those long dead. History lets us believe that our lives and accomplishments are not meaningless and allows us to condemn atrocities against one another. History is a narrative, it is a story of the past. History through film is just one more way to let the stories of the past be remembered and understood for our present environment.

Bibliography

“(5) Five Came Back Trailer: Netflix WWII Documentary - YouTube.” Accessed April 9, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmQvEVeGj5c.

“(31) Dashcam Video of Philando Castile Shooting - YouTube.” Accessed May 4, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd7zW4aRlYE.

“(31) Demonstrators Raise Their Voices against Police Brutality - YouTube.” Accessed May 4, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gipyA2_dZQ.

“(31) Protesters Clash with Police in St. Paul over Death of Philando Castile - YouTube.” Accessed May 4, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoDaesrJniI.

Barber, Sian. “Film Historiography - Manchester Scholarship,” July 1, 2015. http://manchester.universitypressscholarship.com/view/10.7228/manchester/9780719090301.001.0001/upso-9780719090301-chapter-004.

Barber, Sian. Using Film as a Source. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2015.

Card, James. “Problems of Film History.” Hollywood Quarterly 4, no. 3 (1950): 279–88. https://doi.org/10.2307/1209399.

Chepesiuk, Ron. “Preserving History on Film at the Newsfilm Library.” American Libraries 31, no. 6 (2000): 88–91.

Dennett, Bruce. “Teaching Historiography through Film.” Teaching History 44, no. 3 (September 2010): 20.

Jones, Janna. The Past Is a Moving Picture: Preserving the Twentieth Century on Film. Florida, UNITED STATES: University Press of Florida, 2012. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unm/detail.action?docID=990868.

LaFraniere, Sharon, and Mitch Smith. “Philando Castile Was Pulled Over 49 Times in 13 Years, Often for Minor Infractions.” The New York Times, July 16, 2016, sec. U.S. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/17/us/before-philando-castiles-fatal-encounter-a-costly-trail-of-minor-traffic-stops.html.

Lameris, Bregt. Film Museum Practice and Film Historiography: The Case of the Nederlands Filmmuseum (1946-2000), 2017. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=1593136.

Munslow, Alun. Narrative and History. Theory and History. Basingstoke : Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.

O’Connor, John E. “Image as Artifact: Historians and the Moving-Image Media.” OAH Magazine of History 16, no. 4 (2002): 23–23.

Popkin, Jeremy D. From Herodotus to H-Net: The Story of Historiography. New York ; Oxford University Press, 2016.

Rosenstone, Robert A. “History in Images/History in Words: Reflections on the Possibility of Really Putting History onto Film.” The American Historical Review 93, no. 5 (1988): 1173–85. https://doi.org/10.2307/1873532.

Schaber, Robin L. “Film and History.” OAH Magazine of History 16, no. 4 (2002): 48–49.

Smith, Mitch. “Minnesota Officer Acquitted in Killing of Philando Castile.” The New York Times, June 16, 2017, sec. U.S. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/police-shooting-trial-philando-castile.html.

Southgate, Beverley. What Is History For? 1st ed. London and New York: Routledge, 2005.

Stack, Liam.“Denounced by His Party as a Nazi, Arthur Jones Wins Illinois G.O.P. Congressional Primary - The New York Times.” Accessed May 7, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/20/us/politics/arthur-jones-illinois.html.

Stevenson, Brenda E. “12 YEARS A SLAVE: NARRATIVE, HISTORY, AND FILM.” The Journal of African American History 99, no. 1–2 (2014): 106–18. https://doi.org/10.5323/jafriamerhist.99.1-2.0106.

Stoddard, Jeremy D., and Alan S. Marcus. “More Than ‘Showing What Happened’: Exploring the Potential of Teaching History with Film.” The High School Journal 93, no. 2 (2010): 83–90.

Stover, John a. “Framing Social Movements through Documentary Films.” Contexts 12, no. 4 (2013): 56–58.

Talens, Jenaro, and Santos Zunzunegui. “Toward a ‘True’ History of Cinema: Film History as Narration.” Boundary 2 24, no. 1 (1997): 1–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/303750.

“THE WAR . At Home . Communication . Propaganda

PBS.” Accessed May 5, 2018. http://www.pbs.org/thewar/at_home_communication_propaganda.htm.

Thompson, David. “History Composed with Film.” Film Comment 26, no. 5 (1990): 12–16.

Toplin, Robert Brent. “From the Editor: Invigorating History: Using Film in the Classroom.” OAH Magazine of History 16, no. 4 (2002): 5–6.

Toplin, Robert Brent, and Jason Eudy. “The Historian Encounters Film: A Historiography.” OAH Magazine of History 16, no. 4 (2002): 7–12.

Vonderau, Patrick, ed. Film as History, History as Film. Working Papers “Gemenskaper-Gemeinschaften,” v. 21. Florence, Italy : Berlin: European University Institute ; Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, 1999.

Wilson, Kristi M., Tomas F. Crowder-Taraborrelli, and Tomas F Crowder-Taraborrelli. Film and Genocide. Wisconsin, UNITED STATES: University of Wisconsin Press, 2012. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/unm/detail.action?docID=3445214.