Questions, websites and a bunch of other things.

So, I have a few questions using film as a historical text, and figured I may as well post them here.
PART ONE OF BLOG.
THE QUESTIONS.

1) Is it important if the film gets history right?
To explore this I'll try to acquire transcripts of the Frost/Nixon interview to see whether lines have been added for dramatic effect.
Similarly I'll try to explore the situation the Washington Post was actually in when reporting on the Watergate Scandal.

2) Are the audiences perceptions of the film important?
Ie. If the audience watch the film and takes it LITERALLY as what happened, is that really an issue?
Furthermore, is it any different to reading a bias piece of literature?

3) Can it be argued that the films are really a product of the directors own personal context?
Adding to this, can it be argued that the films are also a reflection of the social context they were created for?

4) Is the portrayal of the media as heroic, brave and truth seeking entirely accurate? Should we question this portrayal?

5) Is the directors manipulation of audience's emotions through various techniques create an unfair image of the historical issue? Does it detract from it's value as a historical source?

6) Why should / shouldn't films be seen as appropriate historical sources to study?


So, they're some of the questions I'm hoping to include later on in my essay. Anyone has any other suggestions, feel FREE to offer them up :)


PART TWO OF BLOG
WEBSITES

Okay so Google books has offered me up this delicious little gem, known under the title The contemporary history handbook By Brian Brivati, Julia Buxton and Anthony Seldon. As per usual though, google censors most of the frigging chapter from me, NOT TO MENTION A PAGE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FEW PAGES THEY ALLOW FOR READING. I HATE YOU GOOGLE BOOKS.

The only useful bits are from page 394 down, I might look into a purchase of this book for referencing and for answers to the questions I pose above.

I did a library search on some online website to see if anywhere had it. Results came out as "Sorry, we cannot find libraries in Australia that have this item.
The nearest locations with libraries that have the item include:
Germany"

I hate you internet. I really do.

link:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rmO7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA394&lpg=PA394&dq=film+as+a+historical+source&source=bl&ots=7K_52JTA8v&sig=Pw8janKUFdRPfZtnF9CfYNo5on8&hl=en&ei=QVuPS5faJZHutQPXk7DbCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=film%20as%20a%20historical%20source&f=false




Also, this website is amazing. Like, woah. Way to do all my questioning about the historical value of films for me. If i cite this, basically all I'll be doing is justifying these things through the examples of the two movies. AWESOME.

http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/thinkingabouthistoricalfilm.html



Well, after this I'll post a seperate blog about the contexts of the two films, both within the film, around the time of the films production and the directors own personal context.

I'll also include some background information on the directors which may include some insight into the portrayal of Watergate and Nixon's involvement.




OH OH OH, and I'm thinking that all this research is leading to A NEW QUESTION.
DAA DAAA DAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

"Assess the historical value of the films Frost/Nixon and All The Presidents Men as historical sources."
OR
"Evaluate the historical value of the films F/N and ATPM in their treatment of the Watergate Scandal."

Perhaps? Yes ? No?