So today the tiny librarian lady gave me these three books

and they were called called

1) Lessons from Reel Life: Movies, Meaning and Myth-Making by Michael Frost and Robert Banks
2) Flicks: Studying Film as a Text by Dinah Partridge and Peter Hughes
3) An Introduction to Film Studies: Second Edition (edited by Jill Neimes)



...I wanted to cry after reading the chapters relevant to my new question. Why? Because these books are my holy grail.

Heres some stuff I wrote down today after sifting through these books :



Should movies be considered valid historical sources?

Perspective
- Film is entertainment so it doesn’t matter if its right or wrong
- Film can have grains of truth but is mostly wrong
- Films can be quite accurate with a few mistakes.
- Films aren’t records of history- they’re just based on history

Distortion of events
- Cinematic techniques and creative licence
- Accidental distortion- the watch incident in ben hurr durr a derp derpity derp.
- The confusion of eras
- Applying modern standards upon the past
- Director, actor and audience reception of the actual event.
- Historical fictions → Stories based in the past that never happened.

Motivation behind movies
- Money
- Fame
- Awards / acclamation
- Entertainment
- To tell a story???
-

Accuracy/ Inaccuracy
- Does it matter? (discuss if it matters within history anyway- post modern support, YEAH !)
- Films are designed primarily to be entertaining, so should this detract from inaccuracy?
- The idea of history as a story is raised once more as films closely relate to history’s written by Thucydides and Taticus
- The idea that history within films may not be 100 % factual, but they can capture the spirit of the time and moment.
- “Don’t let the truth get in the way of a true story”
- Address the idea that film isn’t mean to be factual and it doesn’t claim to be factual.
→ historical fiction?
- There is so such thing as bare facts in history anyway- historians pick and choose and so do films.

List of films to use as examples

• Ben Hur
• 300
• Gladiator
• Frost v Nixon
• Robin Hood
• Saving Private Ryan
• Black Hawk Down (?)
• Coco (the history of Coco Chanel)
• That Johnny Depp movie about John Dillinger
• Sophie’s choice (Almost like an annalist view of history)

Starting work this weekend!!

As you may or may not recall, a few posts ago I set myself my question (Evaluate Frost/Nixon's value as a historical source) and I provided myself with six different debates I will discuss within my essay. I've decided the most productive way to go about writing this essay is to answer and discuss the questions, then put them in essay formatting once I'm finished. This will also allow me to gather evidence to support my argument in question.

So after leafing through my questions I think the most sensible two to start with are
Why should/shouldn't films be seen as appropriate historical sources to study?

and

Is it important if films get it right?


With these two questions following my introduction, I'll have the chance to non-specifically discuss film and they're treatment of history, and begin to incorporate Frost/Nixon as my main example. I have been considering, however, discussing this topic more broadly and using a variety of historical films and their inconsistencies rather than just the one. I'm not sure about this though.

I'll be missing extension history on Thursday

Sorry about that, I was hit by a bus.
I will however, be watching frost / nixon tirelessly until my return on monday :)