So i wrote some more

and I feel it makes very little sense but who cares!

Enjoy reading!

As historians, the simple desire of an ‘inquiry’ into the past has always been a driving force behind the recording and presentation of history. This presentation of the past however, has been refashioned over generations and influenced highly by predeceasing historians, the historian’s personal context and the complex cultural and sociological impact placed upon the historian.

Acknowledging this, one must ask if in our rapidly developed, technological society, can film be seen as a valid way of presenting the past? In order to answer this question a series of smaller questions must be taken into consideration, regarding accuracy of the history being told, audience perception, motivation behind the creation of the movie, the influence of context, and of course why film should or should not be seen as a valid way of preserving the past.

Why is any of this of importance? It is in my opinion the relationship between history and film should be of concern to those who hold the preservation of history n their best interest, due to the fact that film is, one of the most accessible media that a majority of people have. If you consider the power film as to persuade, argue, expose and vilify, you can imagine the impact of presenting history in a manner that, when placed in a mostly realistic visual and oral way, audiences will be under the power of the sensationalist views of Hollywood totalitarianism grasp.

If we think about the film industry, we are considering a multi-billion dollar corporate machine, functioning purely on the use of film as a profitable endeavor. Its motive of profit is achieved through creating an entertaining outlet for the consumer audience to buy into. One can argue despite historical themes and ideas within, a film is just trying entertain an audience rather than convey the most accurate truth of history possible. A prime example of a film based on history is the move 300, directed by Zack Snyder. The film, based upon a graphic novel, is the retelling of the Spartan-Persian battle at Thermopylae 486 AD. As Herodotus tells us about the event, [insert Herodotus quote]
The history’s written by ancient writers such as Herodotus can be arduous to read, often confusing, fragmented and long-winded. Not quite average reading material for the general public, is it? However, when film comes into play, creative license allows for the story to become more fanciful, with all the elements most appealing to a modern audience such as bravery, gore, a highly emotional plot and of course, the small elements of romance, making the film even more tragic than before. This film even goes further, of course, including ogres-esque creatures, clawed beasts and portrays the Ephors as half human monsters who take care of a young, convulsing oracle.


[there will be more essay here and I’ll probably finish and conclude after this paragraph]

One important aspect of film as a historical source is how we perceive the films value. Do we take into consideration the traditional view of films being created solely for entertainment purposes, or do we approach this study with the idea of films holding mostly truths with a few inaccuracies. Furthermore, do we just assume films are mostly fictions with a few granules of factual information or do we simply trust in the statement that films are nothing more than a story based on historical events? In order to assess the value of
Cinematic productions as valid historical sources we must take into consideration the different ways we can approach these texts.