History surely goes back as far back as talking. Having the ability to talk about the past, and adapt, is something some scientists have conjectured separated Homo Sapiens from Neanderthals. Although there are some famous names from way back that we would consider early historians: Thucydides and Herodotus among them, historians as a professional class didn’t actually emerge until the late 18th century in Germany. Over the next hundred years, history as a professional discipline was codified and incorporated into university systems throughout Europe and North America. If historians as professionals are new on the scene, (relative to the scope of history), is it important to consult them, or worry about them, when we make films? I think it is.
Why? Well, the professionalization of anything is accompanied by standards of practice. Since history sprang up as a profession, many of those historians have spent a great deal of time philosophizing about the context and meaning of such an endeavor. So why would filmmakers making works about the past not consult the very people whose job it is to think about it?
It follows that if filmmakers should consider the perspective of historians that historians should consider the possibilities and pitfalls of history on film.
In 1988, the American Historical Association published a “forum issue” on history in film in the(ir) American Historical Review. To date, it is still one of the most enlightening and thorough explorations of history and cinema from the perspective of historians. The most notable contributions were by Robert Rosenstone, (callback to the blog last week), an established historian who had extensive experience in adapting his work for the screen, and Hayden White the post-modern historiography heavyweight who shook up the world of history in the 1970s by calling out historians for writing and conceiving of history in a manner that, as he saw it, was based on 19th century narrative tropes, and therefore was more storytelling than science. Other authors in the journal are less interested in history on film, viewing it as a novelty or something that can only be carefully unpacked in the history classroom. Rosenstone, however, provides constructive ideas and cautions, while White considers all history so tentatively related to past events that he has no problem in accepting filmic depictions as part of the stew of narrative frameworks that dance with the past.
Hegel, writing at the time of the emergence of academic history in Germany, points to poetry and prose as the two ways history is communicated, and he also considers the poetic genre as one that invites a level of abstraction that is more transparent about the historian’s relationship to the past. Following Hegel, both scholars cited experimental, or poetic, depictions of the past that foreground the present and the artist’s hand in the work, as a useful way to approach the past on film. One such example, that is oft-mentioned in the journal's articles, and is referenced on the cover, (see above) is Jill Godmilow’s “Far From Poland” (1984). Godmilow set out to make a film about the Solidarity movement in Poland but she was denied a Visa to enter the country and decided to forge ahead, making the film at home in New York City, using a pastiche of reenactment, fictional scenes and archival footage. This was all structured around a very heady, intensely meta and subjective point of view, as Jill Godmilow, filmmaker and character, struggled to make her film. “Far From Poland” was loved by many theorists of history and documentary. But 1984 was a while ago now, and as a professor I have shown the film to undergrads, and I have registered the mix of piercing boredom and bewilderment on their faces. What seems to make the biggest impression on them about the film is how everyone chain-smoked in the 1980s.
So my question is: these days, how do we address historiographical concerns, locate the subjectivity of the maker, and also make something that the average 21 year old can sit through?
Some suggestions next week...
Historia ya kweli inaanzia mbali sana kama vile kuzungumza. Uwezo wa kuwasiliana na watu wa kale na kuwasiliana nao ni jambo ambalo wanasayansi wanaamini lilitenganisha Homo Sapiens na Neanderthal. Ingawa kuna majina maarufu kutoka nyuma ambayo tungezingatia wanahistoria wa mapema: Thucydides na Herodotus miongoni mwao, wanahistoria kama darasa la kitaalamu kwa kweli hawakutokea hadi mwishoni mwa karne ya 18 nchini Ujerumani. Katika miaka mia moja iliyofuata, historia kama taaluma ya kitaaluma iliandikwa na kuingizwa katika mifumo ya vyuo vikuu kotekote Ulaya na Amerika Kaskazini. Kama wanahistoria kama wataalamu ni wapya kwenye eneo, (kulingana na wigo wa historia), ni muhimu kuwashauriana, au kuwajali, wakati tunafanya filamu? Nadhani ni hivyo. Kwa nini? Kwa kweli, ufundi wa kila kitu unahusishwa na viwango vya mazoezi. Tangu historia ilipoanza kuwa taaluma, wengi wa wanahistoria hao wametumia muda mwingi kutafakari kuhusu muktadha na maana ya kazi hiyo. Kwa hiyo, kwa nini watengenezaji wa filamu wanaofanya kazi kuhusu wakati uliopita wasishauriana na watu ambao kazi yao ni kufikiria kuhusu wakati uliopita? "Kama watengenezaji wa filamu wanapaswa kuzingatia mtazamo wa wanahistoria, wanahistoria wanapaswa kuzingatia uwezekano na mapungufu ya historia kwenye filamu.""" Mwaka 1988, American Historical Association ilichapisha toleo la "forum" juu ya historia katika filamu katika American Historical Review. Hadi sasa, bado ni moja ya uchunguzi wa kina na wa kina wa historia na sinema kutoka kwa mtazamo wa wanahistoria. "Mchoro wa Robert Rosenstone, ""Mwanzoni mwa karne ya 19,"" unaonyesha jinsi historia ya ulimwengu wa kisasa ilivyopigwa na ""mwenye uzito mkubwa"" Hayden White, ambaye aliwaita wanahistoria kwa kuandika na kufikiria historia kwa njia ambayo, kama aliona, ilitegemea hadithi za karne ya 19 na kwa hivyo ilikuwa hadithi zaidi kuliko sayansi." Waandishi wengine katika jarida hilo hawapendezwi sana na historia kwenye filamu, wakiiona kama jambo jipya au kitu ambacho kinaweza kufunguliwa kwa uangalifu tu katika darasa la historia. Rosenstone, hata hivyo, hutoa mawazo ya kujenga na tahadhari, wakati White anaona historia yote kuwa inahusiana na matukio ya zamani hivi kwamba hana shida ya kukubali picha za filamu kama sehemu ya mchanganyiko wa mifumo ya hadithi ambayo hucheza na zamani. Hegel, akiandika wakati wa kuibuka kwa historia ya kitaaluma nchini Ujerumani, anaelekeza mashairi na mashairi kama njia mbili za kuwasiliana na historia, na pia anaona aina ya mashairi kama moja ambayo inakaribisha kiwango cha abstraction ambayo ni wazi zaidi kuhusu uhusiano wa mwanahistoria na zamani. Baada ya Hegel, wasomi wote wawili walitaja maonyesho ya majaribio, au ya mashairi, ya zamani ambayo yanaangazia wakati wa sasa na mkono wa msanii katika kazi, kama njia muhimu ya kukaribia zamani kwenye filamu. Mfano mmoja kama huo, ambao mara nyingi unatajwa katika makala za jarida, na unatajwa kwenye jalada, (tazama hapo juu) ni Jill Godmilow's <unk>Far From Poland<unk> (1984). Godmilow aliamua kutengeneza filamu kuhusu harakati ya Solidarity nchini Poland lakini alikataliwa visa ya kuingia nchini na akaamua kuendelea, akifanya filamu hiyo nyumbani kwake New York City, akitumia picha za kuigiza, matukio ya uwongo na picha za kumbukumbu. "Hii ni sehemu ya ""Make Me Crazy"" na inaonyesha jinsi Jill Godmilow, mwigizaji wa filamu na mwigizaji, alivyojitahidi kufanya filamu yake." "Far From Poland" ilipendwa na wanatheoria wengi wa historia na maandishi. Lakini 1984 ilikuwa ni muda mrefu uliopita sasa, na kama profesa nimeonyesha filamu kwa wanafunzi wa shahada ya kwanza, na nimeorodhesha mchanganyiko wa uchovu na kuchanganyikiwa kwenye nyuso zao. "Kile kinachowashangaza zaidi kuhusu filamu hiyo ni jinsi kila mtu alivyovuta sigara kwa mnyororo katika miaka ya 1980.""" "Kwa hivyo swali langu ni: siku hizi, tunashughulikiaje wasiwasi wa kihistoria, kupata ubinafsi wa mtengenezaji, na pia kufanya kitu ambacho mtu wa kawaida wa miaka 21 anaweza kukaa kupitia?""" Baadhi ya mapendekezo ya wiki ijayo...