Drawing on Hayden White’s concept of historiophoty critically examine the role and impact of film in processes of historical understanding.
Hayden White identifies ‘historiophoty’ as “the representation of history and our thought about it in visual images and filmic discourse” (1988: 1193) and the following essay will critically examine the ways in which film impacts processes of historical understanding. After all, the media in general has exceeded expectations and plays a fundamental role in shaping society’s basic comprehension of the world and it can be said that films contribute to the retelling of the past. The following essay will particularly focus on the role of the historical film genre in processes of historical understanding by highlighting firstly the importance of cinema and film’s cultural relevance and their role as an enabler of processing history. At the same time, using the films Selma and Platoon, I will emphasize the importance of cinema’s emotional invocation and style that allows for effective comprehension of the past. It is, however, important to note that historiophoty and modern media have the potential to be problematic in our understanding of history and perhaps traditional discourse should remain integral in today’s analysis of the past.
It is first important to highlight the relationship between historiophoty and ‘historiography’ – defined as “the writing of history” (Merriam-Webster). Rather than its antithesis, the former, it could be argued, is merely a tool – albeit one that is “radically different” to written discourse - within the latter to communicate history (O’Connor, 1990: 96) that caters to the modern world in which technology is an important medium. The film, as a result, has been used to help reflect on history through its own genre of ‘historical film’ in which the past travels from written discourse such as biographies and textbooks onto the big screen. At the same time, historical film (and television) has demoted the academic historian to a minor role in the retelling of history, putting directors and producers at the forefront. What this does is allow the film to question tradition and traditional methods of historical revision (Rosenstone in De Groot, 2016: 247) that previously shaped public understanding of the past. Consequently, we can argue that the role of the historical film is to re-examine and reconsider history through entertainment whilst at the same time reaching a larger audience than its so-called ‘predecessors’.
Another way of thinking about historiophoty and film is that they essentially do what traditional historiography does not. First and foremost, as mentioned previously, the impact of film’s cultural relevance today has the potential to influence and interact with a wider spectrum of audiences as opposed to written discourses. After all, Rosenstone underlines visual media as “the chief source of historical knowledge for the majority of the population” with the film being “the great temptation” for a large audience interested in the past (1988: 1174-1175). This is highlighted by what is considered the “slow death of traditional media” on a global scale (Desjardins, 2016) as indicated by the Global Web Index report (2017: 19) in which it is of great importance to note the consumption of online streaming of film and TV through the likes of Netflix and PopcornTime. Similarly, tickets sold at the box office have remained above one billion for the past two decades, indicating the popularity of cinema has remained consistent (Nash Information Services). Relating this to the topic at hand, it is also significant to underline that the historical genre in the film is amongst those with the largest proportional growth rate in terms of film production (Follows, 2018). Although we are yet to discuss historiophoty and film specifically as tools that impact our processes of historical understanding, what can be taken from the following statistics is that the role of visual media as an agent of historical retelling is more likely to impact a wider audience than traditional media because of its profound global reach.
The properties of the historical film distinguish it from any other tool of historiography/historiophoty in that its use of visuals has the potential to better enhance an audience’s understanding of history. Indeed, White notes how the complexities of historical events gain enough representation via the cinema’s use of setting, props, special effects, etc. (1988: 1193). In fact, Raack notes that written discourse is simply unable to “render the fullness of the complex, multi-dimensional world in which humans live” and lauds film’s use of imagery, sound, and editing in accurately mirroring an “empathetic reconstruction to convey how historical people witnessed, understood and lived their lives” (1983: 416-418). To put it simply, ‘actions speak louder than words’ in that visuals generally have the capacity to better highlight the happenings of an event more so than by putting pen to paper. The film, therefore, gives history its emotional value that provides for a better understanding of context and circumstance; a quality that text lacks. A case study I personally find fitting in highlighting the impact of the film as a “document of the past” is Selma (2014) in that it not only revises the Selma to Montgomery marches of the Civil Rights Movement in 1965 but also invokes emotion from an audience to process the historical event more efficiently.
Focusing on a scene depicting ‘Bloody Sunday’ (Klein, 2015) the relationship between the sounds of screams, whips, and batons hitting bodies and radio commentary combined with the falling of crippled bodies and tormented TV viewers establishes the events of this monumental march. Moreover, the setting of the Selma bridge provides a sense of realism to the film to accurately mimic reality and non-diegetic music sets the cultural scene whilst establishing a somber mood at the same time. Most importantly, however, is the film’s use of editing to create a spatial montage cutting between the actual events of the march and other scenarios is fundamental in grasping the profoundness of Bloody Sunday on the country at the time and on the Civil Rights Movement in general. In this context, the scene itself revises history for an audience by acting out the incident – what could be drawn out from here is that film plays an active role in retelling history similar to any tool of historiography. Film’s use of mise-en-scene allows the processes of historical understanding, though, to flourish as accurately as possible. Mise-en-scene, thus, is useful in highlighting the impact of film on audience interpretation and could best be described essentially as being “concerned with visual style in cinema” (Gibbs, 2002) through the use of lighting, decor, costume, acting, and space (Yale University). The visual style of filmic discourse plays a role in the creation of pseudo-realism that links the narrative in a film to the actual historical event it is meant to represent albeit in a way in which audiences can resonate with those historically involved. In fact, Anirudh Deshpande recognizes historical film as a source of history carrying more weight than other tools of historiophoty since “a film might display significant historical details pertinent to various aspects of social, urban or rural history” (2004: 4457) that might not directly link to a historical event, but also set the contextual scene that leads to a more in-depth understanding of it. How this can be seen through the comparison of the film Selma to an extract from a historical textbook (Davis and Vaughan, 2006: 14):
“White State troopers violently attacked the marchers on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma, accompanied by Sheriff Clark of Selma and his deputies. Black marchers were beaten, bones were broken, and bodies bruised.”
This transition to historiophoty both virtualizes and visualizes details of the ‘Bloody Sunday’ march that has been written. Written discourse informs us of the violence, yet the visuals of Selma - in which an all-white police force attacked only black protesters and a mob of white bystanders carrying racist insignia - outline the deep-rooted institutionalized and casual racism that was consuming America at the time and laid the foundations for ‘Bloody Sunday’. Consequently, this invokes more thought and reaction out of consumers who, through a combination of sight and sound, can process and understand the chaos of the event that written discourse is unable to reproduce. After all, we understand things better when we see them for ourselves and also have the opportunity to individually examine and analyze what is before us due to the symbolism mise-en-scene has the potential of creating.
Going back to the notion of an experiential narrative, the film is unique compared to other tools for discussing history in that the past becomes personal through the acting and the insertion of a protagonist in the middle of a historical event. Indeed, if we are to critically examine the impact of film in processes of historical understanding, it is fundamental to outline how film’s adoption of an experiential narrative underscores the emotional context needed to fully grasp the importance of a historical moment on society and a community. Platoon (1986) is a focus on the Vietnam War yet based mostly on the point of view of one soldier, Chris Taylor. Over time, the protagonist becomes disillusioned about American patriotism and their role as ‘saviors’ in a war against the Viet Cong. The heavy use of gore and violence interprets the Vietnam War as savage and unforgiving, yet it is Taylor’s journey throughout (as well as the rest of the characters) that truly allows us to engage with the events. After all, images of fire and mushroom clouds do little without the presence of people screaming and running for safety whilst the sounds of shots being fired have little effect unless we were to see someone behind or in front of the gun. A poignant scene in Platoon takes place in the film’s final moments when an injured Taylor is rescued out of the jungle to be sent back home to the United States, reacting emphatically to a flood of tears. Panning underneath the helicopter, hundreds of dead bodies remain on the ground and the merger of whirring propellers and dramatic instrumental music lay the foundations for an overwhelming sense of sadness and exasperation. In reality, Taylor and the rest of the Platoon characters are fictional yet are a reflection of real veterans who experienced very similar situations decades before in the actual war. Here, the film allows private memory to transcend into global and/or national history that personalizes history and thus, enhances one’s ability to understand and examine the past. In this context, both Selma and Platoon showcase the way film can not only impact but improve our processes of historical understanding through the reinforcement of humanity’s role in history. After all, we are more capable of understanding a situation’s context if human action, interaction, reaction, etc. is pushed to the forefront (Thompson, 2008). Combined with the visual creations of a film’s mise-en-scene, this produces a realism that written discourse is unable to reproduce.
It is of great importance, however, to note the criticisms of historiophoty and film that many scholars have discussed in which the potential impact the latter has on processes of historical understanding is potentially problematic. In focusing on the historical genre in film, historians are concerned with the likelihood that accuracy in detailing history clashes with a director’s desire and need to create entertaining and “crowd-pleasing work” (De Groot, 2016: 251). Indeed, there is a level of consistency that movies need to attain about their entertainment value, and to some, certain moments in history as well as their depiction in written discourse are anything but entertaining. With that in mind, films tend to embellish the past “through dramatic elements such as characterization and plot, and spectacle elements…” (Grindon, 1994: 6) to the point where the history itself and people of the past are misrepresented. As a result, because of the global reach cinema, particularly Hollywood cinema, has, it is more than likely that film has become a primary source of historical information and thus, distorted history is processed as real history. Something of considerable worry is the historical film that misrepresents and/or demonizes certain members of a society to the point where societal issues remain current in today’s climate. Films of great value to this argument are Zulu (1964) and The Last Samurai (2003) in which Zulu warriors and the Japanese are respectively vilified and trivialized in what is commonly identified as ‘symbolic annihilation’: a “lack of social existence” in a world of fiction (Gerbner & Gross 1976: 182). After all, the latter is often criticized for its “patronizing narrative” (Rich, 2004) in which a foreign country needs a white (principally American) savior. At the same time, Zulu romanticizes a Britain of the past whilst emphasizing “British heroism in the face of adversity” (Whittle, 2016: 193-194) that historically ignores the imbued violence and racism of the British empire on Africa that still has remnants of it today. Thus, rather than viewing the historical film and historiophoty in general as “transparent mediators of reality” (Gross, 1988: 190), Jarvie suggests film instead “can present a one-sided view very persuasively to the uncritical” and lacks the depth to intricately examine and debate history (1978: 377-378). Therefore, what can be argued is that yes, historiophoty and film can impact processes of historical understanding, yet not necessarily in an enlightening way. Indeed, what Jarvie essentially outlines is film’s ability to influence an audience at the same time written discourse is shunned and this potentially problematizes historical understanding in that film can manipulate an event or story for the sheer purpose of entertainment to the point where an ‘alternative’ version of history is recognized as the so-called ‘real deal’. As a result, history is either trivialized, falsified, or at the very worst, not available to critically understand.
In conclusion, it is of fundamental importance in discussing film and historiophoty to juxtapose it with written discourse if we are to see the ways in which it influences processes of critical understanding. It could be said indeed that written discourse and other traditional tools of historiography differ from that of visual media in that it is considered blacker and whiter whereas film produces opportunities for individual analysis and interpretation as a result of its film style, similarly, it could be said, to poetry. Of course, film and visual discourse are far more poignant in highlighting a multitude of layers that make up an event of the past, and as argued above, each piece of the puzzle is important if we are to wholly and engagingly understand history. Historiophoty, therefore, is necessary in processing history via a link from past to present in which the relationship between visuals and experiential narratives stimulates a cognitive connection between characters and consumers who vicariously experience a moment of history as a result. Yet, historical understanding is of vital significance to a community’s past both nationally and globally and so there is a necessity for historical discourse to remain as accurate and objective as possible. In this context, as a follow-through from Jarvie’s comments, perhaps there is still the need for traditional written discourse in discussing history because the value is placed more on objectivity and examination than the desire for entertainment. Yet, what I will finally argue is that it is important to find a happy medium between what is considered traditional and that which is, say, more culturally relevant at this point in time. In this context, the assumption that historiophoty holds a large amount of weight and influence over our abilities – or lack thereof - to understand and evaluate history needs to be outmatched by reliance on the public to utilize all historiographical tools so they will be able to note that Django Unchained (2012), for example, differs to that of 12 Years a Slave (2013).
Bibliography/References
De Groot, J. (2016). Consuming history. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, pp.247-259.
Deshpande, A. (2004). Films as Historical Sources or Alternative History. Economic and Political Weekly, [online] 39(40), pp.4455-4459. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4415618 [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
Desjardins, J. (2018). Chart: The Slow Death of Traditional Media. [online] Visual Capitalist. Available at: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-slow-death-traditional-media/ [Accessed 28 Dec. 2018].
Follows, S. (2018). Genre Trends in Global Film Production. [online] Available at: https://stephenfollows.com/genre-trends-global-film-production/ [Accessed 28 Dec. 2018].
Gerbner, G. and Gross, L. (1976). Living with Television: The Violence Profile. Journal of Communication, [online] 26(2), pp.172-199. Available at: https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/26/2/172/4553823?redirectedFrom=fulltext [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
Gibbs, J. (2002). Mise-en-scène. London: Wallflower, pp.5-26.
Global Web Index (2017). Digital vs. Traditional Media Consumption. Insight Report. [online] Available at: http://dewina-journal.foutap.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Digital_vs_Traditional_Media_Consumption.pdf.pdf [Accessed 28 Dec. 2018].
Grindon, L. (1994). Shadows on the Past. 1st ed. Temple University Press, pp.1-26.
Gross, L. (1988). The Ethics of (Mis)Representation. In: L. Gross, J. Katz and J. Ruby, ed., Image Ethics, 1st ed. New York: Oxford University Press, pp.188-202.
Jarvie, I. (1978). Seeing Through Movies. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, [online] 8(4), pp.374-397. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/004839317800800404 [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
Klein, C. (2015). Remembering Selma’s “Bloody Sunday”. [online] HISTORY. Available at: https://www.history.com/news/selmas-bloody-sunday-50-years-ago [Accessed 2 Jan. 2019].
Merriam-Webster (n.d.). Historiography. In: Merriam-Webster. [online] Available at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/historiography [Accessed 27 Dec. 2018].
Nash Information Services (2018). Domestic Movie Theatrical Market Summary 1995 to 2018. [online] Available at: https://www.the-numbers.com/market/ [Accessed 28 Dec. 2018].
O'Connor, J. (1992). Image As Artifact: The Historical Analysis of Film and Television. Film Quarterly, 45(3), pp.59-61.
Platoon. (1986). [film] Directed by O. Stone. United States
Raack, R. (1983). Historiography as Cinematography: A Prolegomenon to Film Work for Historians. Journal of Contemporary History, [online] 18(3), pp.411-438. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/002200948301800304 [Accessed 31 Dec. 2018].
Rich, M. (2004). Land Of the Rising Cliché. [online] NY Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/04/movies/land-of-the-rising-cliche.html [Accessed 6 Jan. 2019].
Rosenstone, R. (2018). History in Images/History in Words: Reflections on the Possibility of Really Putting History onto Film. The American Historical Review, [online] 93(5), pp.1173-1185. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1873532?seq=5#metadata_info_tab_contents [Accessed 27 Dec. 2018].
Selma. (2014). [film] Directed by A. Duvernay. United States.
The Last Samurai. (2003). [film] Directed by E. Zwick. United States.
Thompson, A. (2008). Books Still Rival Movies For Stirring Emotions. [online] Live Science. Available at: https://www.livescience.com/5062-books-rival-movies-stirring-emotions.html [Accessed 4 Jan. 2019].
Vaughn, W. and Davis, M. (2006). The Selma campaign, 1963-1965. Dover, MA: Majority Press.
White, H. (1988). Historiography and Historiophoty. The American Historical Review, [online] 93(5), p.1193. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1873534.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ad38475aba95093486ba97a497a2bd9b8 [Accessed 27 Dec. 2018].
Whittle, M. (2016). Post-War British Literature and the “End of Empire”. London: Macmillan Publishers, pp.192-203.
Yale University (2019). Part 2: Mise-en-scene. [online] Available at: https://filmanalysis.coursepress.yale.edu/mise-en-scene/ [Accessed 2 Jan. 2019].
Zulu. (1964). [film] Directed by C. Endfield. United Kingdom.