The Historical Film As Real History

Abstract

Let's face the facts and admit it: historical films trouble and disturb (most) professional historians. Why? We all know the obvious answers. Because, historians will say, films are inaccurate. They distort the past. They fictionalize, trivialize, and romanticize important people, events, and movements. They falsify History. As a subtext to these overt answers, we can hear some different, unspoken answers: Film is out of the control of historians. Film shows that academics do not own the past. Film creates a historical world with which the written word cannot compete, at least for popularity.Film is a disturbing symbol of an increasingly postliterate world (in which people can read but won't). Let me add an impolite question: How many professional historians, when it comes to fields outside their areas of expertise, learn about the past from film? How many Americanists, for example, know the great Indian leader primarily from Gandhi? Or how many Europeanists the American Civil War from Glory, or Gone with the Wind? Or how many Asianists early modern France from The Return of

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 81 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.