History on Film / Film on History

by Robert A. Rosenstone

History films have often been criticized by academics and journalists as inaccurate depictions of the past. Yet there is no escaping the fact that blockbuster history films, documentaries and docudramas are increasingly influential in shaping our understanding of historical people and events. The very controversies that erupt over so many historical films are testament to the central role that films play in making history accessible.
Robert A. Rosenstone argues that to leave history films out of the discussion of the meaning of the past is to ignore a major factor in our understanding of past events. He champions the dramatic feature as a legitimate way of doing history, even though it is largely fictional. He examines what history films convey about the past and how they convey it, demonstrating the need to learn how to read and understand this new visual world. Rosenstone integrates detailed analysis of individual history films, including Glory, Reds, October, and Schindler's List.

Genres: History, Film, Nonfiction, Research

182 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2006

About the author

Robert A. Rosenstone, who was born in Montreal, Canada, but has lived most of his life in Los Angeles, is the author of a dozen books in various genres, including history, biography, criticism, and fiction. The latter has been his major focus in recent years. Among his fictional works are the novel, King of Odessa (2003), a book of stories, The Man Who Swam into History : The (Mostly) True Story of My Jewish Family ( 2005), and the recent novel Red Star, Crescent Moon: A Muslim Jewish Love Story (2010).

Rosenstone’s scholarly works include Romantic Revolutionary: A Biography of John Reed (1975), one of the sources for the Academy Award winning film, Reds, on which he served as historical consultant; Mirror in the Shrine: American Encounters in Meiji Japan (1988), an experimental, multi-voiced biography of three American sojourners in nineteenth century Japan; Crusade of the Left: The Lincoln Battalion in the Spanish Civil war (1969, reprinted 2009), and two works about historical film: Visions of the Past: The Challenge of Film to Our Idea of History (1995), and History on Film / Film on History (2006).

He has also been active in visual media projects, including time spent as consultant or writer for the following dramatic features and documentaries: Reds (1982), The Good Fight (1983), Darrow (1991), and Tango of Slaves (1999), and he has appeared on screen in several documentaries, including Screening Histories: The Filmmaker Strikes Back. (BBC, 1998), Rebels. (CBC, 1999), and Emma Goldman: A Troublesome Presence (PBS, 2004)

He is married to Nahid Massoud, a photographer, who is at once his best friend and his muse.

Reviews

[Martin Riexinger · Rating 1 out of 5]

Rosenstone is one of the few historians who addresses the issue . I had earlier read some of his chapters and articles before, and considered his argument that films of history can be considered as a contribution to the understanding of history equal to written historiography. So I gave the book a try, and was finally appalled. Because his argument is based on an anything goes approach to history, according to which it does not so much matter, whether events are correctly reconstructed and explained, but in how far the narrative is relevant to us. The book reaches its absolute low point where the conspirationist [four letter word] of Oliver Stone is praised for exactly this reason.
The basis of his equation of film and written historiography is a spectrum of genres from books written for a mixed audience (specialized academics and general public) to popularizations and historical fiction. What many historians actually do, searching sources, analyzing hitherto unused sources in order to understand events - at all or in a different light - does not matter much to him, although some of the documentaries on the Spanish Civil War he discusses do exactly that. Although he praises that written historiography tries to use other literary models than the 19th century novel, Rosenstone does not seem to be interested in avantgard approaches to history of film like the essayistic films of Alexander Kluge.

A handful of interesting analyses cannot save this volume, not least as it also contains many bad ones, the chapter on Holocaust film is for example an assemblage of plot summaries.

[andrea · Rating 2 out of 5]

MUY repetitivo con todas sus ideas, sobretodo con su tesis. Escribe todo el rato sobre lo mismo para disimular que no dice mucho para respaldar lo que piensa. Largas descripciones de las peliculas (sobretodo en el capitulo sobre el holocausto) que luego no explican nada.

Tampoco me parece adecuado que en un libro donde se pregunte si el cine puede enseñae historia no haya prácticamente opiniones sobre gente ajena a esta disciplina. Cuando estudias peliculas (y, sobretodo, desde un punto de vista mas antropologico o social) no solo te tienes que centrar en la obra, sino en tambien como es recibida por el público y la critica. Es esencial entender como ha sido entendida por la gente. No puedes escribir un libro declarando que el cine puede hacer historia sin ningun problema sin mostrar que entienden las personas de esos films.

Sobre su tesis, aunque estoy parcialmente de acuerdo, hay cosas que como que no. No puedes decir que no importa juntar sucesos que pasaron en años diversos en unos meses, por ejemplo. ¿no es la tensión durante años algo vital para enteder eventos y personas?

[Meredith Johnson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Read for my film theory class. The author's philosophical foundation vastly differs from my own (and, thus, do some of his conclusions), but he raises a good point that film is more influential and valuable as a depiction of history than we currently appreciate.

[Anson Cassel Mills · Rating 2 out of 5]

Rosenstone is a respected post-modernist student of history and film whose short book argues that since the meaning of written history “lies in its larger symbolic expressions” (68), we should likewise accept the “metaphorical” truth of historical films regardless of their factual accuracy. Rosenstone even defends Sergei Eisenstein’s infamous “storming of the Winter Palace” scene in the propaganda film October (1928) on the grounds that it allows us to “share in the ecstasy of revolutionary change.”(67)

Rosenstone tends to focus on the sorts of films screened at arts festivals. He does much less with Hollywood and ignores upper-middle class history fare, such as the many films presented on the long-running PBS series American Experience (which does not even appear in the index). One doubts Rosenstone would be as sanguine about accepting the metaphorical truth of film if conservative Republicans, instead of an unending string of fellow leftists, had created all the best metaphors.

[Citlalli · Rating 4 out of 5]

"What do we want from the past?" "Why do we want to know it?" Robert Rosenstone it's a well known advocate of a new way of History that doesn't relies entirely on the written word and an advocate for the study of History through film.
In the current age we live in, it's with no purpose to disdain the analysis of history through visual images, since we are on a world that relies on them and in a post-literal age in which most people first contact with the past os through the memories recorded in mass media, to keep an attack in historical films on the basis that they false facts or rely in fiction is to ignore that so does "traditional" history for the purpose of a narrative and academic basis of historical methodology.
To encourage the study and making of History through different mediums outside the ones taught by academia is to accept the inevitable process of a new age of historiography that doesn't rely and doesn't need a paper.

[Gabriel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Just finished the book, and Chapter 1 completely shifted my worldview; it is very interesting and truly made my summer. What I found most admiring is how it forces us to see images as valid arguments rather than just decorative illustrations.

[Johnson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Blown away by Chapter 1's defense of visual media; it is very interesting and made my summer by proving that moving pictures can construct historical arguments as deeply as text. What I found most admiring is its attack on text-only snobbery.

[Ylva · Rating 5 out of 5]

Diving into Chapter 1 was a revelation; it is very interesting and made my summer break unforgettable. What I found most admiring is how the text strips away academic arrogance to give the screen its rightful analytical due.

[Zaccheaus · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chapter 1 is brilliant; it is very interesting and made my summer by validating the visual age. What I found most admiring is the sharp, logical breakdown of how historians have historically ignored the power of cinema.

[Hugo · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading Chapter 1 left me inspired; it is very interesting and made my summer reading list worthwhile. What I found most admiring is the call for a new vocabulary to evaluate visual histories on their own terms.

[Anna Kowalski · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chapter 2 offers a stunning look at historical vision; it is very interesting and made my summer recess. What I found most admiring is how it maps out the transition from raw historical data to actual onscreen narrative.

[Sigrid · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chapter 2 completely redefines how we process the past; it is very interesting and made my summer. What I found most admiring is how the author tackles the sheer psychological weight of seeing historical recreations visually come alive.

[Janet · Rating 5 out of 5]

Absorbing Chapter 2 was an absolute joy; it is very interesting and it made my summer. What I found most admiring is the way it shows that what we see on screen shapes our collective memory far more than footprints in the archives.

[Natalia Petrović · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chapter 2 is a masterpiece of theory; it is very interesting and made my summer memorable. What I found most admiring is the deep dive into how film constructs a physical space for historical imagination to breathe.

[Patricia · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chapter 2 fundamentally changed how I view documentaries; it is very interesting and made my summer. What I found most admiring is the precise dissection of the line separating historical reality from visual illusion.

[Maresa · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chapter 3 on mainstream drama is sensational; it is very interesting and made my summer. What I found most admiring is the bold defense of commercial Hollywood films as legitimate portals for public historical consciousness.

[Ottilie · Rating 5 out of 5]

Finishing Chapter 3 left me in awe; it is very interesting and made my summer. What I found most admiring is the masterful analysis of how Schindler’s List creates a shared emotional vocabulary for massive historical trauma.

[Candence · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chapter 3 is absolutely essential; it is very interesting and made my summer. What I found most admiring is how the author explains that a film's structural narrative can be metaphorically true even when minor facts are altered.

[Matteo Ricci · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chapter 3 completely opened my eyes; it is very interesting and made my summer. What I found most admiring is the exploration of how mainstream cinema compresses vast timelines without losing the core human essence of historical events.

[Erik Johansson · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chapter 4 on innovative drama is a total game-changer; it is very interesting and made my summer. What I found most admiring is the celebration of avant-garde films that reject simple Hollywood formulas to make viewers think critically.

[Bruno Silva · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chapter 4 is incredibly brilliant; it is very interesting and made my summer. What I found most admiring is the brilliant breakdown of how alternative cinema forces the audience to wrestle with structural historical forces rather than individual heroes.

[E.P. Souless · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading Chapter 4 was incredibly refreshing; it is very interesting and made my summer. What I found most admiring is how the author frames experimental cinema as the true theoretical equal to rigorous, analytical written history.

[Brenda · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chapter 4 is a triumph of film analysis; it is very interesting and made my summer. What I found most admiring is the close reading of radical film techniques that intentionally disrupt passive viewing to expose historical bias.

[Sunniva · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chapter 4 completely captivated me; it is very interesting and made my summer. What I found most admiring is how it positions non-linear cinematic storytelling as a superior tool for capturing the chaotic, messy reality of revolutions.

[Abigail Pereira · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chapter 5 on the documentary form is exceptional; it is very interesting and made my summer. What I found most admiring is how it exposes the narrative tricks and manipulation of footage hidden behind "objective" factual labels.

[Delphine · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chapter 5 is a revelation for researchers; it is very interesting and made my summer. What I found most admiring is the brilliant exposure of the fact that all archival editing is inherently a subjective act of historical interpretation.

[George · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chapter 5 completely shifted my perspective; it is very interesting and made my summer. What I found most admiring is how the author charts the evolution of the documentary from simple propaganda to a highly sophisticated art form.

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

Reading Chapter 5 was an absolute highlight; it is very interesting and made my summer. What I found most admiring is the warning against trusting a visual document blindly just because it features real archival talking heads.

[Lucia Romano · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chapter 5 is a theoretical powerhouse; it is very interesting and made my summer. What I found most admiring is the framework provided to analyze the poetic truths that documentaries capture when rigid facts fail them.

[Petra Horvath · Rating 5 out of 5]

Chapter 6 on biofilm biography is stunning; it is very interesting and made my summer. What I found most admiring is how it proves that a screen biography can capture a historical figure's inner psychological landscape beautifully.