The following passage is excerpted from an article about historical filmmaking (1997 by David S. Grubin).
Film
- The phone call finally came from
- the distinguished scholar in
- American history. I had sent him
- the video cassette and transcript
- of the first part of a film biography
- I was completing, and I was
- anxiously waiting his verdict.
- Now, he prepared to give it to me.
- He was a man for whom I had
- enormous respect, a writer
- renowned for his wit and clarity,
- grown expert in his field over a
- long lifetime of study. We had
- enjoyed a sympathetic
- collaboration all through the
- preparation of the film treatments,
- and I knew him to be forthright
- and candid. He would tell me
- exactly what he thought.
- “I’ve read the transcript, and I’ll be
- sending along a marked-up copy,”
- he said. “I’ll look at the film
- tomorrow.” I was stunned. He had
- turned first to the page, rather
- than the screen. His critique would
- be based on the transcript. The film
- could wait. After a long pause, I
- told him how surprised I was that
- he hadn’t watched the video, that
- the words were important—yes,
- extremely important—but they had
- to be understood in relation to the
- film of which they were a part. He
- was as surprised as I had been.
- “I guess I’m a bit old-fashioned,”
- he said.
- Long force of habit had turned my
- colleague toward the transcript of
- the film rather than the film itself,
- but he is, as he himself recognized,
- increasingly out of step. Most
- Americans seem to prefer the
- image to the word. Even a best-
- selling volume of history is lucky
- to find more than a million readers.
- More and more of us are learning
- our history from television.
- As a filmmaker, I’ve heard some
- scholars suggest that this may not
- be a very good thing. Of course,
- it’s easy to criticize the historical
- programs that appear almost
- nightly, knocked out by producers
- with neither the time nor the
- resources to do their job well. This
- is history distinguished more for
- the vigor with which it is marketed
- than by the care with which the
- programs themselves are made.
- But even the best historical
- television, it has been argued,
- can’t do much more than suggest
- the riches that are waiting to be
- found in books: Television is not
- suited for the discussion of ideas;
- it doesn’t allow for the logical
- development of an argument; it
- can’t handle too much information.
- Television histories are truncated
- histories, oversimplified and
- underdeveloped. The medium
- itself is fatally flawed.
- As someone who works with this
- medium every day, I am sensitive
- to these criticisms because I agree
- with the assumption on which they
- are based. Television is a different
- medium from prose. The medium
- isn’t fatally flawed, history on
- television doesn’t have to be
- reductive, but television is limited,
- just as prose is limited, and in its
- limitations lies its strength as well
- as its weakness. What needs to be
- understood is how the medium of
- television is different from the
- medium of the traditional historian
- and where its particular power lies.
- But rather than begin with
- differences, I first would like to
- affirm what the traditional
- historian and the historical
- filmmaker have in common.
- Certainly we both have a
- commitment to present as
- complete and accurate a picture
- of the past as possible, and we
- share a scrupulous regard for the
- facts and the rules of evidence that
- guide their acceptability. The
- filmmaker might spend more time
- with the visual record and oral
- testimony, the traditional historian
- more with documents, but the goal
- is the same—to excavate and
- interpret the past. The differences
- arise not so much in the excavation
- of the facts. Our paths diverge
- when it comes to giving them
- definition, shape, and meaning.
- Because the medium I work in
- lends itself so readily to narrative,
- I find myself inevitably telling
- stories. Although historians
- working in prose may also choose
- to write in the narrative tradition,
- many prefer to analyze rather than
- chronicle, placing their subject
- under a microscope and thoroughly
- dissecting it, emulating a scientific
- model. It is a rare history film that
- has a cold, impersonal scientific
- look. The medium is pulling in
- another direction. Filmmakers
- are synthesizers, using analysis as
- just another element in the
- storytelling, bringing it on stage to
- help explain an event as it unfolds,
- but not a moment sooner. The
- best films have the emotional force
- and integrity of a novel. Despite
- the fact that the idea of the
- narrative has been challenged for
- imposing the illusion of order on
- random events, I find myself
- continuing to tell stories, somehow
- persuaded by the medium I work
- in that there is real purpose in
- doing so.