World Famous Comics: Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies (Henry Holt Reference Book)
Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies (Henry Holt Reference Book)
By: Mark C. Carnes Publisher: Holt Paperbacks Average Rating: Binding: Paperback Label: Holt Paperbacks Number of Items: 1 Number of Pages: 320 Publication Date: November 15, 1996
Product Description: In this widely-acclaimed volume, some of our greatest historians address the facts—and fiction—as seen in Hollywood’s often epic recreations of historical events. Distinghuished historians such as Stephen Ambrose, Antonia Fraser, James McPherson, Gerda Lerner, Dee Brown, Frances FitzGerald, David Levering Lewis, and Simon Schama explore the relationship between film and the historical record. Offering hundreds of movie stills, archival photographs, maps, and other illustrations, along with sidebars on related historical events, Past Imperfect sheds new light on the uses of history in popular culture.
Amazon.com Review: In our increasingly visual culture, a growing amount of what we learn about history comes from the movies. This unusual and cornucopian book draws on the knowledge of 60 experts who examine the historical accuracy of a splendid array of classic movies such as Julius Caesar, Aguirre the Wrath of God, Mutiny on the Bounty, The Last of the Mohicans, Gallipoli, and Gandhi. They reveal what each movie has done right and wrong in portraying the complex threads of the stories as known to the world's most qualified scholars. Highly Recommended.
Loved It! A GREAT read! It has specific movies and historical realizations I had never thought of!
The Beauty of the Cinema This book is commendable for its conception but is flawed in its premise and execution. The problem is there are too many fingers in the pie. I would have liked to read about one historian's perspective on all the films reviewed. Instead, each film was addressed and compared to historical recollections by a different author. There is no uniformity of thought or perspective. For instance, I am sure that if Stephen Ambrose had reviewed TORA! TORA! TORA! he may have seen that film in a much more favorable light than did Akira Iriye. One can speculate to infinitum. It is possible to find and read countless books on a given historical topic. The point I am making is that each author has the ability to bring different perspectives or interpretations of historical record that may result in different conclusions of events or more importantly ideas. If you were to ask an auditorium full of historians what was the most important factor contributing to the start of the Civil War I am sure you may get at least five good answers. Perhaps the idea that a film conveys is more important than the accuracy of each step that led to that idea. I think that SPARTACUS is an important film not as a representation of a historical record but for the idea that the inherent rights of human beings to live free is a notion worth dying for. Kirk Douglas as SPARTACUS stated something to the effect that he would never stand by and see two men battle and die just for the amusement of other men. There is something very noble about that statement and to the visuals on the screen that precipitated that assertion. To touch a chord of emotion from the audience is really the magic of the cinema. I never once ever thought that the purpose of the cinema was to teach history. For the audience the main purpose of the cinema is to be entertained and if you take it a few more steps perhaps come away with an idea or spark of imagination. That's the beauty of the cinema.
Good but Not Perfect This is a very interesting and useful book but I don't exactly like the overall point of view that it takes on motion pictures. It takes many historically based films and critiques them by comparing what is on the screen to actual historical events. Each chapter is devoted to one film (in most instances) and is critiqued by a different authority. The one constant that I see running throughout this book is that history does not make for good motion pictures if you are gazing through the eyes of the historian. That disturbs me. Motion pictures are a business as well a legitimate art form. If a historically based movie gets your interest as well as entertains you then perhaps that movie has fulfilled its purpose. The movie is the catalyst. It is up to you to dig up the history book and see what was recorded. And if you dig up a second history book it is very possible that those same events may be recorded slightly different. I liked the critique by Sean Wilentz on "THE BUCCANEER: Two Films" where he states that they stand somewhere in between fact and fiction. Akira Iriye is too critical of TORA! TORA! TORA! When you recall that particular motion picture, that's the one that stands out as a film that tried to get all the facts correct. Americans and Japanese respective of their home countries directed it. Iriye's criticism is almost ludicrous trying to state that inflections in the voices of some of the actors actually distorted the true meaning of their words. In light of PEARL HARBOR (2001) Akira Iriye is way off mark. Marshall De Bruhl's words about THE ALAMO are redundant and superficial. THE ALAMO was John Wayne's screen fulfillment of the legend. THE ALAMO is a great American film and it perpetuates that legend till this day. I liked what Stephen E. Ambrose had to say about THE LONGEST DAY. Ambrose recognizes that half the duality of filmmaking is a business. His approach and comments are very insightful and well written. As seen by James H. McPerson GLORY comes off best. It deserves it. "PAST IMPERFECT" is a good book but I just wish there were more input from the filmmakers.
Can you properly portray history in the movies? When you're both a student of history and a movie buff, as I am, it can be difficult to sit and watch a film that presumes to have an accurate historical context without fighting the urge to evaluate it and pick holes in it. And I'm not the only one. This is a collection of analytical essays, most of high quality, by experts (not all of them historians) analyzing and critiquing individual films: Stephen Jay Gould on _Jurassic Park,_ Antonia Fraser on _Anne of the Thousand Days,_ Thomas Fleming on _1776,_ Dee Brown on _Fort Apache,_ William Manchester on _Young Winston,_ and numerous others. Sticking to those films about which I have some knowledge of the historical events they claim to portray, most are right on the money. James McPherson, commenting on _Glory,_ points out that while the context and general atmosphere are very well done, and the costuming and so on are exact, there are still deliberate historical errors for the sake of drama; none of the soldiers in Col. Shaw's 54th Massachusetts were ex-slaves, for instance, all of them having been recruited from among the state's free black population. And Catherine Clinton does an excellent job taking the wind out of _Gone with the Wind_'s mythical sails. There's a great deal of good information and criticism here and it's a compliment to say that nearly any of these essays will start an argument.
Let's have a revised edition...PLEASE??? This book is just too damn interesting not to go into a revised edition that would, welcomingly, include a few more recent examples of the movies portending to convey history. It is cleverly organized, with an actual historical "timeline" that is matched with a selected movie that attempted to portray events for that period or year. It starts all the way back in the Jurrasic period, with "Jurrasic Park," of course. Each movie critique is written by a different film expert or historian, so you get a lot of diversity of perspective as well as writing style. There is a very intelligent interview of director John Sayles ("Eight Men Out" "Metowan") in the preface, which may be reason enough for film buffs to purchase this book.
One can either browse through the book and focus on "favorite" or "hated" films of the past, or read it straight through. Each essay offers at least one very good insight on the nature of history and how elusive the "accurate" accounting of an era or event can be.
The overall impression this book leaves is that movies, for all their ostensible efforts to "recreate" historical realities, will NEVER get it quite right. That's because they are products of their own times, and cannot ever fully escape the sensibilities of their own historical eras. Given this approach, the reader cannot help but gain a deeper appreciation for the exacting work of historians -- even if he or she is first attracted to the book out of interest in film. Films (and histories) explored here include "Spartacus," "Aguirre, Wrath of God," "Houdini" "Anne of a Thousand Days," "Henry V" (both Oliver and Branagh)"They Died With their Boots On", as well as many more. Since this book's publication, there have been more films that have either come close to, or completely mangled historical reality, so a revised edition would be most welomed. So to Mark Carnes, et al. -- PLEASE???
Anything Goes Trivia
Megaton Man
Trevor
