Essential "Historical Literacy" Films

[DoctorJones24]

Gringo,

"The Sorrow and the Pity" has been on my "must see" list for too long now. I need to find a copy. And certainly Vichy France falls under the category of "totally overlooked" in our high school history curriculum.

But at 4 and 1/2 hours, I'm not sure it would be ideal for helping the historically illiterate. There was a study recently that suggested that generations growing up today are having 8 minute attention spans programmed into their heads: the amount of time between commercial breaks on children's tv shows.

[bungadiri]

Originally posted by Doctor Stamen
as would a film portraying Thomas Jefferson as a guy with a fondness for sexually abusing slaves.

been done (or did you already know this are being too dry for me to pick up on a Saturday morning after a slow-pitch softball Friday night) called Jefferson in Paris i believe starring Nick Nolte

was a bit of a snoozer until Nolte started using kung fu to thwart an attempt on the French prime minister (played by Milla Jovavich) but the 3-way with Ben Franklin (Dustin Hoffman, cast against type) and Jovavich was a bit much for my taste

[bungadiri]

Originally posted by pething101
I guess this is not the thread to bring up Mel Brooks' History of the World Part I. :)

How about Gettysburg, Gallipoli and even though it has some historical errors, Amistad.

Gettysburg is interesting in that it's based on a very good and apparently very influential work of historical fiction called The Killer Angels, by Michael (?) Shaara. This book has probably established the image of what Gettysburg was "really like" for a large number of Americans. Dunno if it's done so with accuracy or not. I do know that we stopped by the Gettysburg battlefield this past spring and my sons (me too for that matter) were disappointed to find that Lawrence Chamberlin was barely mentioned, and his CO was listed as the hero of Little Round Top. The book also seemed to be reflected in Burns' documentary series on the Civil War.

[Dr. Wankler]

Originally posted by DoctorJones24
2) Schindler's List
Even with its flaws, still the most important Holocaust feature film made to date.


Great list. A great non-feature film is the documentary "Shoah." The name of the filmmaker escapes me, as does the exact running time. Let's just say you're not going to watch it in one sitting, as I believe it's in the neighborhood of 8-12 hours (I watched most of it over three nights, and it's incredibly powerful, which is why I'm having difficulty remembering details like its running time, etc.)

re: Ken Burns. His early work, especially his Huey Long documentary, is pretty good. He gets a little windy later on, as I'm sure Gringo Tex has noted.

[DoctorJones24]

Dr. Wankler,
"Shoah" is by Claude Lanzmann. And yes, I think it even reaches the double digits in hours of running time or something. Holocaust scholars and historians certainly consider it THE definitive film on the subject, and it is likely to always remain that way. Interestingly, Lanzmann was one of the major critics of "Schindler's List." For any interested in the controversy, the essay collection "Spielberg's Holocaust" contains a number of interesting perspectives on its historical value, appropriateness--a number of valid objections are made to the film.

Anyway, here's a quote from one of the essays:

"As Lanzmann himself has written, in making a film on the Holocaust one can either invent a new genre--which he believes he has done--or reconstruct, which to his mind Spielberg did. Reconstruction for him is akin to inventing archival documentation, whereas he would have refused to use even real documents (which he erroneously claims do not exist in any case). According to Lanzmann, Spielberg made a cartoon version of the Holocaust, filling in the blanks intentionally left empty in "Shoah," whereas his own film is dry and pure, avoiding personal stories, and concerned not with survival but with destruction. His aim in making "Shoah," says Lanzmann, was to create a structure, a mold, which could serve as a generalization of the (Jewish) people, that is, would encompass the destruction of the people as a whole. Spielberg, on the other hand, uses the destruction as a background for the heroic story of Schindler and fails to confront the blazing sun of the Holocaust. Hence, says Lanzmann, Spielberg's film is melodrama, a work of kitsch. Implied in this analysis is not only that "Schindler's List" is the exact opposite of "Shoah," but also that Lanzmann's film is the only possible cinematic rendering of the Holocaust."

[Alberto]

Originally posted by DoctorJones24
Dr. Wankler,
"Shoah" is by Claude Lanzmann. And yes, I think it even reaches the double digits in hours of running time or something. Holocaust scholars and historians certainly consider it THE definitive film on the subject, and it is likely to always remain that way. Interestingly, Lanzmann was one of the major critics of "Schindler's List." For any interested in the controversy, the essay collection "Spielberg's Holocaust" contains a number of interesting perspectives on its historical value, appropriateness--a number of valid objections are made to the film.

Anyway, here's a quote from one of the essays:

"As Lanzmann himself has written, in making a film on the Holocaust one can either invent a new genre--which he believes he has done--or reconstruct, which to his mind Spielberg did. Reconstruction for him is akin to inventing archival documentation, whereas he would have refused to use even real documents (which he erroneously claims do not exist in any case). According to Lanzmann, Spielberg made a cartoon version of the Holocaust, filling in the blanks intentionally left empty in "Shoah," whereas his own film is dry and pure, avoiding personal stories, and concerned not with survival but with destruction. His aim in making "Shoah," says Lanzmann, was to create a structure, a mold, which could serve as a generalization of the (Jewish) people, that is, would encompass the destruction of the people as a whole. Spielberg, on the other hand, uses the destruction as a background for the heroic story of Schindler and fails to confront the blazing sun of the Holocaust. Hence, says Lanzmann, Spielberg's film is melodrama, a work of kitsch. Implied in this analysis is not only that "Schindler's List" is the exact opposite of "Shoah," but also that Lanzmann's film is the only possible cinematic rendering of the Holocaust."

No room for interpretation heh. I think from your quote Lanzmann is clearly wrong. The Holocaust can be viewed in many ways. His is not the correct version. It is as he says a generalization. I'm sure if you spoke to someone that experienced the concentration camps they would have a similar, but personal view point of it. If most of what Spielberg wrote and filmed is made up then it is a shame. I think that for purposes of a film, a director is allowed to take artistic license for the sake of the story. Spielberg did not make a documentary. Lanzmann is not capable of distinguishing the differences between his and Spielberg's films. I don't understand what is motivating Lanzmann's attack, is it jealousy over the critical success of Spielberg's film? How sad. If Spielberg had made a documentary, then Lanzmann would be right to criticize based on inaccurate or shoddy work. The comparison is between an apple and a carrot.

Also Lanzmann misses the essential point in Spielberg's story, that within all the evil of the Holocaust there was an individual who took a tremendous risk to save others. Spielberg does not ignore what happened to the Jews. He made a film of one particular act of bravery by an individual with compassion for his fellowman that transcended race, nation of origin, and personal risk. There is nothing wrong with making a film that celebrates that which we cherish and indeed makes as humans.

In the end the Holocaust is period of horror and of honor and remembrance for the massacre of millions of innocent people based soley on their race. It is also in the end a celebration of liberation, of freedom, the triumph of good over evil, a return from death to life. To focus soley on the death is not life. I don't understand what he wants.

[DoctorJones24]

Alberto,
I think you are right on in most of your rebuttals to Lanzmann. Many of the criticisms of Spielberg's film fell under a few spurious categories:

1) It is too popular--has become (and will remain) THE representation of the Holocaust for most people; so its distortions are uniquely compounded and magnified. This complaint is problematic on two levels. First, it has a pretty narrow view of cinematic history. IMO, "Schindler's List" is/will be "the most famous representation of the Holocaust" only until the next "most famous one." In any case, this seems a critique not of the film, but of its reception.

2) Focuses on survival when most didn't survive. Alberto has already rejected this one pretty well. My sense in having seen the film 3 times now is that Schindler's act and "success" are clearly portrayed as the exception to an overwhelmingly traumatic reality--basically, I think it's unlikely that many viewers will take this tale as a "rule" of how the Holocaust went. Our history classes aren't THAT bad.

3) The Zionist present day ending. I agree with this criticism. Lanzmann, often seen as a Zionist himself, notes, "No, Israel is not the redemption of the Holocaust. The 6 million did not die so that Israel could exist." I'd go further and say that this ending makes of the Holocaust a political tool that I'm uncomfortable with, especially given Israel's subsequent treatment of the Palestinian people. This seems both a disservice to the victims of the Holocaust and offensive to present day neutral observers of the Middle Easten tension.

[Alberto]

Originally posted by DoctorJones24
Alberto,
I think you are right on in most of your rebuttals to Lanzmann. Many of the criticisms of Spielberg's film fell under a few spurious categories:

1) It is too popular--has become (and will remain) THE representation of the Holocaust for most people; so its distortions are uniquely compounded and magnified. This complaint is problematic on two levels. First, it has a pretty narrow view of cinematic history. IMO, "Schindler's List" is/will be "the most famous representation of the Holocaust" only until the next "most famous one." In any case, this seems a critique not of the film, but of its reception.

2) Focuses on survival when most didn't survive. Alberto has already rejected this one pretty well. My sense in having seen the film 3 times now is that Schindler's act and "success" are clearly portrayed as the exception to an overwhelmingly traumatic reality--basically, I think it's unlikely that many viewers will take this tale as a "rule" of how the Holocaust went. Our history classes aren't THAT bad.

3) The Zionist present day ending. I agree with this criticism. Lanzmann, often seen as a Zionist himself, notes, "No, Israel is not the redemption of the Holocaust. The 6 million did not die so that Israel could exist." I'd go further and say that this ending makes of the Holocaust a political tool that I'm uncomfortable with, especially given Israel's subsequent treatment of the Palestinian people. This seems both a disservice to the victims of the Holocaust and offensive to present day neutral observers of the Middle Easten tension.

Agreed on point three. The redemption is not the creation of the state of Israel. The redemption is the remembrance and the vow that this will never be permitted to happen again.

That said there would probably not be an independent state of Israel if it wasn't for the Holocaust. Following the second world war and the resolve of the British government to resolve the partition Palestine, it would be short sighted not to acknowledge the impact of the Holocaust in swaying favor for the creation of an independent Jewish state. I'm sure there was tremendous political pressure in the US for Truman to support the partition. Furthermore, I would not down play the guilt factor felt by many Allies and associated countries for their failure in intelligence or their failure to take action against the Nazi genocide.

[Dante]

Some historically accurate war films (but let's be real, they can't all be spot on)

1 - Saving Private Ryan - It's accurate in that it showed the destruction of war and what it was really like. It didn't sugarcoat it for you, it showed the Americans getting slaughtered. Something which you would barely see in earlier WWII flicks.

2 - Band of Brothers - Ok, so it was a mini-series, but this has to be one of the most accurate portrayals of WWII. It was superbly done.

3 - Glory - This movie was excellent, and gave a good portayal of the 54th.

4 - Black Hawk Down - While some aspects were fabricated, overall it was accuarate and just showed why politicians should not be allowed to dictate military procedures.

5 - Gettysburg - It was pretty spot on, I thought that it was great that they were able to film on the actual grounds. Can't wait to see Gods and Generals when it comes out at the end of the year.

[bungadiri]

Max Havelaar

Good Dutch film about the colonial era in Indonesia, then known as the Dutch East Indies.

[Khansingh]

Originally posted by Doctor Stamen
Wrong people (i.e. Americans), wrong story (wasn't as action packed), even the wrong sub (it was U-110). It's amusing in the sense that it is so inaccurate.

I'm loathe to defend such a trite, tired, retread but it was always stated that the movie wasn't intended to be historically accurate, but rather a composite of historical events, like The Great Escape. That said;

Gettysburg - Focuses on events which had less of an impact on the outcome, but is believable, accurate to a fault, and filled with some of the best individual performances of the 90's, including Richard Jordan's swan song.

Michael Collins - Not a good movie mind you. But there are so few about the on-going struggle for Irish independence. So it gets on the list.

All Quiet on the Western Front - Demonstrates that, regardless of nationality, soldiers are soldiers. Which leads to...

Das Boot

Braveheart

The Patriot

Independence Day

Don't Be a Menace to South-Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood

[skipshady]

Originally posted by Dante
2 - Band of Brothers - Ok, so it was a mini-series, but this has to be one of the most accurate portrayals of WWII. It was superbly done.Did a wonderful job of showing the organized chaos that is warfare. Very well done.

Another WWII flick: The Eagle Has Landed - I remember the History Channel did a thing where they compared the movie to actual events. Don't remember what the experts said though.

[pething101]

Originally posted by skipshady
Did a wonderful job of showing the organized chaos that is warfare. Very well done.

Another WWII flick: The Eagle Has Landed - I remember the History Channel did a thing where they compared the movie to actual events. Don't remember what the experts said though.

The History Channel did something called Movies in Time and that sounds like an episode of that show. They also did a Victory version of movies in time. Victory was not too historically accurate.

[bungadiri]

I heard a discussion of the historical accuracy of the various Wyatt Earp films on the radio a couple of years ago. The historian they interviewed liked the Kurt Russell film Tombstone best for its depiction of the "shootout at OK Corral". He also said there was probably less of a distinction between Earp's side and the Cowboys than any of the films depicts, as far as goodguys vs bad guys goes. Tombstone was much better than the Costner film (called Wyatt Earp?), although both had pretty good Doc Holidays (Val Kilmer-Tombstone, Dennis Quaid-Earp).

[Alberto]

The unbearable lightness of being for the portion of the film devoted to the Czech Spring of 1967 or 1968.

[VanDijk]

Bernhard Wicki's "Die Brücke" (http://www.german-cinema.de/archive/film_view.php?film_id=642) from 1959. It's a mainstream film, but one of the better ones I've seen. Does well in showing the absurdity of wars and the disasterous psychological effects of the nazi ideology.

[dearprudence]

I'd like to add Europa, Europa to the list. Good to see someone added Glory, albeit belatedly.

Are there any exceptional films on the French Revolution? I've tried to read up on it, but my spotty French has made it somewhat unbearable.

[Vampeta]

Paul Verhoven's 'Soldier of Orange' WWII from
the Dutch view.

[Owen Gohl]

Originally posted by honeychile
Are there any exceptional films on the French Revolution? I've tried to read up on it, but my spotty French has made it somewhat unbearable.

I can't think of many films that deal with the French Revolution. "A Tale of Two Cities" is probably the best known (the 1935 version is the most famous) . Abel Gance's silent "Napoleon" (1927), covers the period but largely from the perspective of it's subject.