I just caught "All the President's Men" on tv, and was thinking what a valuable film that is for helping educate the younger generation on American history. As every available measurement tells (not to mention personal experience) the youth today is the least informed, least engaged generation in the history of the republic. Now a huge part of this, IMO, is that we are living through a shift from written to visual literacy; quite simply, few young people read much anymore. However, I'm not interested in bemoaning this, since nothing can change it. So given the reality that images are what "work" in getting messages to today's youth, what 5 films would you say are "essential" to helping kids understand their place in our culture, world, history, etc.? Here's five off the top of my head. All fall under the "history lessons at the movies" cateory: 1) All the President's Men First, it's probably one rare pre-90s film that will keep students' attention, as it is pretty fast paced and riveting at times. 2) Schindler's List Even with its flaws, still the most important Holocaust feature film made to date. 3) Separate But Equal Fairly paint-by-numbers account of the famous Brown v. Board of Ed. case, and it's overlong, but it is held together Sidney Poiteir as a young Thurgood Marshall. 4) Missing A major aspect of US history rarely mentioned in history books: our criminal political/military involvement in Central America over the last half of the 20th century. This film touches on the case of Chile. 5) Matewan John Sayles' movie dealing with a coal miner's strike in West Virginia. For documentaries, I'd choose: Manufacturing Consent The Battle of Algiers
I would add: McCabe & Mrs. Miller: captures what it must have been like to live in the real west. Black Robe: captures what it was like to live in 17th century French territory in the New World. Saturday Night Fever: Quintessential 1970's pop culture in Queens, NY. The Grapes of Wrath: Growing up in the depression area dustbowl. more later....
There's actually a book related to this called Past Imperfect, which contains essays by historians about historical depictions in the cinema. Each one took one film and examined it for its historical content. Eric Foner wrote on Matewan with much praise, which is to be expected, i suppose. I think Sayles inherently thinks more like an historian than like a dramatist, and his cinematic language is best considered in this light. THis film is better history than it is cinema. ON the other hand ... And, in anticpating the upcoming laudatory essay from Gringo Tex, last of the Mohicans gets sliced up, based on historical content. Basically, the criticism is that the Iroqouis practices, rituals and everything else are out of place are out of time. He compared its accuracy to the statement: "It is like having George Washington throw out the first ball for the 1843 Washington Senator' season opener." Each thing existed,, but not at the same time. But it's historical liberties don't make it a bad film.
A little known film I would like to recommend is "The Wind and the Lion" starring Sean Connery as a sheik who kidnapps an Amercian woman in 1904, and gets president Teddy Roosevelt involved. Based on real events, and and interesting view of how outsiders see the US.
Let's not forget Ben Hur, great fiction from the days of ancient Rome The Longest Day and The Battle of the Bulge are good WW2 movies. Judgement at Nuremberg, too. Doctor, if you liked the "All the President's Men" movie, read the book, also. That was a memorable book, it gives all sorts of trivia about Nixon's shenenigans not in the movie. Lastly, "The Spy Who Came in From the Cold" is a great cold war spy story without the James Bond gimmicks.
I'll toss this one in for now because Gringo Tex mentioned it on another thread and I've been thinking about it. Age of Innocence is a great film about the kind of political power that used to exist in the so-called "domestic" domain, that was dominated by women, prior to the extensive changes wrought by the industrial revolution. (An interesting history book about this, but focusing on the domestic economy of the early New England colonies/states is "Good Wives" by Laurel Ulrich (I think)). Wharton, is one of at least 3 women writers, along with Jane Austen, and George Eliot who would have made great cultural anthropologists.
You're going with American history flicks, and then you added this one, which has a peripheral relation to American history. So here I would suggest, instead of the flawed Shindler's List, to go with a film by Andrzej Wajda (one of Spielberg's heros) called Korczak. It's about Dr. Korczak who ran an orphanage for Jewish children in Warsaw and he does everything in his power to keep these children safe and alive in the hell the Nazis created in Warsaw. Despite an offer by the Polish underground army to smuggle him out of the Warsaw Ghetto when the Germans begin their roundups, Korczak stays with the children until the bitter end. As far as other films about WWII: * Tora, Tora, Tora - A much better film about what happened at Pearl Harbor than Pearl Harbor. * A Bridge Too Far - Shows how British arrogance cost a lot of lives for nothing. * Battle of Britain - A great film about the decisive campaign in the western theater of the war. Other history: * The Killing Fields - A wonderful example of the consequences of American foreign policy gone bad.
As a history grad student, the most accurate (and best) historically-based movie made that I've seen is "The Return of Martin Guerre". Its about as close as you'll get to understanding what life was like in an early 16th century village in southern France. And the movie is actually very good too (French production with subtitles). The screenplay and the book were both written by historian Natalie Zemon Davis and is based on a true court case in the early 1500s love, marriage, deceit, lies, and death. WARNING, do not mistake it for 'Sommersby', the Hollywood remake monstrosity starring Ricahrd Gere and Jodi Foster taking place during the Civil War. Not only is this full of lousy acting (no ***************, its got Richard Gere) but its about as historically 'accurate' as that piece of crap: 'Bravehart'.
If you want to know all the history in the world, you just need to watch every episode of Blackadder and you will learn all you need about the middle ages, world war II, and everything else you might want to know to be historically literate.
Documentaries: "Land Without Bread"(1951) - Bunuel's short film about homeless children in Mexico. "Salesman" (1967) - Albert Maysle's look at door-to-door bible salesmen. "The Sorrow and the Pity" (1973) - Ophuls' exploration of French collaboration with the Nazis. "Letter From Waco" (1995) - Don Howard's piece on football, death and religion in Texas. "Close-Up" - Kiarostami's analysis of a regular guy who goes on trial in the Iranian justice system for impersonating a famous filmmaker. Oh yeah, and Ken Burns sucks.
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.
You could show Black Hawk Down. I think it would be a good example of what happens when technology encounters determination.
Hmmmm, I daresay a British victory at Midway would cause a bit of a stir, as would a film portraying Thomas Jefferson as a guy with a fondness for sexually abusing slaves. Never mind, as long as people don't take these films as gospel truth. It wasn't a bad action film, altough I hear Das Boot is better (haven't seen that one).
Das Boot is the best submarine movie (and one of the best German movies) ever made. Its a bit long however - after the third hour of the depth charging I got somewhat fatugued. But it still tops at portraying what life was like abord submarines prior to nuclear power.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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."