documentaries... true history?

In Public History this week, we read about public history and the arts. There were three readings, one from Public History and two journal articles: "Theatre: A Neglected Site of Public History?" and "Histories and the Public: Legacies of the Progressive Era." I will focus mostly on the chapter on film medium and documentaries. 

As a history major, one of the things that frustrates me the most is when I am telling someone about a subject that I am working on, and they say, "Oh I watched a documentary on that last week!" As if that makes them an immediate expert on the whole subject. Now, I love documentaries, don't get me wrong. More than once over Christmas break I spent the day on the couch with Blue Planet, Ken Burns' National Parks, a variety of climbing documentaries, and a bowl of ice cream. But I understand that watching those hour and a half long programs is not the final word on the subject. I have some training that allows me to watch those documentaries with a disciplined historical lens. One of the main distinctions between film and history is that history seeks the truth, while film seeks to appease the viewer. Film is made to be understandable and engaging by the general public. To some degree, public history does this also.  The two are not synonymous, but there are some pieces of overlap.

Some of the limitations of documentaries are these:

• It is often the only introduction to history that some people have
• Most viewers are not privy to the intricacies of historical debate and find the historical themes confusing or boring
• The filmmaker must address the historian's concern for historiographical context or framework
• They present historical analysis as static, which misrepresents the complexity of historical work
• The evidence can be skewed by oral reports and casting
• There is not always visual evidence to support the film's vision

Documentaries are films that have a historical story line and use historical evidence to tell that story. Historians and filmmakers have to collaborate equally to ensure that history is represented in an honest and compelling way. I think that it's good to introduce the general public into the world of history, so long as they remember that watching The History Channel doesn't make them a Civil War expert. There are a lot of lay historian's in America, who are passionate and love history, but aren't professionally trained. As with any representation of history, it's important to critique the sources and take it with a grain of salt. This is particularly true when the medium has an agenda such as film does.

“The historian takes the available evidence, evaluates its significance, and provides some contextual meaning and broader historiographic insight. The goal for the filmmaker, on the other hand, is to first and foremost engage the audience in the principle of the “suspension of disbelief”, i.e. to create a filmatic reality that allows the audience to believe a story as if it were true – whether or not the story is factually correct in the whole part 118."

In response to the other two articles, I just have a few thoughts. I don't think that theatre is an appropriate medium for history. There are wonderful plays, like John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath that accurately and emotionally convey the hardships of the Depression era, but those things aren't history in truth. It's the same artistic representation that is expressed in historic novels and movies. Ah, but isn't the point of history to represent it? To tell the story? I'm conflicted. I guess as a history discipline we have to strive for truth, and leave the art to others. 

I do believe that there is a way to actively, theatrically express history though, as the article suggests. Topics that are essential to public history such as "memory, identity, agency, archive/source, time and space, re-enactment, representation, and performance" are fantastic things to explore in theatre. I guess I'd say that I'm open to theatrical history, but I'd like to see it first hand.