Research Update 16/05/2017

I realise it’s been a month since I last did an update and while I’ve been really busy and have accomplished things in the meantime, I think I’ve been missing this time to reflect on what I’m doing. I do feel like I’m making progress which is great of course but every now and then I hit a problem that sends me back a step.

Finishing a first draft of the first chapter feels really great and like I have some tangible evidence that I’m getting somewhere. The feedback on it from my supervisors was so helpful and insightful and it’s incredibly comforting to know that my work will only get better and tighter with that guidance. Now though, it’s past time to get stuck into the meaty parts of the thesis.

I’ve been working on Elizabeth (1998) and I’m not entirely sure why I started with this film. I honestly think I just had it on the brain and I guess it’s the most visible depiction of Elizabeth I in recent decades. I’ve been going over those key scenes in it that I think are pivotal to understanding her representation, particularly in regard to gender. The more I go over them the more things I notice which is great. I’ve tried to go over them, first just in general a bunch of times and them with specific things in mind, like space, lighting, camera angles, performance etc. I’m particularly interested in the way Kapur uses light and colour to differentiate Elizabeth from the other characters, particular as this is also a moral differentiation. He creates a real visual dichotomy between good (Elizabeth for the most part) and evil (those that would bring her harm, namely any and all Catholic characters). So I’ve been exploring that and writing up my thoughts as well as looking into what others have written about the film.

I have hit a bit of a roadblock with the film aspect as I’m having some second thoughts about the themes. The more I think about it, the more problematic the woman/queen idea becomes to me. I’m wondering if it might be best to attack the films/series first. Perhaps if I picked the ones I find most interesting and analyse them properly and then re-evaluate the themes from there. It would be looser and I would have to go back and look over them again in particular reference to whatever theme I ended up going with and it scares me a little as it feels like a move backward but I wonder if it might be the better course in the long run.

Other than that I did read an interesting article recently. It was the article Judith sent me, “Films as Historical Sources or Alternative History” by Anirudh Deshpande. What I thought was interesting was that he is arguing that film is a form of history in the same way that oral history is and that this means that, as has been argued with oral history, to privilege written history is to also privilege the kinds of histories and the people who record their history this way and leave others out. He says,

If historians choose to stick to documentary sources they do end up limiting the scope of their enterprise. They will then consciously turn their back on those people who may not figure in documentary sources but might appear as crucial traces in visual sources of both past and present. (4456)

He argues essentially, in a kind of flipping of the argument we find in Image as Artifact, that written/archival sources should be supplemented with visual sources. It’s interesting to me that both arguments want to use both written and visual sources but come at it from different perspectives. Deshpande also argues that the emotional and personal elements of a historical film are its strongest. I think there’s some interesting perspectives in there I could perhaps incorporate.

I have to report the awful as well as the good I suppose so I should mention that I had a rather colossal stuff up. I entirely misread a source and then when writing about it, consequently misrepresented it. Obviously this is a HUGE no-no and I take such pride in my work usually that this mistake really threw me. It makes me both incredibly angry and frankly, embarrassed because it was such a lazy mistake and should never have happened. On the bright side, if there is one, it is not a mistake I will allow myself to make again.

Source:
Deshpande, Anirudh. “Films as Historical Sources or Alternative History.” Economic and Political Weekly 39, no. 40 (2004): 4455-59.

Advertisements

Research Update 17/04/2017

This fortnight has largely been focused on thinking through and writing on methodology. It’s been a good process. The more I write the clearer things become.

First of all, it’s become clear to me in writing about methodology that my grasp of film theory is a little lacking. I found that when it came to describing how exactly I’ll approach the films and things like what exactly I mean by terms like mise-en-scéne, I couldn’t pull up the theory and the literature that I need. This sent me into a bit of a spin at first but at the end of the day, the only thing that will fix that is doubling down on the film research for a hot second.

Secondly, I worked out what I don’t really like about O’Connor. Although his method allows the space for serious film analysis, he and the scholars contributing to Image as Artifact are still coming from the perspective that traditional history is still the most important and the best means of assessing any historical piece. This is understandable given the time it was written, O’Connor’s position as a historian, and his intention that this method be applied in a history classroom. What it means though it that the areas of the methodology that fit more easily with standard historical methods, namely tracking down production histories through archival research, are the most thought out and considered aspects of the method presented in Image as Artifact and the film studies aspects are far less developed (though there are still some really interesting ideas in there). Also, it feels as if O’Connor and co. are still trying to fit film studies into historical studies.

Thirdly, despite this I found that I still feel the method can work. It is unsurprising that O’Connor’s attitude in the early 1990s would be the way it is. As such, I think for its time the method was still a great move forward in the field of film and history. I feel that if I bring it even further and dispense with the idea that historical methods are paramount (they are still absolutely crucial of course, I’m definitely not arguing to get rid of them) and taking the film analysis sections more seriously, the method can still be incredibly useful. I feel as if the method needs to be taken to a conclusion that O’Connor himself seemed still a little hesitant to reach. Film studies perhaps doesn’t need to fit into historical studies but rather they could meet somewhere more in the middle.

I’ve also had a few issues this fortnight trying to get that thesis/life balance right. Easter time is always a little busy for me, my family celebrates it and it’s birthdays all around (including my own) and finding the ability to say ‘I can’t do this thing because of my thesis’ has been really hard. I’ve never been very good at saying no to my family and close friends and I feel that now it’s expected of me to do everything, both by me and by them and it becomes this big loop of guilt for me about either/or not doing enough work and not doing enough with or for my family (though I know that they would of course understand). Not to mention, with my head, sometimes stupid things knock me out. I had a panic attack last week about almost losing a ring and it took me out all day which again, makes me feel really guilty. I’m just trying to work out how to balance these things at the moment and some days it’s harder than others. I think I have to learn how to live with being a bit selfish from time to time for my own greater good.

Research Update 02/04/2017

I’m continuing to work through Image as Artifact to unpack my thoughts on the methodology. A lot of it is contributions from other scholars but, as I’ve been discussing with my supervisors, everything is of its particular context and this becoming increasingly obvious to me all the time. There is a lot of talk in this about how film can be useful so long as we are aware of its pitfalls in comparison to written history.

There is some interesting discussion however, particularly in Daniel Leab’s essay, about how the medium contributes to the past being rewritten for the present and how films respond to changing beliefs about the past. This is useful for me thinking about how film/TV might demonstrate changing ideas of Elizabeth I as a result of second-wave or post feminism for example. There is discussion of the inadequacy of the content analysis supported by Rosenstone and the need to think about style and composition. This is a big part of what I like about O’Connor’s methodology.

I also came across a nice quote from Patricia-Ann Lee which I will need to remember to keep in mind. “Creating or even defining methodologies,” she says, “is a chancy and dangerous business since it suggests that there are absolutes in a process which must always retain the greatest possible flexibility” (p. 97). O’Connor’s method is probably not THE answer to analysing historical films but perhaps is just the most applicable for me given my opinion on how these films should be approached and will probably need to be changed and adapted to the new ways in which film and TV are being consumed today.

I’ve finally finished writing about defining historical films (even though I’m fairly sure I will cut most of it) and by the end I think I really fleshed out my own thoughts on the topic though it will definitely need to be cleaned up. I’ll be moving right along to writing about methodology.

Side note: Pacemaker is THE BEST. I sit down to write what I need to that day and end up just flowing. Today, I needed to write 163 words to hit my target but ending up writing close to 600 once I got on a roll. It’s such a good way to prompt myself to get writing. This is not a sponsored post.

Sources:

O’Connor, John, ed. The Image as Artifact: The Historical Analysis of Film and Television. USA: R. E. Krieger Publishing Co. , 1990.

Research Update 27/03/2017

I’ve had another slow week I feel. I’m trying to get back on track but I still feel a bit sluggish and slacking. I’ve been working through Image as Artifact by John O’Connor, trying to get back around the methodology. So far this has been helpful as I’ve picked up some really important threads of ideas and also been able to see some of the shortcomings of O’Connor’s theories. I think it’s important that I acknowledge and address these if I’m going to use his method.

O’Connor developed the two phase method of film analysis and historical inquiry for analysing historical films in order to help develop critical viewing skills in the classroom. While this isn’t my focus or my argument I think it’s still in the same vein in the sense that I want to further a meaningful way to assess these films. I like that O’Connor aims for this method to be used for both film and television and specifies that each media requires slightly different approaches, including the consideration of the flow of television programming and the different spaces and circumstances of television viewing in comparison to cinema. This will be important to keep in mind when I talk about film versus television. O’Connor also argues for a view of the audience as active and that context is paramount, both positions I would agree with. There is a lot on reception which for now is helpful just to keep in mind but would be good for further work.

O’Connor still appears to be coming from the position that written history is ultimately superior to film. He criticises scholars for holding historical films and television to unrealistic expectations but admonishes films that privilege “feeling history” over “thinking historically” (p. 33) and argues, in a similar position to Robert A. Rosenstone, that films that pander to audiences expectations and preferences are the worst kinds of historical films. He also seems to want historians to become more actively involved in filmmaking as he believes they would want to make the creative process more obvious to the audience – the ideal trait of a good historical film in his opinion.

I feel that these arguments miss the point. To me, if we want to seriously evaluate historical film and television on the basis of their particular media as well as their historical value, we must accept film as it is going to come and that not all films are going to be experimental and challenge dominant narratives and expose their processes of construction or reconstruction. I believe we should be questioning what we can learn both from films that do these and the mainstream films that don’t, instead of picking and choosing and creating hierarchies of kinds of films – end of rant-

O’Connor is also skeptical of the typical narrative structures in historical films and television claiming that “in the stories that make for successful movies on television programs, the motives of major characters must be understood in terms of present-day values and concerns immediately accessible to a general TV audience…” (p. 2). While I understand his position that this might misrepresent actual historical motives (or what historians believe to be the most accurate motives), I think this might be able to show us information about how the filmmaker and the wider society in question sees the relationship between the past and the present and how they relate to each other. I think that the question of how we use the present to relate to the past and vice versa is a really rich and interesting one and could certainly be explored in films about Elizabeth I. In particular, can later Elizabeth I films like Elizabeth (1998) and shows like The Virgin Queen (BBC, 2005) and Elizabeth I (HBO, 2005), be viewed as means to explore female political leadership in a post-Thatcher Britain?

Ultimately, I think that although I disagree with some of O’Connor’s underlying ideas, the methodology is still fine for me.

Aside from that, I just started a Pacemaker account/plan to help keep track of my writing (thanks to the wonderful Toshi and Alix for putting me onto it).  Also I had a really great and productive study day with Lucie and Alix which included Alix gifting us some really lovely pens which might seem insignificant but really makes me smile and makes actually writing more enjoyable.

Sources:
O’Connor, John, ed. The Image as Artifact: The Historical Analysis of Film and Television. USA: R. E. Krieger Publishing Co., 1990.