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.

Past and Present: National Identity and the British Historical Film

James Chapman
2005

This book is an exploration of how British historical films have confirmed or confronted the idea of British national identity during their times. Chapman looks at a number of historical films spanning from the early 1930s to the late 1990s. Chapman places each film in both the context of the British film industry at the time and the wider social, economic, and political context. While I wouldn’t be looking at many of these same films, the contextual information for each decade from the 1930s to the 1990s is invaluable to me as I can apply it to my own analysis of the films that I look at that come out of Britain at these times, for example, Fire Over England (1937), Young Bess (1953), or Elizabeth R (1971).

Among the films Chapman discusses is Elizabeth (dir. Shekhar Kapur, 1998). This was a valuable chapter as it provided contextual, production, and reception information as well as analysis of the film itself. Interestingly, Chapman reads Elizabeth largely in the context of the legacy of Princess Diana who died tragically just days before the film began principal photography. He argues that outrage from historians and critics alike that the film depicted Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen, as not a virgin at all can be seen as a desire to protect the national myth about Elizabeth I but also as a kind of proxy to defend the reputation of the late Princess Diana, another national icon. It is an intriguing reading that I will take into consideration. It would be interesting to think about how 16th century ideas about protecting a woman’s virtue and reputation are being invoked again at the turn of the 21st century for another female royal.

 

Chapman, James. Past and Present: National Identity and the British Historical Film. London: I.B Tauris, 2005.

 

 

Looking at Movies

Richard Barsam and David Monahan
2013

This is a introductory textbook to film studies. It introduces the basic concepts necessary for understanding and assessing film, from cinematography and editing, to film history and production and distribution structures. It is handy for its overviews and definitions and it is really easy to read. However, it doesn’t provide methods for evaluating films, nor information of approaches to film analysis. It’s a nice introduction and is excellent to have as a reference but I will need more detailed and specific information about methodologies.

 

Barsam, Richard, and Dave Monahan. Looking at Movies: An Introduction to Film. 4th ed. New York and London: W. W Norton and Company Inc. , 2013.

Experiments in Rethinking History

Edited by Robert Rosenstone & Alun Munslow
2004

This book is a collection of works that experiment with writing history. These include experiments with the literary form itself, and with subjects, for example, focuses on narratives and the historians’ personal experience. This is in response to the growing trends in the field of history that suggest that the notion of history as an empirical, objective study of the past as it happened is no longer adequate. As this idea has been deconstructed, the literary and narrative elements of history have been acknowledged and this book represents attempts to fully explore these elements and what they can bring to the exploration and communication of history. As Rosenstone states in his introduction, “they all grow out of a desire on the part of the historians to express something about our relationship to the past which has hitherto been inexpressible, to include in history things which have long been excluded, to share information or insights or understanding that cannot be carried by traditional historical forms” (p. 2).

This book raises some crucial points about history as representation, for instance, Munslow in his introduction argues that “History is, in and of itself, a representation of something. It is not the thing itself and cannot by the magic of empiricism be transported as it actually was onto the page or the screen” (p. 7). This echoes the arguments of scholars like Hayden White and Rosenstone himself, that written history and film are not so different as they are both attempting to represent history in their own ways but both ultimately rely on a narrative form.

The book is divided into two parts: Self-Reflexive; which collects the chapters that include a focus on the historian themselves and the authorial process, and New Voices; which includes works that attempt to explore previously unknown or unheard histories or perspectives. Each chapter is accompanied by an Afterword in which the author describes what led them to want to write in this way, which provides valuable insight into their approaches.

There are no chapters that deal with film but one chapter in particular, Bryant Simon’s “Narrating a Southern Tragedy: Historical Facts and Historical Fictions,” examines the role of fiction in exploring silences in history. Simon takes a story of he found in an archived newspaper of a lynching of two African-American men who are alluded to having sexually assaulted a white man in South Carolina in 1912. The story was vague and passed over with minimal details and so Simon used a fictional narrative from three different perspectives to explore what may have happened that day. The narrative is preceded by the evidence from the newspaper. This felt similar to the ways that a film might explore history by using individual perspectives and narratives.

 

Rosenstone, Robert, and Alun Munslow, eds. Experiments in Rethinking History. New York and London: Routledge, 2004.

Research Update 03/03/2017

It’s been a relatively productive week and a bit. I’ve mostly just been reading. I read Experiments in Rethinking History, a collection of essays edited by Robert Rosenstone and Alun Munslow. Among other things, it explored the relationship between fiction and history and how fiction can be used to experiment with the past as a means of exploring what might have happened. This was focused more on written narratives but the principle could be applied to film and TV I think, with the added element of film being able to explore the past through mise-en-scéne.

I also read James Chapman’s Past and Present: National Identity and the British Historical Film which was really interesting. Chapman examines the way historical films have maintained and disrupted ideas about British national identity and national myths at the time of their production and reception. He uses films from each decade from the 1930s to the 1990s and puts each in the context of the British film industry at the time and the wider social, political, and economic contexts. This provided really useful information for me as, although I will be using different films, I can apply that contextual information to any films or television series that I might use that came out of Britain at these times, such as, for instance, Fire Over England (1937), Young Bess (1953), or Elizabeth R (1971). This would need to be added to by my own research of course. Chapman does include a chapter on Elizabeth (dir. Shekhar Kapur, 1998). His analysis is an interesting one, reading the film in the context of Princess Diana who died only days before principal photography began on the film. He argues that outrage from historians and critics alike that the film depicted Elizabeth I, the Virgin Queen, as not a virgin at all can be seen as a desire to protect the national myth about Elizabeth I but also as a kind of proxy to defend the reputation of the late Princess Diana, another national icon. It is an intriguing reading that I will take into consideration. It would be interesting to think about how 16th century ideas about protecting a woman’s virtue and reputation are being invoked again at the turn of the 21st century for another female royal.

I’m currently working through Marnie Hughes-Warrington’s History Goes to the Movies and I’m quite compelled by her argument that we should stop distinguishing film and television as separate and distinct forms of history/historiography and instead accept the notion of a multifaceted definition of history that includes everything from written history to film. I’m not sure if I’m in a position in my thesis to make that argument but I thought it might be worth keeping in mind, especially as I want to connect written and filmic history.

I got some great starting points for the historiography of Elizabeth I from both Alison Moore and Sarah Irving so I’ve had quick look through those but right now I’m still focused on trying to get all the theory stuff out of the way. I just have to keep reminding myself that I can’t possibly exhaust all literature on the subjects I’m looking at. I think that is a trap I fall into all too often.

I also had a few really productive meetings in the past few weeks. It was great to chat to Alison and have her on board. It was a nice, de-stress after I had been really anxious about my progress (or lack there-of) in January. After I expressed my concern about organising my thesis chronologically, given the complicated nature of approaches and attitudes toward gender politics and gender studies at any given time, Alison suggested organising it thematically instead. I went and had an equally helpful and calming chat with Judith (my lovely and life-saving supervisor) and she agreed that thematically makes the most sense. This will allow me to talk about the films that, although disparate in time, are similar in the way they choose to depict Elizabeth I and gives me room perhaps to examine why this might be the case.

Judith also suggested that I should take part in more workshops and present my work when the opportunity arises. The fact that that makes me nervous is probably all the reason I need to do my best to follow her advice. She wants to set up regular meetings, like a standing appointment and I could not agree more. Routine helps keep me focused and on track and it would make sure I had even more incentive to have something meaningful done between each meeting.

Sources:

Chapman, James. Past and Present: National Identity and the British Historical Film.           London: I.B Taurus, 2005.
Hughes-Warrington, Marnie. History Goes to the Movies: Studying History on Film. New     York: Routledge, 2007.
Rosenstone, Robert, and Alun Munslow, eds. Experiments in Rethinking History. New            York and London: Routledge, 2004.