Writing Instructions for Critical Essays of Films
(Copyright © Henry J. Sage, 2008)
The first thing to understand before you begin your film essay is that what you are being asked to write is a critical essay and not a film review. While there is nothing wrong with including in your essay your own subjective response to the film, that is not what this is assignment is about. A few of the films on the list are not very entertaining but are good history. A few other films may be quite entertaining, but the history is flawed. Most of the films are, I believe, both entertaining and valid historical stories. Your job is to sort out where the film you select falls.
In order to do this well, you will have to consult resources aside from the film itself. First, you should be quite familiar with the real persons (assuming that they are real) and events in the films. You can find online reviews of most of the films on this list, but be sure that they are evaluating the film from a historical perspective rather than solely as an entertainment vehicle. If you can find film reviews in the archives of leading newspapers such as the New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, and other major newspapers or magazines, you may find excellent reviews.
Keep in mind that some of these films were made some time ago, before Hollywood had access to all the special effects that are so common—and often overdone—in films today. The more research you do into the background of the film, the better your essay is likely to be, and the more you will be able to enjoy the film on a different level from what you are used to, even if you have seen it before.
Please read the introductory material below before beginning your film essay.
Lists of recommended films: History 121 | History 122.
Steps
Introduction to History and Film: Overview
For those of you in history 121 or history 122 who are reviewing films as part of your essay assignments, please review the information below which was originally created for my History 262: United States History in Film class. (That course is not being offered at the present time.)
When I first became a history teacher, I was reluctant to use movies in teaching history. I soon began to realize, however, that trying to make the case that people should not try to learn history from movies was foolish for several reasons. First, whether historians like it or not, most Americans learn more about history from films and television than they will ever learn in the classroom. Someone did a study, for example, showing that at least 50% of all Americans believe the true story of the Kennedy assassination is what was shown in Oliver Stone's film, “JFK.” Anybody who knows more than a passing amount about the actual event, however, realizes that Stone's version, while imaginative and creative, probably contains little historic truth. So unless you are a history major, or unless you really love reading about history—which many non-historians do because historians are generally excellent writers—you're likely to discover that most of what you know about our present and past worlds will come from the visual media.
The second reason I started using film in teaching is that when Hollywood does history, it often does it very well, even in films that are not meant to be historical. For example, the best depiction of the immigrant experience at Ellis Island I have ever seen in a commercial film shows up in “Godfather II,” where young Vito Corleone comes through Ellis Island on his way to America. In that same film, the depiction of life in the Italian section of New York City, aside from the creation of the gangster image while young Vito earns his bones, is also probably a fairly accurate depiction of what life in New York was like at that time. Another excellent example is “The Age of Innocence,” which truly shows life among the wealthy and prosperous in late 19th-century New York City. THe author of the novel on which the film was based, Edith Wharton, has in fact been described as a social historian, though her writing is fiction.
The third reason I use film goes back to the old adage, “a picture is worth a thousand words.” The first 45 minutes of the movie “Saving Private Ryan” probably illustrates more graphically the horrors of Omaha Beach on D-Day than anything ever put in print.
Finally, in the past 10 to 15 years or so filmmakers have paid much more attention to trying to present authentic historic experiences. This is especially true of the cable TV channels HBO and Showtime, as well as Turner films, who produced a number of notable historical films, including “Gettysburg” and “Rough Riders.” So I take the intrusion of Hollywood into history as a positive event. Our purpose in studying film, then, is not to criticize Hollywood, but rather to find out how to critique films so that when one watches historic film one knows where liberties have been taken and where the authentic truth lies. If we become better film critics, we can learn better history from studying film.
In his “History by Hollywood: The Use and Abuse of the American Past,” historian Robert Brent Toplin, who has participated in the making of historical films, points out the following: “Years ago a Hollywood mogul observed that those who wish to send messages should consult Western Union.” That message has also been applied to novelists and others involved in enterprises which are primarily about entertainment.
What we need to remember as we evaluate historical films is that the filmmakers have a daunting task when making films that deal with history. On the one hand, in order for the film to be successful—that is to recoup the enormous costs of making films, especially a films with dramatic special effects, such as “Saving Private Ryan” or “Pearl Harbor,” and perhaps to make a little profit—producers and directors need to make films that entertain, that will succeed at least modestly at the box office. The film industry is not in business to lose money, as is also true with television networks, book publishers, or even the newspaper business. But Hollywood has, at least in recent years, attempted to make films that are historically sound. As mentioned above, the cable networks HBO and Showtime have been especially good at doing that. The problem, however, is that making historically valid films and making films that are entertaining can often be in conflict, and it's important that we understand why.
Here is a recent example to illustrate. The film “The Alamo,” the new one with Billy Bob Thornton, Dennis Quaid, Jason Patric, and others, garnered some unfavorable reviews; critics said it was boring, that there wasn't enough action, and that there was too much talk. The problem with that is that while the Alamo battle itself was truly dramatic, even inspiring, a saga about 184 brave men who held off an army of close to 2000 for over a week, the real drama was in the politics behind the scenes. Who was in charge in Texas? What were the policies supposed to be? What were the roles of the Texas revolutionaries, including men like Sam Houston, Stephen Austin, Ben Milam, Mirabeau Lamar, and others? Why was Santa Anna bent on destruction of the revolutionaries in ways that seemed to violate the accepted principles of war?
All those questions are interesting, and they were depicted well in the film. The problem is that the back-scene politics did not often make for exciting action, and when some people go to see a film called “The Alamo,” they may expect to see mostly blood and guts and gore, with a minimal amount of commentary on the side. That's not the way history works. Sometimes in order to make historical films more interesting to the viewer, that is to say more entertaining, certain liberties have to be taken with historical facts of the event. Sometimes that's unfortunate; sometimes it's acceptable—it really depends upon what the filmmaker is trying to do.
A couple of examples of how filmmakers tinker with history: First, filmmakers will often create composite characters because including a cast of many minor players with brief if significant roles can be confusing to the audience. Sometimes it's better to incorporate the characteristics or even actions of several characters into one. For example, a film dealing with the President of the United States would necessarily include many support players—a president has a dozen close advisers on his staff, members of the cabinet, colleagues and friends in Congress, and so on. To include them all would be a director’s nightmare. It’s more efficient and probably even better film making to condense some of those players into a single person.
For example, Kenny O'Donnell, played by Kevin Costner in the movie “Thirteen Days” about the Cuban missile crisis, is mentioned only twice and very briefly in Robert Kennedy's book “Thirteen Days,” which was the basis for the film. Yet Costner plays a central role in the film; that is to say, Kenny O'Donnell does. Part of that is the star issue—Kevin Costner himself. But the fact is that much of what Kenny O'Donnell is up to in the film probably really happened as depicted. He was an important behind-the-scenes figure, and although he may not have been directly involved in many decisions regarding the Cuban missile crisis, he was always there providing support to the president, offering advice and putting out little political fires when they arose. He is also used to convey the personal drama experienced by the players, an essential part of the story that doesn’t make the newspapers. So his role in the film is very different from his role in the book, but no violence has been done to history. The O'Donnell character serves, in a way, the function provided by the chorus in ancient Greek dramas.
Another example which Brent Toplin reports in his book deals with James McPherson's analysis of “Glory,” the film about the 54th Massachusetts, regiment, one of the first African-American regiments formed during the Civil War. McPherson points out that in the film many of the African-American soldiers who compose the 54th Massachusetts Regiment were former slaves. In fact, most of the 54th Massachusetts which actually fought in the Civil War was composed of free blacks from the North, and relatively few former slaves. And yet, as McPherson points out, most of the almost 200,000 African-Americans who fought in the Civil War were former or runaway slaves. And since the film “Glory” stands as a monument to all blacks who fought in the Civil War, the portrayal of many members of that regiment as former slaves does no real violence to history, and in fact enhances it. Thus it is a detail that is wrong, but in the larger sense there's nothing wrong at all.
In other words, filmmakers can be free to adjust details in a film as long as they don't violate essential historic truth. Much of important history is complex, confusing, inconsistent in itself and frequently quite boring. If filmmakers tried to reproduce history exactly, no one would come to watch. Our job in this course is to separate what filmmakers do that enhances the experience of the audience without distorting history from treatments that do violate the record of the past. That's the real challenge for us as historians and film critics, and it is what this project is all about.
How to Critique a Film for Historical Validity
When critiquing a film as part of a history project, you need to do several things. It will not suffice merely to say that you thought the film was good or not so good; or that you enjoyed it, or found it uninteresting; that you found the acting excellent or below par; and so on. There is nothing wrong with including your personal response to the film, in fact it is necessary. But that's not what this project is about. You should recognize that these films would not be recommended if they had not won some critical respect and have some sort historical validity. Your job is to relate the film to the material you are studying.
First, you need to be sure that you have the historical context down. You should have the basic knowledge of the period or events clear in your mind before you watch the film. You should understand what the background events were and what the actions depicted in the film have to do with the time in which the action takes place. In other words, you should know what the film is about in advance. After you have watched the film you may want to go back and read more to enrich your understanding of both the film and the time.
Second, you should go online or to a library and look at reviews of the film to help you understand it. Try to find reviews published in sources that have some critical validity. In other words you need to read critics who are viewing the film objectively, and not trying to sell it. You should also recognize that many film critics, if not most, are not historians, and they may not understand the context which you have going in. Sometimes they nitpick over details, or say that such-and-such didn't really happen, or didn't happen that way. That is less important than the question, did the film give you a better understanding of the times and issues portrayed? It should be clear because the film is assigned for a project that the basic answer to that question is “yes.” Your job is to explain why.
Third, you should give your reaction to the film as it helps you understand the historical context better. For example:
It's fine to include your subjective feelings, but the main thrust of your essay should be, “What do I know or understand now that I didn't know or understand before?”
WRITING TIPS FOR ONLINE HISTORY STUDENTS
Film List for History 121 | Film List for History 122 | History 121 | History 122 | Updated January 2, 2008