Historiography as Cinematography: A Prolegomenon to Film Work for Historians

Abstract

'Like writing history with lightning', American President Woodrow Wilson, quondam scholar, teacher, and university president said, seeing the didactic usefulness of 'The Birth of A Nation', which first came to the screen in 1915. Famous propagandists were equally quick to perceive the importance of the new medium. Lenin and Trotsky saw its value for their political message. 'Of all the arts,' Lenin said, 'cinema is the most important instrument.' Reichminister for Propaganda, Dr. Paul Joseph Goebbels, took control of the German film industry early on and turned feature films and the German Weekly Newsreels into masterpieces of the art of deception.' Scholar-president and political leaders who sought to move the great mass of their peoples these men quickly saw the radically different uses of film for recalling the past. Since the early twentieth century, when amazing new devices for locomotion, communication and for increasing production and comfort suddenly broke through to the public consciousness, thinkers and users alike have tried to grapple with their long-term, often unintended effects. One of these new devices was, of course, the moving picture. Like the still camera earlier, it revolutionized the possibilities of representation and consequently deeply affected patterns of thought. The cinematograph was first used for public entertainment, but soon showed its potential as an information-providing device. Today, historians, like their students and the public, sit before cinema and television screens watching, being entertained by, and learning from filmed history in romanticized 'features' and seemingly objective documentaries. Seeing something on film often becomes 'being there', as Roland Barthes has said.2 Everywhere, history reported in film has been influential and there is firm evidence of its pedagogical effects.3