The first article in our short series on screenwriter’s roles, looks at how the function of the ‘history film’ writer can be likened to that of a historian…
The extent to which the history film can be a legitimate source of historical knowledge continues to be the subject of much debate.
Writers such as Marcia Landy, who disputes whether film can offer any “meaningful representation of the past”, and William Guynn, who refers to the history film as “the most fictional of genres”, are on one side.
Meanwhile, one the other side, Marc Ferro has commented that:
“Some directors have been able to make original contributions to understanding of the past.”
One of the key experts in this field is Robert A. Rosenstone (who you can read a bit more about in our analysis of Reds (1981)). As both a historian and someone who has been involved in film and literature, Rosenstone isn’t as quick as some to dismiss film’s legitimacy as a purveyor of historical knowledge. In fact, he has commented that:
“Visual media are a legitimate way of doing history.”
So, to take this argument further, if the history film can be a source of historical knowledge, maybe the history screenplay can be likened to a historical document?
After all, any rendering of history is skewed and the people recounting that history (whether screenwriter or historian) will be influenced by an agenda. As historian EH Carr wrote:
“History is neither objective nor value-free. It’s made in the writing.”
It is also written from the time perspective of the writer, so, as Rosenstone says:
“The mark of the contemporary is on every work historians produce.”
Indeed, one of the functions of history is to inform and illuminate the present. Similarly, one of the essential elements of a film is to appeal to and engage with contemporary audiences.
So, there does seem to be a direct link between the work of the historian, who is infusing their work with their own ideas, opinions and beliefs, as well as the influence of the time they are living in, and that of the screenwriter, who is infusing their historical dramatization with their own themes, value system and contemporary attitude. What’s the end result of all this? Well, in the words of Rosenstone:
“[History books and films] should be treated in the same way; by looking at what they say about the past they describe and the present in which the past has been created.”
So, what can we conclude from all of this?
1. The historical screenplay can reasonably be considered a historical document, if it is researched and written as such.
2. The history film can legitimately contribute to a wider understanding of historical events.
3. To achieve this, screenwriters need approach their research the way historians do, with the purpose of rooting out the facts, accurately interpreting them, filling in what’s missing, and figuring out a way to disseminate the information in a compelling fashion that puts across a plausible truth.
Now all of this assumes that the goal is to produce something of historical value.
But what if you want to dig deeper than the history books allow? What if you want to really get under the skin of your characters? What if the people you want to portray are still alive?
Well, that requires you to assume a different guise. So, in the second part, we look at the screenwriter as journalist.
References:
- Landy quote taken from: Cinematic Uses of the Past, Marica Landy (2000), p1
- Guynn quote taken from: Writing History in Film, William Guynn (2006), p6
- Ferro quote taken from: A Companion to the Historical Film, ed. Robert A. Rosenstone & Constantin Parvulesca (2013), p2
- Carr quote taken from: What is History?, Edward Hallett Carr (1990)
- Rosenstone quotes taken from: ‘The History Film as a Mode of Historical Thought’, in A Companion to the Historical Film, ed. Rosenstone & Constantin Parvulesca (2013), pp 71-90
- Rosenstone additional information taken from: Revisioning History: Film and the Construction of a New Past, Robert A. Rosenstone (1995)