There was a tweet the other day enquiring about films as
enrichment for school pupils studying history. I am no sort of film buff, and I
am sure I have not watched as many good films as you have watched. But I did use
films quite a lot in my teaching, so here are my thoughts for what they are
worth.
I also occasionally wrote historical plays for my pupils and
so I know from first-hand experience what is common sense: that even if you try
to be true to the history, the disciplines of the play/film take over. There
will be a small number of main characters, issues will be simplified, there
will be a beginning, middle and end, the dialogue will be interesting, and so
on. Many historical films (and some of my plays for that matter) have the
status of historical novels. They may be set in some period of the past, but
the events and characters will be fictionalised.
Nevertheless, I did use films quite a lot, once the video
recorder had been invented. (You can see how old I am). Quite apart from
lessons, we for a time had compulsory “after school activities”. My “History on
Film” activity one year attracted all the pupils (a small number) who went on
to gain places at Oxford and Cambridge. To a colleague who said dismissively
“You mean you just watch films?” I replied “Why is it that when I take pupils
to the theatre I am praised but when I show them films it is assumed to be lazy
fun?”.
For enrichment the films should be accompanied by
discussion, teaching, perhaps the watching of associated documentaries, or
distribution of relevant source material and so on. One does not, at school
level, need to worry too much about the fact that the type of grenade depicted
as being thrown in 1915 did not actually come into use till 1918 or whatever.
Though if you happen to know such points they add to the enrichment. Good films
should also provoke thought, and this benefit may well go well beyond what the
teacher had in mind. Ideally watchers would react as do the best readers of
historical novels: “That was fun. I must find out more about that period”.
Anyhow, here are a few examples.
“Vikings”. No need to watch it all, unless you have time and
get interested in the plot. Couple it rapidly with extracts from “King Harald’s
Saga” (similarly fictionalised, I suggest) and appropriate pieces of
archaeology.
“Robin Hood” (Errol Flynn). What? I thought this was about
teaching history! Yes, but myths are part of history and the film will get all
sorts of traditional medieval themes to the front of the imagination for
discussion and further investigation. An important additional point is that the
films are themselves evidence for the period when they were made; the scene
where Robin explains to Marion the importance of helping the poor and
downtrodden is pure New Deal. (The film was released in 1938). One of my
music-teacher colleagues extolled Korngold’s score.
“1492: The Conquest of Paradise” This was issued to mark the
500th anniversary. It turns into a very dark film in which some of
the issues of conquest and colonisation are laid bare, with no punches pulled.
Whether the details of the ships, or the characters, are precisely accurate I
could not say.
The Tudor period is full of enjoyable romps from “A Man for
All Seasons” to “Shakespeare in Love”. I would hesitate to use any of them in
full, unless time permits; one might propagate the myths, not challenge them.
But there are many extracts from the many films that are worth showing for discussion,
with hard evidence produced.
“Cyrano de Bergerac”. Again the whole film gets away from
history, unless you have time, but the opening scene in the theatre is a joy.
Also, there is a brief moment where you get an idea of a regiment of 17th
century pikemen. I assume the reason they hardly ever appear in films is
because these huge spears would need a lot of money spent on training the
extras.
“Rob Roy”. It would be best if the teacher had read “The
Hunt for Rob Roy: The Man and the Myths” by David Stevenson, to know that the
story is mostly fantasy. But a lot of the detail of early 18th century
Scotland is interesting – for example the way the power of the aristocrats was
enormous. Also there is only one Englishman in the film (and he half a Scot).
Some pupils will enjoy the final duel. Try to find an account of a real duel to
go with it.
“Waterloo”. The point I made earlier about the need to bow
down to the disciplines of the film, at the expense of the history, applies
here. But unless you know a lot about the battle the film will teach you more.
“Far from the Madding Crowd” (1967). I used to know an old
labourer who stood in the market place waiting for a job, exactly as shown in
the film.
“All Quiet on the Western Front” (1930). This is a very good
film indeed. Of course, it is one snapshot and, taken on its own, might I
suppose reinforce myths about the First World War. But I am sure any teacher
who reads this will avoid mythologies.
“Lawrence of Arabia”. This gets us well away from the
Western Front! Another great film. But beware. The history is heavily distorted
in order to construct a memorable film.
“Hope and Glory”. There are too many Second World War films
to know where to start. This one follows a child of school age. The final
scene, where the school is destroyed by a bomb, may provoke applause.
“Schindler’s List”. After our school was given this by The
Spielberg Foundation (I apologise if I have got the name wrong) I used to
organise an evening viewing once a year. Before showing it I would make one or
two points. One was that, despite make up, actors could not achieve the extreme
emaciation of concentration camp inmates. The other was that this is mainly a
story of survivors – based on the testimony of the survivors. Millions did not
survive.
I am sure you could make your own list, three times as long.
I’ll end by repeating a point I made earlier in passing: All films are evidence
for the time in which they were made as well as the time in which they are set.
Surely one can use them to enrich one’s appreciation of the past.
