The problem, as I said, "is when audiences believe what they see in
films". The solution to that is to try to get more people to understand
the nature of films -- such as that they are inevitably inaccurate --
and thus the appropriate and inappropriate uses of films, and to stop
using them inappropriately, specifically, to stop using them as if they
were reliable sources of historical information.
I think most modern people have both a healthy skeptism about
advertising, and an awareness that fiction (including films) is not reality.
Now, admittedly, it would help a lot with this if movie makers would
stop lying to their audiences by making false claims about the accuracy
of their films. Personally, I'm not holding my breath on this, as
unscrupulous movie makers show no signs of giving up lying about this or
any other matter.
"Lying" and "unscrupulous" is putting it too strong, unless it's a
supposed to be a documentary. Even then, there are often multiple,
equally valid interpretations of things.
So while I do urge movie makers to be more honest, my real
target for change is movie watchers, not movie makers.
<snip>
Many professors would rather have only 20 students
truly interested in learning real history than 200 students insisting
they already know all the answers because they saw the movie and getting
mad when the professor shatters those fondly held movie myths that
"inspired" them to study history.
I don't recall any of my professors being anything but enthusiastic
about students' sincere interest in their subjects. Nor did they expect
students to know all about a topic before signing up for a class--if
they had, those students wouldn't have bothered to sign up.
For as I said in a previous post -- teaching is a lot more fun than
unteaching, and movies that bring students to the classroom usually also
bring a lot of need for unteaching.
<snip>
OK, well, I was trained as a historian too . . . and I've spent my
entire working life (ever since college) as a writer and editor of
how-to on a number of subjects, in addition to historic customing. In
other words, teaching.
And I don't think it is productive to maintain an attitude that other
people are "wrong," full of "misconceptions" and "inaccuracies,"
requiring my personal correction in order to set the world right, and
bemoaning the fact that everyone doesn't know everything I know.
I remember in a historiography seminar, the professor asking the
students what first got them interested in history. Most of them came
up with legends, old or modern historical novels, films, and so on. I
remember the professor saying that most people become interested in
history that way, and that historians tend to be romantics; you just
can't let romanticism get in the way of social science.
But that's for professionals; not the world at large.
There are lots of good courses and lectures and books and websites out
there. People who want in-depth information will look for it and find
it. Those who don't want it, won't.
And there will always be people who prefer a dream to reality. So what?
Dreams and fictions are important too. Reenacting is just a hobby,
and there are many ways to enjoy it. For some people it's serious
research; and for some, it's pretending they're Robin Hood or Scarlett
O'Hara or whoever.
Fran
Lavolta Press
http://www.lavoltapress.com
_______________________________________________
h-costume mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.indra.com/mailman/listinfo/h-costume
