Customer Reviews

Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies (A Henry Holt Reference Book)

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

When you're both a student of history and a movie buff, as I am, it can be difficult to sit and watch a film that presumes to have an accurate historical context without fighting the urge to evaluate it and pick holes in it. And I'm not the only one. This is a collection of analytical essays, most of high quality, by experts (not all of them historians) analyzing and critiquing individual films: Stephen Jay Gould on _Jurassic Park,_ Antonia Fraser on _Anne of the Thousand Days,_ Thomas Fleming on _1776,_ Dee Brown on _Fort Apache,_ William Manchester on _Young Winston,_ and numerous others. Sticking to those films about which I have some knowledge of the historical events they claim to portray, most are right on the money. James McPherson, commenting on _Glory,_ points out that while the context and general atmosphere are very well done, and the costuming and so on are exact, there are still deliberate historical errors for the sake of drama; none of the soldiers in Col. Shaw's 54th Massachusetts were ex-slaves, for instance, all of them having been recruited from among the state's free black population. And Catherine Clinton does an excellent job taking the wind out of _Gone with the Wind_'s mythical sails. There's a great deal of good information and criticism here and it's a compliment to say that nearly any of these essays will start an argument.

This book is just too damn interesting not to go into a revised edition that would, welcomingly, include a few more recent examples of the movies portending to convey history. It is cleverly organized, with an actual historical "timeline" that is matched with a selected movie that attempted to portray events for that period or year. It starts all the way back in the Jurrasic period, with "Jurrasic Park," of course. Each movie critique is written by a different film expert or historian, so you get a lot of diversity of perspective as well as writing style. There is a very intelligent interview of director John Sayles ("Eight Men Out" "Metowan") in the preface, which may be reason enough for film buffs to purchase this book.

One can either browse through the book and focus on "favorite" or "hated" films of the past, or read it straight through. Each essay offers at least one very good insight on the nature of history and how elusive the "accurate" accounting of an era or event can be.

The overall impression this book leaves is that movies, for all their ostensible efforts to "recreate" historical realities, will NEVER get it quite right. That's because they are products of their own times, and cannot ever fully escape the sensibilities of their own historical eras. Given this approach, the reader cannot help but gain a deeper appreciation for the exacting work of historians -- even if he or she is first attracted to the book out of interest in film. Films (and histories) explored here include "Spartacus," "Aguirre, Wrath of God," "Houdini" "Anne of a Thousand Days," "Henry V" (both Oliver and Branagh)"They Died With their Boots On", as well as many more. Since this book's publication, there have been more films that have either come close to, or completely mangled historical reality, so a revised edition would be most welomed. So to Mark Carnes, et al. -- PLEASE???

A book that unites two of my passions: history and cinema. Great essays that not only discuss the movies themselves; but also put the times that movies were made in a historical context. These movies often reveal more about the time the movie was made in than the historical period the movie is about.

My only complaint? Wish there wasa volume two!

The Kirkus review is right on target. This is a wonderful collection of essays about historical films. I'm a fan of history and the movies, so I was captivated by both the "inside scoop" from filmmakers and the historical critiques offered by the expert historians who evaluated the movies. A book to be enjoyed slowly, which is easily done since most of the essays are only four pages. As Kirkus noted, the format is irritating, forcing you to go back and forth to read lengthy captions, but its worth the effort

Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies is based on an inspiring idea: select eminent historians and writers and ask each to write an essay discussing the historicity of a particular film. And it's a very impressive gathering of writers indeed, including Dee Brown, Eric Foner, Stephen Jay Gould, Antonia Fraser, Paul Fussell, Michael Grant, Stanley Karnow, Peter Gay, Frances Fitzgerald, James M. McPherson, Gore Vidal, Simon Schama, Tom Wicker, and others. Michael Grant comments on the 1953 version of Julius Caesar, Antonia Fraser on Anne of the Thousand Days, James McPherson on Glory, Dee Brown on Fort Apache, Stanley Karnow on JFK, and so forth. The essays are, not surprisingly, well-written and enlightening but written on a popular rather than on an academic level. After all, Past Imperfect was intended to be entertaining as well as informative. Some of the films chosen are the usual suspects for historical analysis such as Gone With the Wind, the Ten Commandments, Birth of a Nation, Grapes of Wrath, and Apocalypse Now (the latter with a particularly incisive essay from Frances Fitzgerald). But there are some surprises: Aguirre, the Wrath of God; Black Robe; the Scarlet Empress; Matewan; the Human Condition; and the Long Walk Home. There's even a piece by Gore Vidal on Preston Sturges' Sullivan's Travels. If you've already read George MacDonald Fraser's The Hollywood History of the World, you might wonder how the two books compare. Fraser's book offers more and better illustrations and covers far more films. Past Imperfect provides greater depth and analysis so if you're interested in history and film, the two titles complement each other. Past Imperfect saves its best essay for last: Simon Schama's "interview" with Napoleon in which the former French emperor and Schama discuss Abel Gance's 1927 epic 'Napoleon.' This is as fine a piece of "historical" writing as you're ever likely to see. A truly fun book!

I am Professiona Historian as well as a movie lover. This was a good, entertaining book on how accurate movies are and how motion picture studios take poetic licensces. I refer to it constantly.

Historians review historical movies: great idea!

Do it in the context of political correctness: not such a great idea.

Now I'm familiar with most of the movies as well as the work of many of the reviewers. Most of the individual reviews are dead-on the money as far as I can tell. You can't learn much about history by watching movies, no matter how good they are. In fact, as some of the writers point out, the better some of these movies are the LESS likely they are to portray events accurately.

But what went into the decision-making process of selecting some of these movies? Tea and sympathy? What world-shaking event is THAT movie supposed to be portraying? Fort Apache? It doesn't even purport to portray and actual event. Dr. Strangelove? Come on.

Tea and Sympathy is only included so the author has an opportunity to discuss McCarthy and his rabid anti-homosexual agenda (I guess he didn't like ANYBODY) which is the kind of noise any intelligent and "open-minded" individual is supposed to make these days.

Dr. Stranglelove is included because it looks at how the Third World War was begun by crazed warmongers like General LeMay... oh, wait. That didn't happen.

Apocalypse Now? Well, if that is supposed to be Kerry's latest version of his service in Vietnam, I guess that might count.

There were a lot of other movies which really should have been included but weren't. The Bunker comes to mind, as well as Lawrence of Arabia and the Last Emperor.

Oh well. Maybe someone will take this idea and do it better some day.

I received exactly what I was expecting. Thanks for making my purchase a success.

A GREAT read! It has specific movies and historical realizations I had never thought of!

Comparison of many of history's events as viewed by film makers compared to reality. Entertaining and educational. Thought provoking on how history can be changed by others, and somehow, what we remember is fantasy and not fact. Well written; easy to read. Will make you laugh and some of it will make you sad and provoke you. A book you will re-read again and again.