It's all in my head...

I know I haven't been blogging as much as I should be... Who am I kidding? I know I haven't been blogging at all! BUT, I have progressed mentally and believe or not I've been thinking a lot about how my project is going to shape up.

A-I'm going to use a contrast or comparison between TD and the earlier MOO to establish notions of development on the issue. I want to show how the history of the Cuban Missile Crisis/ Caribbean Crisis/ October Crisis has changed over time with a specific regard to American film.
B-I will be talking about the impacts of the films, (Mainly the modern impacts, so there will be a focus on TD) on viewers and American society as well as public consensus as opposed to a reality.
C- I will evaluate the synchronic approach seen in the films in terms of accuracy, affect, purpose and whatever the heckers I see fit. I'll discuss a diachronic approach to show it's further relibility as far as related or associated events will lead. This means I will be assessing the causation seen in the films with regards to the real influences and lead up to the event and furthermore, the effects of this.

I do have a lot more to say and plan but I have ran out of lunch time unfortunately. :( *sigh*
I will be working on my project a lot this weekend though SO it would be great if I could get some feedback and suggestions. I need a yes or no for ABC, whether to go a head with the idea or back off it and reassess my approach. I need a good title and I need to learn how to start this thing.. Can we have a lesson on how to write a historigraphical inquiry or project? Please... please... please! Oh and more soon.

Meta-what?

I’ve done some reading and I’ve formulated some ideas.
Hayden Whites ideas surrounding history are interesting,’ he would claim that appeal to the facts is not sufficient to validate or invalidate the large-scale imaginative constructions we call histories’.  So he hasn’t got a problem with the existence of facts but as soon as you try and make a narrative or linked series of events with these facts.. OH NO! You’ve got trouble because you can’t escape your own ideology, enplotment style, mode of Argument or Tropological pre-figuring. Don’t ask what they mean!
 I checked out Emplotment as sir suggested-- "every history, even the most 'synchronic' of them, will be emplotted in some way". The four types of emplotment are romance, satire, comedy, and tragedy. They are like the genres of history. Romance celebrates the triumph of the good after trials and tribulations.

Thirteen days and Missiles of October in my opinion belong to the category romance as they present a dramatic narrative that conjures self-identification for Americans and in which Americans face challenges which they ultimately triumph over. The following of these characters through the events in which they are challenged allows the audience to create an attachment to them; they start feeling as if the events’ unfolding in front of them is something more personal. Basically they start rooting for ‘their team’, hahaha, I know this seems like a strange way to think about it but I didn’t really know how to explain what I was thinking. The reconstruction of events in the films allows the viewers to take a one sided view of history, from an American perspective in which they understand Americans to be good and for anyone opposing them to be bad.. And like children some viewers believe this display as the complete truth, they trust it and why shouldn’t they? Mainstream media support modern films like Thirteen days. People believe these films are real history! Popular films like this (that are based on historical events) shape a public consensus of understanding of past events more so than any written sources in our modern society, unfortunately. :(    
Some other stuff I was thinking about too..  This stuff hasn’t been worked over in my mind at all I just need to put the raw words somewhere.
 Personal recounts of past events are affected by the nature of memory and temporal illusion. Reality and memory are, unfortunately, two very different concepts and a historical reconstruction of any kind based on memory is already affected by perspective and subconscious bias that the historian or recounter might not even be aware of! Both films are based on books that are dependent on memory. I have some issues with this.
 Cultural bias and general cultural relativity.. Victims of culture. Personal bias is deplorable. .   Both films are overly synchronic version of history with little explanation for causation of events- they could have been contextualised more to their historiographical benefit. . No insight into cold war and war climate and associated events- cuban revolution. No social approach in movie or book as it is based on a political leaders biography who has strong nationalistic ties.

'History is a discomposing labyrinth containing cunning, contrived avenues, preconceived paths and plenty of dead ends. Being built from the choices, calculations and concepts of its many creators and their aims and ambitions, history’s walls are built up from the facts of the past and are said to house truth. Those who entry its walls can come out at almost limitless exits, the shorter passages lead to the most popular exits that most people arrive at, these are often marked out for them as calculated by their creators, and are riddled with falsehood and  motivated misconception.. yet these paths still hold a consensus. Others walk the longer, more complex pathways in search for more than facts shaped by aim or ambition; their exits are less popular and harder to reach but are well worth it- their exits hold wisdom and clarity and even an essence of truth.  No matter how far one travels though, the absolute truth will always evade them and misconceptions will always remain as public consensus.'

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:crmucJTFUGoJ:www.uio.no/studier/emner/hf/iakh/HIS4010/h11/undervisningsmateriale/HIS4010_McCullagh.pdf+unemplotment+hayden+white+explained&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh-kAHcPkgYzl9gPES1qp_t7Hb1LZI7CWYaKV2L32YniDHC1x9CNyKggsEWyv_G-FSB832VcZFz6t4Stt6Rs8VyeODSGRcEOXhbHW3atkJJ_xzRmiPimjQHlzqbVMWjQWpYvKEl&sig=AHIEtbROnQ171mXuu7r4aQNH_eLq4WKITw

http://www.lehigh.edu/~ineng/syll/syll-metahistory.html

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~spet0201/lectures/histlink/whiteho.html

The idea's from before!

The following are the ideas I've had about my project- Sir has reviewed them and as such I have taken into account his words of wisdom.  Here is the raw list. 

• To cut the length of viewing is bad, a historical piece of work shouldn't have a time limit.

• To have a motive in creating a historically accurate piece of work, such as profitability, can cause the piece to stray from the truth- especially as it may more romantically. (The early historian Thucydides had similar fears that his work would not be romantic because he wanted it to entirely truthful.) (SEE HAYDEN WHITE - emplotment. That's for me to see, fyi.)
• Other goals include: Entertainment to achieve box office ratings and good reviews. This leads to a modern cinema film style where a build up, climax and decline are put in place even in spite of real historical events that may not follow that particular pattern.
• History should follow the course of events that lead to a crisis or single event to describe how this event came to be and was caused. (The causation of the crisis in the films is highly restricted and limited, perhaps, not even addressing some causes at all.)
• As such, to view the crisis in isolation is to cut it off from it's own history, making it incorrectly displayed and largely misleading. 
• The use of a protagonist in the films creates bias and places the protagonist, in TD, in situations he otherwise may not have been in or simply did not happen. He (they) did not have a major role in the event , he had a political advisory position- he never sources any secret files nor addressed any military pilots directly as TD would have you believe! 
• Dramatic license... Yeah, needs some work, it has its benefits but I feel it has no place in history. 
• TD doesn't show anything but American perspective. Mono-perspective is dangerous! 
• Emotions feature in cinema.. Gonzo history! Creates one sided empathy!
  More to come in next post or comments! Feel free to review and comment!

For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.

 So, I've been reading various web sources regarding both films and it was interesting to find some very different contrasting opinions.
  I also looked in to post modernism with regards to history as I believe that's what I missed from class last Thursday. I found it hard not to be critical of statements that conclude that nothing is true. Mainly because that would mean the statement itself is either true making itself not true or false making it again false.... Do you follow or I am just being overly-critical? Though, I found postmodern views on history enlightening at some points! I like how they think truth is relative and needs to be kept in context and that absolute truth is obviously impossible- it all makes sense. I don't, however, see history as fiction in it's entirety.. I think history when based on sources of fact and objective consensus holds some level or degree of truth as a social science (shoot me now!) but that is a matter of interpretation and of course interpretation in history can not be distinguished from fact now can it.(no really, can it?)
Anyway, correct or comment on any and all of that if need be! It will help me in my understanding of what I've missed.
 Moving right a long...  So I get lots of ideas about my project but I never remember them so I've started to writing them down- pen to paper sort of thing- well I use a pencil but you get the idea. It would be cool if I could get some help going over them, filtering and refining them! Some additions to the idea's list would be great too. ;)
I'll post the list of ideas once I've reviewed them- hopefully with your help! That's you Sir!
Thanks for reading.

My proposal.

Evaluate the historical accuracy of American films in regard to the Cuban Missile Crisis

Description of preliminary research 

After seeing various documentaries on the SBS and the ABC, I was interested in the presidency, life and death of John F. Kennedy. [1][2][3] I then looked at and studied various articles and sources in an attempt to find a definitive enquiry area. [4][5][6] Unfortunately, that didn't give me much to work with, or rather too much to work with, and I had to continue researching. Luckily for myself, my mentor suggested[7] I view two films, Thirteen days [8]and The Missiles of October[9], both notably American, which I watched and studied. I realised that I should not focus on JFK as a personality but on the Cuban Missile crisis as an event. The concept of “How close we came” [10] to nuclear war appealed to me and I saw it as extremely important part of modern history. I watched parts of both again and noted some differences. One major difference I noted was the existence of a trade-off or deal between the US and the USSR and how each film displayed how it happened or whether a deal took place at all.[11] [12]I also noticed differences in the view of each movie, though both were mainly from an American perspective, the earlier Missiles of October [13]gives more Russian perspective as its counterpart offers nothing from the Russian perspective. I noted each had scenes which the other did not. I found out that Thirteen days is based on the book ‘The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis’ [14]and that ‘The missiles of October’ is based on ‘Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis’.[15]

Enquiry questions

 My main question, evaluate the historical accuracy of American films in regard to the Cuban Missile Crisis, highlights three main parts. Part one being the historical accuracy, Part two being the American Perspective, and part three being the nature of film and its place in history. I constructed these questions as they seemed fitting to my research into the films as well as relevant to the historiography issues of today.

Subsidiary Questions
P3. To what extent are films perceived as actual history in today’s society? 
P3-P1. Should films based on events be historically accurate? Should they incorporate fictional or exaggerated scenes in order to entertain?

P3.  Are the films directors and writers historians? Should they aspire to pure objectivity? 

P1. Analyse the accuracy of the films ‘Thirteen days’ and ‘The Missiles of October’.

P1. How well do the films match their written sources?
P2-P1. Assess whether the films are biased or affected by perspective to the point where they become misleading or un-factual. Is this the misuse or abuse of history? Are there notable agendas?

P2. Is there a notable difference in the perspectives of each film? What does this tell us?

Research intentions in relation to areas/texts to examine

As stated in the preliminary research section, I discovered that both films where based on books, books that I have yet to read. ‘The Kennedy Tapes’ [16]and ‘Thirteen Days’[17] are two books that I will need to read in order to answer and better understand my P1-P2 subsidiary questions as they are in direct relation to the films which are my primary focus in this inquiry. I need to review both films and reanalysis them, while considering my questions as I watch.

Research intentions in relation to methodology

My enquiry deals with historical debates, contrasting approaches to an event and most importantly history in media or, more specifically, film. It also raises questions to the use and misuse of history. 

This enquiry could also serve to credit the directors and writers of films as historians, which addresses the question “Who are the historians?” in a new light. It questions the motives and purposes of history, whether it be to entertain, be learnt from or simply be objectively in existence, as well as other questions.

Cross referencing sources to assess accuracy is a method Important in this inquiry.

---

[1] ‘JFK: 3 Shots That Changed America’, Nicole Rittenmeyer, Seth Skundrick, New Animal Productions, History, A & E Video, October 11, 2009.

[2] ‘JFK's Women: The Scandals’, Harvey Lilley, Quickfire Media, Five, 12 December 2006.

[3]

‘The Lost JFK Tapes: The Assassination’, Tom Jennings, Tom Jennings Productions, National Geographic Channel, 23November 2009

[4] Nathan Thrall, Jesse James Wilkins, May 22, 2008, ‘Kennedy Talked, Khrushchev Triumphed’, The New York Times, http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/22/opinion/22thrall.html

[5] Thomas C. Reeves, ‘A QUESTION OF CHARACTER’,1991, Review by Nicholas Von Hoffman, http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,314626,00.html

[6] Aleksandr Fursenko and Timothy Naftali, ‘How Close We Came’, W.W. Norton, 1997.

[7] Leon “Always” Wright, discussion.

[8]‘Thirteen days’, Roger Donaldson, David Self, Beacon pictures, New line cinema, 25 Dec 2000.

[9]‘ The Missiles of October’, Anthony Page, Stanley R. Greenberg,  American broadcasting company, 18 Dec 2000

[10]  ‘How close we came’, op. cit

[11] ‘Thirteen days’ op.cit

[12] ‘The Missiles of October’ op.cit

[13] ibid

[14] Ernest R. May, Philip Zelikow, ‘The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis', Norton.

[15] Robert F. Kennedy, ’Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis’, Norton, 1969.

[16] Ernest R. May, Philip Zelikow, ‘The Kennedy Tapes: Inside the White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis', Norton.

[17] Robert F. Kennedy, ’Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis’, Norton, 1969.

I fixed up some of the horrible punctuation, sorry that it was originally unedited.  I'm aware that I cited some of the sources incorrectly. 

Deal or no deal?

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/moment.htm  <<< Extremely helpful.

So I plan to address the different views of the crisis in regards to it's resolution, that being the different perspectives regarding the agreement which was made between the two parties.. As we know, or as I know, two letters where sent from Moscow to Washington that had two separate demands for the US in order for the missiles to removed from Cuba peacefully, the first, demanded that President Kennedy make a public promise never to invade Cuba while the second proposed the removal of US missiles from Turkey/Italy( in short). Now, this is where conflicting evidence creates multiple views and perspectives.  One reply was formed which disregarded the second letter and agreed to the conditions of the first and it seemed to the public that this was the resolution to the crisis at the time, as this is all they were aware of but the President's brother, Robert Kennedy, had come to see Anatoly Dobrynin, a Russian ambassador, on an unofficial visit. There are multiple accounts of this meeting, but there is one large difference, whether an agreement was made in which the US did agree to the second letter from Chairmen Khrushchev but under the condition of  secrecy. It is important to note that America did remove their missiles so it would seem that they did agree to the demands but some American sources claim that the missiles in Turkey/Italy where outdated and where due to be withdrawn... but not replaced? Why give up that strategic military advantage that holds the soviets at bay and protects other European allies? Yet, those accounts claim the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the situation and inform Khrushchev of the semi redundant state of the missiles and that they would be removed after the crisis, probably in order to avoid any link/reaction and public recognition.. and you know, Americans like to think they are the boss so they like to look like they don't give into demands. ;) Silly Americans. 

In Robert F. Kennedys Thirteen Days: A Memoir of the Cuban Missile Crisis, which is the basis for the Film TD (which explains a lot), he states that "He (Ambassador Dobrynin) raised the question of our removing the missiles from Turkey. I said that there could be no quid pro quo or any arrangement made under this kind of threat or pressure and that in the last analysis this was a decision that would have to be made by NATO. However, I said, President Kennedy had been anxious to remove those missiles from Italy and Turkey for a long period of time. He had ordered their removal some time ago, and it was our judgment that, within a short time after this crisis was over, those missiles would be gone." P.108. (quid pro quo means "this for this" or "what for what")  This is a very convenient truth for the Americans and is "No deal" perceptive. Published in 1969, 7 odd years after the crisis. 

 Richard Ned Lebow's and Janice Gross Stein's, We All Lost the Cold War (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994) provided Dobrynin's recount as follows: "However, President Kennedy is ready to come to agree on that question with N.S. Khrushchev, too. I think that in order to withdraw these bases from Turkey," R. Kennedy said, 'we need 4-5 months. This is the minimal amount of time necessary for the US government to do this, taking into account the procedures that exist within the NATO framework. On the whole Turkey issue," R. Kennedy added, "if Premier N.S. Khrushchev agrees with what I've said, we can continue to exchange opinions between him and the president, using him, R. Kennedy and the Soviet ambassador. ''However, the president can't say anything public in this regard about Turkey," R. Kennedy said again. R. Kennedy then warned that his comments about Turkey are extremely confidential; besides him and his brother, only 2-3 people know about it in Washington." P. 523-526  

Well, that is different from Roberts version of events... hmm, here's Lebow's and Stein's comment:

 This interpretation is supported by the president's willingness to remove the Jupiter missiles as a quid pro quo for the withdrawal of missiles in Cuba, and his brother's frank(?) confession that the only obstacle to dismantling the Jupiters were political. "Public discussion" of a missile exchange would damage the United States' position in NATO. For this reason, Kennedy revealed, "besides himself and his brother, only 2-3 people know about it in Washington." Khrushchev would have to cooperate with the administration to keep the American concession a secret.

 So, DEAL or NO DEAL?  There's more opinions and versions of what happened if you follow the URL at the top to it's corresponding webpage. There's more to say but I'm soooo lazy. 

Feedback, yo? Just add it below. 

http://books.google.com.au/books?id=1eYD1TFLqj4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Cuban+missile+crisis++By+Robert+A.+Divine&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QKg7T-DjFIuhiQew5Yn9CQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Cuban%20missile%20crisis%20%20By%20Robert%20A.%20Divine&f=false, this is really interesting... Useful to my studies, may read..

http://www.project2061.org/publications/sfaa/online/chap10.htm I had a look at this and it seemed interesting and made a lot of sense but I didn't read it all! so many examples..

I'm back :)

So I have access to my account again which is fantastic!
Anyway, I want to talk a little bit about the causation of the Cuban missile crisis in regards to the contrasting viewpoints held by the communists(Cuba and the USSR) and the Americans. It's obvious that even while the crisis was taking place there were different opinions on who and what caused the crisis.So since then we can see versions of history of which consist a similar set of events yet such different reasoning behind them, it seems almost typical that Americans would state Russian and Cuban aggression is a cause to the crisis in the form of offensive weapons so close to american shores but on the other hand Russian history would echo that it came to the aid and protection of the small independent nation of Cuba after the bay of pigs incident and attempted to create a more equal nuclear weapons climate. Ect ect so differences in causation of event caused by nationalistic perspective. Russian says " American aggression toward Cuba" while America says " communist aggression toward America" or something to that effect.