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.'
http://www.lehigh.edu/~ineng/syll/syll-metahistory.html
No comments:
Post a Comment