TEACHING HISTORY

Hokitika Guardian, 14 November 1929, Page 2

TEACHING HISTORY

THROUGH THE FILMS

(By SIR CHARLES OMAN.)

In the early days of cinematography .—to be precis^;,,shortly before the outbreak of war’ iii 1914—1 witnessed-a film of the Battle of Waterloo in which English lancers were shown making a desperate charge upon French infantry. * The audience seemed to regard the scene as an excellent piece off realistic acting. Most .of tlie people present ■were oblivious, as, indeed, was the producer himself, to the fact, that n 6 British lancers were present upon the -field of battle. . . Indeed, tlie, lance was. .not introduced .into the British Army until several year after ' Waterloo. Here, then, was an anachronism of the worst kind. .

This is no isolated, instance, and it is sometimes supposed tlmt, fear of perpetrating mistakes of this kjnd largely influences the film producer in his reluctance to set on record in picture form the great tragedies and comedies of history. Historical novels, it is pointed put, are popular to-day, whereas historical films form but a small proportion of the pictures released each

year. , ...- ; • , This suggestion,is true in part only.) The difficulty could .be overcome readijy, enough by appointing some person with a sound--.knovy ledge of history, including costume,, furniture, and. social mnnners, to supervise the production of all scenes where .men with! purely superficial knowledge might well blunder, Rather is the obstacle to be found in the attitude of the public to {he activities of such producers ns would gladly assist in making the persons and events of past centuries' live again in vital form for the entertainment and instruction of the men and women off to-day.

It is the successful achievement of the 11 happy ending ” so loved by the public that presents a well-nigh insuperable obstacle to The filming of a great many historical stories. Many an incident in history is melodramatic enough.to satisfy the appetite of even the most voracious sensation hunter, but it is, usually . found that history generally refuses to, become the bond-slave of sentiment.

Who could' approve the inclusion of characters " such as King Charles and Mary Queen of Scots in a film that’ended happily? . ’ ' From the sentimental point 'off view history‘is upside down. The wrong persons seem'always to be doing the wrong things. Or is it that we fail to appreciate the true greatness of tragedy, and must assuage a feeling. of sicklv sentimentality with a “ happy ending ” that is untrue to life, and, therefore, inartistic ?; ' d . • •- ■; .-.

Sentiment regards King Charles I.’s death on the scaffold as .shocking. so history is; not considered a. good source of inspiration, for it is the rarest tiling possible for the caption writer to find ready made material in the pages of history. It does occn just now and then, however, as witness the story'Of King Charles entering the House of Commons to arrest five members and exclaiming The birds .are flown,” and also in Cromwell’s order to his soldiers, * to “ Take away that,bauble.” In much the same way the popular craving for sensationalism causes difficulty in staging; historical, incidents in which battles play an important part/ It is simpler for a producer to stage a' modern battle than old-time conflicts, in' which victory usually hung upon the outcome of hand-to-hand, fighting. Smoke, shattered trenches, and heaving ground are far easier to show, than the realistic destruction, of a body of archers before a cavalry charge. ; Not until .the public learns to appreciate the.true greatness of tragedy and understands that' the news of victory or defeat may he quite as dramatic 'as scenes off slaughter will history enjoy the full assistance that the screen is in a position to give, Besides melodramatic material, history abounds in suggestions that could be readily utilised in the making of humorous films. Many historical characters would lend themselves to portrayal in a ludicrous light, and, in all probability, herein lies the opportunity for an entirely new type of comic film. When a film centres round a man or woman of whom historians know little, the producer is entitled to present that figure according to his own conception of the true character, provided his conception agrees with known facts.

One great historical personage who might be presented from many different points of view is Napoleon, Some writers maintain that this great captain waged war. from a desire for personal aggrandisement, others that he became gradually the victim of megalomania, while others contend that his life aim was to achieve a peace-loving and wellfounded “ United States of Europe.” Others, again, find in him the greatest charlatan that ever breathed.

Since Napoleon was a product of the French Revolution, in which idealists strove side by side with scoundrels and self-seekers, all these opinions are worthy of consideration by film produc-

We may take it, then, that wherever facts permit, certain historical characters may be cast in an amusing role to serve the purposes of screen humour. Again, George Morrow, who wrote “Humours of History,” seems to have pointed the way to yet a new departure, a huhiorous film concerned less with great personages than with the different mentalities of the different ages of civilisation. What appeared normal to’ our ancestors may appear absurd to ourselves.

In my opinion there is no doubt that history and the screen can prove of

great mutual advantage immediately the obstacle of public prejudice is removed. History offers the excitement and thrill that most people seem to need these days, despite the fact that it is a matter of life and death to cross important thoroughfares, as it was in 1000 to cross the Atlantic or in 1750 to cross Hounslow Heath. In return, the screen can provide the best medium yet discovered for clothing the dry bones of historical fact with the living flesh of reality. Pageant master and play producer can never hope to rival the scenery and realism of the screen. I