Fremantlebiz - Paul's Letter from Australia

History films and bunkum

It's overcast again today. Quite light at 5.30am, but also drab and grey - sort of like I remember about England when I visited there a few times more than thirty years ago. They didn't let young Australians in for less than six months in those days lest too many wanted to stay, take up too many menial jobs and do their best to genetically dilute the resident population. There has been a lot of waster under London Bridge since then, and peoples from other lands have made their marks instead.

But it's not that sort of history I want to address today. I can say it is a matter of some regret that I've never owned a Ford or for that matter a Holden. In a way I feel that I have missed out somewhere in my participation in Australian history. Instead I went for British Minis and then Japanese Datsuns and Toyotas. All had their faults and perhaps even more of them that could be expected of the nation's two main motoring icons.

Whole tribes developed around Ford and Holden. People wrote songs and poems, and some folk even changed their names by deed poll to match their cars of choice. I don't think anyone ever did that with the sort of cars I bought, except perhaps "Mini Me' in the awful 1999 movie Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me. We've all heard of Frankie Holden and Henry Ford, but never a Bruce Datsun or a William Toyota.

But, today it is Henry Ford who inspires me. He didn't have to change his name. However, he is particularly famed for allegedly saying "History is bunk." Bunk being the polite American term for bunkum, or bulldust.

I am led to believe that what he actually said for the Chicago Tribune in 1916 was,"History is more or less bunk. It's tradition. We don't want tradition. We want to live in the present, and the only history that is worth a tinker's damn is the history that we make today."

I think both versions of what he is supposed to have said are acceptable. Written history is full of errors, distortions and even deliberated obfuscation. No historian is immune from this, even though few would admit it. But I do. I make mistakes in this journal from time to time, but such is the dynamic nature of the screed I do try to correct them as soon as I am aware.

Distortions certainly exist too, because there is often an element of satire present, although some readers fail to recognise this. The most threatening and abusive messages I have ever received in my entire life have been related to my satirical writings about sport, especially soccer. Naturally they were anonymous. because that is the way of such creeps.

And what about my obfuscation? Well all I can say there is that there is plenty I choose not to publicly write about.

History has always been a popular subject for entertainment. When you think about it, there is an almost constant flow of history coming at us from all directions. News is one example. Today's news is tomorrow's history.

With the exception of politicians, there is probably no other profession which is guilty of as many errors, distortions, obfuscation and manipulation as journalism. But knowing this we still can't help ourselves, we far too readily accept many things which are ineptly written in newspapers, possibly even as I have done about the Henry Ford quote. Is the Chicago Tribune's version truly correct? I don't know how I could determine this, even were I to conduct an interview with the ghost of Henry Ford, but it suits my purpose and so I adapt to it.

For a long time we have had historical documentaries on TV. Maritime history, military history, explorer history, ancient history. You name the subject and someone has probably crafted a documentary about it. In the last few years archaeology and antiques have been increasingly popular. I like them. And how about Egyptology? Nearly as many docos on that subject as there have been nature films about African lions and meercats.

But there is a new trend overtaking us. Well it's not actually new. It's been around since the Australian Salvation Army made the first feature length movie Soldiers Of The Cross in 1900.

I speak of the dramatised historical documentary. Drama deliberately presented as an definitive record of fact. There were a five of these on local free-to-air TV last night. Trafalgar Battle Surgeon on SBS. Space Race on the BBC's ABC and Nero, again on SBS. I watched a minute or so of Trafalgar Battle Surgeon, all of Space Race and half of Nero. Hopefully I pressed the correct buttons on our new and really complicated DVD recorder and will see the second half of nerdy Nero later today.

I'll leave out Secrets of the Valley of the Kings (ABC) and Secret Files of the Inquisition (SBS) because I didn't see any part of them. I need a Mini Me to help out.

Space Race was an interesting example. It's the BBC's version of the history of space exploration. You can tell its from the BBC because most of the actors chain smoke tobacco products on camera. Aside from the ciggies, the production must have cost a fortune to make - huge, amazingly realistic looking sets and special effects enhanced by skilful actors who have perfected the stereotyping of Germans, Russians and Americans. It all looks so real, but really it's scripted to make it appear real.

As someone with a minor technical interest who lived through those early man-in-space times I have seen various inconsistencies in the episodes - there were innumerable departures from the "reality" I knew. I don't know that this was deliberate. I am inclined to be charitable and think that it was simply that the filmmakers were too young and lacked personal experience. Maybe they had to generate their own impressions based upon post-generational perceptions and remnant cold-war propaganda. But there could be a tacit agenda in play somewhere? I do wonder why so much effort and expense was put into such an elaborate dramatisation.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not upset about such productions. No one can do anything about them except create their own reactive commentary.

I feel sure that generally the more money and publicity which is expended on these productions, the more believers there will be of a certain historical or political viewpoint.

The Americans have become masters at this with their Hollywood war productions. It is no secret that many war movies have received heavy official backing from the US military over the past several decades.

The importance of dramatised films shaping perceptions of war and US policy is about to happen yet again with a ninety million dollar extravaganza from Clint Eastwood titled Flags of Our Fathers, which is about the iconic WW2 battle at Iwo Jima. Apparently anticipating criticism, Mr Eastwood has created a second film on the same battle based upon Japanese perceptions and with JA dialogue. This is titled Letters From Iwo Jima. It only cost fifteen million dollars. No point in letting all that expensive unused action footage from Flags go to waste. Mr Eastwood has been reported as saying, "War is futile."

Well, it all depends on how historians and filmmakers justify it.

© MMVI Paul R. Weaver.

About the writer

Check out each month's subject index on the Calendar Page for my "common-man" monologues about survival in 21st century Australia – plus a little history occasionally. An original essay is added most days as part of an undertaking to write a couple of million words.

Technorati Profile

Advertisement

Advertisement