Lights, Camera, Action! : Film as a Historical Representation
Story By: Chase Saylor
Controversial films have always plagued the media and have been targets ofcattention for many film critics. Most of the controversial films that attract the most attention are films that cover a historical event or time period such as films about slavery in the United States and the fight for African American rights. Likewise, films that are representations of very sensitive topics such as Racism, The Holocaust, and other mass genocides are also topics that get the most criticism in the media due to the lack of authenticity, literalism, or cinematic tools.
The film “Life Is Beautiful” is an Italian film that was directed by Roberto Benigni that depicts the story of Guido Orefice who is a Jew during the Holocaust who falls in love with a NonJewish school teacher Dora, throughout the film Guido and Dora end up getting married and have a child named Giosue (Joshua). Near the middle of the film Guido and his son Giosue had been taken by Nazis and put on a train to be taken to a
concentration camp. Dora, who was Guido’s wife and not a Jew demanded that she be taken to the concentration camp to be with her husband and son. When arriving at the camp Guido and Giosue are separated from Dora and sent to the respective areas. Giosue, who was only a boy, didn’t understand why they had been taken to this place, so Guido explained it to him as a game. The goal of the game was to hide from the Nazi camp workers and the first person to get to 1000 points would win the game and as a
reward would win a tank.
Though the story sounds like a fun plot for a romantic comedy, “Life is Beautiful” has gotten a lot of controversy over its subject matter that is the Holocaust. Also known as the Shoah by people of Jewish heritage, the Shoah plays a large role in the development of the characters and story being built in the film. Melanie J. Wright, who is the Director of Studies at the Center for JewishChristian Relations thinks likewise in an article she wrote called, “‘Don’t Touch My Holocaust’: Responding to ‘Life is Beautiful’”.
In the article she explains how not only “Life is Beautiful” but all forms of Shoah art are being criticised in the media. She address’ these criticisms in her article which can be divided up into six parts.
In the start of her article she asks the reader several questions about Shoah art in general. One of the questions she asks the reader is “... how do we determine the appropriate form, content and context of monuments, or of educational resources dealing with the events.” (19). This alludes to the question of who has the right to create art that are representations of the Shoah? This is a very popular topic that has been criticized in the media the past few decades. Shoah art having so much attention from critics alludes to Wright's second section of her article.
In the second section of Wright’s article, Wright addresses the criticisms critic have for Shoah art, mostly for the film Life is Beautiful , which has won many awards, yet has gotten just as much criticism. The first writer that Wright address is writer David Denby, who defined Life is Beautiful as “a benign form of Holocaust denial” because of how Guido presented the Jewish concentration camp to his son Giosue as a game to keep him alive during their time in the camp. Along with Denby, cinema correspondent Jonathan Romney of The Guardian , had a similar response to Denby’s. With two very similar criticism coming from two different critics Wright says that “ Life is Beautiful raises crucial issues about the perceived validity of popular culture…” (20). Yet Life is Beautiful wasn’t only criticized for its historical validity to the Holocaust. It was also criticized for its use of comedy in the film.
The use of comedy in Life is Beautiful has been deemed inappropriate by some critics because of the time period of which the film is set, and the subject matter of the film. Wright on the other hand describes the comedy in Life is Beautiful in the third section of her piece is used not only to appeal to the audience but used in other ways to tell the audience the story of the Shoah. Wright explains in the text that “ In Life is
Beautiful comedy takes on the defiant quality described by Sholem Aleichem… Guido Orefice… uses comedy to subvert the racist ideology of fascist Italy.”(23). Also in Life is Beautiful Wright writes that the use of comedy is also misunderstood by critics. For example wright explains that “Guidos redefinition of the camp experience as a game could be determined as a defiant parody, a refusal to accept the meanings and
limitations imposed by the Nazi regime.” (23). This segways into Wright's next section where she writes of what is being misunderstood by the critics of Life is Beautiful. She starts section four, the shortest of the six, noting that Life is Beautiful should not be criticized for its historical accuracy, because Life is Beautiful was not written and directed to be a historically accurate film. Director and actor of Guido in Life is Beautiful
Roberto Benigni say this, “It’s not a story about the holocaust. It’s a story about a father who is trying to protect a child.”(29). Most critics then, have been criticizing Life is Beautiful for reasons that the film were not meant to fulfil. This however should not be seen as a surprise because film has many problematic traits that can be to blame for the misunderstanding of the film's purpose.
The fifth section that Wright's ‘Don’t Touch My Holocaust’: Responding to ‘Life is Beautiful’. can be divided into. She writes of four reasons why film is problematic for a film that deals with the Holocaust, along with other genres of films. The first reason film is problematic is that film was used in the late 1930’s, early 1940’s by the Nazis. Film was used as propaganda to promote the “Final Solution”. Of which the films showed
Jewish people as being filthy, ugly, thieves.These films that were used to spread fascist ideas and spread false rumors about Jews, are now being used to share the stories of Jewish lives during the Shoah. The next problematic use of film that Wright describes is “Film presents both image and sound, leaving less room for individualized meanings.” (27) Which can be problematic because the audience of the film will perceive the film the way that the director wants the audience to perceive the film, whereas other forms of Shoah art such as books, poems, and novels are perceived the way that the reader wants. Another reason Wright says that film is problematic is that film can be overbeautified or made to look better than what had actually happened. Last reason that Wright uses to explain why film is a problematic medium is that films, such as Life is Beautiful, offer the audience a sense of verisimilitude, or an aspect of realism in a story that was completely created from the imagination of a writer who may have been inspired by events such as the Shoah.
For the final section of Wright's “‘Don’t Touch My Holocaust’: Responding to ‘Life is Beautiful’” Wright begins to build up her final conclusion on her response to the film Life is Beautiful and Wright describes that “We have seen that a totally ‘authentic’ film is not possible..” (30). Unless the fascist rules that have been set in film are broken. Any medium to represent the Shoah will not be remembered and any if all Shoah art will be
lost in history.
Throughout the six sections of Wright’s “‘Don’t Touch My Holocaust’: Responding to ‘Life is Beautiful’”. Wright gave multiple varying opinions covering the historical accuracy of Life is Beautiful, the use of comedy in Life is Beautiful, the use of film as a Shoah artform and why film is a fascist artform. Of Wright's opinions, she makes many valid points as to why Life is Beautiful has gotten so much criticism. Yet some of her work doesn’t give the film the justice that it deserves. Such as when Wright addresses how film is a fascist artform. Although film was used by the Nazis to promote Hitler’s “Final Solution”, film can also share the stories and experiences of those who were affected by the Shoah. It may be ironic, or a coincidence, but it being a coincidence doesn’t qualify film as a fascist artform. As well, Wright addresses how film is a fascist
artform because it shows the viewer what to think of a scene that the film is showing.
This also doesn’t qualify film as being a fascist artform because filmmakers use different filming strategies to make a film open to interpretation, the most notable way that cinematographers make their films open to interpretations is the use of “cliff hangers” or leaving the conclusion of a film open to the viewer's interpretation. These are only two of many points to be made of why film isn’t a fascist artform. Likewise in during another part of history, the Jim Crow era, is another time in history that filmmakers tend to make films about, has also received criticism for its historical inaccuracies. A film that portrays this if the film, The Help . The Help , is a film adaptation based off of the novel “The Help” by Kathryn Stockett. The Help is set in Mississippi during the 1960’s and follows the story of Skeeter Phelan, a white journalist who decides to interview AfricanAmerican house maids who had been working for white households. The major contributor to Skeeters work at first was the housemaid Aibileen. At first many housemaids were hesitant to tell their stories to Skeeter, but after an event when a housemaid was arrested for stealing her hostess wedding ring. Many housemaids who witnessed the event opened up and allowed Skeeter to write their stories. Eventually Skeeter's book about the housemaids was finished and published, it soon became a big success and everyone in the town of Jackson, Mississippi had a copy of Skeeter’s book called The Help .
Yet, The Help also received many questions over the historical validity of the film. Writer Allison Graham wrote the article “‘We Ain’t Doin’ Rights’ The life and Times of a Genre, as Told in The Help ” and in this article Graham responds to the historical validity of the film and the tools used in the film to make it seem historically accurate. In Graham's article she covers 3 major controversies over The Help . The position that
Skeeter is placed in the film and the use of television in films. Why the use of television is problematic when used to create authenticity in film. And how the filmmakers trivialised the stories in The Help .
In Graham’s “‘We Ain’t Doin’ Rights’ The life and Times of a Genre, as Told in The Help ” she discusses how Skeeter is placed in a powerful position in The Help . She writes that in the novel The Help the introduction of Medgar Evers speech was changed in the film adaptation, in the novel Pascagoula, a housemaid, is described as being sat close to the television as the event unfolded when Skeeter walked in the room to find
her. In the film however Skeeter is positioned on the couch in the living room as the two housemaids were positioned behind her when the event was being broadcasted. Because of this Graham writes “Skeeter is positioned as the primary audience for civil rights news ̶̵ not just within her family’s domain, but within the film itself.” (54). Because if this Skeeter is placed where all of the important information over the Civil Rights
movement are introduced through here. This can be problematic because a White character is introducing information over Civil Rights opposed to someone who is being affected by the movement because of the skin color.
The next of Graham’s three criticisms is over the use of television in film and how it is used to create authenticity. Graham writes that “Medgar Ever’s electronic presence in The Help is a cinematic memento mori . After all, in a movie in which stories abound, television is but one storyteller among many, with no greater claim to legitimacy than any other.”(60). What she means by television in The Help being a cinematic memento mori is that the television is used to remind the audience of the death of a very important figure which was Medgar Evers. Although in the film the scene used to show the death of Medgar Evers was not the correct broadcast shown, because there is no actual video of the broadcast, the filmmakers had to find something to put in its place, which was the memento mori.
Graham’s last point in her article “‘We Ain’t Doin’ Rights’ The life and Times of a Genre, as Told in The Help ” she analyzes the trivialization of the housemaids stories in The Help . Graham writes that the stories in the Help are trivialized to make the film as the company DreamWorks put it “timeless and universal”. Seen in another way, the film The Help, which is focused on the stories of AfricanAmerican housemaids during the
Jim Crow era, was trivialised in a way that the historical importance of the film was put as a backdrop to a “timeless universal” film over the bond between a white character and black characters. Graham writes “... Skeeter’s book mirrors the bethedging strategy of the movie. Covertly aspiring to social significance in its adherence to the conventions of the civil rights film.” (62). What Graham is explaining is that Skeeter’s
book is trivialized in a way that it binds the stories of the housemaids to the civil rights movement.
Lastly in Graham’s conclusion of her article she covers her previous three sections of her article. The position that Skeeter is placed in the film and the problematic use of television in film, the use of television in film and how it’s used to create authenticity in film, and how the stories of the housemaids in The Help were trivialized. She explains how all of these affected the audience of the film, what she wrote says this, “Since the release of the film… countless tourists, many of them in town for one reason: to find ‘Skeeter’s Farm,’ ‘Hilly’s House,’ the Junior League building, and ‘Aibileen’s Place’in other words, to take ‘ The Help tour.’” (64). So the town of Greenwood, where The Help was filmed, it has become more of a tourist attraction forood don’t plan on having any more hollywood productions returning to their small historical town.
Thought Graham’s article, she posed many different arguments over The Help and of the three arguments she cover, the placement of a white character in a film over Civil Rights and the Jim Crow era. This film structure is referred to as White Redemption. White Redemption is a story structure where a black character, or in The Helps case multiple black characters, helps to develop a white character, or Skeeter in The Help . This story structure is problematic when the film is an adaptation of a novel where the story isn’t entirely focused on the white character. Graham also focuses on why the use of television is problematic when used in films over the Civil Rights movement. Yet television in film can be a very strong way to create historical validity in film. Although in the scene in The Help where Skeeter is sat in front of the television when Evers gives his speech, the broadcast that the film portrayed was not actually the speech that Evers gave. It was a completely different
event that was portrayed. However in this case the use of the television, yet inaccurate, wouldn't be problematic because it was being used as a way to introduce the event, not portray it. In the case that television would be problematic is if a film is set in the 1960’s and an episode of Spongebob Squarepants is being played on the family t.v. in which it would be completely inaccurate to the time period.
Yet one film that could be used as an example of a historical film that was composed in a way that it is comparable to a documentary, but is elegant and tells the story of the people faced with a tragic event. It is the film Hotel Rwanda. The film Hotel Rwanda directed by Terry George, the film is based during the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. The Rwandan Genocide was between two groups in the country of Rwanda, theHutu, and the Tuts The amount of people who were apart of the Hutu greatly outnumbered the number of Tutsi in Rwanda. Because of this the Hutu believed that the Tutsi were in the minority and based off of bad blood in previous years, rules were made that completely segregated the Tutsi apart from the Hutu, after the Tutsi were completely segregated the killings began, and because weapons and ammunition were expensive the most popular way the Hutu murdered the Tutsi was by machete. As all of this was occurring the rest of the world stood by and watched as a nation began to murder its neighbors, based off of someone's heritage. In the film Hotel Rwanda the main character Paul Rusesabagina, who is a house manager at a hotel called “Hôtel des Milles Collines”. Rusesabagina is a Hutu man who is married to a Tutsi woman. At this time this was seen as taboo by the Rwandan people and thought Rusesabagina wife was married to a Hutu man, she and her children, would still be killed because of their heritage. In attempt to protect his family he moved them to the hotel he was in charge of, as the neighborhood he lived in was being liberated by Hutu in attempt to “cleanse” the area of Tutsi. In the process of moving his family into the hotel he also lets
in several hundred Tutsi refugees to help protect them against the ongoing “ethnic cleansing.”
This film demonstrates in many ways, how film can be used to represent a historic event, or time period, without it being trivialized, fascist, accurate, barbaric, or problematic. Anthere Nazabatsinda of Vanderbilt University wrote an article titled Hotel Rwanda and in his article he explains two of the major reason why the film Hotel Rwanda is not trivialized or fascist, how the film portrays historical accuracy, and how the film is not barbaric or problematic. The first major reason that Nazabatsinda explains in his article is how the visuals of the film are so convincing that, even the event is being recreated in film, it gives the audience a sense of reality, or as if what the audience is watching is the actual event
occurring. Nazabatsinda writes “Its main effects, however, result from the proportion or balance that it skillfully succeeds in establishing between fiction and quasijournalistic portrayal of historical events.” (233). Even though the film uses actors that aren’t of Rwandan descent, the hotel used to film Hotel Rwanda was not the actual hotel from the event that happened, or the fact that the film wasn't even filmed in Rwanda, all of
those inaccuracies can be overlooked as the Director Terry George has created a sense of reality that engages the audience and makes them feel as if what is happening on the screen is the real deal. Even though it is just a Hollywood production.
Next, Nazabatsinda explains in his article Hotel Rwanda how the radio plays an integral role in creating historical validity in the film. Nazabatsinda writes “The film opens on a radio propaganda (Hutu Power Radio) in which the announcer exhorts Hutus to
‘stay alert,’’watch their neighbors,’ the Tutsi , who are referred to as ‘cockroaches,’traitors,’ and ‘invaders’...” (235). These terms allows the audience to feel the tension between the Hutu and Tutsi. It also shows how film is used in nonfascist ways. It may project how the Hutu despise the Tutsi, but the use of the radio allows the audience to feel the tension of the situation, rather than a character saying a stereotypical line such as “The tension is strong between the Hutu and the Tutsi.”
In Nazabatsinda closing statements he writes “ In Hotel Rwanda Africa is represented as a metaphorical place of nonhumans, albeit Paul Rusesabagina strives to remind us of the contrary. In fact, it is even more interesting for intellectuals all over the world to write essays and make ‘research’ on the momentarily outrageous African traits as the ones met in Rwanda in 1994. Paul Rusesabagina can haunt them one moment, without truly leaving a final useful lesson, thus the film Hotel Rwanda is another kind of
entertainment.” (235236).
This passage from Nazabatsinda Hotel Rwanda represents that a good historical film isn’t barbaric for recreating horrible events that have
happened in our past. A fantastic historical film shouldn’t have any lesson to be learned, but should inspire people to write, to research, to bring awareness to an event that has happened in mankind's past. If a film is able to do that, then critics should set aside the inaccuracies, the problematic tools used in film, the overarching themes, and historical context of film. Critics should then look at how a film affects the audience, how it touches, moves, inspires people to appreciate their past, so that maybe humans will remember the Shoah, the Jim Crow era, the Rwandan Genocide and continue to create passionate films of what historical representations are truly meant to be.
Works Cited
Graham, Allison. "We Ain't Doin' Civil Rights." Southern Cultures 20.1 (2014): 5164.
Academic Search Elite . Web. 29 Feb. 2016.
Nzabatsinda, Anthere. "Hotel Rwanda." Research In African Literatures 36.4 (2005):
233236.
Academic Search Elite . Web. 29 Feb. 2016.
Wright, Melanie J. "'Don't Touch My Holocaust': Responding To Life Is Beautiful."
Journal Of Holocaust Education 9.1 (2000): 19. Academic Search Elite . Web. 29
Feb. 2016.
Controversial films have always plagued the media and have been targets ofcattention for many film critics. Most of the controversial films that attract the most attention are films that cover a historical event or time period such as films about slavery in the United States and the fight for African American rights. Likewise, films that are representations of very sensitive topics such as Racism, The Holocaust, and other mass genocides are also topics that get the most criticism in the media due to the lack of authenticity, literalism, or cinematic tools.
The film “Life Is Beautiful” is an Italian film that was directed by Roberto Benigni that depicts the story of Guido Orefice who is a Jew during the Holocaust who falls in love with a NonJewish school teacher Dora, throughout the film Guido and Dora end up getting married and have a child named Giosue (Joshua). Near the middle of the film Guido and his son Giosue had been taken by Nazis and put on a train to be taken to a
concentration camp. Dora, who was Guido’s wife and not a Jew demanded that she be taken to the concentration camp to be with her husband and son. When arriving at the camp Guido and Giosue are separated from Dora and sent to the respective areas. Giosue, who was only a boy, didn’t understand why they had been taken to this place, so Guido explained it to him as a game. The goal of the game was to hide from the Nazi camp workers and the first person to get to 1000 points would win the game and as a
reward would win a tank.
Though the story sounds like a fun plot for a romantic comedy, “Life is Beautiful” has gotten a lot of controversy over its subject matter that is the Holocaust. Also known as the Shoah by people of Jewish heritage, the Shoah plays a large role in the development of the characters and story being built in the film. Melanie J. Wright, who is the Director of Studies at the Center for JewishChristian Relations thinks likewise in an article she wrote called, “‘Don’t Touch My Holocaust’: Responding to ‘Life is Beautiful’”.
In the article she explains how not only “Life is Beautiful” but all forms of Shoah art are being criticised in the media. She address’ these criticisms in her article which can be divided up into six parts.
In the start of her article she asks the reader several questions about Shoah art in general. One of the questions she asks the reader is “... how do we determine the appropriate form, content and context of monuments, or of educational resources dealing with the events.” (19). This alludes to the question of who has the right to create art that are representations of the Shoah? This is a very popular topic that has been criticized in the media the past few decades. Shoah art having so much attention from critics alludes to Wright's second section of her article.
In the second section of Wright’s article, Wright addresses the criticisms critic have for Shoah art, mostly for the film Life is Beautiful , which has won many awards, yet has gotten just as much criticism. The first writer that Wright address is writer David Denby, who defined Life is Beautiful as “a benign form of Holocaust denial” because of how Guido presented the Jewish concentration camp to his son Giosue as a game to keep him alive during their time in the camp. Along with Denby, cinema correspondent Jonathan Romney of The Guardian , had a similar response to Denby’s. With two very similar criticism coming from two different critics Wright says that “ Life is Beautiful raises crucial issues about the perceived validity of popular culture…” (20). Yet Life is Beautiful wasn’t only criticized for its historical validity to the Holocaust. It was also criticized for its use of comedy in the film.
The use of comedy in Life is Beautiful has been deemed inappropriate by some critics because of the time period of which the film is set, and the subject matter of the film. Wright on the other hand describes the comedy in Life is Beautiful in the third section of her piece is used not only to appeal to the audience but used in other ways to tell the audience the story of the Shoah. Wright explains in the text that “ In Life is
Beautiful comedy takes on the defiant quality described by Sholem Aleichem… Guido Orefice… uses comedy to subvert the racist ideology of fascist Italy.”(23). Also in Life is Beautiful Wright writes that the use of comedy is also misunderstood by critics. For example wright explains that “Guidos redefinition of the camp experience as a game could be determined as a defiant parody, a refusal to accept the meanings and
limitations imposed by the Nazi regime.” (23). This segways into Wright's next section where she writes of what is being misunderstood by the critics of Life is Beautiful. She starts section four, the shortest of the six, noting that Life is Beautiful should not be criticized for its historical accuracy, because Life is Beautiful was not written and directed to be a historically accurate film. Director and actor of Guido in Life is Beautiful
Roberto Benigni say this, “It’s not a story about the holocaust. It’s a story about a father who is trying to protect a child.”(29). Most critics then, have been criticizing Life is Beautiful for reasons that the film were not meant to fulfil. This however should not be seen as a surprise because film has many problematic traits that can be to blame for the misunderstanding of the film's purpose.
The fifth section that Wright's ‘Don’t Touch My Holocaust’: Responding to ‘Life is Beautiful’. can be divided into. She writes of four reasons why film is problematic for a film that deals with the Holocaust, along with other genres of films. The first reason film is problematic is that film was used in the late 1930’s, early 1940’s by the Nazis. Film was used as propaganda to promote the “Final Solution”. Of which the films showed
Jewish people as being filthy, ugly, thieves.These films that were used to spread fascist ideas and spread false rumors about Jews, are now being used to share the stories of Jewish lives during the Shoah. The next problematic use of film that Wright describes is “Film presents both image and sound, leaving less room for individualized meanings.” (27) Which can be problematic because the audience of the film will perceive the film the way that the director wants the audience to perceive the film, whereas other forms of Shoah art such as books, poems, and novels are perceived the way that the reader wants. Another reason Wright says that film is problematic is that film can be overbeautified or made to look better than what had actually happened. Last reason that Wright uses to explain why film is a problematic medium is that films, such as Life is Beautiful, offer the audience a sense of verisimilitude, or an aspect of realism in a story that was completely created from the imagination of a writer who may have been inspired by events such as the Shoah.
For the final section of Wright's “‘Don’t Touch My Holocaust’: Responding to ‘Life is Beautiful’” Wright begins to build up her final conclusion on her response to the film Life is Beautiful and Wright describes that “We have seen that a totally ‘authentic’ film is not possible..” (30). Unless the fascist rules that have been set in film are broken. Any medium to represent the Shoah will not be remembered and any if all Shoah art will be
lost in history.
Throughout the six sections of Wright’s “‘Don’t Touch My Holocaust’: Responding to ‘Life is Beautiful’”. Wright gave multiple varying opinions covering the historical accuracy of Life is Beautiful, the use of comedy in Life is Beautiful, the use of film as a Shoah artform and why film is a fascist artform. Of Wright's opinions, she makes many valid points as to why Life is Beautiful has gotten so much criticism. Yet some of her work doesn’t give the film the justice that it deserves. Such as when Wright addresses how film is a fascist artform. Although film was used by the Nazis to promote Hitler’s “Final Solution”, film can also share the stories and experiences of those who were affected by the Shoah. It may be ironic, or a coincidence, but it being a coincidence doesn’t qualify film as a fascist artform. As well, Wright addresses how film is a fascist
artform because it shows the viewer what to think of a scene that the film is showing.
This also doesn’t qualify film as being a fascist artform because filmmakers use different filming strategies to make a film open to interpretation, the most notable way that cinematographers make their films open to interpretations is the use of “cliff hangers” or leaving the conclusion of a film open to the viewer's interpretation. These are only two of many points to be made of why film isn’t a fascist artform. Likewise in during another part of history, the Jim Crow era, is another time in history that filmmakers tend to make films about, has also received criticism for its historical inaccuracies. A film that portrays this if the film, The Help . The Help , is a film adaptation based off of the novel “The Help” by Kathryn Stockett. The Help is set in Mississippi during the 1960’s and follows the story of Skeeter Phelan, a white journalist who decides to interview AfricanAmerican house maids who had been working for white households. The major contributor to Skeeters work at first was the housemaid Aibileen. At first many housemaids were hesitant to tell their stories to Skeeter, but after an event when a housemaid was arrested for stealing her hostess wedding ring. Many housemaids who witnessed the event opened up and allowed Skeeter to write their stories. Eventually Skeeter's book about the housemaids was finished and published, it soon became a big success and everyone in the town of Jackson, Mississippi had a copy of Skeeter’s book called The Help .
Yet, The Help also received many questions over the historical validity of the film. Writer Allison Graham wrote the article “‘We Ain’t Doin’ Rights’ The life and Times of a Genre, as Told in The Help ” and in this article Graham responds to the historical validity of the film and the tools used in the film to make it seem historically accurate. In Graham's article she covers 3 major controversies over The Help . The position that
Skeeter is placed in the film and the use of television in films. Why the use of television is problematic when used to create authenticity in film. And how the filmmakers trivialised the stories in The Help .
In Graham’s “‘We Ain’t Doin’ Rights’ The life and Times of a Genre, as Told in The Help ” she discusses how Skeeter is placed in a powerful position in The Help . She writes that in the novel The Help the introduction of Medgar Evers speech was changed in the film adaptation, in the novel Pascagoula, a housemaid, is described as being sat close to the television as the event unfolded when Skeeter walked in the room to find
her. In the film however Skeeter is positioned on the couch in the living room as the two housemaids were positioned behind her when the event was being broadcasted. Because of this Graham writes “Skeeter is positioned as the primary audience for civil rights news ̶̵ not just within her family’s domain, but within the film itself.” (54). Because if this Skeeter is placed where all of the important information over the Civil Rights
movement are introduced through here. This can be problematic because a White character is introducing information over Civil Rights opposed to someone who is being affected by the movement because of the skin color.
The next of Graham’s three criticisms is over the use of television in film and how it is used to create authenticity. Graham writes that “Medgar Ever’s electronic presence in The Help is a cinematic memento mori . After all, in a movie in which stories abound, television is but one storyteller among many, with no greater claim to legitimacy than any other.”(60). What she means by television in The Help being a cinematic memento mori is that the television is used to remind the audience of the death of a very important figure which was Medgar Evers. Although in the film the scene used to show the death of Medgar Evers was not the correct broadcast shown, because there is no actual video of the broadcast, the filmmakers had to find something to put in its place, which was the memento mori.
Graham’s last point in her article “‘We Ain’t Doin’ Rights’ The life and Times of a Genre, as Told in The Help ” she analyzes the trivialization of the housemaids stories in The Help . Graham writes that the stories in the Help are trivialized to make the film as the company DreamWorks put it “timeless and universal”. Seen in another way, the film The Help, which is focused on the stories of AfricanAmerican housemaids during the
Jim Crow era, was trivialised in a way that the historical importance of the film was put as a backdrop to a “timeless universal” film over the bond between a white character and black characters. Graham writes “... Skeeter’s book mirrors the bethedging strategy of the movie. Covertly aspiring to social significance in its adherence to the conventions of the civil rights film.” (62). What Graham is explaining is that Skeeter’s
book is trivialized in a way that it binds the stories of the housemaids to the civil rights movement.
Lastly in Graham’s conclusion of her article she covers her previous three sections of her article. The position that Skeeter is placed in the film and the problematic use of television in film, the use of television in film and how it’s used to create authenticity in film, and how the stories of the housemaids in The Help were trivialized. She explains how all of these affected the audience of the film, what she wrote says this, “Since the release of the film… countless tourists, many of them in town for one reason: to find ‘Skeeter’s Farm,’ ‘Hilly’s House,’ the Junior League building, and ‘Aibileen’s Place’in other words, to take ‘ The Help tour.’” (64). So the town of Greenwood, where The Help was filmed, it has become more of a tourist attraction forood don’t plan on having any more hollywood productions returning to their small historical town.
Thought Graham’s article, she posed many different arguments over The Help and of the three arguments she cover, the placement of a white character in a film over Civil Rights and the Jim Crow era. This film structure is referred to as White Redemption. White Redemption is a story structure where a black character, or in The Helps case multiple black characters, helps to develop a white character, or Skeeter in The Help . This story structure is problematic when the film is an adaptation of a novel where the story isn’t entirely focused on the white character. Graham also focuses on why the use of television is problematic when used in films over the Civil Rights movement. Yet television in film can be a very strong way to create historical validity in film. Although in the scene in The Help where Skeeter is sat in front of the television when Evers gives his speech, the broadcast that the film portrayed was not actually the speech that Evers gave. It was a completely different
event that was portrayed. However in this case the use of the television, yet inaccurate, wouldn't be problematic because it was being used as a way to introduce the event, not portray it. In the case that television would be problematic is if a film is set in the 1960’s and an episode of Spongebob Squarepants is being played on the family t.v. in which it would be completely inaccurate to the time period.
Yet one film that could be used as an example of a historical film that was composed in a way that it is comparable to a documentary, but is elegant and tells the story of the people faced with a tragic event. It is the film Hotel Rwanda. The film Hotel Rwanda directed by Terry George, the film is based during the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. The Rwandan Genocide was between two groups in the country of Rwanda, theHutu, and the Tuts The amount of people who were apart of the Hutu greatly outnumbered the number of Tutsi in Rwanda. Because of this the Hutu believed that the Tutsi were in the minority and based off of bad blood in previous years, rules were made that completely segregated the Tutsi apart from the Hutu, after the Tutsi were completely segregated the killings began, and because weapons and ammunition were expensive the most popular way the Hutu murdered the Tutsi was by machete. As all of this was occurring the rest of the world stood by and watched as a nation began to murder its neighbors, based off of someone's heritage. In the film Hotel Rwanda the main character Paul Rusesabagina, who is a house manager at a hotel called “Hôtel des Milles Collines”. Rusesabagina is a Hutu man who is married to a Tutsi woman. At this time this was seen as taboo by the Rwandan people and thought Rusesabagina wife was married to a Hutu man, she and her children, would still be killed because of their heritage. In attempt to protect his family he moved them to the hotel he was in charge of, as the neighborhood he lived in was being liberated by Hutu in attempt to “cleanse” the area of Tutsi. In the process of moving his family into the hotel he also lets
in several hundred Tutsi refugees to help protect them against the ongoing “ethnic cleansing.”
This film demonstrates in many ways, how film can be used to represent a historic event, or time period, without it being trivialized, fascist, accurate, barbaric, or problematic. Anthere Nazabatsinda of Vanderbilt University wrote an article titled Hotel Rwanda and in his article he explains two of the major reason why the film Hotel Rwanda is not trivialized or fascist, how the film portrays historical accuracy, and how the film is not barbaric or problematic. The first major reason that Nazabatsinda explains in his article is how the visuals of the film are so convincing that, even the event is being recreated in film, it gives the audience a sense of reality, or as if what the audience is watching is the actual event
occurring. Nazabatsinda writes “Its main effects, however, result from the proportion or balance that it skillfully succeeds in establishing between fiction and quasijournalistic portrayal of historical events.” (233). Even though the film uses actors that aren’t of Rwandan descent, the hotel used to film Hotel Rwanda was not the actual hotel from the event that happened, or the fact that the film wasn't even filmed in Rwanda, all of
those inaccuracies can be overlooked as the Director Terry George has created a sense of reality that engages the audience and makes them feel as if what is happening on the screen is the real deal. Even though it is just a Hollywood production.
Next, Nazabatsinda explains in his article Hotel Rwanda how the radio plays an integral role in creating historical validity in the film. Nazabatsinda writes “The film opens on a radio propaganda (Hutu Power Radio) in which the announcer exhorts Hutus to
‘stay alert,’’watch their neighbors,’ the Tutsi , who are referred to as ‘cockroaches,’traitors,’ and ‘invaders’...” (235). These terms allows the audience to feel the tension between the Hutu and Tutsi. It also shows how film is used in nonfascist ways. It may project how the Hutu despise the Tutsi, but the use of the radio allows the audience to feel the tension of the situation, rather than a character saying a stereotypical line such as “The tension is strong between the Hutu and the Tutsi.”
In Nazabatsinda closing statements he writes “ In Hotel Rwanda Africa is represented as a metaphorical place of nonhumans, albeit Paul Rusesabagina strives to remind us of the contrary. In fact, it is even more interesting for intellectuals all over the world to write essays and make ‘research’ on the momentarily outrageous African traits as the ones met in Rwanda in 1994. Paul Rusesabagina can haunt them one moment, without truly leaving a final useful lesson, thus the film Hotel Rwanda is another kind of
entertainment.” (235236).
This passage from Nazabatsinda Hotel Rwanda represents that a good historical film isn’t barbaric for recreating horrible events that have
happened in our past. A fantastic historical film shouldn’t have any lesson to be learned, but should inspire people to write, to research, to bring awareness to an event that has happened in mankind's past. If a film is able to do that, then critics should set aside the inaccuracies, the problematic tools used in film, the overarching themes, and historical context of film. Critics should then look at how a film affects the audience, how it touches, moves, inspires people to appreciate their past, so that maybe humans will remember the Shoah, the Jim Crow era, the Rwandan Genocide and continue to create passionate films of what historical representations are truly meant to be.
Works Cited
Graham, Allison. "We Ain't Doin' Civil Rights." Southern Cultures 20.1 (2014): 5164.
Academic Search Elite . Web. 29 Feb. 2016.
Nzabatsinda, Anthere. "Hotel Rwanda." Research In African Literatures 36.4 (2005):
233236.
Academic Search Elite . Web. 29 Feb. 2016.
Wright, Melanie J. "'Don't Touch My Holocaust': Responding To Life Is Beautiful."
Journal Of Holocaust Education 9.1 (2000): 19. Academic Search Elite . Web. 29
Feb. 2016.