Interpretations - Cold War Example for
post-16 Richard Jones-Nerzic
I originally developed this activity back in 2003 when I
first had class access to digital video cameras to go along with my video
editing software. I think the inspiration for the activity came from seeing a bad
History Channel documentary on Lenin which gave a particularly dismissive account of Lenin as a political
theorist. What impressed me about the documentary technique was how the
impression of balance and objectivity was achieved by careful editing of
different historians saying similar things (in front of bookcases of
course) in quick succession. Watching the documentary, I could think of a
number of other historians who would disagree with the central thesis of
the programme but they did not appear. Documentary, like great narrative
history, has to tell a story that is more or less a contrivance of the
author/director. With the Schama�s Citizens you know you are
getting (only) one historian�s take on the French Revolution and as
readers (often fellow historians) we have been trained to analyse the
historical and literary techniques Schama employs and to expect that his
(usually very highly qualified assertions) are scrupulously annotated. But
with Schama�s History of Britain, his purpose, our expectations
and the documentary outcomes are very different. The audience of �our
expectations� is no longer the �producer� audience of
professional/amateur historians but the �consumer� audience of a public
that expects to be entertained and that will change channels if they are
not. Of course, this has significant implications for the content of the
�history� presented and clearly, as in the case of the Lenin
documentary, dissenting voices would only complicate and distract from the
director�s narrative flow.
I begin this activity by showing a careful selection of different
documentaries, with the purpose of identifying different documentary
techniques: voice-over, talking head, interview with historian, dramatic reconstruction, comedy, archive footage, animated
graphics, music, etc. My initial stimulous material is a 'rare archive
film' of Hitler in New York after his initial successes during WWII.
It usually takes a while before all the students realize this is a hoax. Even more suprising for the students is the fact that very
few of the 20 odd cuts in this film have been computer assisted. The
'authenticity' is achieved by judicious editing and a clever voiceover. And
this is where the fun begins.
The most important film I use is something Terry Haydn
introduced me to (see Terry at the e-Help
conference in Toulouse in 2005) that has the media studies expert Bob
Ferguson's deconstruction of a BBC documentary about Ireland. I have
edited the documentary film segment to stand apart from the analysis. I don't show the
analysis until the students have had a chance to reflect on it themselves.
Ireland - A Television History
Bob Ferguson's interpretation
Aims for students - 'To make a short (5 minute) documentary about the origins
of the Cold War. The documentary must be firmly rooted in one of the three
main historiographical traditions: Orthodox, Revisionist or
Post-Revisionist. The documentary must use certain prescribed film-making
techniques and provided archive film footage. Students will work in groups
to research, write and perform the presentation but each individual student
will be responsible for a final edited film.'
In other words, this is deliberately bad documentary. The
students start with a clear agenda to support one historiographical
position. They are forced to use a small selection of pre-edited, muted
achive video. This compels them to carefully consider how meaning can be
generated by voiceover and music. In addition, they can add one archive
video of their choice and as many archive images of their choice. Finally,
they must also be filmed as the sound-bite, historian experts reinforcing
the general message of the film.