Teaching History Through the Movies

Often the History Channel makes use of movies to teach history. (
historychannel.com
) However, the history channel has an expert panel of historians, who help to distinguish between film making, storytelling, creative license, the factual and true or truer history. Or rather, this is best understanding of these experts and professional historians, since the philosophy and discipline of history is like any other philosophy and discipline that has its best understanding and best theories.

There are movies based on almost every historical period. Some of them are based on historical novels or biographies or autobiographies, Some are based on newspaper accounts. Others are original screenplays written by screenplay writers who research the history and write about it. Many of these are fictional versions of history, with much creative license. However, these films can be used to teach history, and to argue the true history.

Even spiritual history is not without debate and reassessment as is found in the controversy regarding The DaVinci Code and like novels and texts and throughout history. These debates have been going on for centuries and probably only appear new to a modern-day audience who thought that these canonical questions had already been settled, among Catholics and Protestants alike. However, biblical and theological historians are continuing their research, and certainly when new documents are discovered and/or rediscovered.

As for historical movies, whether secular or spiritual, we can also discuss, for example, Spike Lee’s Malcolm X. This is indeed Spike Lee’s Malcolm X. A movie portrayal of Malcolm X is not necessarily the true Malcolm X. Don Steele (The True Meaning of Malcolm X) has a review of the Spike Lee movie that makes this very clear. It’s available from Lulu Press, http://www.lulu.com/content/86899. No doubt there are other reviews of the movie that make clear the distinction between history and creative license, even though the Spike Lee movie is a tremendous effort and the performance of Denzel Washington is certainly the greatest role of his career and a fine performance. No fictional role can compete with this, and certainly not the role he received an Academy Award for, even though it demonstrates his versatility, as hero and anti-hero, and certainly the anti-heroic is a much a staple of film making, national and international, as the heroic.

We don’t know if the History Channel has ever included Malcolm X among its repertoire (maybe during Black History Month?) and discussed it with historians, but this would be a good movie to discuss, and to discuss the historical veracity, and not just during Black History Month. How much is true history, how much is creative and filmmic license, and how much is just Spike Lee’s Malcolm X, and just Spike Lee’s imagination or lack of imagination. And maybe how much is Denzel Washington’s Malcolm X, although, again, he gives a very powerful performance, and many agree that he’s a leading actor of this generation. Certainly Spike Lee is a notable and talented filmmaker, but as with all filmmaker he has to decide if a project is truly for him–as with Oprah Winfrey’s efforts with the Great Books of African American fictional tradition in her film productions of the works of Toni Morrison or Zora Neale Hurston, both literary icons. It’s acceptable for filmmakers to make movies. Nevertheless, it’s also acceptable for movies to be remade. Perhaps Oprah’s versions, although controversial now, might very well become classics, as is true not only in film history but literary history.