ABSTRACT
Has cinema become an accepted genre of history in the twenty-first century? Proponents may point to film as an example of the democratization of the representation of history, though its influence is also questioned by professional historians who perceive a lack of critical methodology. Recent taxonomies of historical film stress that content analysis alone is not able to account for popular film’s diversity and cultural effect, though Toplin (2002, 10-13) notes the challenges in delineating historical film as a genre at all, for not only does the umbrella term comprise numerous and even contrasting subgenres,1 but also its incredibly broad temporal and geographical scope make it impossible to associate with any one tradition or narrative focus. Indicating that cinematic genres are not static, but rather constantly evolving processes, Toplin argues that historical cinema’s cultural status may most effectively be gauged via two strategies:
Has cinema become an accepted genre of history in the twenty-first century? Proponents may point to film as an example of the democratization of the representation of history, though its influence is also questioned by professional historians who perceive a lack of critical methodology. Recent taxonomies of historical film stress that content analysis alone is not able to account for popular film’s diversity and cultural effect, though Toplin (2002, 10-13) notes the challenges in delineating historical film as a genre at all, for not only does the umbrella term comprise numerous and even contrasting subgenres,1 but also its incredibly broad temporal and geographical scope make it impossible to associate with any one tradition or narrative focus. Indicating that cinematic genres are not static, but rather constantly evolving processes, Toplin argues that historical cinema’s cultural status may most effectively be gauged via two strategies:
analysis of formulaic conventions that have become central to the representation of history in feature films,2 as well as observance of the frequency of parody, which signals film-makers’ self-awareness regarding narrative codes and conventions that have become institutionalized.
