Preview

REFRAMING THE PAST
Reframing the Past traces what historians have written about film and television from
1898 until the early 2000s. Mia Treacey argues that historical engagement with
film and television should be reconceptualised as Screened History: an inter-
disciplinary, international field of research to incorporate and replace what has been
known as ‘History and film’. It draws from the fields of Film, Television and
Cultural Studies to critically analyse key works and connect past scholarship with
contemporary research.
Reconsidered as Screened History, the works of Pierre Sorlin, Marc Ferro, John
O’Connor, Robert A. Rosenstone and Robert Toplin are explored alongside lesser
known but equally important contributions. This book identifies a number of
common themes and ideas that have been explored by historians for decades: the
use of history on film and television as a way to teach the past; the challenge of
filmic and televisual history to more traditional historiography; and an ongoing
battle to find an ‘appropriate’ historical way to engage with Film Studies and Theory.
Screened History offers an approach to exploring History, film and television that
allows room for future developments, while connecting them to a rich and diverse
body of past scholarship.
Combining a narrative of historical research on film and television over the past
century with a reconceptualisation of the field as Screened History, Reframing the
Past is essential reading both for established scholars of History and film, Film
History and other related disciplines, and to students new to the field.
Dr Mia E. M. Treacey is Lecturer at Federation University Australia. She

researches in the fields of cultural history, specialising in Screened History.
This page intentionally left blank
REFRAMING THE PAST
History, film and television
Mia E. M. Treacey
Add Add
Add Add
AddAddAdd
AddAdd Add
Add
First published 2016
by Routledge
2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN
and by Routledge
711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2016 Mia E. M. Treacey
The right of Mia E. M. Treacey to be identified as author of this work has been
asserted by him/her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or
utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now
known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the
publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered
trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to
infringe.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Treacey, Mia E. M.
Reframing the past : history, film and television / Mia E. M. Treacey.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 978-1-138-81587-2 (hardback : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-1-138-81588-9
(pbk. : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-1-315-63916-1 (ebook) 1. Motion pictures and
history. 2. Motion pictures--Historiography. 3. Television and history.
4. Television--Historiography. I. Title.
PN1995.2.T77 2016
791.43’658--dc23
ISBN: 978-1-138-81587-2 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-138-81588-9 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-315-63916-1 (ebk)
Typeset in Bembo
by Taylor & Francis Books
For my wonderful husband John, and my amazing mum and
dad. Each of you makes everything possible in so many ways.
In loving memory of Allen Robertson Young (1925–2015):
grandpa, father, husband and teacher.
CONTENTS
Acknowledgements ix
Abbreviations xi
Preface xiii
1 A history without a past 1

2 Lost frames and faded footage: 1898–1949 13
3 History on the large and small screen: 1950–1969 31
4 Final frames and the rise of America: 1970–1979 53
5 Reruns and new releases: 1980–1989 81
6 A tale of two Roberts: 1990–1999 109
7 Screened History in the digital age: 2000 and beyond 133
Epilogue 157
Bibliography 161
Index 175
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, to my editor Catherine Aitken, thank you for your belief in this project as
well as your patience and understanding during the editing process. While we were
over 15,200kms apart you proved that with modern technology, distance is no
barrier to supporting a first time solo-author.
Thanks so much to Professor Dana Polan for your amazing support in making
this book a reality and for your insightful, generous and constructively critical
examination of my original doctoral thesis. I hope that one day we actually get to
meet in person.
To Pam Williams, my first boss, then my staff member, now colleague and best
friend. You always believed, even when I did not. Thank you will never be enough.
Huge thanks must go to Dr Stuart Levy for being an amazing boss, a wonderful
research and writing partner, a true mentor, and a great friend.
To Professor Peter Howard, Professor Bain Attwood, Rosemary Johnston and
the Historical Studies staff and students at Monash University, thank you for all the
years of inspirational teaching, support, and mentoring. Thanks also to Emeritus
Professor Bill Kent, you were an amazing teacher, an inspiration, and still very
much missed.
Thanks to all my many colleagues at Monash University and Federation University
Australia over the years I was doing my PhD, while working as an administrator,
and finally as an academic colleague. Thanks for picking up extra marking, taking
the odd class, and putting up with my frazzled demeanour mid-rewrite. That is
what makes it possible to find the time to produce any publication while still
teaching and doing all the other things demanded of academics. Thanks also to my
many students who took an interest in my research, or simply gave me the honour
of teaching them over the years; your desire to learn keeps me motivated.
Enormous and very heartfelt thanks go to Dr Andrew Edwards, Dr Lara Hanson
and Dr Ian Katz: it takes a village.
x Acknowledgements
Kate Gaffney thanks for the much-needed laughs along the way, as well as the
insight from your terrifying intellect: and the chocolate.
To my girls: Sonia Parisi, Lisa Worthy, Lisa Evans and Carolyn Murphy, thank
you from the bottom of my heart for 20 years of friendship, laughter and support.
I owe you all a number of forgotten birthday presents and missed dinners due to
this writing process.
To Professor Mark Peel and Associate Professor Deane Williams, my supervisors,
this book could not exist without the agony and the ecstasy of doing a doctoral
thesis; thanks for getting me through.
To the staff at the Mr. Brightside café: for letting me sit, drink your exceptional
coffee, and write in the company of others.
Lastly, to Sydney our cat, for keeping me company when writing. I’m choosing
to believe that sitting on everything I was trying to do or use, and blocking the
monitor with your entire body was your way of saying you liked the book, not
that you wanted to be fed.
ABBREVIATIONS
AFI Australian Film Institute

AHR American Historical Review
ASLIB Association for Information Management
BBC British Broadcasting Corporation
BCCS Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies
BFI British Film Institute
BUFC British Universities Film Council
FHAANZ Film and History Association of Australia and New Zealand
HFC Historians’ Film Committee (America)
HJFRT Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television
IAMHIST International Association for Audio-visual Media in Historical
Research and Education (Later the: International Association for
Media and History)
IIC International Iconographical Commission
ICHS International Committee of Historical Sciences
IWM Imperial War Museum, London
UHFC University Historians’ Film Committee (UK)
WiFT(Vic) Women in Film and Television (Victoria)
PREFACE
Not another book on History and film

My aim with this book was to create the one I desperately wanted to find and read
at the start of my History honours project. That thesis looked at mainstream
cinema and its representations of the end of the world (it was 1999, so it was especially
appropriate). The historical argument was the analysis of three big-budget American
action films, exploring how they revealed a complex engagement with ‘Revelation’
from the New Testament of the King James Bible. The imagery and symbolism of
‘Revelation’ depicted in the films were not incidental; they were central to the
narratives, which meant the films’ producers believed audiences would understand
the references being made. This surprised me; even knowing America’s strong
religious traditions, the idea that often obscure, detailed Biblical references would
be recognisable to a mainstream audience was challenging. To try and understand
how such an ancient text could still be familiar to the contemporary audience of a
film such as The Matrix (1999) I asked my supervisors for recommendations of
where I should begin reading to understand the relationship between History and
film. Their answer was quick and clear: start with Robert Rosenstone. So I duti-
fully read his Revisioning History (1995a) and Visions of the Past (1995b). They were
fascinating, challenging and interesting; but they left me perplexed. The question
they raised for me was were they really the starting point for a historian new to the
field? The ideas were complex and read like they were part of a much longer debate.
After reading books and articles mentioned in Rosenstone’s books, like Sorlin
(1980), Walkowitz (1985), Abrash and Sternberg (1983), O’Connor (1990), Kracauer
(1961), Raack (1983) and Jarvie (1978b) I still felt like I had landed in the middle
of a conversation for which I could find no clear beginning. I posted on various
H-net discussion boards and asked for suggestions on what books or articles
might provide the best introduction for a historian wanting to work with film. The
xiv Preface
answers (and there were multiple replies) were the same: start with Rosenstone. So
what was I missing?
Perhaps to explain why I felt so strongly that something was missing requires a
little biographical information about myself. My undergraduate majors were in
History and English, my Honours year was in History, I had no academic training
in Film or Television Studies. However, my father is a trained cinematographer
who taught film and television production, as well as theory, at Deakin University
for over 30 years. My mother taught high school Media Studies. I grew up in a
household that routinely discussed eye-line matches, the 180 degree rule, and the
evils of too much talking not enough showing (my father is a big believer in the
power of the image). I had regularly attended the annual third-year film screenings
for my father’s graduating classes: I have sat through every kind and quality of
student filmmaking you can think of (some I would rather forget!). Film and television
were two of the discourses within which I grew up; there was no such thing as
casual viewing in my home and everything was open to critique. So when I read
the publications of historians who engaged with film and television I was con-
fronted with what was, to me, an obvious disconnection: these historians were
largely disconnected from audiences and producers. Despite many of the historians
I read being involved in producing film and television, the expected discourses
were absent. There also seemed to be a disconnection between individual con-
tributors and what others had, and were, writing. I could find no connection to
the past of the field.
It was my honours year, so I found another way of approaching my project,
utilising a methodology more along the lines of what Turner described in Film as
Social Practice (1995) and what Chapman also identified as the tradition of ‘film as
social practice’ (2013) within Film History. I simply did not have the time within
the 9–12 months of an honours year to unravel the mysteries of ‘History and film’.
After an intense year of study I was not ready to commit to the time required to
undertake a PhD. Instead I completed a Master of Arts in Public History. Yet film
and television were still very much in my field of vision. As part of my Masters I
did work experience with the Australian Film Institute (AFI) research library, and
wrote an online history for the networking group Women in Film and Television
(WiFT) Victoria. Then, after a number of years working in university administra-
tion, doing the odd lecturing and tutoring gig, I finally realised what I wanted. I
really wanted to do my PhD because I really wanted to be an academic and teach at
university level. Which brought up the eternal question: what would I do my
doctoral thesis on?
The questions that had struck me in 1999 remained in 2004: what did historians
understand about film and television? When had they begun engaging with them,
and what had they written? What engagement had historians had with Film or
Television Studies? Historians had to come to terms with film and television,
otherwise what on earth were they going to do with the digital artefacts of the
future? So I began the highs and lows of doing a doctoral thesis. In that first
wonderful year of exploration I read everything I could get my hands on. But
Preface xv
I became more confused, wondering like almost every doctoral student before me if
I really had a question worth pursuing. Did I have an answer to the ‘so what?’ that
all writing ultimately must address. My answer and inspiration to persevere came
from another doctoral student: one studying Egyptian archaeology. At my depart-
ment’s yearly postgraduate conference I sat and listened with growing excitement
as a woman from my cohort showed a tiny scrap of cloth, no more than a few
centimetres square and to my untrained eye, colourless. She then proceeded to
explain about her previous career working in a textiles museum, so that for her the
tiny piece of cloth told a detailed story with the assistance of science. Tests had
been run and as a result she could tell a detailed story about the piece of cloth
found at the Dakhleh Oasis archaeological dig: its age, what colours it had been,
where it had been woven, what kind of pattern it had, which indicated what kind
of garment it had most likely been made into, and where it had originally been
made. Her presentation amazed me; a tiny piece of unremarkable looking cloth
could tell so much about a civilisation over 3,000 years old and now long gone. All
of which made me wonder, what would future historians and archaeologists find
left behind to learn about us? Looking around the room at lunch people had their
computers out. By the time I finished my doctorate, the same event had people
madly checking smart phones and tablets in the breaks. Technology was rapidly
changing; what would it mean for the future of History?
I am a historian by training, I was taught to look first to books, to the written
sources: letters, journals, political speeches, legal documents, all tangible and hand
made. They are fragile and their survival is most often unplanned; what we find of
the past is more often a historical accident than a deliberate act of preservation. So
what about the lives of my peers, what would we leave behind? I once had a
housemate who carefully and laboriously forwarded every SMS her boyfriend sent
her to each new phone (they are now married with two children and those text
messages are long gone). After university my closest friends and I scattered across
the world, but thanks to technology, email and social media we are still very much
connected. I see every new event – house, pet, child, and craft project gone
wrong – thanks to the Internet. But these things are ephemeral. They do not last.
They require highly specific technology to access. Yet, like many people I know, I
too have files I never bothered to export into new versions of software, so they are
now lost to me because I can no longer access them. What would historians of the
future be able to learn about how we lived our lives now and into the future if so
much of how we communicated disappeared? Sitting in that postgraduate con-
ference an answer came to me: film and television. (OK, there are technological
issues here; I will get to those, bear with me.) On film and television we can watch
the social uses and cultural value of text messaging and emails, of Facebook and
even out-of-fashion trends like MySpace. Such technology may not be part of the
main narrative (although some do use technology as central narrative devices),
nonetheless, film and television can demonstrate the way people interacted with,
and communicated through smart phones, tablets or computers. We can witness on
screen the impact of the digital age upon the human race. However, to historically
xvi Preface
analyse film and television requires an understanding of how they were produced
and viewed.
I have told many students over the years the halo of light behind a character’s
head may not symbolise their holy status. It may just have been a badly placed Red-
head (film light). The rainy outdoors night scene may not be a deliberate attempt
to create a mood that underlines a narrative point. Ask cinematographers, particularly
those who worked before developments in digital technology, and they will tell
you wetting down a street increases ambient light, making filmable what would
otherwise have been too flat and/or dark. Technical realities may accidentally make
narrative or symbolic sense, but that may not have been deliberate. Production
processes affect what makes it to the screen, big or little. As the following chapters
will explore, some historians who have worked with film and television did learn
about the technology and production processes, but not many, not all. Further-
more preserving film and television has been a challenge from the very beginning.
Nitrate-based film stock was flammable and unstable, with more than one archive
lost due to fire. Its replacement, celluloid film stock was more stable (although still
burns well), but does not last forever. It degrades over time, with early signs
including the loss of original colouring, a fading to odd yellowy tones. Early tele-
vision archiving was no better, production companies and television stations did
not keep master copies of everything they made, instead throwing out, or wiping
and reusing tape stock.
The digital age has not solved this problem. Film and television have resulted in
extraordinary quantities of material for archives, all in progressive stages of decay.
But digitising is no miracle cure. Not yet, because if something is digitised it
cannot be viewed without the appropriate hardware and software. Technology is
developing so fast, how can we guarantee that the digital archives of today will be
accessible in 100 years, let alone 10 or 20? Certainly film in the pre-digital age
required technology to view, but in the worst case scenario all that was needed to
view the negative to have some idea of what had been filmed was a light source.
Holding a hard drive up to the light does not have quite the same effect. How bad
is the issue of archiving? At one conference I heard a senior archivist for a major
institution explain that, due to a massive backlog in transferring original film to
new stock, they were considering freezing some of the archive to stop its decay.
An audience member asked the obvious question: what would that do to the film?
The answer: they did not know. They had no idea how to unfreeze film without
damaging it. But faced with the guaranteed decay and loss of what they could not
currently preserve they were considering taking a gamble. Risking that they would
find a way to defrost the film in the future without damaging it. A risk they were
seriously considering. Clearly, what might remain of film and television produc-
tions in 20, 50 or 100 years will most likely be as fragile and random as other
artefacts of past eras.
All of which is a very personal explanation of why this book, and why now.
What my doctoral research demonstrated to me was that there did exist a massive
body of scholarship relevant to historical engagement with film and television.
Preface xvii
From diverse disciplines and an international body of scholars it went back well
over 100 years. But it was a disconnected narrative. A puzzle only partly com-
pleted. The problem this created was historians could begin to learn about what
other historians had written about film and television (even produced) from a
multitude of entry points. But this possibility for a random entry to the field risked
the new researcher joining a disconnected conversation, missing key pieces of the
picture. Leaving them to ask a similar question to mine: was this it? There are many
books about ‘History and film’, and ‘History and television’, but most have no
overview of the field, no connection to the earlier scholarship and debates. What
has been disconnected and lost is a sense of the field’s past. There are also many
books and articles by film and television scholars about ‘film and History’ or ‘television
and History’, but those are written from within the discourses of disciplines that are
not the same as History. I have now studied a great deal of film and television
theory, criticism and history, but I am still first and foremost a trained historian. I
see the world through the lens of the past and I attempt to make sense of it that
way. Similarly, those that have written about history, film and television from the
disciplinary perspective of Film or Television Studies see its development differently,
because they were trained to see through a different lens.
This book is the culmination of over a decade of reading, researching, following
footnotes and reading lists, chasing down rare books online (thank goodness for the
Internet), and driving the Document Delivery librarians mad with my constant
requests for older, non-digitised articles and books. What my journey taught me
was that historians have indeed explored a lot more than what was represented in
the first publications that I read. What I discovered was there was not so much a
‘gap in the literature’ as a disconnected narrative. Contemporary historians were
not familiar with earlier historical scholarship on film and television. Additionally,
until the 1990s there was a significant disconnection between historians and those
whose field of study was Film, Television or Cultural Studies. My doctoral research
resulted in a database of nearly 7,000 books, articles, reviews, and catalogues
relating to History, film and television, written by scholars of History, Film Studies,
Television Studies and many other related fields. Furthermore, that number
represented only a fraction of relevant sources written in languages other than
English due to my own linguistic limitations. Within those thousands of publications
was a pattern, one that told a story of how historians had written about and even
produced film and television. But it was a fragmented and difficult narrative to
navigate.
I agree with those who have argued that it was British historian Paul Smith who
wrote what was arguably the best in-depth, international and interdisciplinary
analysis of the field: in 1976. Yet, since then historians have at most provided
fragmentary reading lists and then moved on (quite reasonably) to the more inter-
esting act of doing historical analyses of film or television. Nevertheless, without a
more complex appreciation of where we have been, historians are caught in a
perpetual loop, frequently repeating past research goals, methods and approaches.
Historians also need to connect with what has been written by film historians and
xviii Preface
television historians. There is something very important to be learnt from other

disciplines such as Film Studies and Television Studies, but even that is still only
part of the picture. Historians must begin reconnecting with their own earlier
engagement with film and television, because only then can they move on to the
really exciting challenges. Crossing disciplinary divides and exploring historical
insights offered through a truly interdisciplinary approach to film and television.
The coming attraction

Reframing the Past, as explained in the next chapter, argues for a genuinely inter-
disciplinary approach to what historians have called ‘History and film’, and which I
argue needs to be reconceptualised as ‘Screened History’. The decade of my doctoral
thesis research and its extension into Reframing the Past revealed historians have
struggled to develop an interdisciplinary, international understanding of the broader
range of relevant scholarship on History, film and television. It also demonstrated
that Film Studies and Television Studies have not had the same degree of difficulty,
as later chapters explore. Ultimately, it has been the historians who remained dis-
connected; a problem that has persisted for decades and has shaped the development of
the field. Reframing the Past seeks to redress this disconnection. Furthermore it
proved illuminating to consider the development of History and other disciplines
such as Film and Television Studies during the periods under discussion. The
broader disciplinary contexts revealed the ways in which larger intellectual movements
and world events shaped different disciplines, and in turn shaped how, why, and
with what theoretical perspective historians approach film and television. The
broader context confirmed the disconnection between historians and the substantial
body of scholarship on the very same field of inquiry occurring in other disciplines.
It also revealed the curious and creative moments where disciplinary boundaries
were crossed, and truly groundbreaking work was accomplished.
Reconnecting past and present scholarship of historians, as well as connecting
them with kindred spirits from other disciplines, reframed the narrative of History,
film and television. It revealed a body of scholarship over 100 years old, made up
of thousands of publications in a variety of languages. Reframed as Screened History
this body of scholarship has a lot to offer historians and others interested in the
curious cultural, social and artistic intersections between the past, film and television.
Note: as the next chapter explores and explains, a significant feature of this book is
the argument to reconceptualise the field of research historians call ‘History and film’
as Screened History. This raised the issue of when to refer to the scholarship under
discussion as examples of ‘History and film’ and when to categorise them as Screened
History. Screened History is not a concept that existed when the scholarship under
discussion was produced. The decision was made to use Screened History through-
out to demonstrate why all the scholarship being discussed needs to be reconsidered
in this way. Therefore, the only time ‘History and film’ is used is in quotations from
sources that used that terminology, or when discussing an issue surrounding how its
use affected a particular example, or the development of the field as a whole.
1
A HISTORY WITHOUT A PAST
Introductory historiography books in the 2000s have placed film and television
outside the boundaries of mainstream History, if they mention it at all.1 ‘Beyond the
academy’ as Lambert and Schofield (2004) have described it in Making History: An
Introduction to the History and Practices of a Discipline. Or as the godfather of ‘History
and film’ Robert Rosenstone recently described, still a ‘field (or sub-field or sub-
sub-field) in search of a methodology’.2 But how can this be possible? Film is over
100 years old. It has been discussed technically, artistically, scientifically, culturally,
politically, and socially since its inception. Television may not be as old, but its
social, cultural and political impact has been significant. The answer to this question
is that the attention paid and value placed upon film or television depends on the
definition of History in use. If the definition of History is broadened beyond
traditional, stereotypical ideas of books about great men, wars and politics written
only by historians, then it becomes clear that there have been historical discussions of
film dating back to the late nineteenth century. Similarly, historical discussions of
television appeared almost simultaneous to its invention. Some historians have been
engaged with both for decades within a variety of historical, and non-historical sub-
fields. Historians have even engaged with the recent developments in digital and
online technology. Yet, within the hierarchy of established historiography there
still exists a clear distinction between what is considered the serious business of
History, and the exploration of film and television within a historical context.
Questions remain unanswered: why is it that film, television, and multimedia
technologies do not have an established position within History? Are they really
just something subsumed within the larger auspices of Cultural History? Or should
it be a sub-field of its own? Is it really still, as Rosenstone argued, a field still in
search of a methodology? In exploring these questions, Reframing the Past proposes
a new history of historical engagement with film and television, reconceptualising
its boundaries, reconsidering and challenging historical attitudes.
2 A history without a past
Reframing the past

During the research for this book many different names for the field were encoun-
tered. The field has variously been called ‘History and film’, ‘History on film’,
‘historiophoty’, ‘televisual history’, ‘media history’, ‘Film History’, ‘history on film’
and ‘audiovisual history’ (and memorably at one conference, ‘history and/on/in film’).3
Yet at its most basic, regardless of nomenclature, the scholarship represented in this
book explores the intersections between the academic discipline of History, an at
times ephemeral concept of ‘the past’, and the artefacts of film and television.
Every different name has created different boundaries and divisions, rarely opening
up new possibilities. Some have restricted possibilities by focusing on a single
medium, while others have aligned themselves with specific disciplines, thus limiting
both the publications considered, and the methods utilised. For example, ‘History
and film’ has been claimed within the boundaries of History, but Film History
belongs to the discipline of Film Studies. Each nomenclature discourages researchers
from straying over boundaries and considering ideas, artefacts, or methods beyond
their own precisely defined field. What is also clear, is that none of the previous
names for the field encompass future forms of media; resulting in another artificial
boundary being drawn.
During the research and writing of this book it became clear that if it was going
to be possible to understand the history of how historians have engaged with film
and television, and the possibilities offered by other disciplines for the future of the
field, an adjustment to the field of vision was required. Doing so would mean
redefining the field in broader terms: reframing it as Screened History. Screened
History is flexible enough to cover the wide variety of past audiovisual forms and also
reasonably future-proof. Whatever developments in film, television, telecommunica-
tions, computers or personal entertainment devices, there will undoubtedly need to
be some kind of screen onto which images are projected, viewed or broadcast:
whether real or only in the mind’s eye. Screened History is able to include the
thoughts, critiques and writings about film, television or other media by any
interested scholar or individual, from historians and film scholars to Cultural Studies
theorists, journalists and bloggers. While Screened History can represent the history
of a particular form of media, such as Film History, it is not medium specific. Its
screen artefacts can include film, television, online streaming, video, DVD, or any
other format that carries audiovisual information and that becomes an object of study
in the future. Screened History includes all generic forms: comedies, westerns,
thrillers, science fiction, drama, melodrama, documentaries, historical dramas, raw
footage, compilation films, actuality footage, costume dramas, spoofs and remakes.
Reframed, Screened History encompasses writing about individual screen artefacts
and their use for History: cultural, social, artistic, industrial and political. Explorations
made in its name can include individual films, national cinemas or thematic and
generic groupings. Screened History can be the representation of the past on film,
television or any other form of media: the documentary, docudrama, and historical
fiction film, even the personal video-diary. It can include historians as filmmakers
A history without a past 3
or filmmakers as historians making productions about the past, about the repre-
sentation of the past on screen, and all other combinations of History and the
audiovisual on screen. Screened History can incorporate the vast bodies of scholarship,
theories, ideas and methodologies from a number of different disciplinary areas,
including: History, Film Studies, Cultural Studies, Television Studies, Film History,
Film Criticism, Media Studies, Mass Communications, and Cinema Studies, as well
as non-academic writing about film, television and the past. Screened History is
inherently interdisciplinary. Reframing the Past, and the concept of Screened History,
proposes a future for a disparate and divided body of work that has, since the late
nineteenth century, expressed the thoughts, concerns and ideas of historians, film
scholars, cultural theorists and many others about the intersections between the past
and all forms of media.
Rewind
Reframing the Past is based on the premise that historical interest in film and television
has lost sight of its own past and in doing so it has lost connection to significant
past works. These forgotten works may provide the methodological answers it has
been searching for, from within History and a number of other disciplines, especially
Film and Television Studies. When reading widely on History, film and television
a sense of déjà vu develops, of constant proclamations of ‘new beginnings’. Yet,
when closely considered, interest by historians in film and television can only be
considered new, because much of what was said between the 1890s and the late
1950s has been forgotten. This lack of awareness of its own past has severely limited
historians’ theoretical and methodological development when working with film
and television. Arguably this disconnection from the past is what has enabled the
field to be relegated to the fringes of History. Thus, Reframing the Past reconceptualises
the field as Screened History to enable a more comprehensive understanding of
historical engagement with film and television.
Another reason for the fragile status of Screened History within History has been
due to the development of the academic discipline of History over the last century.
The discourses available to historians at different moments in time offered particular
opportunities and limited others; this is a truism of all disciplinary discourses.
However, without explicitly taking disciplinary development into consideration, it
is nearly impossible to appreciate the truly innovative approaches that some have
employed within Screened History. It is also impossible to appreciate the breadth
and depth of the existing body of scholarship in isolation. Accordingly, a fundamental
aim of Reframing the Past is to provide a contextual analysis of Screened History’s
publications, individuals, and organisations within the broader frame of the deve-
lopment of History. Simply listing, either briefly in-text, or in bibliographies, what
has previously been written, which has been the dominant approach taken in the
past,4 does not answer questions about the relevant status of Screened History
within the larger field of History or the possibilities for methodology. Nor does it
explain why film and television have most often been merged into a single
technological form when they are distinctive formats with their own artistic,
technical and historical nuances.5
Another issue affecting the development of Screened History has been a difficult
relationship with Film and later Television Studies. Historians who have worked in
Screened History were originally faced with a lack of any academic discipline that
dealt with film, or later, television. As Reframing the Past identifies, historians began
engaging with film at the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth
centuries. But at this time there were no disciplines of Film or Television Studies
within academia. However, there were industry discussions about film and later tele-
vision occurring during this early period (discussed in Chapter 2), and there is some
evidence of historical involvement. Regrettably most of these engagements focused on
the making of film, rather than its analysis. When Film and later Television Studies
were established within academia, the difficult relationship continued. As further
elaborated in later chapters, some historians ignored these disciplines entirely, pre-
ferring traditional historical paradigms, while others were overtly negative about its
value for historical analyses. Additionally, some historians utilised theories that they
conceptualised as belonging to Film or Television Studies, but which were not actually
part of the mainstream paradigms of the disciplines. Accordingly, one of the purposes of
this history is to consider how historians’ attitudes toward these other disciplines
have changed over time. Nevertheless, there were historians who crossed the dis-
ciplinary divide in groundbreaking ways, embracing approaches from both academic
and non-academic discussions of film and television, such as the work of Thomas
R. Cripps and Karsten Fledelius. Those historians who strayed across these divides
demonstrated rich interdisciplinary possibilities for History, and they have produced
some of the most groundbreaking work in the field. Thus, Reframing the Past also
contextualises Screened History from within the disciplinary development of Film
and Television Studies. This allows for an exploration of possible interdisciplinary
opportunities to ascertain whether there have been, in the past and the present,
other options that historians have not been aware of or considered useful.
When the publications, individuals, and organisations that form Screened History
are traced and contextualised in this way something previously obscured becomes
clear. What historians have claimed as ‘History and film’ substantially overlaps with
the sub-field of Film History within Film Studies. Indeed various writers have been
claimed by both disciplines, depending on the publications within which they
published or their original disciplinary training.6 Further highlighting the insular
nature of History’s approach to Screened History, Film Studies publications that fall
within the broader reconceptualisation of the field have, since the 1980s, seriously
engaged with History. Yet, historians have been far less inclined to see beyond the
boundaries of their own field. In some cases, bibliographic lists by historians that
include Film Studies or Television Studies publications at all sometimes separated
them out and clearly delineated them as ‘not History’. In comparison, Film History
publications since the 1980s have suffered far less from such disciplinary boundary
riding. They are more inclusive, more interdisciplinary, and more informed about
the theories and methods of fields such as History.
This work has, in a deliberate strategy to break the cycle of insularity, engaged
with a number of theories and methods from the fields of Film and Television
Studies as well as Cultural Studies. In modelling a more interdisciplinary approach
to Screened History, works of contemporary film historians became a significant
influence on the narrative constructed in Reframing the Past. Separating the historians
from the film or television scholars is ultimately impossible, artificial, and damaging
to the ability of Screened History in establishing its identity and status within History.
Removing artificial boundaries and embracing the interdisciplinary nature of its
objects of inquiry, method, theory, and researchers, resulted in the emergence of a
substantial interdisciplinary subfield including two, if not more, disciplines, with
over 7,000 publications over 100 years, that have utilised a diversity of methodological
approaches. Reframed this way, Screened History cannot possibly be considered a
sub-sub field still in search of a methodology.
Screened History – ‘a’ history

Recently, there have been a number of publications exploring similar ground to
the reconceptualised Screened History, written by historians, film scholars and
commentators from a variety of fields and backgrounds. Some, like Kember’s Marketing
Modernity: Victorian Popular Shows and Early Cinema (2009), or Dillon’s History on British
Television: Constructing Nation, National and Collective Memory (2010) have focused
on particular periods of Screened History, or single mediums and their national
influence. Others, like Chapman’s Film and History (2013) or Chopra-Gant’s
Cinema and History: The Telling of Stories (2008) have taken a more holistic approach
to the topic. However, upon closer analysis they are still written from within
definable disciplinary perspectives. Historians have also begun discussing the wider
implications of the cultural changes of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, in
publications like Beck’s Presenting History Past and Present (2012) and De Groot’s
Consuming History: Historians, and Heritage in Contemporary Popular Culture (2009),
and Remaking History: The Past in Contemporary Historical Films (2015).
Since 2000 there have been publications by historians that have a focus on an
approach to film and television that meets the reconceptualisation of Screened
History. Two examples in particular reveal the ongoing challenges resulting from
the field’s loss of understanding of its own past: Marnie Hughes-Warrington’s The
History on Film Reader (2009) and Rosenstone’s History on Film/Film on History
(2006 and 2012). The History on Film Reader’s focus was clearly stated as being on
film as a medium, and included excellent examples of early writings by historians
and an impressive engagement with a number of conceptually difficult works of
Film Theory, Film History and Film Criticism. Because of its clearly defined focus
its overview of the field was short and includes no analysis, and its further reading
list includes only 34 publications, the earliest from 1971. In an earlier publication,
History Goes to the Movies: Studying History on Film (2007) Hughes-Warrington
stated there was ‘merit’ in ‘drawing together the information on historical films that
is currently scattered across specialised and general print and online publications’.7
However, that was not the goal of History Goes to the Movies which clearly established
its focus on an analysis of five examples of the ‘prodigious outpouring of publications
on historical films’ in recent years.8 While asserting the value in having a history of
the field, writing one was not the purpose of either of Hughes-Warrington’s books.
Similarly, Rosenstone’s History on Film/Film on History (2006 and 2012) included
a short discussion of the field, which argued serious historical engagement in
Screened History began in the ‘late 1960s’.9 Since the late 1980s Rosenstone’s
work on film has been groundbreaking and highly influential. However, his
interest has always lain with a particular sub-field of Screened History: the idea of
film as a way of doing History. In History on Film/Film on History his discussion of
the field is very much in the mode of the standard narrative, short and with little
detail before moving on to an in-depth discussion of Natalie Zemon Davis’s Slaves
on Screen (2000). The ‘Guide to Key Reading’ also displayed the standard narrative
of historical interest in film as a contemporary phenomenon stating: ‘it’s difficult to
point to many texts as “key” to what still must be seen as a field (or sub-field or
sub-sub-field) in search of a methodology’.10 Mentioning only 84 publications,
Rosenstone categorised three works as the ‘Ur texts’ of the field, giving them the
status of the earliest, primitive origins of the field (the definition of the now rarely
used ur- prefix). These Ur texts were: Paul Smith’s The Historian and Film (1976),
K.R.M. Short’s Feature Films as History (1981) and Fledelius, Jorgenson, Skyum-
Nielson and Swiatek’s History and the Audio-Visual Media (1979). Two were (and
still are) out of print (Short, and Fledelius et al.) and it was not clear that History and
the Audio-Visual Media was part of a series of three conference proceedings, not an
individual publication. The absence of an analysis of the texts meant their com-
plexity and the broader history of the field found within them was lost. Rosenstone’s
‘Ur texts’ actually represent contributions from American, British, European, and
Russian historians dating back well before the 1960s, including a number that
identify the earliest Screened History publication as Matuszewski’s 1898 article.11
Thus Rosenstone’s ‘Guide to Key Reading’ missed an opportunity to make an
important explanation of the relevance of such texts to the past, present and future
of the field. A history of the field can only be fully understood if reading lists,
bibliographies and overviews are placed within their broader context, and they
require analysis and discussion if the standard narrative is to be challenged. How-
ever, while Rosenstone and Hughes-Warrington provide important indicators
toward the broader history of the field, such a history was never the goal, they
were not the texts to fix the disconnections within Screened History’s past.
These works provide important clues to the more complex development of
historical interest in film and television, and when those clues are followed raise
important questions about the idea of a broader field of Screened History. Yet,
despite the work of those like Rosenstone and Hughes-Warrington (and earlier by
Bertrand, Smith, or Toplin),12 the standard narrative of the field historians have
referred to as ‘History and film’ has remained largely unchallenged. It argues the
field began with the conferences and publications from America in the late 1970s
and 1980s. However, as Australian film scholar Ina Bertrand identified as early as
1982, the field had a much longer, more international and interdisciplinary past.13
When the clues are followed what is revealed is a counter-narrative of Screened
History: a field over 100 years old, with contributors from all over the world. The
loss of this counter-narrative has resulted in a fundamental misidentification of the
origins of the field. It is this gap that Reframing the Past seeks to directly redress:
providing a reframing of Screened History.
A history of Screened History

Reframing the Past is structured to explore different periods relevant to Screened
History, beginning in Chapter 2 with an exploration of the period between 1898
and 1949. The third chapter looks at the two decades between 1950 and 1969, and
the fourth explores Screened History in the 1970s. Chapter 5 re-examines the
work of the 1980s, before moving on in Chapter 6 to look at the importance of
American historians in the 1990s. The final chapter looks at the Screened Histories
that have been appearing in the first decade of the twenty-first century, and considers
their possibilities for the future. Within each chapter a general overview of the field
is provided that includes as many relevant publications, conferences and contributions
that could be considered as part of Screened History. In every chapter A Broader
Frame provides a discussion of developments within History, Film and Television
Studies to provide the broader disciplinary and intellectual context for the deve-
lopment of Screened History in each period. Following this, each chapter moves
on to explore specific publications, individuals, and institutions in more detail. The
examples chosen for in-depth analysis fall into two main groups. The first are
recognised key texts, revisited and reconsidered within the broader conceptualisation
of Screened History. The second group includes those that were uncovered during
research which, for a variety of reasons, offer examples representative of approaches
that have either reinforced the standard narrative of ‘History and film’, or provided
evidence of an emerging counter-narrative of Screened History’s development.
Chapter 2, ‘Lost frames and faded footage’, explores the earliest historical dis-
cussions about the invention of cinema and its effects on History, beginning with
Matuszewski’s 1898 article and tracing a variety of publications through to 1949.
Historians rarely mention this body of work and if now mentioned at all, they are
relegated to footnotes, bibliographies and suggested further reading. Yet Screened
History, reframed to include an analysis of the work of Matuszewski and others
into the late 1940s, is revealed to be a field where film was firmly within the
historian’s field of vision. It was far from being a cohesive field of study, with
developments in historical paradigms, as well as the rich cultural significance of
cinema in the early-to-mid-twentieth century affecting the ways in which historians
first engaged with Screened History. While History was an established academic
discipline by the late nineteenth century, Film Studies was not an academic dis-
cipline until the late 1960s and early 1970s. Thus, historians turned to more tradi-
tional disciplines like Sociology, English Literature and standard historiographical
approaches to deal with film. Yet, there were serious theoretical and philosophical
debates about film by filmmakers and film critics during this period, which, if
historians had engaged with them more, could have dramatically changed the
development of Screened History.
This early period also uncovers evidence of approaches, attitudes and themes that
were to become key characteristics of Screened History. These include, a mistrust
of the commercial and technological nature of film, a preference for non-fiction, as
well as a substantial interest in the teaching of History with film. As well as outlining
the broader shape of the field and contextualising its development within History
and early debates about film, the second chapter also includes early contributions
from Britain and Australia from different historical and educational institutions.
This chapter then moves on to an in-depth discussion of one of the most refer-
enced, yet frequently derided, figures of Screened History: Siegfried Kracauer.
Kracauer’s From Caligari to Hitler (1947) is often mentioned as one of the earliest
works of the field, but always in a qualified (and often somewhat embarrassed)
manner. Historians have consigned Kracauer’s work to the past, not worthy of
serious engagement, and his work was similarly marginalised within Film Studies
for many decades. However, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, Film Studies revisited
Kracauer, reassessing and challenging the perceived shortcomings of his works. This
reassessment of Kracauer suggests that his work can, and should, hold a more
positive and central role in the history of Screened History.
Chapter 3, ‘History on the large and small screen’, focuses on 1950 to 1969,
looking in particular at the effect of the resumption of television broadcasting in
the UK at the end of the Second World War, and its eventual spread throughout
the world. Outlining the developments in History and early Film Studies in the
period, the disciplinary paradigms of the pre-1950s are tracked into this new
era, and a changing historical discourse can be observed. During this period
Screened History was a far more interdisciplinary field than in later decades, with
contributions from individuals from diverse disciplinary fields. Analyses of the work
of British documentarist Arthur Elton and British film critic Penelope Houston are
considered alongside work of the Deputy Director of the Imperial War Museum
(IWM) Christopher Roads. American filmmaker Jay Leyda’s Films Beget Films
(1964) is also investigated along with the first edition of the British journal Uni-
versity Vision, which in 1968 was reprinted along with the Conference Proceedings
from the ‘Film and the Historian’ held earlier the same year.14 The chapter also
analyses the significant effect television had on historical interest in film, including
the groundbreaking television work of British historian A.J.P. Taylor. The British
television documentary The Great War (1964) is revealed as a catalyst for historians to
begin paying serious attention to the way the past was represented, rather ironi-
cally, on film. Any sustained historical interest in television, which demonstrated
the difference between the two mediums, would not occur for decades to come.
Chapter 4, ‘Final frames and the rise of America’, explores the shift from a
Screened History dominated by Britain and Europe in the 1970s, through the rise
to prominence of American historical interest in film and television. Broadening its
scope in this period, the field developed an awareness of a wider variety of screen
forms including documentaries, newsreels, and historical fiction films. The idea
began to emerge of film as a cultural and social artefact offering possible insights
into the societies that produced it, and historians began to discuss possible metho-
dologies. Throughout this chapter the way television began to be established as part
of what historians continued to misleadingly call ‘History and film’ is analysed.
Two of the ‘Ur-texts’ are analysed in detail: Smith’s The Historian and Film (1976)
and Fledelius et al.’s History and the Audio-Visual Media (1979). British historian Paul
Smith’s The Historian and Film (1976) is examined in detail, with the nearly complete
disappearance of his historically and conceptually advanced work from the field
explored. Then all three publications making up the Studies in History, Film and
Society series are considered as parts of a greater movement. An analysis is made not
just of History and the Audio-Visual Media (1979) but also of two later connected
publications History and Film: Methodology, Research, Education (1980), and Contemporary
History in Film and Television (1982). Together they are of importance to Screened
History as they include international contributions from European and Russian
scholars, and substantial engagement with theories and methods from the new field
of Film Studies. Moving away from the medium of film, the chapter analyses one
of the earliest publications dealing specifically with television, Colin McArthur’s
Television and History (1978). Working at the British Film Institute (BFI), McArthur
provides an example of a non-historian’s highly theoretical analysis of television,
History, and significantly the ideological relationship between the medium and the
audience. The chapter finishes with the arrival of a new group of historians to
Screened History. The end of the 1970s was the moment of a changing of the
guard: from a field focused on British and European scholarship, to one concentrated
on American contributions. Accordingly, the chapter closes by looking at the work
of Americans John E. O’Connor and Martin A. Jackson, whose contributions and
collaborations in the late 1970s and the 1980s were the publications which the
standard narrative of ‘History and film’ misidentified as the beginning of historical
interest in film.
Some of the most well known publications in Screened History are explored in
the fifth chapter, ‘Reruns and new releases’, including the work of French scholars
Pierre Sorlin and Marc Ferro, whose English-language works highly influenced
American Screened History of the 1980s and beyond. As historians struggled with
the rise of New Historicism and Postmodernism, Screened History achieved a new
level of maturity in the 1980s. The work of Sorlin and Ferro also marked, for most
historians, the final influence of any distinctly European or British contributions.
Yet, British and European Screened History only disappears if significant con-
tributions to Film Studies, in particular the new sub-field of Film History, are
ignored. Accordingly, Chapter 5 reconsiders the standard narrative of the field,
integrating British and European contributions to Film History into Screened History.
Despite this, it was American historians such as Natalie Zemon Davis and John E.
O’Connor who were to have the largest impact on Screened History in the 1980s.
The period also saw historians move almost completely to the focus on the historical
feature film. Most famously, in 1988 the American Historical Review (AHR)
published a forum on ‘History and film’. A special edition that became a touch-
stone of the field, it is also significant for understanding the development of
Screened History in the 1980s. The (AHR) forum marked the arrival of a scholar
who was to significantly shape Screened History for the next twenty years: Robert
Rosenstone.
‘A tale of two Roberts’, Chapter 6, traces the development of Screened History
through the 1990s. The field is contextualised within the rise of Cultural History
and the effect of identity politics and Postmodernism on Film Studies. While
Reframing the Past challenges the standard narrative of ‘History and film’, there is
one element that cannot be discarded. One contributor that, if left out, would
mark the narrative as incomplete, misrepresentative of the field, and guilty of all
the sins that historians have accused film and television of committing. Any narrative
of Screened History must include the influence of Rosenstone. The 1990s were
the decade he became the undisputed star of Screened History, bringing the idea of
telling History through film and television to the forefront of historical debate.
However, in addition to Rosenstone’s contribution toward establishing History on
screen as a legitimate medium for representing and examining the past, the period
consisted of more than just his approach. Other works from the period exhibited
many characteristics that could be traced back to the scholarship of the 1960s
and earlier. Even Rosenstone’s work connected back to ideas from Ferro, Sorlin,
Smith, A.J.P. Taylor and Matuszewski. Rosenstone did not work in isolation.
Thus, another element of the development of 1990s Screened History was the
work of another Robert: Robert Brent Toplin. A prolific and influential scholar in
his own right, Toplin’s work on mainstream American cinema embodied a different
approach to Rosenstone’s and resulted in a substantial body of Screened History
scholarship. During the 1990s Rosenstone and Toplin epitomised the two most
influential American schools of Screened History: mainstream representations of
History on screen (Toplin) and film as a new ‘postliterate’ way of doing History
(Rosenstone). Additionally, during the 1990s there were others whose ideas, while
not so well known, continued to push boundaries, consider new possibilities and
challenge History to reconsider the legitimacy of Screened History. Thus Chapter 6
looks at how important it is to consider the ways in which a variety of different
ideas about Screened History continued, changed and developed outside the standard
narrative and its most well-known of contributors.
Chapter 7, ‘Screened History in the digital age’ looks at recent works of
Screened History, and considers the ways in which engagements with Film and
Television Studies as well as a variety of other disciplines have provided new depth
and insight. Works by historians, film scholars and others are analysed and con-
sidered within a broader context that demonstrates clearly why the field should be
conceptualised as more than just ‘History and film’. Interest in History on film,
television and the Internet has not diminished; it is continuing to expand, with
entire cable channels devoted to the past. Where the future of Screened History
lies – indeed its status as a field at all – is a complex issue and is the focus of this
final chapter. It argues that a better appreciation of the history of a reconceptualised
Screened History offers benefits for future research. It also touches on the fact that,
in an increasingly online world, there are new challenges ahead for historians
interested in the past and the moving image.
Notes
1 For example: Marnie Hughes-Warrington, Fifty Key Thinkers on History (New York:
Routledge, 2010); J.H. Arnold, History: A Very Short Introduction (New York: Oxford,
2000); G.G. Iggers, Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the
Postmodern Challenge (Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press, 2005); E. Breisach,
Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, Modern (Chicago and London: University of Chicago
Press, 2007); K. Jenkins, ed., The Postmodern History Reader (London and New York:
Routledge, 1997); M. Bentley, ed., Companion to Historiography (London and New York:
Routledge, 1997). There are some exceptions that mention film, television or media in
general, for example: A. Curthoys and J. Docker, Is History Fiction? (Sydney: UNSW
Press, 2006); L. Kramer and S. Maza, eds. A Companion to Western Historical Thought
(Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2006); and A. Munslow, The Routledge Companion
to Historical Studies (London and New York: Routledge, 2006).
2 R.A. Rosenstone, History on Film/Film on History (Harlow, London: Pearson Longman,
2006), 165.
3 T. O’Regan, and B. Shoesmith, eds. History on/and/in Film: Selected Papers from the 3rd
Australian History and Film Conference (Perth, Western Australia: History and Film
Association of Australia, 1987).
4 For example in: P. Smith, ed., The Historian and Film (Cambridge, London, New York,
Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1976); J.E.O’Connor, ed., Image as Artifact: The
Historical Analysis of Film and Television (Malabar, Florida: Robert E. Krieger Publishing
Co. Inc., 1990); M. Landy, The Historical Film: History and Memory in Media (New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2001); M. Hughes-Warrington, History Goes to
the Movies: Studying History on Film (London and New York: Routledge, 2007).
5 There are some exceptions to this, for example: C. McArthur, Television and History
(London: BFI, 1978); O’Connor, Image as Artifact; and a significant growth in interest in
the 1990s (see later chapters).
6 Examples include Thomas R. Cripps, Siegfried Kracauer, Robert Sklar, and Rosenstone.
7 Hughes-Warrington, History Goes to the Movies, 6.
8 Hughes-Warrington, History Goes to the Movies, 4.
9 Rosenstone, History on Film/Film on History, 21.
10 Rosenstone, History on Film/Film on History, 165.
11 B. Matuszewski, ‘A new source of history: the creation of a depository for historical
cinematography (Paris, 1898)’. Screening the Past (1997), accessed August 23, 2015, http://
www.screeningthepast.com/2014/12/a-new-source-of-history-the-creation-of-a-deposi
tory- for-historical-cinematography-paris-1898.
12 I. Bertrand, ‘Film and history: the international context’, in The First Australian History
and Film Conference Papers, ed. A. Hutton (North Ryde, NSW: AFTRS, 1982), 3–22;
Smith, The Historian and Film; R.B. Toplin, ‘Film and history: the state of the union’.
Perspectives 37 (1999a), accessed August 23, 2015, http://www.historians.org/publica
tions-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/april-1999/film-and-history-the-sta
te-of-the-union.
13 Bertrand, ‘Film and history: the international context’.
14 ‘Film and the historian: a combined reprint of University Vision No. 1 February 1968 and
monograph Film and the Historian, April 1968’. University Vision: The Journal of the British
Universities Film Council, 1 (1969).
References
The British Universities Film Council Past, present, and future [BUFC], University Vision: The
Journal of the British Universities Film Council 11(1974): 815.
The Cineaste editors choices for favorite, worst, and funniest historical films, Cineaste
29:2(2004): 69.
Film and history resource list (Bibliography), Cineaste 29:2(2004): 7072.
Film and the Historian: A combined reprint of University Vision No. 1 February 1968 and
monograph Film and the Historian, April 1968, University Vision: The Journal of the British
Universities Film Council 1(1969).
History and film, University Vision: The Journal of the British Universities Film Council 1(1968).
History on television, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 9:1(1989).
Newsreels in wartime, B.K.S Journal 9(1946): 1727.
Special Issue: Siegfried Kracauer, New German Critique 54(1991).
Abrash, B. and Sternberg, J. eds. Historians and Filmmakers: Toward Collaboration. New York:
The Institute for Research in History, 1983.
Adams, D. The use of film in American studies, University Vision: The Journal of the British
Universities Film Council 1(1968): 1518.
Aitken, I. Into the realm of the wondrous: French cinematic impressionism, in European Film
Theory and Cinema. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2001, 6990.
Aitken, I. ed. European Film Theory and Cinema. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2001.
Aldgate, A.T. Cinema and History: British Newsreels and the Spanish Civil War. London:
Scholar Press, 1979.
Allen, R.C. and Gomery, D. Film History: Theory and Practice. New York: Knopf, 1985.
Althusser, L. For Marx. London: Verso, 1969.
Althusser, L. and Balibar, E. Reading Capital. London: NLB, 1970.
Altman, R. Film/Genre, London: BFI, 1999.
Altman, R. Conclusion: a semantic/syntactic/pragmatic approach to genre, in J. Codell , ed.,
Genre, Gender, Race, and World Cinema: An Anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2006: 1322.
Anderegg, M. ed. Inventing Vietnam: The War in Film and Television. Philadelphia: Temple
University Press, 1991.
162 Anderson, M.B. , Grodal, T. , Kjrup, S. , Larsen, P. , Madsen, P. and Poulsen, J.
Filmanalyser: Historien i filmen (Film analyses: History in Film). Copenhagen: Rode Hane,
1974.
Andrew, D. The three ages of cinema studies and the age to come, PLMA: Publications of the
Modern Language Association of America 115(2000): 341351.
Ang, I. Watching Dallas: Soap Opera and the Melodramatic Imagination. New York: Methuen,
1985.
Arnheim, R. Film als Kunst. Berlin: Ernst Rowohlt, 1932.
Arnheim, R. Film as Art. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1957.
Arnold, J.H. History: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford, 2000.
Badsey, S. The Great War since The Great War , Historical Journal of Film, Radio and
Television 22(2002): 3745.
Barnouw, D. Critical Realism: History, Photography and the Work of Siegfried Kracauer.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994.
Barta, T.ed. Screening the Past: Film and the Representation of History. Westport, CT: Praeger,
1998.
Bazin, A. Myth of total cinema, in H. Gray , ed. What is Cinema?. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California, 1967.
Bazin, A. The ontology of the photographic image, in H. Gray , ed. What is Cinema? Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California, 1967.
Beck, P.J. Presenting History Past and Present. London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2012.
Bell, E. and Gray, A. eds. Televising History: Mediating the Past in Postwar Europe. London:
Palgrave MacMillan, 2010.
Benson, J. , Berryman, K. and Levey, W. eds. Screening the Past: The Sixth Australian History
and Film Conference Papers. Bundoora, Victoria: La Trobe University, 1994.
Bentley, M. Introduction: approaches to modernity: Western historiography since the
Enlightenment, in M. Bentley , ed. Companion to Historiography. London and New York:
Routledge, 1997.
Bentley, M. ed. Companion to Historiography. London and New York: Routledge, 1997.
Bentley, M. Modern Historiography: An Introduction. New York: Routledge, 1999.
Bertrand, I. Film and history: the international context, in A. Hutton , ed. The First Australian
History and Film Conference Papers. North Ryde, NSW: AFTRS, 1982, 322.
Bickford-Smith, V. Rosenstone on film, Rosenstone on history: an African perspective,
Rethinking History: The Journal of Theory and Practice 11(2007): 531545.
Blanchard, P. Child and Society. New York: Macmillan, 1928.
Bordwell, D. , Staiger, J. and Thompson, K. The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and
Mode of Production to 1960. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.
Bordwell, D. and Thompson, K. Film History: An Introduction. 7th edn. Boston: McGraw Hill,
2005.
Bordwell, D. and Thompson, K. Film Art: An Introduction. 2nd edn. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2007.
Bottomore, S. Early cinema studies in the centenary year, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and
Television 15(1995): 307312.
British National Council of Public Morals (BNCPM). The Cinema: Its Present Position and
Future Possibilities. London: BNCPM, 1917.
Breisach, E. Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, Modern. Chicago and London: University of
Chicago Press, 2007.
Burgoyne, R. Bertoluccis 1900: A Narrative and Historical Analysis. Detroit: Wayne State
Burgoyne, R. Film Nation: Hollywood Looks at U.S. History. Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota Press, 1997.
Burgoyne, R. The Hollywood Historical Film. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2008.
163 Burke, P. Eyewitnessing: The Uses of Images as Historical Evidence. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
Cannadine, D. ed. History and the Media. New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004.
Carnes, M.C. ed. Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies. New York, NY: Henry Holt
and Company, 1995.
Carnes, M.C. Shooting (down) the past: Historians vs. Hollywood, Cineaste 29(2004): 4549.
Chapman, J. The British at War: Cinema, State and Propaganda, 19391945. London: I. B.
Tauris, 1998.
Chapman, J. Cinemas of the World: Film and Society from 1895 to the Present. London:
Reaktion, 2003.
Chapman, J. History on film/film on history, Reviews in History (2006) Review 629.
Chapman, J. Film and History. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
Chapman, J. , Glancy, M.H. and Harper, S. eds. The New Film History: Sources, Methods,
Approaches. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.
Chopra-Grant, M. Cinema and History: The Telling of Stories. London and New York: Wallflower
Press, 2008.
Christie, I. and Felperin, L. Cinema history (Review: Visions of the Past), Sight and Sound
5(1995a): 37.
Christie, I. and Felperin, L. Film history (Review: Revisioning History), Sight and Sound
5(1995b): 34.
Clark, M.J. ed. Politics and the Media: Film and Television for the Political Scientist and
Historian. Oxford: Pergamon Press (for the British Universities Film Council), 1979.
Clark, A. and Macintyre, S. The History Wars. Melbourne: Melbourne University Publishing,
2004.
Codell, J. ed. Genre, Gender, Race, and World Cinema: An Anthology. Malden, MA: Blackwell,
2006.
Collins, F. and Davis, T. Australian Cinema After Mabo. Cambridge, Port Melbourne:
Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Committee of the Victorian Council for Public Education . The Moving Picture in its Relation to
the Child. Melbourne: Victorian Council for Public Education, 1921.
Connelly, M.L. The Great War, Part 13: The Devil is coming, Historical Journal of Film, Radio
and Television 22(2002): 2128.
Consitt, F. The Value of Films in History Teaching (Being the Report of an enquiry conducted
under the auspices of the Historical Association with the aid of the Carnegie United Kingdom
Trustees). London: G. Bell and Sons Ltd, 1931.
Cook, D.A. A History of Narrative Film, New York: Norton, 1990.
Cook, P. For a New French Cinema: The Politique Des Auteurs, in P. Cook , ed. The Cinema
Book, 3rd revised edn. London: BFI, 2008.
Cook, P. Auteur Theory in Britain, in P. Cook , ed. The Cinema Book, 3rd revised edn. London:
BFI, 2008.
Cook, P. ed. The Cinema Book. 3rd revised edn. London: BFI, 2008.
Corrigan, P. Film entertainment as ideology and pleasure: a preliminary approach to a history of
audiences, in J. Curran and V. Porter , eds British Cinema History. London: Weidenfeld &
Nicholson, 1983.
Corrigan, T. A Short Guide to Writing about Film. New York: Pearson Longman, 2004.
Corrigan, T. and White, P. The Film Experience: An Introduction. Boston, New York: Bedford/St.
Martins, 2004.
Coultass, C. British feature films and the Second World War, Journal of Contemporary History
18(1984): 722.
Crary, J. Techniques of the observer, October 45(1988): 335.
164 Crary, J. Techniques of the Observer: On Vision and Modernity in the Nineteenth Century.
Massachusetts and London: MIT Press (October Books), 1992.
Crary, J. Unbinding vision, October 68(1994): 2144.
Crary, J. Suspension of Perception: Attention, Spectacle and Modern Culture. Massachusetts
and London: MIT Press (October Books), 2001.
Creed, B. Film and Psychoanalysis, in J. Hill and P.C. Gibson , eds. The Oxford Guide to Film
Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Cripps, T.R. The reaction of the negro to the motion picture Birth of a Nation, The Historian
25(1963): 244262.
Cripps, T.R. Circumstances within our control: television as a synthesizer of multi-media
teaching resources, Film and History 2(1972): 1822.
Cripps, T.R. Slow Fade to Black: The Negro in American Film, 19001942. New York: Oxford
Cripps, T.R. Following the paper trail to The Birth of a Race and its times, Film and History
18:3(1988): 50.
Cripps, T.R. The moving image as social history: stalking the paper trail, in J.E. Connor , ed.
Image as Artifact: The Historical Analysis of Film and Television. Malabar, Florida: Robert E.
Krieger Publishing Company, 1990, 136155.
Cripps, T.R. Slow Fade to Black: the Negro in American Film, 19001942. Oxford, New York:
Oxford University Press, 1993.
Curran, J. and Porter, V. eds. British Cinema History. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1983.
Curthoys, A. and Docker, J. Is History Fiction? Sydney: UNSW Press, 2006.
Custen, G.F. Bio/Pics: How Hollywood Constructed Public History. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
De Groot, J. Consuming History: Historians, and Heritage in Contemporary Popular Culture.
London and New York: Routledge, 2009.
De Groot, J. Remaking History: The Past in Contemporary Historical Fictions. New York and
London: Routledge, 2015.
Depraux, A. , Fauconnier, M. , Fruin, R. , Hankin, M. and Lhritier, M. Bulletin of the International
Committee of Historical Sciences 1(19261928): 352354; 733735.
Davis, N.Z. Any resemblance to persons living or dead: film and the challenge of authenticity,
Yale Review 76(1987): 457482.
Davis, N.Z. Slaves on Screen: Film and Historical Vision. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press, 2000.
Dillon, R. History on British Television: Constructing Nation, National and Collective Memory.
Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2010.
Dickson, W.K.L. The Biograph in Battle: Its Story in the South African War Related with
Personal Experiences. London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1901.
Delluc, L. Cinma and cie: confidences dun spectateur. Grasset, 1919.
Delluc, L. Photognie. Paris, 1920.
Doherty, T. Film and history: foxes and hedgehogs, Magazine of History (for Teachers of
History) 16(2002): 1315.
Doyle, J. , Heide, B.V.D. and Cowan, S. eds. Our Selection on: Writings on Cinemas Histories:
Selected Papers from the 7th Australian History and Film Conference. Canberra: National Film
and Sound Archive, 1998.
Dunbar, J.N. A Critical History of History in Moving Pictures. Bloomington, IN: Authorhouse,
2014.
Durgnat, R. A Mirror for England: British Movies from Austerity to Affluence. London: Faber and
Faber, 1970.
During, S. ed. The Cultural Studies Reader. London and New York: Routledge, 2007.
165 Edgerton, G.R. and Rollins, P.C. eds. Television Histories: Shaping Collective Memory in
the Media Age. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2001.
Edlington, A.R. Some material for the teaching of history by television, Educational Television
International 1(1967): 144149.
E.J.D. The use of the film in the teaching of history: a discussion, History 11(1926): 3740.
Ellwood, D.W. ed. The Movies as History: Visions of the Twentieth Century. Gloucestershire,
UK: Sutton Publishing, 2000.
Elsaesser, T. The new film history, Sight and Sound 55(1986): 246251.
Elton, A. The film as source material for history, Aslib Proceedings 7(1955): 207239.
Engelen, L. Back to the future, ahead to the past: film and history a status quaestionis,
Epstein, J. Bonjour Cinma and other writings, Afterimage 10(1981): 839.
Ferro, M. 1917: History and the cinema, Journal of Contemporary History 4(1968): 4561.
Ferro, M. Cinma et Histoire. Paris: Denoel, 1977.
Ferro, M. Cinema and History. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1988.
Fiske, J. Television Culture. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1987.
Flanzbaum, H. But wasnt it terrific? A defense of liking Life is Beautiful , Yale Journal of
Criticism 14(2001): 273286.
Fledelius, K. Syntagmatic film analysis with special reference to historical research,
Untersuchungen zur Syntax des Films 1(1979).
Fledelius, K. , Jorgenson, K.R. , Skyum-Nielson, N. and Swiatek, E.H. eds. Studies in History,
Film and Society 1: History and the Audio-Visual Media. Copenhagen: Eventus, 1979.
Fulbrook, M. Historical Theory. London and New York: Routledge, 2002.
Fuller, K.H. Erik Barnouw: a selected bibliography and filmography, Film and History 21:2 and
3(1991): 109112.
Geertz, C. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. New York: Basic Books, 1993.
Gomery, D. Movie audiences, urban Geography, and the history of the American film, The
Velvet Light Trap 19(1982): 2329.
Grainge, P. ed. Memory and Popular Film. Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2003.
Grainge, P. , Jancovich, M. and Monteith, S. eds. Film Histories: An Introduction and Reader.
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2007.
Gramsci, A. Selections from the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci, New York: International
Publishers, 1971.
Gray, A. and Bell, E. History on Television. Milton Park: Routledge, 2013.
Grenville, J.A.S. Film as History: The Nature of Film Evidence. Birmingham, 1971.
Guynn, W. Writing History in Film. New York: London: Routledge, 2006.
Hall, S. Television and culture, Sight and Sound 45:4(Autumn 1976): 246252.
Hall, S. Encoding/decoding, in S. Hall , ed. Culture, Media, Language. London: Hutchinson,
1980.
Hankin, G.T. The cinematograph in the class-room: a suggested scenario and following
correspondence, History (Quarterly Journal of the Historical Association) January, April, July
(1924).
Hanna, E. The Great War on the Small Screen: Representing the First World War in
Contemporary Britain. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2009.
Hansen, M.P. Thoughts that Breathe. Melbourne: Robertson and Mullens, 1932.
Harper, S. Home is where the Heart is: Melodrama and the Womans Film. London: BFI, 1987.
Harper, S. Picturing the Past: The Rise and Fall of the British Costume Film. London: BFI, 1994.
Harrison, R. The new social history in America, in P. Lambert and P. Schofield , eds. Making
History: An Introduction to the History and Practices of a Discipline. London and New York:
Routledge, 2004.
166 Harvey, S. May 68 and Film Culture. London: BFI, 1980.
Hayward, S. Cinema Studies: The Key Concepts. London and New York: Routledge, 2007.
Herlihy, D. Am I a camera? Other reflections on films and history, American Historical Review
93 (1988): 11861192.
Higashi, S. Introduction, Cinema Journal 44(2004): 94100.
Hill, J. and Gibson, P.C. eds. The Oxford Guide to Film Studies. Oxford: Oxford University
Press, 1998.
Hilliard, R.L. Hollywood Speaks Out: Pictures that Dared to Protest Real World Issues. West
Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2009.
Houston, P. The nature of evidence, Sight and Sound 36(1967): 8892.
Hughes-Warrington, M. History Goes to the Movies: Studying History on Film. London and New
York: Routledge, 2007.
Hughes-Warrington, M. ed. The History on Film Reader. London and New York: Routledge,
2009.
Hughes-Warrington, M. Fifty Key Thinkers on History. New York: Routledge, 2010.
Hutton, A. ed. The First Australian History and Film Conference Papers. North Ryde, NSW:
Australian Film and Television School, 1982.
Imperial Education Conference, Cinematograph Committee . Report of the Committee on the
Use of the Cinematograph in Education, 1923. London, 1924.
Imperial Education Conference . The Cinema and the Child (A list of books, etc., in the Board of
Education library prepared for the use of the delegates to the Conference). London, 1927.
Iggers, G.G. Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the
Postmodern Challenge. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press, 2005.
Isenberg, M.T. World War One film comedies and American society: the concern with
authoritarianism, Film and History 5:3(1975): 721.
Isenberg, M.T. Reviews of books image as artifact: the historical analysis of film and television
by John E. OConnor, American Historical Review 97:2(1992): 630631.
Jackson, M.A. Film as a source material: some preliminary notes toward a methodology, The
Journal of Interdisciplinary History 4(1973): 7380.
Jarvie, I.C. Movies and Society. New York: Basic Books Inc., 1970.
Jarvie, I.C. Movies as Social Criticism: Aspects of their Social Psychology. Metuchen, NJ and
London: The Scarecrow Press, 1978a.
Jarvie, I.C. Seeing through movies, Philosophy of the Social Sciences 8:4(1978b): 374397.
Jenkins, H. The work of theory in the age of digital transformation, in T. Miller and R. Stam ,
eds. A Companion to Film Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2003.
Jenkins, H. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York and London:
New York University Press, 2006.
Jenkins, K. ed. The Postmodern History Reader. London and New York: Routledge, 1997.
Johnston, W. Memo on the Movies: War Propaganda 19141939. Norman, OK: 1935.
Jowett, G.S. The first motion picture audiences, Journal of Popular Film 3:1(1974): 3954.
Jowett, G.S. Film: The Democratic Art. Boston: Little Brown, 1976.
Jowett, G.S. and Linton, J.M. Movies as Mass Communication. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1980.
Kember, J. Marketing Modernity: Victorian Popular Shows and Early Cinema. Exeter: University
of Exeter Press, 2009.
Kinross, F. Teaching history by television, Educational Television International 1(1967): 1015.
Kipnis, L. Film and changing technologies, in J. Hill and P.C. Gibson , eds. The Oxford Guide to
Film Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Kleinhans, C. Marxism and film, in J. Hill and P.C. Gibson , eds. The Oxford Guide to Film
Studies. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
167 Klinger, B. In retrospect: Film Studies today, Yale Journal of Criticism 2(1988): 144.
Knowlton, D.C. and Tilton, W.J. Motion Pictures in History Teaching. Yale University Press,
1929.
Koch, G. Siegfried Kracauer: An Introduction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000.
Kracauer, S. Die Angestellten. Aus dem neuesten Deutschland. Frankfurt: Societts-Verlag,
1930.
Kracauer, S. From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film, ed. L.
Quaresima . Rev. edn. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1947.
Kracauer, S. Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality. London: Oxford University
Press, 1961.
Kracauer, S. Das Ornament der Masse: Essays. Suhrkamp Verlag, 1963.
Kracauer, S. History, the Last Things before the Last. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969.
Kracauer, S. The Mass Ornament: Weimar Essays. Translated, edited and with an introduction
by T.Y. Levin . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.
Kracauer, S. Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Kracauer, S. The Salaried Masses: Duty and Distraction in Weimar Germany. London, New
York: Verso, 1998.
Kracauer, S. From Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film, ed. L.
Quaresima . Revised and expanded edn. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press,
2004.
Kracauer, S. and Levin, T.Y. Photography, Critical Inquiry 19(1993): 421436.
Kramer, L. and Maza, S. eds. A Companion to Western Historical Thought. Malden MA:
Blackwell Publishing, 2006.
Kuehl, J.J. History on film: TV history, History Workshop Journal 1(1976): 127135.
Kuehl, J.J. Truth claims, Sight and Sound 50:4(1981): 272274.
Kuehl, J.J. Television history: the next step, Sight and Sound 51:3(1983): 188191.
Kuehl, J.J. The Great War my first grown-up job in television, Historical Journal of Film, Radio
and Television 22(2002): 56.
Kuhn, A. That day did last me all my life: Cinema memory and enduring fandom, in M. Stokes
and R. Maltby , eds. Identifying Hollywoods Audiences: Cultural Identity and the Movies.
London: BFI. 1999a.
Kuhn, A. Cinema-going in Britain in the 1930s: Report of a Questionnaire Survey, Historical
Journal of Film, Radio and Television 19(1999b): 531543.
Kuhn, A. Dreaming of Fred and Ginger: Cinema and Cultural Memory. Washington: New York
Kuhn, T.S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, London: University of Chicago
Press, 1962.
La Motte, C. Designing costumes for the historical film, Cineaste 29:2(2004): 5054.
Lambert, P. and Schofield, P. eds. Making History: An Introduction to the History and Practices
of a Discipline. London and New York: Routledge, 2004.
Landy, M. Cinematic Uses of the Past. Minneapolis, London: University of Minnesota Press,
1996.
Landy, M. ed. The Historical Film: History and Memory in Media. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
Lapsley, R. and Westlake, M. Film Theory: An Introduction. New York: Manchester University
Press, 1988.
Lasswell, H.D. Propaganda Technique in World War I. London, 1937.
Leab, D.J. From Sambo to Superspade: The Black Motion Picture Experience. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin, 1975.
Levy, W. , Cutts, G. and Stockbridge, S. eds. The Second Australian History and Film
Conference Papers. Melbourne: La Trobe University and Australian Film and Television School,
1983.
168 Leyda, J. Films Beget Films: Compilation Films from Propaganda to Drama. London: Allen
and Unwin, 1964.
Lindsay, V. The Art of the Moving Picture. New York: Macmillan, 1915.
Lucia, C. and Porton, R. Film and History: questions to filmmakers and historians, Cineaste
29(2004): 5568.
McArthur, C. Television and History. London: BFI, 1978.
McDonald, J. Film and war propaganda, Public Opinion Quarterly 4 & 5(1941): 519522 and
127129.
McLuhan, M. Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul, 1964.
Marcus, A.S. ed. Celluloid Blackboard: Teaching History with Film. Charlotte, NC: IAP, 2007.
Marwick, A. Archive film as source material, in Open University, ed. Archive Film Compilation
Booklet. London: Open University, 1973.
Matthews, J.J. Dance Hall & Picture Palace: Sydneys Romance with Modernity. Strawberry
Hills: Currency Press, 2005.
Matuszewski, B. Une nouvelle source de lhistoire: cration dun dpt de cinmatographie historique
(A new source of history: Creation of a historical deposit of cinematography), Le Figaro. (25
March ) Paris, 1898.
Matuszewski, B. A new source of history, Film History 7(1995): 322324.
Matuszewski, B. A new source of history: the creation of a depository for historical
cinematography (Paris, 1898), Screening the Past 1(1997) accessed August 23, 2015 ,
http://www.screeningthepast.com/2014/12/a-new-source-of-history-the-creation-of-a-depository-
for-historical-cinematography-paris-1898.
Miller, T. and Stam, R. A Companion to Film Theory. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004.
Mintz, S. Mintz on Rosenstone, Revisioning History: Film and the Construction of a New Past ,
H-Film, 1996, accessed August 23, 2015 https://networks.h-
net.org/node/14467/reviews/15789/mintz-rosenstone-revisioning-history-film-and-construction-
new-past.
Monash University and RMIT . Telling Stories: Cinema, History and Experience. XIII Biennial
Conference of the Film and History Association of Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne, 1619
November 2006 .
Mulvey, L. Visual pleasure and narrative cinema, Screen 16(1975): 618.
Mulvey, L. Visual pleasure and narrative cinema, in L. Mulvey , ed. Visual and Other Pleasures.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Munslow, A. The Routledge Companion to Historical Studies. London and New York:
Routledge, 2006.
Munslow, A. Film and History: Robert A. Rosenstone and History on Film/Film on History,
Mnsterberg, H. The Photoplay: A Psychological Study. New York: Appleton and Company,
1916.
OConnor, J.E. History and Images/Images in History: Reflections on the importance of Film and
Television Study for an understanding of the past, American Historical Review 93:5(1988):
12001209.
OConnor, J.E. Historians and films: some problems and prospects, The History Teacher
6(1973): 543552.
OConnor, J.E. ed. Film and the Humanities. New York: Rockefeller Foundation, 1977.
OConnor, J.E. American History/American Television: Interpreting the Video Past. New York:
Ungar, 1983.
OConnor, J.E. ed. Image As Artifact: The Historical Analysis of Film and Television. Malabar,
FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Co. Inc., 1990.
OConnor, J.E. Image as artifact: Historians and the moving-image media, Magazine of History
(for Teachers of History) 16:4(2002).
169 OConnor, J.E. and Jackson, M.A. eds. American History/American Film: Interpreting the
Hollywood Image. New York: Ungar, 1979.
ORegan, T. and Shoesmith, B. eds. History on/and/in Film: Selected Papers from the 3rd
Australian History and Film Conference. Perth, Western Australia: History and Film Association
of Australia, 1987.
Oudart, J.P. La suture, Cahiers du Cinma 211(1960): 3639.
Philip, A.J. Cinematograph films: their national value and preservation, Librarian 2(1912):
367370, 406409, 447449.
Poe, M. Is Reel History too much fun? Perspectives 37(1999), accessed August 23, 2015 ,
www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/1999/9905/9905let1.cfm.
Pontecorvo, L. Aspects of documentary and newsreel research, in Open University, ed. Archive
Film Compilation Booklet. London: Open University, 1973.
Poulantzas, N.A. Political Power and Social Classes. London: NLB, Sheed and Ward, 1973.
Pronay, N. The British Post-bellum Cinema: a survey of the films relating to World War II made
in Britain between 19451960, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 8(1988): 3954.
Quaresima, L. Introduction to the 2004 edition: Rereading Kracauer, in L. Quaresima , ed. From
Caligari to Hitler: A Psychological History of the German Film. [1947] Rev. edn. Princeton and
Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2004, xvxlix.
Raack, R.C. Clios dark mirror: the documentary film in history, The History Teacher 6(1972):
109118.
Raack, R.C. Historiography and cinematography: a prolegomenon to film work for historians,
Journal of Contemporary History 18, 3(1983): 411438.
Ramsaye, T. A Million and One Nights: A History of the Motion Picture. New York: Simon and
Schuster, 1926.
Ramsden, J.A. The Great War: the making of the series, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and
Television 22(2002): 719.
Reeves, N. The power of film propaganda myth or reality, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and
Television 13(1993): 118121.
Reimers, K.F. and Friedrich, H. eds. Studies in History, Film and Society 3: Contemporary
History in Film and Television. Munich: Verlag lschlger, 1982.
Richards, J. Visions of Yesterday. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1973.
Richards, J. The Age of the Dream Palace: Cinema and Society in Britain, 19301939. London:
Routledge and Kegan Paul 1984.
Roads, C.H. Film as historical evidence, Journal of the Society of Archivists 3(1966): 183191.
Roberts, G. and Taylor, P.M. eds. The Historian, Television and Television History. Luton:
University of Luton Press, 2001.
Roberts, M. The Annales school and historical writing, in P. Lambert and P. Schofield , eds.
Making History: An Introduction to the History and Practices of a Discipline, London and New
York: Routledge, 2004, 7892.
Roberts, M. Postmodernism and the linguistic turn, in P. Lambert and P. Schofield , eds. Making
History: An Introduction to the History and Practices of a Discipline, London and New York:
Routledge, 2004, 227240.
Roffman, P. and Purdy, J. The Hollywood Social Problem Film: Madness, Despair, and Politics
from the Depression to the Fifties. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981.
Rollins, P.C. Film and American Studies: questions, activities, guides, American Quarterly
26(1974): 245265.
Rollins, P.C. ed. Hollywood as Historian: American Film in a Cultural Context. Lexington, KY:
University Press of Kentucky, 1983.
Rollins, P.C. Introducing a new editor for Film and History , Film and History 24(1994): 1.
170 Rollins, P.C. ed. The Columbia Companion to American History on Film: How the Movies
Have Portrayed the American Past. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2004.
Rollins, P.C. and OConnor, J.E. eds. Hollywoods World War I: Motion Picture Images. Bowling
Green, OH: Bowling Green State University Popular Press, 1997.
Roquemore, J. History Goes to the Movies: A Viewers Guide to the Best (and Some of the
Worst) Historical Films Ever Made. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1999.
Rosen, P. Change Mummified: Cinema, Historicity, Theory. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press, 2001.
Rosenstone, R.A. Genres, history and Hollywood (A review article), Comparative Studies in
Society and History 27(1985): 367375.
Rosenstone, R.A. History in images/history in words: reflections on the possibility of really
putting history onto film, American Historical Review 93:5(1988): 11731185.
Rosenstone, R.A. What you think when you think about writing a book on History and Film,
Public Culture 3(1990): 4966.
Rosenstone, R.A. ed. Revisioning History: Film and the Construction of a New Past. Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press, 1995a.
Rosenstone, R.A. Visions of the Past: The Challenge of Film to our Idea of History. Cambridge,
MA, London, England: Harvard University Press, 1995b.
Rosenstone, R.A. Inventing historical truth on the silver screen, Cineaste 29(2004): 2933.
Rosenstone, R.A. History on Film/Film on History. Harlow, London: Pearson Longman, 2006.
Rosenstone, R.A. History on Film/Film on History. London and New York: Routledge, 2012.
Rosenstone, R.A. and Parvulescu, C. eds. A Companion to the Historical Film. Malden, MA:
Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.
Rosenstone, R.A. , White, H. , Herlihy, D. , OConnor, J.E. and Toplin, R.B. Forum on film and
history, American Historical Review 93:5 (1988): 11731226.
Rosenthal, A. ed. Why Docudrama? Fact-fiction on Film and TV. Carbondale, IL: Southern
Illinois University Press, 1999.
Rosenthal, A. and Kuehl, J.J. World at War making of a historical documentary Kuehl,
Jerome, associate producer, Cineaste 9(1978): 815.
Rotha, P. The Film Till Now. London: Spring , 1930.
Royal Commission . Report of the Royal Commission into the Moving Picture Industry in
Australia. Australia, 1928.
Routt, W.D. Introduction: Boleslas Matuszewskis A New Source of History: the creation of a
depository for historical cinematography, Screening the Past 1(1997), accessed August 23,
2015 , http://www.screeningthepast.com/2014/12/a-new-source-of-history-the-creation-of-a-
depository-for-historical-cinematography-paris-1898.
Said, E.W. Orientalism. London: Penguin [1979] 1985.
Salt, B. From Caligari to who? Sight and Sound 48(1979): 119123.
Samuels, S. History through film: film as social and intellectual history at the University of
Pennsylvania, Film and History 2(1972): 1417.
Schama, S. Television and the trouble with history, in D. Cannadine , ed. History and the Media.
New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2004, 2033.
Schatz, T. Hollywood Genres: Formulas, Filmmaking, and the Studio System. Philadelphia:
Temple University, 1981.
Schneider, R.A. On film reviews in the AHR, Perspectives 44(2006), accessed August 23, 2015
, www.historians.org/Perspectives/issues/2006/0605/0605aha2.cfm.
Short, K.R.M. and Fledelius, K. eds. Studies in History, Film and Society 2: History and Film:
Methodology, Research, Education. Copenhagen: Eventus, 1980.
Short, K.R.M. ed. Feature Films as History. Knoxville TN: University of Tennessee Press, 1981.
171 Short, K.R.M. Tenth anniversary of the Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television,
Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television 10(1990): 8990.
Short, K.R.M. The Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television: A personal recollection of
the early years, Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television. 20(2000): 8999.
Sklar, R. Movie-made America: A Cultural History of American Movies. New York: Random
House, 1975.
Sklar, R. Movie-made America: A Cultural History of American Movies. New York: Random
House, 1994.
Sklar, R. Film: An International History of the Medium. NJ: Prentice-Hall Inc. and Harry Abrams
Inc., 2002.
Sklar, R. Moving image media in culture and society: paradigms for historical interpretation, in
J.E. OConnor , ed. Image as Artifact: The Historical Analysis of Film and Television. Malabar,
FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company, 1990.
Sklar, R. and Musser, C. eds. Resisting Images: Essays on Cinema and History. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press, 1990.
Smith, P. ed. The Historian and Film. Cambridge, London, New York, Melbourne: Cambridge
Smith, P. Political style on film: Neville Chamberlain, in M.J. Clark , ed. Politics and the Media:
Film and Television for the Political Scientist and Historian. Oxford: Pergamon Press (for the
BUFC), 1979: 8794.
Smith, P. Television for the Political Scientist and Historian, ed. M.J. Clark . Oxford: Pergamon
Press (for the BUFC), 1979.
Sobchack, V. ed. The Persistence of History: Cinema, Television and the Modern Event. New
York and London: Routledge, 1996.
Sorlin, P. Sociologie du cinma. Paris: Aubier, 1977.
Sorlin, P. The Film in History: Restaging the Past. Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publisher, 1980.
Sorlin, P. Historical films as tools for historians, Film and History 18(1988): 215.
Sorlin, P. (AHR Forum) Endgame? Screening The Past 6(1999), accessed August 23, 2015
http://tlweb.latrobe.edu.au/humanities/screeningthepast/archives/archives.html.
Sorlin, P. Historical films as tools for historians, in J.E. OConnor , ed. Image as Artifact: The
Historical Analysis of Film and Television. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company,
1990, 4268.
Staiger, J. This moving image I have before me, in J.E. OConnor , ed. Image as Artifact: The
Historical Analysis of Film and Television. Malabar, FL: Robert E. Krieger Publishing Company,
1990.
Staiger, J. Interpreting Films: Studies in the Historical Representation of American Cinema.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992.
Staiger, J. Visions of the past: the challenge of film to our idea of history, The Quarterly Journal
of Speech 83(1997): 256257.
Staiger, J. Perverse Spectators: The Practices of Film Reception. New York: New York
Staiger, J. Writing the history of American film reception, in M. Stokes and R. Maltby , eds.
Hollywood Spectatorship: Changing Perceptions of Cinema Audiences. London: BFI, 2001.
Staiger, J. The future of the past, Cinema Journal 44(2004): 126129.
Staiger, J. Media Reception Studies. New York: New York University Press, 2005.
Stam, R. Film Theory: An Introduction. Maldan, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2000.
Stokes, M. and Maltby, R. eds. American Movie Audiences: From the Turn of the Century to the
Early Sound Era. London: BFI, 1999.
Stokes, M. and Maltby, R. eds. Hollywood Spectatorship: Changing Perceptions of Cinema
Audiences. London: BFI, 2001.
172 Street, S. British National Cinema. London: Routledge, 1997.
Taylor, R. A cinema for the millions: Soviet Socialist Realism and the problem of film comedy,
Journal of Contemporary History 18(1983): 439462.
Tashiro, C.S. Passing for the past: production design and the Historical Film, Cineaste
29(2004): 4044.
Teo, H-M . and White, R. Cultural History in Australia. University of New South Wales Press,
2003.
Terveen, F. Film as a historical document, University Vision: The Journal of the British
Universities Film Council 1(1968).
Thompson, E. P. The Making of the English Working Class. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1963.
Toplin, R.B. The making of Denmark Veseys Rebellion , Film and History, September (1982):
4956.
Toplin, R.B. ed. History by Hollywood: The Use and Abuse of the American Past. Urbana and
Chicago, IL: The University of Illinois Press, 1996a.
Toplin, R.B. ed. Ken Burnss The Civil War: Historians Respond. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, 1996b.
Toplin, R.B. History on television: a growing industry, The Journal of American History 83,
3(1996c): 11091113.
Toplin, R.B. The historian and film: challenges ahead, Perspectives 34(1996), accessed August
23, 2015 , http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/1996/9604/9604FIL.CFM.
Toplin, R.B. Film and history: the state of the union, Perspectives 37(1999a), accessed August
23, 2015 , http://www.historians.org/publications-and-directories/perspectives-on-history/april-
1999/film-and-history-the-state-of-the-union.
Toplin, R.B. Needed: an interdisciplinary dialogue, Perspectives 37(1999b), accessed August
23, 2015 , http://www.historians.org/perspectives/issues/1999/9911/9911fil2.cfm.
Toplin, R.B. ed. Oliver Stones USA: Film, History and Controversy. Lawrence, KS: University
Press of Kansas, 2000.
Toplin, R.B. Reel History: In Defense of Hollywood. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas,
2002.
Toplin, R.B. Cinematic history: an anatomy of the genre, Cineaste 29(2004): 3439.
Toplin, R.B. Michael Moores Fahrenheit 9/11: How One Film Divided a Nation. Lawrence:
University Press of Kansas, 2006.
Toplin, R.B. and Eudy, J. The historian encounters film: a historiography, Magazine of History
(for Teachers of History) 16(2002): 712.
Turner, G. Film as Social Practice IV. London: Routledge, 2006.
Various . Historians and movies: the state of the art: Part 1, Journal of Contemporary History
1(1983), Special Issue.
Various . Historians and movies: the state of the art: Part 2, Journal of Contemporary History
19(1984), Special Issue.
Waley, H.D. British documentaries and the war effort, Public Opinion Quarterly 6(1942):
604609.
Walkowitz, D. Visual history: the craft of the historian filmmaker, Public Historian Winter (1985):
5364.
Westwell, G. Critical approaches to the history film a field in search of a methodology,
Wexman, V.W. ed. Film and Authorship. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 2003.
Wheatley, H. ed. Re-viewing Television History: Critical Issues in Television Historiography.
London and New York: I. B. Tauris, 2007.
White, H. Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe. Baltimore and
London: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.
173 White, H. Historiography and historiophoty, American Historical Review 93:5(1988):
11931299.
White, H. (AHR Forum) Historiography and historiophoty, Screening the Past 6(1999), accessed
August 23, 2015 ,
http://tlweb.latrobe.edu.au/humanities/screeningthepast/archives/archives.html.
Williams, L. Film bodies: gender, genre and excess, Film Quarterly 44(1991): 213.
Williams, L. ed. Viewing Positions: Ways of Seeing Film. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers
Williams, R. Television: Technology and Cultural Form, London: Fontana, 1974.
Wilson, C.M. Children and war films, The Educational Survey, July 1929Dec. 1933. Secretariat
League of Nations, 1929.
Winkler, M. ed. Gladiator: Film and History. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004.
Winkler, M. ed. Spartacus: Film and History. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007.
Winkler, M. Troy: From Homers Iliad to Hollywood Epic. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2009.
Woods, T. History and Literature, in P. Lambert and P. Schofield , eds. Making History: An
Introduction to the History and Practices of a Discipline. London and New York: Routledge,
2004, 162173.

Preview

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Preview

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

REFRAMING THE PAST

Dr Mia E. M. Treacey is Lecturer at Federation University Australia. She

ISBN: 978-1-138-81587-2 (hbk)

1 A history without a past 1

AFI Australian Film Institute

Not another book on History and ﬁlm

television historians. There is something very important to be learnt from other

The coming attraction

Reframing the past

Screened History – ‘a’ history

A history of Screened History

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi