Is History alive with the Sound of Music?

I wrote this blog a while ago, probably sometime near the beginning of the school year. I realize I should have probably posted this a long time ago, I just never felt that this blog was ever complete. I would constantly return to it, edit it, and then feel that it was still missing information. In any case, I would like to post it now, and maybe through the comments sections, we can together expand on the ideas that I present (of which I am not sure make any sense, but I am going to put those thoughts out there anyway).

There is one example that I feel has been overlooked when considering “public history” and that is historically inspired theatre productions and musicals. In our readings so far, I have been introduced to many examples of public history, most of which have included communicating and interpreting history in museums, archives, film and television, historical fiction, and on the internet. Many of these examples were discussed in the following reading, The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life by Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen. In the chapter, “The Presence of the Past”, the authors surveyed the historical activities people had believed they had participated in within the last 12 months. I found this analysis interesting because “Looking at photographs with family or friends…” was at the top of people’s lists, and museums were beat out by watching “…movies or television programs about the past.” (Rosenzweig and Thelen 19) I also found it interesting that one area was not considered at all, which is why I would like to discuss it.

In my perspective (and remember I wrote this a few months ago), what we as public historians are trying to do is interpret history as accurately as possible, while taking our audience into consideration. Some would argue – as they do with historical fiction and film and television productions – that theatre production and musicals do not portray history accurately enough. But remember, what essentially occurs is an interpretation of a particular subject. The main difference I see with film, television, theatre productions and musicals is that the medium you are using is different. Instead of solely using words, as you would when writing, you are using people, images, movement, and music to connect with your audience. Many people may not connect to history by simply picking up a book. How often do you purchase a magazine and not read the articles, but simply skim through it and look at the photographs? At a museum, how many of you have simply looked at the artifacts on display without really paying attention to the text panels? We have become a very visual society. Besides, whether it is the magazine or a museum, the images and artifacts you see are specifically chosen by the editor or curator respectively, in order to convey a certain message based on their own interpretations of the subject. You are therefore not necessarily provided all of the information, because a photograph shows you only one portion of a larger scene and people working in a museum select which artifacts are included in an exhibit. Not every artifact is placed on display, particularly if it does not support the theme(s) the museum has chosen. What you are therefore getting is an interpretation of the subject. That does not mean that you cannot learn more about the subject that is being presented – but you are at least getting some important points to consider. Some important points that can hopefully make you aware of the subject and will inspire you to learn more...

Therefore, is this really any different from what film and television tries to accomplish, and for that matter, what theatre productions and musicals communicate when considering historical subjects? Remembering that our audience may not necessarily be interested in every possible detail of whatever history we are portraying, what we essentially are trying to deliver is the big picture based on our own interpretations. And in order to capture the audience’s attention, we need to be creative in how we deliver the subject. That does not mean that our point of view is the only one there is – same as when you read an article. Yes, there will be elements in the production that are fictional, but those elements are supporting the delivery of the historical message. In other words, the fictional elements are the creative contributions that help draw in the public.

Like film, theatre productions and musicals are more popular mediums that have a wonderful entertaining quality which can be more attractive to the “general public” we are interested in communicating with. There are many examples of history inspiring theatre productions already: Les Miserables, Miss Saigon, Evita, Fiddler on the Roof, Rent, and how could any of us forget the Sound of Music? As a child I must admit I watched the film, however I do not know if at a young age I would have been aware of the Second World War, if it had not been for that film. Not to mention, it provided people with a unique perspective on that history – that not all citizens under Hitler’s rule were in support of him. It also made me want to learn more about the Second World War as I got older.

Part of the problem is that historians are not involved enough in these forms of communication. Like using Digital History, for example, I don’t think we have acknowledged all the different ways we can communicate history to the public.

I had just started my studies in public history when I wrote the majority of this blog and although literature may exist on historically inspired theatre productions and musicals, I have not seen any indications of it to date. And I simply wondered why? I think a lot of the criticism associated with communicating history through film and television are probably very similar to the criticism one would have if historically inspired theatrical productions were to be included in the public history mix. Which is, that in most instances, they are not accurate portrayals of history and that they can leave the public with a distorted image of that history. Unfortunately, from more recent readings, some museums and living history sites are being criticized in a similar manner. So, this leaves me somewhat confused. How do we interpret history as accurately as possible, while taking our audience into consideration? How do we continue to communicate history without compromising it? I think that the answer (and challenge) is to keep it all balanced. I think some of the films that have been criticized have not kept the balance, same goes for the museums and living history sites. It has become more about “amusement” instead of about balancing amusement with accurate historical research. It is a challenge for public historians, but it is something that we need to constantly be thinking about.

Therefore, although historically inspired theatre productions and musicals may seem like a stretch for communicating history, I think it is something that can be revisited and should maybe be included when learning about public history. I know that I found musicals very inspiring as a child. I loved watching the Sound of Music and Fiddler on the Roof. They had that emotional connection – that romantic quality I think many people associate with history.

Anyway, let me know what you think about all this.

P.S. I had another working title for this piece that I would like to share with you. It was, Don’t cry for me, Public History. I simply felt the one I chose conveyed the message I was looking for a bit better – that maybe history is alive in places you would have never even considered. And maybe that is part of the problem...we as historians are not considering all the various forms of communication that are being used to present history to the public.

Question: Do you think theatre productions and musicals that are based on historical subjects should be considered as forms public history?

Poster Images (from Wikipedia):
1) Sound of Music - Original Cast Recording
2) Rent - Original Broadway windowcard
3) Fiddler on the Roof - Original Broadway windowcard evoking the artwork of Marc Chagall.
4) Evita - Cover of Original Broadway Recording
5) Miss Saigon - Original Poster
6) Les Miserables - Portrait of "Cosette" by Emile Bayard, from the original edition of Les Misérables

Getting people to think about history…

We have had numerous discussions in many of our classes about some of the issues that exist with historically inspired films and historical fiction. They are entertaining forms of communication; however they lack the historical accuracy of scholarly publications, and yet many people receive a lot of their information about history from these mediums. This makes professional historians wary of these forms interpretation.

The other side of this issue is that these forms of communication, whether it is a historical film like Saving Private Ryan or a historically inspired piece of fiction such as The Da Vinci Code, at the very least, has the potential to get people interested in whatever history is being presented.

I think that film and historical fiction are two very popular forms of communication and they reach the greatest number of people. Although most history that is interpreted through these mediums is not always as accurate as I think they should be, they do accomplish something else. They have the potential to make people aware of whatever history is being presented. That said, I think that there is more that needs to be done to make the general public also aware that the history that is being presented is neither fully factual nor complete and that there is more you can learn. And I would like to point out some of the ways, I think, that can and has been accomplished.

Let us take the already much talked about book, The Da Vinci Code. This book generated so much hype when it came out. It was controversial, exciting, interesting, and in many ways, quite convincing. However, this was a "fictional" novel and many took it very seriously because of some of the things that were suggested in it. Then there was the much anticipated film based on this novel that again caused a multitude of media coverage. The spin off of both the novel and film produced an array of documentaries and books. What I found so interesting, particularly when watching the documentaries (as I have to admit I have not read any of the books that were published in reaction to The Da Vinci Code), was that many of the documentaries looked at different points of view. Some focused on supporting some of the claims made in The Da Vinci Code – almost attempting to try and find further proof. Others however focused on showcasing all of the elements within the book that were fictional. The greatest debate seemed to focus on whether there was the possibility of whether or not Jesus Christ could have been married. There were those that acknowledged, at the very least, the possibility that he could have been. Then there were those that outlined all the reasons why this could not have been the case. It was all very interesting, because I felt like I was being presented with all these different points of view. All the documentaries were gathering their information and opinions from, in many cases, historians who were either on the fence over the issue, were intrigued by what was being suggested and were therefore open to some of the possibilities, and then there were those that had definitive answers one way or the other. It allowed the viewers to be given more information than was presented to them in the book or the film. There are also books that have been written “decoding” The Da Vinci Code. I have not read any of them, and therefore cannot comment on them. However, they provide additional information that may or may not have been presented in the documentaries. So, for anyone that was intrigued by The Da Vinci Code, can at the very least, learn more about the subject and what is historically accurate.

What I particularly liked about the whole phenomenon (if you can call it that) of The Da Vinci Code, is that it was openly questioning a part of history – and a controversial history at that. I think that we need to be open to the fact that we cannot know everything there is to know about history – especially ancient history. It is a mystery and we will continue to find new clues that may alter what we think we know. It is like an adventure.

Thus, The Da Vinci Code, both the fictional novel and film, arguably produced greater interest in conducting scholarly research into this piece of history. And it arguably made people more aware of that history. In general, it made people want to learn more…

There was another book I read not too long ago that made me want to learn more about a particular history. That book was called, ironically, The Historian by Elizabeth Kostova. The novel was based on a rather popular subject matter: Dracula. However, this one provided information about the real Dracula, the one who was known as Drakulya or Vlad the Impaler, ruler of Wallachia (which is in present day Romania) during the 15th century . First of all (and I think I have said this before in one of my previous blogs) the book is very good, and I highly recommend it. Especially curled up with a hot chocolate on a rainy thunderstorm type night - it is great! I also found it so interesting that I watched many of the documentaries that had been produced on this real life Dracula. They included: Dracula’s Underground, Vlad the Impaler, Real Dracula, and the True Story of Dracula. What was also very “refreshing” if you don’t mind me saying so, was that the author, Elizabeth Kostova, included a section at the end of her book entitled: Elizabeth Kostova’s suggestions for further reading. The bibliography was divided into the following section (which I think is very smart, because it addresses different people’s interests): 1) Dracula/Vlad Tepes; 2) History and Folklore; 3) Travel. It would be wonderful if every piece of historical fiction went to that trouble. In the beginning of the book I think she also introduces the fact that not everything is factual, but a lot is based on the actual history of Vlad the Impaler and some of the conflicts he was involved in during his 15th century rule.

I guess the point is that there are ways of accessing more information about the type of history that is being interpreted, whether in a historically inspired film or piece of historical fiction. What these more popular stories are able to do is grab people’s attention. Not everyone will want to watch the numerous documentaries or read the books that are in response to a film like The Da Vinci Code, or dive into the “suggested for further reading” section of a novel, but people have the option. And I think that these films and books also have the potential to get more people interested in the subject matter more than they would have been before it was popularized. This means by producing these forms of interpretation, we are probably increasing the amount of people who are becoming interested in history. I can probably provide one more example to that affect. In my undergraduate studies, I remember when The Da Vinci Code (the film) came out. A year later, a course was introduced focusing on Leonardo Da Vinci and people enrolled in it immediately. It seemed to make people want to learn more about Da Vinci and I don't think that is a negative outcome.

Simply put, I think we need to continue to produce an array of films and pieces of historical fiction that are based on all kinds of history. That way we can popularize other subjects that people know little or nothing about.