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