NitrateVille.com

A question for the historians among you: which can be considered the first "historical drama", in the sense that it depicts a historical (or, for the time it was made, contemporary) event with the ambition to show "how it happened"? I think I have read that "re-enactment" films about the Spanish-American War were made in 1898, is that true? Do they survive?

And at which point had the "historical drama" been established as a genre? And what a role played the claim for "authenticity" ("This film is based on a true story/ real event")?

Aha, I found this on Wikipedia...

Tearing Down the Spanish Flag (1898), first war movie ever made

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wa ... .931898.29

Maybe anyone can comment on that?

Einar the Lonely wrote:A question for the historians among you: which can be considered the first "historical drama", in the sense that it depicts a historical (or, for the time it was made, contemporary) event with the ambition to show "how it happened"? I think I have read that "re-enactment" films about the Spanish-American War were made in 1898, is that true? Do they survive?

And at which point had the "historical drama" been established as a genre? And what a role played the claim for "authenticity" ("This film is based on a true story/ real event")?

I take it you're talking about film? Because the first historical drama probably occurred when Og the Caveman described his morning's mastodon hunt to his campfire mates.

You'll find a bunch of the Spanish-American War films here:

http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/sawhtml/sawhome.html

Some of which are real footage and some of which are reenactments, including that Raising of Old Glory over Morro Castle, which, if it was the film that Blackton and Smith described later, does not exactly fit their description.

There is also Blackton and Smith's legendary recreation of the Battle of Morro Bay, which i have never seen and don't know if it exists (assuming it ever existed and they didn't just make it up). They did film a re-creation of the re-creation.

greta

Here's J. Stuart Blackton describing his film about 30 years later in Introduction to the Photoplay:

Then the Spanish-American War broke out. It gave a very great impetus to the motion picture interests. The first war picture made by the firm of Blackton and Smith was TEARING DOWN THE SPANISH FLAG. That was the first picture made with our improved machine. It was made the day after the declaration of war with Spain. It was taken in our 10' x 12' studio room. Our background was the building next door. We had a flag pole and two 18" flags, one of them an American one and the other a Spanish flag. Smith operated the machine and I, with this very hand, grabbed the Spanish flag and tore it down from the pole and pulled the Stars and Stripes to the top of the flag pole. That was our first dramatic picture and it is surprising how much dramatic effect it created. The people went wild. Of course, it was war time and their emotions ran high and then while the flags were but 18" in size the picture showed a big 36" flag. That was the beginning of making the miniature look like the real large thing.

Frederica wrote: I take it you're talking about film? Because the first historical drama probably occurred when Og the Caveman described his morning's mastodon hunt to his campfire mates.

Yes, we have learned this in school, though there is a revisionist dispute whether the caveman was rather called Ngg than Og, and whether he had made the story all up.

How about Edison's The Execution of Mary Queen of Scots, made in 1895?

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?a ... ison%29%29

Einar the Lonely wrote:

Frederica wrote: I take it you're talking about film? Because the first historical drama probably occurred when Og the Caveman described his morning's mastodon hunt to his campfire mates.

Yes, we have learned this is school, though there is a revisionist dispute whether the caveman was rather called Ngg than Og, and whether he had made the story all up.

His professional name was Adela Rogers St. Ngg, and he undoubtedly made it all up.

I wonder how the invention and/or rise of the historical drama genre is generally linked to war and propaganda... does anyone see a connection between the two? I see that production values (costumes etc) and sensationalism were important as well...

And would you say that THE BIRTH OF A NATION has some "propagandistic" aspect to it? Not so much because of the Kluxers, but because of its patriotic message and its interpretation of the Civil War as having some final, unifying purpose, even if Griffith's point of view was rather from the losing side?

Note there would be a distinction between a costume drama (say JEZEBEL) and a historical drama (say YOUNG MR. LINCOLN)...

Einar the Lonely wrote: And would you say that THE BIRTH OF A NATION has some "propagandistic" aspect to it? Not so much because of the Kluxers, but because of its patriotic message and its interpretation of the Civil War as having some final, unifying purpose, even if Griffith's point of view was rather from the losing side?

Do you really want to open that can of worms? Just asking

rollot24 wrote:

Einar the Lonely wrote: And would you say that THE BIRTH OF A NATION has some "propagandistic" aspect to it? Not so much because of the Kluxers, but because of its patriotic message and its interpretation of the Civil War as having some final, unifying purpose, even if Griffith's point of view was rather from the losing side?

Do you really want to open that can of worms? Just asking

Well, pardon me, as a foreigner I am not entirely aware how wormy that can actually is... or whether you are being ironic now or not ( I thought you guys had settled that already??). Apart from that I'd really be interested in opinions...

Another question that comes up here (pardon my speed )... for example, here is a 1900 Edison re-enactment of a Boers cavalry charge shot in New Jersey:

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?p ... ammem_UpvK::

Would such a film be presented and sold as documentary footage or labeled as "re-enactment" in the first place?

Einar the Lonely wrote: whether you are being ironic now or not ( I thought you guys had settled that already??). :wink:

I'm only being partly ironic, and I'm afraid the whole BOAN thing will never be settled.

In the US, the film is apparently still a can of worms, but I'd hope that people on this board find it as wormy as the general public (most of which who haven't seen it).

One of the first uses of any popular new medium is propaganda, of course. So it would have been unusual had the Boar War and Spanish-American War re-enactments not been filmed. Specifically, this genre of film could maintain popular appeal with their simultaneous drama and action without the basis of very little story, too. But because of this, it is debatable whether or not you would consider them dramatic pictures.

What about political newsreels?? Wasn't McKinley on film?

The reinactments are said to have been passed off as real footage. Some are so obviously phony, though, that i'm not sure anybody could maintain that the intent was to fool the public

Like this one, for example
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?p ... ammem_WKx7::

Speaking of McKinley, there is also the Execution of Czolgosz, with panorama of Auburn Prison
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?p ... ammem_avQx::

greta

With no point of reference, though, don't you think the first time customers thought it was real?

Speaking of McKinley, there is also the Execution of Czolgosz, with panorama of Auburn Prison

well that was certainly grim.....

Probably, at least i think we've always assumed they thought they were real. I've hears some scholars question our assumptions in that regard (sorry, i don't have any citations handy). And it's an interesting question--did they know that they were reenactments and if so how did they feel about it? Would they feel cheated? Or did it matter--for their purposes was a reenactment an adequate substitute for the original? The same way that we're bothered by fictional films which switch between fake interiors and real exteriors. Apparently contemporary audiences were not bothered by the patently phony stuff even when it was obvious.

Anyway, it was certainly the case that it didn't take long for audiences and critics to lambaste the obviously fake. But without more research i'm not sure we can assume that the earliest film audiences felt exactly the same as we do about it. Coming from a cultural context of stage plays, tableaux and panoramas that existed alongside genuine photographs, maybe it didn't strike them as fundamentally different?

greta

I think there are two aspects to the "it really happened this way" claim - 1. the thrill of sensation, as if you could be there. The Czolgosz execution would be a case like this, and a precurser to today's TV live transmissions (though we dont have live executions yet). And then there is the idea of time travel, of making an epoch gone by come to life again, as Rabbi Loew conjures the biblical patriarchs for the Emperor's entertainment with his Lanterna Magica in Wegener's GOLEM.

2. The claim functions to confirm a national narrative, thus justifying political implications. A religious film like Mel Gibson's THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST would also be in that category. As a true Christian believer you must believe that the crucification and ressurrection of Christ actually happened as presented in the Gospel, as a historical fact. This is how Pontius Pilatus made it into the Apostle's Creed. If it wasnt a historical fact, then the system of Christianity would collapse. And Gibson, as a believer, makes his characters speak in Aramaic and Latin etc, makes the torture scenes all bloody and hyper-realistic etc, to suggest that what we are about to see really happened. That is a different approach as DeMille or Zeffirelli. DeMille of course also piously confirms the story of the Gospel, but he relies on the established (mostly 19th century) iconography and the audience's (assumed) undiminished faith. So he can afford to throw in some lurid fantasy scenes about Mary Magdalene as a bonus. But Gibson makes a movie for an audience that is less pious and less believing towards Christianity than DeMille's was...

Historical movies are just like Science Fiction movies - they tell more about the present when they were made than they do about the past (or future).

greta de groat wrote: -did they know that they were reenactments and if so how did they feel about it? Would they feel cheated? Or did it matter--for their purposes was a reenactment an adequate substitute for the original?
Anyway, it was certainly the case that it didn't take long for audiences and critics to lambaste the obviously fake. But without more research i'm not sure we can assume that the earliest film audiences felt exactly the same as we do about it.

I suspect the reactions were about the same as they were to "The Blair Witch Project" and those types of movies. For a little while there was probably interest/curiosity/concern. Then, as more people actually saw them, it was obvious they were fakes and word spread quickly. Then as now, by the time the cover was blown, the money had already been made.