Works Cited

Bates, Robin. “Audiences on the Verge of a Fascist Breakdown: Male Anxieties and Late 1930s French Film.” Cinema Journal, Vol. 36, No.3, Spring, 1997. pp. 25-55. Web.

Donahue, Collins Williams. “Pretty Boys and Nasty Girls: The Holocaust Figured in Two German Films of the 1990s.” New England Review, Fall 2000. Web.  

Imhoof, David. “Why We Fought: America’s Wars in Film and History.” The University of Kentucky Press, pp. 175-194. Web.

Kawin, Bruce. “Time and Stasis in La Jetee.” Film Quarterly, Vol. 36, No.1, Autumn, 1982. pp. 15-20. Web.

Kozma-Southall, Jan. “Omen and Image: Presage and Sacrifice in Moravia’s La Ciociara.” American Association of Teachers of Italian, Vol. 36, No.3, Autumn, 1984. pp. 207-219. Web.

Rosenstone, Robert A. “History on Film: Film on History.” Edinburgh Gate, UK: Pearson Education Limited, 2006. Print.

Smith, Bonnie G. “Europe in the Contemporary World 1900 to the Present: A Narrative History with Documents.” Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. Print.

Europa, Europa

• Film Title: Europa, Europa
• Original Year of Production: 1990
• Studio: Central Cinema Company Film
• Director: Agnieszka Holland
• Cast: Marco Hofschneider, Julie Deply, Andre Wilms
• Producers: Artur Brauner, Janusz Morgensterm, Lew Rywin

The film Europa, Europa was based on the autobiography of Solomon Perel. Solomon was a German Jew who hid his heritage and became a member of the Nazi youth. The central argument of this film is one that the Nazi’s would not have taught in schools during their reign. The argument that prejudism is cruel and wrong. The fact that the Nazi’s taught and tried to ethnically cleanse an entire nation of a group of people was morally wrong and without merit. Although much of the film has many parts that find humor in rewriting Perel’s autobiography in order to present a more entertaining version to the audience, the film does provide a strong anti-prejudice argument.

The film tells the story of the Solly and his ducking, dodging, and eventual joining of the Nazi’s during WWII. This young, handsome, and courageous young man fools almost everybody into thinking he was an Aryan. In one scene, Solly is recognized as a hero after accidently leading hid German comrades to a battalion of Soviet soldier. Afterwards, Solly is recognized for his heroism and initiated into the Hitler Youth, a sect of the German Army that was supposed to symbolism the superior qualities of pure-breed Aryans. Not only did Solly fool his fellow German soldiers in one scene, he also fooled a professor into thinking he was of pure Aryan blood through a few obviously scientifically flawed tests. In the picture above, Solly is represented as having an “Aryan” Nazi body, in addition to a Jewish face. This is supposed to represent that although his body may seem like an Aryans to the Germans, his Jewish heritage and knowledge has to be hidden deep inside him-self as shown in the eyes without a face. The important turning points of the film were when he was discovered to be circumcised by a homosexual soldier named Robert, and when his he joined the Nazi Youth. These scenes had the possibility to transcend Solly into a criminal, but they sealed his future as a Jewish boy hiding within the ranks of the German Army. For only Jews were usually circumcised in Germany, and this caused Solly to hide a piece of his body from other men in wartime that you eat, sleep, fighting, and could potentially die with. It is in the scene that Robert lustfully reaches for Solly, from behind, while he is taking a bath. One could argue that the director, Agnieszka Holland, could be making a suggestion that even the “pure Aryans” were in fact in contradiction with their own prejudice beliefs of homosexuals within their own members.

Such a controversial movie was not very well received by audiences in Germany. The well criticized film was not accepted amongst the members of the German Export Film Union as worthy of being nominated for an Oscar. “Director Agnieszka Holland attributed that decision to a general German failure to “come to terms with the past”. (Donahue, 109)  One might consider that this would be a touchy subject that many German artists would have felt was not a part of their true identity and therefore would try to avoid whenever possible. However, there were some scenes that could Germans would find bothersome. The character of Robert playing an aggressive homosexual, while in one moment trying to unwillingly touch a minors genitals and then posturing up once discovering he was a Jewish and deciding to befriend Solly. In addition, the portrayal of the Germans, with the possible exception of Robert, as mostly loyal and onboard with the policies of the Nazi’s could be seen as false and wrong to many anti-Nazi Germans in 1990. For it was during this time that the Russians tore down the Berlin Wall a year later in 1991. Germany had felt the crippling defeat of WWI, II, and resulting Cold War.

Although the film seems to portray the times in an accurate way, there are seems examples that were clearly fabricated by the director. According to an article written by William Collins Donahue, when “Perel turns himself over to the Russians, is about to be executed as a Nazi perpetrator, and is saved at the last moment by his brother David, who recognizes him in the nick of time” never occurred and is therefore false. (Donahue, 111)  This leads to an important question presented by Rosenstone, “Can we really represent the past, factually, or fictionally, as it was, or do we always present only some version of the way it possibly was or may have been? “ (Rosenstone, 135) This is such an issue that historians wrestle with when analyzing movie that base some claims on history.

La Jetee

• Film Title: La Jetee
• Original Year of Production: 1962
• Studio: Unknown
• Director: Chris Marker
• Cast: Jean Negroni, Helene Chatelain, Davos Hanich
• Producers: Anatole Dauman

This black and white French film is one that stands out. The film is a series of still images that are narrated to provide a post-WWIII science fiction story that delves into love, time travel, and murder. In France, a captured soldier is taken prisoner and given drug and forced to travel in time. However, the soldier can only remember a traumatic event that occurred at the airport as a child.  He saw a man collapse and die and specifically remembered a beautiful woman’s face. In a weird yet beautiful series event the soldier is sedated and travels back forth in time to that enables him to establish a sporadic relationship with a beautiful woman. They have different outings at random places and times. In the poster above, you can see the object of his affection, one of their outings, and the experiments the soldier had undegone. After a series of meetings the scientists responsible for sending the soldier throughout time establish a mission to find a way to rebuilding his native lands. Upon completing his mission he was to be executed however he escapes by his comrades from the future. Upon being saved he requests to be brought to that moment in time as a child that was etched into his mind. Upon returning he saw the beautiful woman and ran towards her only to be assassinated by a research scientist. In his last moments, the soldier realizes that the image of the man dying at the airport that haunted him as a child was in fact him.

This thesis of this film can be hard to identify at first glance. The lack of historical background, dialogue, and character development leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Seeing how the film was shot in France during the tense political times of the Cold War and Vietnam, one can make the assumption that the political and military disputes of the time are represented in the films arguments. In the beginning of the film, the soldier as a boy sees a man assassinated only to find out that he was the very man who was to meet his death. France during this time was faced with the defeats and hardships of the first world wars and Vietnam. One could see draw parallels between the soldier and seeing his own death without realizing it and the ideas of nationalism. For example, France saw the ideas of Nazi nationalism during WWII fail and the results were dramatic for the Germans resulting in the splitting of Germany between two different ideologies and in the west and the east. Just as the boy witnessed the death of a man, the French witnessed the death of the Nazi’s. However, the soldier still fought and participated in activities such as war that bread chaos and death, just as France sent troops to Vietnam and parts of the Middle East.

The historical context of the film was in relation to the cold-war. During this time,”Europe was enmeshed in the cultural manifestations of the cold war just as it was drawn into cold war alliances that developed around the superpower rivalry.”(Smith, 414) Many people believed the world was soon to meet again in WWIII.  In the early 1960’s, the Soviets began building the Berlin wall in order to stop their citizens and others from entering or exiting. In addition, in 1962, “the CIA reported the installation of launching sites for Soviet medium-range missiles in Cuba, a counter to nuclear weapons aimed at the USSR that the United States had installed in Turkey.”(Smith, 417) The times were marked with fear and alienation by the Soviets, the Americans, and other countries caught in between. This was the backdrop for the film that expresses a strong anti-war message for the reasons of complete chaos and global amounts of deaths and suffering as the result of nuclear arms.

The film has a unique style that adds to its apocalyptic message. The film is basically just a collection of various still images that in concert with music and narration come together and act similar to other major motion pictures. In an article critiquing La Jetee, Bruce Kawin discusses the different elements of the film that make it so unique. One such element is that of the use of stills. The jumps back and forth in between time, however, “our reality is not composed of stills; even the instant is a mental construct.”(Kawin, 17)  This powerful technique used by the director does not follow the traditional linear models of film. Another technical aspect of the film is the use of stasis images. Many images in film such as that of the stuffed animals in the museum, the statue of a cherub, and airport are examples of stasis imagery. According to Kawin, “all of the images are fixed and are calculated to give the impression of life while insisting on the fact that they are images, art, statues, the product of the interaction between life and the attention of the artist.”(Kawin, 18)  The director also uses strong mood setting narrations and music to illustrate different dramatic feelings. For example, the use to whispering narratives and strong classical music set the mood for the scene when the soldier is traveling into the future. It’s these elements that when analyzed reveal the true beauty and uniqueness of the film La Jetee.

Two Women

• Film Title: Two Women
• Original Year of Production: 1960
• Studio: Compagnia Cinematografica Champion
• Director: Vittorio De Sica
• Original Novel: La Ciociara
• Cast: Sophia Loren, Jean-Paul Belmondo, and Eleonora Brown
• Producers: Carlo Ponti and Joseph E. Levine 

The black and white film Two Women tells a point of view that is different from that of typical films on war. This mainstream drama tells of the horrors of war away from the soldiers and focuses on the citizens of Italy. Even further, the story is told through the narrative of two females, a mother and a daughter. The mother Cesira flees Rome for her native countryside while trying to protect her innocent daughter Rosetta from the horrors of war. In essence, the thesis of the film is represented by Cesira and Rosetta’s lasting relationship. Throughout the film, Cesira protects her daughter from hunger, tries to shield from her murder, and comforts her after they both were raped by a rogue group of Moroccan soldiers. Although the young Rosetta was brutally raped towards the end of the film and it becomes obvious that a piece of her innocence as a naive and sheltered child has become lost, their mother-daughter relationship was never broken. Yes the horrors of war can easily be attributed as the argument of any war film, but the strong relationship of Cesira and Rosetta is the main focus of the film.

The Italin film takes place in Italy during WWII. Towards the end of the war, the German’s and Italian Fascists are retreating from the Allies. The hardships faced by the citizens of this worn-torn country are represented thoroughly throughout the film. One example was the Allied bombings of Rome at the beginning of the film that ushered Cesira to flee to the country with Rosetta. In addition, the lack of food and proper nutrition was seen throughout the film. In one scene, Cesira and Michele go to look for food in the next town and find a hysterical woman who had just lost her baby. The women offers her breast milk to the couple when they ask where they could find buy some food. According to Smith, “the Nazi government depended on the flow of goods from pillage and thus organized shipments of grain, metals and other resources from occupied countries to Germany itself.”(332)  Indeed the movie presented a country that was lacking even the basic goods of cultivation. The reasons for such troubles are the German allocation of goods in addition to a lack of young able-bodied males because of their legal mandatory obligation to serving in the army.

The film alluded to the struggles felt by seemingly every member of Italian society during this time. Members of the Italian fascist regime seem to abuse their power in petty tactics such as threats of violence and a sense superiority above their fellow citizens. The divisions amongst different political ideologies were clear among the Fascists, the Communists and the Americans. Even in a country that was torn apart by war, there was a still bitter conflict between citizens over politics. An example would be the members of the Fascist army that are fleeing the Allies when they encounter the young Communist sympathizer Michelle. One Fascist pulls out a gun and points it at Michelle over a petty disagreement. According to Smith, “the war killed far more civilians than soldiers”, “the defeated citizens of Europe often paid the financial costs of their country’s occupation, died performing slave labor, and suffered in numerous other ways.”(332)  The involvement of almost every major industrial country from America to the U.S.S.R. led to bitter fighting on multiple fronts, from the streets of Rome, to the countryside of Ciociaria.

The turning point of the film was when young Rosetta and her mother were raped by a known rogue group of Moroccan soldiers. Throughout the whole film, Cecira acted as shield for Rosetta against the horrors of war. She tried to protect her daughter’s child-like innocence by being a strong and courageous woman in a more than dangerous and hostile environment. For example, Cecira comforted her daughter when Michelle was taken captive by German soldiers on the run and seeking safe passage through the hills. However, Cecira could not protect her daughter from all the travesties of war. Towards the end of the film both Cecira and Rosetta were raped and Rosetta lost her innocence. However, after Cecira is visibly shaken up from the whole ordeal and acts distant from her mother. The picture at the top of the page is a film poster depicting a scene where the war seems to have gotten the better of these women. However, at the end of the film, the hug each other and the camera pans out making them appear smaller and revealing a big object in the left side of the screen that closely resembles some piece of WWII weaponry. According to class lecture, this could be seen as a way of illustrating the strong relationship of Cecira and Rosetta in the uncompromising and unrelenting chaos of war. In an article by Jan Kozma-Southal, a discussion of the imagery used by the author Alberto Moravia helps shed some insight on the multiple metaphors of the book that the film was based. In his book, he uses the metaphor of a goat as means of self-sacrifice against the atrocities of the war in terms of Rosetta’s character. “Rosetta's upbringing has rendered her just as incapable of defending herself as the goat of which she speaks.”(211) In such cruel and hard times, even the most innocent and naive people cannot go unharmed.  

The film was released in 1960 about fifteen years after the end of WWII. The summer Olympics were held in Rome during this year. It’s ironic that fifteen years later all the super-powers of the world had an invested interest in winning in Italy. During this time, the ideologies and sense of nationalism that were responsible for WWII were still accountable in torn countries such as Vietnam. Communist and anti-communist governments were engrained in the beginnings of a bitter cold-war that sought to reach as many countries as possible. The U.S.S.R. and their communist ideas and the United States had once been allies but then become enemies after the war. The tension between these two super-powers had led to possibility of a WWIII.

The Rules of the Game

• Film Title: Rules of the Game
• Original Year of Production: 1939             
• Studio: Nouvelles Éditions de Films
• Director: Jean Renoit
• Cast: Marcel Dalio, Nora Gregor, and Paulette Dubost
• Producers: Jean Renoir
 

La Règle du jeu or the Rules of the Game is a black and white film directed by Jean Renoir in 1939.  In an interview, Jean Renoir states that his film was highly unpopular and controversial in French society during the late 1930’s. In addition, Renoir goes on to state that the he had not intended on provoking such controversy and that criticism hurt him very deeply. The thesis of this film criticizes the very people who Renoir alluded to in the interview, the Bourgeoisie. The upper-class of French society and their decedent and child-like personalities are exposed in this unconventional film. Renoir was quoted as saying that the Bourgeoisie was “rotten to the core.” These wealthy and privileged citizens are the basis of a rotten and incestual part of society that possesses no strong morals, especially in their love lives. 

This film can be described as an experimental or expository film, as described in Rosenstone. (p.50) Rosenstone describes these films as foreign and usually not elected to the traditional plots and codes as those in Hollywood films. In addition, Rosenstone states that these films are usually made by leftists and choose not to follow Hollywood guidelines because they promote traditional capitalistic idea and do not contribute to social change. This is evident throughout the film, especially in terms of the elites and their incestual love relationships. For example, towards the end of the film Christine finally submits to Andre and confesses that she loves him. However, she later confronts Octave and admits that he is her love. The film portrays other love affairs such as Robert and Genevieve, and Marceau and Lisette. This endless game of cheating and lack of morals is the complete opposite of traditional Hollywood films at the times. The absence of good versus evil in the form of characters and their relationships in are not represented what so ever in this film.

Usually in typical Hollywood based films; there are important moments that transcend the film and its arguments. However, in this film, the zenith at the movie comes at the end when Andre is mistakenly shot by Schumacher. I believe this scene is supposed to be a metaphor for the Bourgeoisie and their lack of strength and character in France during 1939. In Robin Bates article on masculinity in the late 1930’s French films, she describes these men as “flawed men who lack the courage of their convictions and who collapse under pressure.”(p.40)  In the article she goes on to state that France was on the verge of fighting another world war with Germany and the hyper-masculine fascists. She goes on to state Renoit felt that what was wrong with French society needed to be exposed through film. Although the film was not originally perceived well by French audiences, the late 1930’s message of change in French society in dealing with the Bourgeoisie and their failures to France are recognized today by various groups such as the British Film Institute and historians such as Robin Bates.

The film is told through the perspective of the Bourgeoisie, from the childish games of romance between characters to the lavish parties where almost anything is acceptable.  According to historian Bonnie Smith, “governments faced a rebellious citizenry at the end of the war, and to dampen the revolutionary spirit, politicians focused on providing a better standard of living and a return to family life.”(p.202)  Smiths insight only adds weight to the argument that Renoit was critiquing a sleeping French population on the heels of another great war. The film was told through the perspective of the weak Bourgeoisie in order to illustrate what Renoit felt was corrupt about French society.

All Quiet on the Western Front

• Film Title: All Quiet on the Western Front
• Original Year of Production: 1930
• Studio: Universal Pictures
• Director: Lewis Milestone
• Cast: Lew Ayres, Louis Wolheim and John Wray
• Producer: Carl Laemmle Jr.

All Quiet on the Western Front is set in Germany during World War One. The academy award winning film for best picture opens to a group of school boys being lectured by their Professor to join the war effort and support their “fatherland”. The rest of the film follows the war effort through the experiences of these German boys, especially the star Lew Ayres as Paul Baumer. This film is modeled after a troubling time in European/world history. Increasing technological and industrial capabilities coupled with the developments of nations led to Europeans fighting over land in the names of their respective countries. Mechanized warfare lead to greater weapons such as guns, planes, canons, biological warfare, and grenades left war on both fronts to fight each other in what became known as trench-warfare. The film seems to accurately describe the hardships these soldiers suffered. Men began going crazy, many more starved waiting for food, and plenty of soldiers were shot and killed and left to rot in the trenches. In trench warfare, it’s safe to say there are no winners, for even survival came at a heavy mental price. Some soldiers went mad waiting in their entrenched bunkers for food, sleep, an end to the sound of guns blasting and bombs dropping. Although the film was written by a WW1 veteran with seemingly primary insight into the war one must recognize that the work was fictional. Many events seem rational and potential real such as Paul returning to his school with his anti-war message or laying with some French women only to never see them again. However, mainstream dramas must present an interesting story in order to capture the hearts and minds of its audience. Rosenstone covers the elements of a mainstream drama as follows. “ Condensation or compression” was used the film in order to cover months and years of war  into a concise two hours of film. “Dialogue” was also used from the words of despair from Paul and his friends to the dropping sounds and explosions of bombs and the screams of fear from grown soldiers that helped to create a dramatic and brutal past war. “Characters” such as Paul are the action and are the main focus of the story. Although Rosenstone suggests that “characters” in a mainstream historical drama are based on actual historical figures, we will include the fictional characters of the film in order to illustrate the elements of the film. (Rosenstone, p.39) These elements are combined to create a mainstream drama such All Quiet on the Western Front.

The thesis of the film has to deal with reasons for going to war. At the film, Paul and his schoolmates are basically coaxed into joining the army by their professor and his false words of nobility and heroism by those who join. Soon after joining many of Paul’s friends die in combat, lose their limbs, or just break down mentally. The war had taken his friends, he realized that his fight was not noble and without honor. He was spoon fed nationalistic ideas such as Germany being the “fatherland” and basically that would make him and his friends the children that were designated to defend its honor. However, Paul came to realize with his own eyes that war traditional tales of war such as these were false and that conservative elites were the ones that started and benefited from war. He then realized that he made a mistake by joining the German army. Paul soon realizes this while he returns home after a short furlough after being wounded. In the turning point of the film, Paul returns to his old school and spots his old professor running off at the mouth with the same words of heroism and noble deeds for those that defend the fatherland in battle that suckered Paul and his other classmates. The instructor invites Paul in to speak to his class of young men, actually younger than Paul’s class because of the German army’s enormous need to replace dead and dying soldiers at the front. Paul then goes on to encourage the kids not to join the army because killing innocent men for unjust causes has left him with a lot of remorse and a sense of despair. The kids then chastise Paul by calling him a traitor and his sincere anti-war words fall on deaf ears. Paul then finally returns to the front and tells his last remaining friend Kat that there’s no more room in society for him. Soon after Kat is wounded and killed by bomb explosion. Paul then carries his body to a field hospital and medics tell Paul that his last friend has died. Stricken with grief, Paul’s world becomes darker than ever before. In the final scene Paul is in the trenches and sees a butterfly several feet in front of him, out of the bunker. While Paul is reaching for the only beautiful thing in the trenches he is shot and killed by a French sharpshooter. Paul is killed and the film and its anti-war message come to an end.  

The film was released on December 1930, in Germany. The film was shown for only six nights until it was banned from the public by Germany’s Censorship Board because it was a threat to the public order. (Imhoof p.175.) This came as the result of German citizens boycotted the film because many felt the American made film was critical of Germany’s war effort during WW1. In Imhoof’s article Cultural Wars and the Local Screen, he suggests that this film reflected on Germany’s defeat and was disruptive to declining Weimar Republic. This issue was also political in nature. The conservative members of German society during 1930 saw that Germany and it’s problems were the result of the Versailles Peace Treaty and saw such liberal films as All Quiet as unpatriotic and wrong. Liberals felt the film and its sobering fictional story was not far-fetched and the film served to produce fundamental change for Germany. (Imhoof p.179)  The film alluded to the struggles of a nation to come to terms with the meaning and reasons why it lost in WW1. While many liberals felt that Germany after WW1 was in dire need of change, while conservatives in power and in the streets till felt their ideas still supreme in restoring the “fatherland”.

Works Cited

Works Cited

Lerner, Gerda. “The Necessity of History.” In her, why History matters: Oxford University Press. 1997. 122-128.  Web.

Rosenstone, Robert A. “History on Film: Film on History.” Edinburgh Gate, UK: Pearson Education Limited, 2006. Print.

Smith, Bonnie G. “Europe in the Contemporary World 1900 to the Present: A Narrative History with Documents.” Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2007. Print.

Stansell, Christine. “Reds.” Rev. of Reds, dir. Warren Beatty. Web.

Cuban Revolution

• Film Title: Cuban Revolution
• Original Year of Production: Unknown
• Studio: Unknown
• Director: Glenn Gebhard 
• Producers: John LaCorte, Mario Congreve, Brian Sisselman, Glenn Gebhard

   The Cuban Revolution was a glimpse into the Cuban Revolution against the United States and Cuba's previous Batista government in favor of radical socialism, that has been the norm in Cuba for over fifty years. In addition, the film covers the split of Cuban support in America and in Cuba for, and against socialism led under Fidel Castro. The film examines different issues such as the commercial and economic trade embargo enacted by the United States against Cuba after Cuba nationalized all private lands of United States citizens and it's corporations. Throughout the film both popular sides to this and other issues are examined by supporters of the United States and their respective policies and supporters of Cuba and it's radical socialist government. The thesis of this film becomes apparent towards the end of the film. When various men and women are interviewed in Cuba and the U.S. they seem to agree on one thing. They want to establish a peaceful and healthy relationship with each other. Regardless of political views, the fact that both nations can prosper from the lifting of the trade embargo is reason enough to revive a healthy and respectful diplomatic relationship.

   The filmaker of this film is Dominguez Hills graduate Mario Congreve. Although my experience with Cuban and American relations are limited I do believe that this quality film has much to offer people with limited knowledge of the subject. The film ties different viewpoints of Communist party members, Cuban defectors in Miami, young children and adolescents in Cuba, college professors and Phd's in Cuba and America. The film views their points such as the lack of clothing, shoes and even the rationing of food to as little as four eggs, per person, every month. Presenting the film with different viewpoints is reflective of Rosenstone referers to as "Contest history."(118) In contest history, the general viewpoints of the film go against the general views of a particular subject. In including the views of the pro-revolutionary Cubans, the film runs against the traditional views which Americans would usually be subjected. In presenting such various contrasting arguments such as Capitalism and Socialism the film directors follow more closely in line with the duties of a historian; the duties of focusing more of actual events and movements and letting the audience determin its own meaning.

Reds

• Film Title: Reds
• Original Year of Production: 1981
• Studio: Paramount Pictures
• Director: Warren Beatty
• Cast: Warren Beatty-Jack Reed, Diane Keaton-Louise Bryant, Edward Herman-Max Eastman, Jack Nicolson-Eugene O'neill
• Prodcuers: Dede Allen, Warren Beatty, David Leigh Mcleod and Simon Relph

The film Reds is meant to emulate the life of journalist and radical communism advocate John “Jack” Reed. Jack was born to a wealthy Oregon couple in 1987. He became famous for covering the Mexican Revolution in the pages of Metropolitan Magazine. Shortly thereafter Jack became heavily involved in Communist rhetoric. The film is heavily tied to Jack's involvement in Communism, especially towards the end when Jack and Louise Bryant travel to Russia to witness the toppling of Russia's Provisional Gorvernment and the rise of Bolshevism in 1917. However, a majority of the film consists of Jack and his relationship with young feminist reporter Louise Bryant. At the beginning of the film Jack Reed begins to develop a strong bond with Louise Bryant and they eventually move to New York City together and become a couple. This leads into clips of love, infidelity, and reconciliation on both their parts. However, the film also focuses on the early Feminist movement with Mary Louis Bryant. In the film Louis Bryant was a strong and independent writer that was competing for recognition of her talents in a male dominated news-world. In the film, Mary Bryant leaves to Europe in order to seek work as a war correspondent and Reed followers her and makes a promise to take her to Russia with him, under platonic terms. He stated that she would be referred to as “Miss Bryant” and not “Mrs. Reed”. According to Christine Stansell’s review of the film, “The pace of the film inevitably slackens, and Reds compensates by shifting to the proven dramatic motif of star-crossed lovers separated by the epic of war.”(p.194) The truth as to whether or not this was in reality true or not leaves a lot of doubt in this love story. In many Hollywood films, these certain elements are usually manipulated to coax the audience into certain scripted feelings about the story. Although the Reed and Bryant love affair seems to be exaggerated other events of the film do present some elements of truth. For example, when Jack Reed tries to rally up support for socialist ideas of change amongst factory and wage laborers, the events did in fact take place and were frowned upon by some members of law enforcement, and the upper-class, or the owners and benefiters of the means of production. In addition, one must delve examine the era in which the film was emulating.  

This film takes place during a turbulent time in history. The competing ideas of conservatism, liberalism, and communism were in the minds of many influential men and women during the early years of World War One. The example of Russia and the falling of the Romanov Dynasty and the rise of Bolshevism was the world in which this movie was trying to emulate.  However, the film does posses some funny moments thrown in with a Hollywood twist. In the film, Jack was talking to one of his elderly family members about raising money for his socialist magazine The Masses. In response, the elderly man asked if that were some sort of religious magazine. Truthful, who knows, but it does make for a more entertaining flick. The main point that this film tries to convey is that of change in the form of political and social change. As stated by Rosenstone, “commitment to changing the world through politics is both admirable and very American, but you must change the politics of the personal as well as the politics of the world.”(p.106) This point is exactly what the film shows its audience when Jack rallies around the country in person, and writes about the injustices of the Bourgeoisie against the Proletariat, before moving to Russia to serve the causes of the Communist Party.  According to historian Bonnie Smith, " the Revolution took place in two arenas: one was in the provisional government, composed essentially of moderates; the other was in the factories and in the streets."(149) Reed was shown in the film as trying to catalyze support amongst workers in factories and intellectuals for radical ideas of class unity and the destruction of the ruling class who controlled the means of prodcution in heavily industrialized America during the ealry twentieth century. An interesting and radical idea that eventually led him to become a member of the Communist party in Russia; allowing Reed to honored as being the only American buried in the Kremlin.

This film can be considered a "domestic drama"(102) in the eyes of Rosenstone. This type of film is ususally centered around stories of love and dramatic elements. However, this film also falls into the category of a biography of both Reed's and Bryant's lives and careers. In spite of the term biography, Reds like other Hollywood biographies usually contain more fiction and less reality of actual events and relationships. One could argue that by nature the biography could never be historically accurate, especially in the avenue of film. For example, Reds is over three hours long. Although some parts, such as Jack and Louis reporting on the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia did actually occur, one cannot know for certain the events  and details that actually happened that made up the film. In the case of film, where the audience needs constant visual and cognitive stimulation in order to keep their attention, the realities of what really transpired, if known, are not always synonymous with a predetermined plot. The directors and writers of these biographical "domestic dramas" are not historians. Their professions are based in the arts, and do not share the burden of recreating the past through analytical investigation of the past in its respective context. Therefore, the film, although entertaining, must be judged as a piece of art rather than a piece of history.
Although I categorize biographical domestic-dramas as relating more towards the arts than the field of historical study, other information such as the time when the film was produced adn released can tell us about the historical period and its context. Reds was filmed during 1980's, and the end of the Cold War between the USSR and the United States. Although relations between these two nations were on thin ice the film does not seem to be a reflection of that. In fact, the film could be seen as actually favoring Jack Reed and his visions of politics following in line with  the ideas of Marxism. The film never actually portrays the good aspects of America’s Federal Republic system.This could be the result of the writers and directors wanting to focus more on the romantic love affair of Jack Reed and Louis Bryant than the politics of the times. Seeing how this is an American cast and made film, during the heated Cold War, one could imagine why the film took its path towards drama and romance rather than the usual review of the politics of the time.

The Good Fight

Viva La Quince Brigada-Theme Music

• Film Title: The Good Fight
• Original Year of Production: 1984
• Studio: National Endowment for the Humanities
• Director: Noel Buckner, Mary Dore, Sam Sills
• Cast: Studs Terkel-narrator, Bill Bailey, Ruth Davidow, Salaria Key, Bill Macarthy, Milt Wolf.
• Producers: Noel Buckner, Mary Dore, Sam Sills

The Good Fight: The Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the Spanish Civil War is the documentary of men and women that travelled to Spain to fight Fascism in 1937. These were troubling times in Europe and the United States. America was just recovering from the worst economic depression in its 161 years of independence. Europe and its nations were trying to recover from the First World War while preparing for the next Great War lead by Hitler and his hyper-fascist right-wing idealogy. The Spanish Civil War was a fight for democracy and control of Spain led by General Fransico Franco and other generals against the Spanish Republic. According to Bonnie Smith, "The Spanish government appealed everywhere for assistance, but only the Soviet Union answered.(290) "So instead of massive international support, a few thousand volunteers from a variety of countries-including many students, journalists, and artists", "flocked to Spain to fight for the republic and democracy".(291) The film begins with eleven volunteers and their stories before, during, and after voluntary enlistment. These eleven volunteers are introduced and they explain why they wanted to enlist into this volunteer army. Bill Bailey who served as a seamen, longshoremen and active social activist provided an interesting account of how he and others like him would protest. He first described how he felt for others like him around the world. He described them as his “class brothers”. He goes on to state that he feels connected to men all around the world based on their mutual class. This is where the central theme is first examined by Bill Bailey’s and his description of Fascism in Germany and the abuses against Jews and how Bill empathizes for these poor people. The film thesis is the struggle against Fascism. These men and women were fighting against what they perceived as the fundamentally biased and anti-democratic Fascists in Spain. A slight problem one would have of the film is the oversimplification of the United States neutral stance during the mid-1930s.  This becomes evident after the film mostly examines the views of these volunteers without offering chances to rebuttle by other who did not fight in the Lincoln Brigade. Although there is a narrator, who does explain why America was neutral, there is little empathy expressed from these volunteers for America’s neutral policy during Spain’s Civil War. It becomes evident that this documentary follows more closely the volunteers than the actual events of the Spanish Civil War.

Although the accounts of the war from the volunteers of the Lincoln Brigade appear legitimate and in accord with the harsh fighting of war, the political affiliations of these men and women were possibly associated with Marxist idealogy providing interesting information mostly ignored in the film. According to Robert Rosenstone’s book, History on Film, Film on History, “the International Brigades were organized and directed by the Comintern, and dominated by officials from the Communist Party.” In addition, “at least 70 percent of the Americans were members of either the party or the Young Communist League. (p.81)  These excerpts from Rosenstone's book eludes to the power struggles by different political parties and ideologies during the 30’s. Yet it is interesting how the film makers chose never to identify these volunteers as having ever been members of even influenced by the Communist Party. Possibly the writers and directors of the documentary felt that the message of helping others and fighting fascism would only have been reduced by recognizing the volunteers affiliated with an use of the word Communist. Seeing how this film was released during 1984, which was the year that the USSR and other communist countries boycotted the Olympic Games in Los Angeles, one could imagine how Communism was less than favorable in the eyes of Americans during the Cold War. 

October

• Film Title: October (Ten Days that Shook the World)
• Original Year of Production: 1928
• Studio: Sovkino
• Director: Grigori Aleksandrov, Sergei M. Eisenstein
• Cast: Vladimir Popov as Aleksandr Kerensky, Vasili Nikandrov as V.I. Lennin Layaschenko as Konovaloz

    The Film October starts out with revolts against the Russian Monarchy during 1917. One of the first images show the statue of Tsar Nicholas being torn down. This paints the perfect image of the times in which the film is trying to depict. Widespread poverty and civil unrest was felt by millions of Russia’s proletariat. During this time of Russia’s history wars such those in Manchuria against Japan in 1905 and World War One left Russia and her citizens tired of war and it’s out of touch government. The government, headed by the Tsar, was unable to get much needed supplies to soldiers as well as paying off the national debt. In addition, workers felt further alienated by the Monarchy and the Bourgeioise and demanded for a social revolution. Eventually the Monarchy steps down and the provisional government, headed by Aleksanr Kerensky, comes into power. However, the provisional government is unable to handle all of Russia’s problems and Lenin and his Bolsheviks aim to seize control. This film primarily portrays the fight for power against Korensky’s provisional government and Lenin’s Bolsheviks.

This film seems to differ from other films on the Russian Revolution because of it’s focus on Kerensky and the provisional government. Although the film focuses a lot on Kerensky it’s biases against him and provisional government are obvious. The provisional government are portrayed as weak and un-assure of themselves. Compared to the momentum filled Bolsheviks, Kerensky and his provisional government are portrayed as fighting a losing battle against the people’s revolution and Communism. The thesis of this film can possibly be different when asking different people. The fact that the film was mostly silent and had very little words leaves more interpretation than films with more dialogue and sound. However, seeing that this film was commissioned by the Soviet government and the persistent portrayal of the people’s Revolution is visual throughout the film, the most logical answer would have to deal with the Revolution. In the film the idea that the proletariat’s revolution under Lenin and his Marxist ideas of class dissolution as a destined end to the Monarchy and the provisional government’s rule are clearly present. For example, when Kerensky was shown leaving the Winter Palace, Kerensky was portrayed as a coward rolling out of town in an automobile pictured with an American flag. Images such as this belittle the opponents of Russia’s Revolution.

Unless one would have actual knowledge of the events of the October Revolution, the film could possibly be viewed as non-fiction. However, it does seem obvious that the film could be categorized as a Bolshevik propaganda film. An example of such propaganda was the portrayal of members of the provisional government as being played by weird and hideous actors. This could have been a deliberate effort to sway the public. Another example that taunts the historical accuracy of the film was the storming of the Winter Palace. The film focused alot of energy and portrayed this as an important act in the collapse of the provisional government. It seems that the actual storming of the Palace was actually less important, dramatic and concise than the film portrays.  Such examples act to withdraw complete historical accuracy by the directors of this film. In conclusion, this film and its message of Revolution against the provisional government at the hands of the Bolshevik were intended to draw popular support for the Bolsheviks and their Marxist ideas of class equality and unification under the terms of propaganda.

Glory

• Film Title: Glory
• Original Year of Production: 1989
• Studio: Tristar Pictures
• Director: Edward Zwick
• Cast: Mathew Broderick as Col. Robert Shaw, Denzel Washington as Trip, Morgan Freeman as John Rowlins and Cary Eweles as Major Cabot Forbes
• Producer: Freddie Fields

The film begins with Colonel Robert Shaw leading the first ever black infantry unit in the American Civil War. During the beginning of the film it becomes apparent that the historical period is very racist. Black people were considered by many northern and southern Americans as not even fit for service. Within the first 15 minutes, a racist joke comparing black soldiers to pigs is made by a white man without hesitation. In another instance, Trip leaves camp in order to pick up a decent pair of boots, however, when he is caught is was subjected to lashing by his drill instructor. When the instructor rips off his shirt highly visible scars from previous lashing are visible across his back. Many black people during this time did not even receive the simplest of education. When marching the drill instructor asked his soldier if he knew his right from his left. When the soldier answered no others admitted the same. Such a lack of basic education supports the fact that these men were seen as unfit for education and of little value until Lincoln's ideas of post-war Reconstruction. However, Glory, according to Rosenstone, is a "dramatic feauture, a form largley propelled by fiction and invention."(39)  As historian Gerda Lerner explains, (357) "Photography, as a mass art form, popular journalism, radio, film, and television have profoundly affected the relationship to people in the past." Glory was a big budget Hollywood film that caught of the attention of the masses at the box office, but its characters and their actions are without any historical accuracy. According to Rosenstone, although there is no evidence of "historical accuracy"(45) to this film, the strong characters and strong thesis make this film an important film in history for the general population. And is this relationship with images in film and other outlets that usually stays in our memory-banks.  

 The main thesis of this work presents itself gradually over the course of this film, and that is we are all equal. The fact that these soldiers are willing to fight and risk death for the Colonial and their nation establishes that fact that we are equal. We are all human. We all breathe, eat, drink, sleep, live and die. Colonel Shaw believes this theory so much in fact he volunteered to lead his regiment’s final assault on Fort Wagner. In some sense, Colonel Shaw believes that he is not just fighting for country, but he also fights for the men of his regiment. This becomes especially true when Colonial Shaw offers the regimental colors to his soldier Trip. When Trip seems hesitant and upset about the offering his superior officer asks why. He basically replied that there will be no winners. So what’s the use of fighting? Colonial Shaw realizes that Trip is right. What does a black infantry man during one of America’s racist periods have anything to fight for? They have almost no rights…no future.

Although this story was well written and has some many elements of racist truth, there is still an entertainment element. For example, Colonel Shaw has to demand for some basic supplies, such as shoes for his soldiers. On the other hand, Colonel Shaw seems kind of soft as a leader, even for a feature film. Although I believe compassion for your fellow soldiers is completely valid, Colonel Shaw takes it to a new level by asking his officers to take it easy on his soldiers, and it just seems his actions are not typical of an army leader. Yet this film is mostly viewed through the perspective of Colonel Shaw and his fellow Union soldiers. Their biases of feeling persecuted by other soldiers and other Americans are valid yet still only present one view. The view that we are all and should be treated equal. For if we can fight and die together, than we should all live under the same principles and liberties as Americans.