A Cinematic History of the World

[GolemsVoice]

Also, if you want to spoiler 300 a little, you could say that this is how the (ancient) Greeks chose to remember the story (not with monsters and all, but 300 brave Spartans against the unwashed, depraved masses of the Persian aggressors), and to a certain extent, how the western world chose to remember that story, which can shine a light at how history can be interpreted.

[Spiryt]

Also that Western world wants to remember it with Matrix and bastardized kung-fu, I guess?

[GolemsVoice]

If this isn't what happened, why would they show it on TV?

[Topus]

Also, if you want to spoiler 300 a little, you could say that this is how the (ancient) Greeks chose to remember the story (not with monsters and all, but 300 brave Spartans against the unwashed, depraved masses of the Persian aggressors), and to a certain extent, how the western world chose to remember that story, which can shine a light at how history can be interpreted.

I find 300 (besides his contemporary visionary style) quite sticking to the spirit of the legend of an historic fact. By this film we get an epic feeling that is similar to that feeling that probably felt an ancient greek. In fact it uses modern visual semiotic to drive ancient words.
For me, it's very difficult to make reliable movies about ancient history, because we have a somewhat distorted vision of the real facts, but also of the ethics of ancient people. The result is often movies like "The Gladiator" who is really enjoyable as an entertainment movie, but totally unworth for a deeper comprehension of ancient history.
By the way, 300 has his own value, because it's not a movie about the Thermopilis, but it is a movie about the Legend of the Thermopilis, and it is able to reproduce this legend and make it really enjoyable to modern people.

[Spiryt]

Maybe I'm weird, but I find it incredibly cheesy and silly, and changed the channel after some 30 minutes...

Although still better than comics, which was incredibly stupid.

[Brother Oni]

Also, if you want to spoiler 300 a little, you could say that this is how the (ancient) Greeks chose to remember the story (not with monsters and all, but 300 brave Spartans against the unwashed, depraved masses of the Persian aggressors), and to a certain extent, how the western world chose to remember that story, which can shine a light at how history can be interpreted.

This. If you view 300 as a piece of Spartan propoganda (told before a battle with the Persians no less), then its flaws become more acceptable.


I disagree with Memoirs of a Geisha being of any use for this topic though as chronologically it starts about 10-15 years before WW2 and carries on through, so it doesn't depict the Meiji Restoration at all and its focus on the Geisha culture shows very little of Japanese Imperialism.
Letters From Iwo Jima (which you've already listed) or City of Life and Death would be better options, in my opinion.

For the Chinese Cultural Revolution, I'd also like to suggest Farewell My Concubine, which covers the lives of two opera actors from their induction as children into the same troupe, all the way through from warlord era China in the 1920s, through WW2 and the rise of communism, to 1977, just after the Cultural Revolution.

For an unusual view of the effects of colonialism, the first and fourth Once Upon A Time in China films I feel are useful, the first showing European influences on early 1900s China (not to mention what happens when gunpower weapons are introduced to the the heroic kung fu genre), the fourth showing the Battle of Beijing.

[JustSomeGuy]

How about 4 Lions as a representation of modern terrorism and islamophobia, from the perspective of britsh muslims? Or Team America as a satire of the UN, USA and 'rest of world' interactions.

Also, i don't think Apocalypse Now is much of a representaion of 'Nam, less so compared to Platoon, which i like to show the war but also the psychological aspects of soldiering (i particularly recall sheen's letters home for this).

[GolemsVoice]

Maybe I'm weird, but I find it incredibly cheesy and silly, and changed the channel after some 30 minutes...

Although still better than comics, which was incredibly stupid.

Oh, it IS cheesy and silly, although I also enjoyed it to some extent.

But I can totally imagine a Greek man telling the story "And then Leonidas jumped like so, and sliced the Persian leaders head clean off. Meanwhile, his buddy..."

[The Glyphstone]

Also, i don't think Apocalypse Now is much of a representaion of 'Nam, less so compared to Platoon, which i like to show the war but also the psychological aspects of soldiering (i particularly recall sheen's letters home for this).

It's still one of the quintessential 'Nam movies to some extent, though I agree it's third in line behind Platoon and Full Metal Jacket.

[Aedilred]

I've not seen Platoon; I much preferred Apocalypse Now to FMJ, though. I thought the Vietnam sequences let FMJ down dramatically, although the first half was awesome.

I generally support the idea of viewing 300 through the spectrum of cultural memory of an event (going right back to the contemporaries of it) - I think this is basically the spirit in which it was written.

I do draw a distinction between that and stuff like Braveheart, because Braveheart largely created the myth, whereas 300 fed off an existing one. That gives it a kind of extra validity for me.

[HeadlessMermaid]

I think it's entirely possible to be misinformed by entertaining historical films, but eh, what can you do. Read books, right?

• The Russian Revolution (prelude): Battleship Potemkin (1905)
• World War I: Blackadder Goes Forth (1914-1918)
• The Spanish Civil War (broader category: The Rise of Fascism, or Prelude to WWII): Land and freedom (1936-1939)
• Word War II: The Counterfeiters (Die Fälscher) (1936-1945), Come and See (Idi I Smotri) (1943), Grave of the Fireflies (1945)
• The End of Colonialism: The Battle of Algiers (1954-1957)
• The Cold War: The Atomic Cafe

P.S. If it matters, Apocalypse Now is set in Cambodia, not Vietnam.

[SuperDave]

Well, the consensus appears to be that the American Revolution stays. I guess I was just over-compensating for my natural cultural bias towards seeing my own country's history as exceptionally important. Sometimes it's hard to tell "what's really important to world history" from "what American audiences like to watch."

However, I think it's fair to say that the Wild West, while it had a great effect (largely through movies and TV) on the American consciousness, it didn't really have a lot of repercussions for anyone outside North America (at least, not directly or immediately).

As for Braveheart and other Mel Gibson movies, I thought I would include them, despite the grievous historical inaccuracy, because they're popular and familiar. But on further consideration, they may be a bit too partisan to really teach viewers to think critically about history. We're looking to expand viewpoints, not narrow them.

While there have been great suggestions for Vietnam Era movies, like Platoon and Forrest Gump, I think that they're little after the time-frame. Make no mistake, they are great movies, but as you go forward in time, the number of movies set in a given historical era increases dramatically, especially after the invention of film. We need to set a cap on it somewhere. In fact, it might make more sense to limit the scope of this series to events which occurred outside of living memory. What say you all to this? It seems like an arbitrary-but-fair endpoint to work backwards from.

[SuperDave]

Also, if you want to spoiler 300 a little, you could say that this is how the (ancient) Greeks chose to remember the story (not with monsters and all, but 300 brave Spartans against the unwashed, depraved masses of the Persian aggressors), and to a certain extent, how the western world chose to remember that story, which can shine a light at how history can be interpreted.

That is an excellent point, GolemsVoice. Although the film is extremely racist, perhaps including offensive films is a good way after all to start conversations about history and cultural memory. Though the list is intended to teach about history,

This actually brings up a point I've been wondering about: do we include movies with alternative or subversive takes on historical events? Case in point: The Birth of a Nation, one of the most shockingly racist films that most people will ever see, was once hailed as the first truly great film in American cinema, and was adored by critics, historians, and even the president of the United States himself. I think it's fair the say that the film is a little biased, could it not also teach a lot about how we choose to view and interpret history?

But then again, that might be too similar to the discussions which cropped up earlier in this thread about how to determine historical significance in the first place. If this list gets too "meta", it might cease to focus on showing the viewer "how stuff went down", and get bogged down in endless conversation on the politics of history.

[JustSomeGuy]

It's still one of the quintessential 'Nam movies to some extent, though I agree it's third in line behind Platoon and Full Metal Jacket.

I dislike Apocalypse Now mostly because it comes across to me as way more of a 'boat trip' movie set in a warzone than a war movie that happens to use a boat. The zany circumstances:combat ratio is a bit off for my taste - although that being said, Dog Soldiers is (in my opinion) one of the better moveis at representing soldiering and soldiers.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Case in point: The Birth of a Nation, one of the most shockingly racist films that most people will ever see, was once hailed as the first truly great film in American cinema, and was adored by critics, historians, and even the president of the United States himself. I think it's fair the say that the film is a little biased, could it not also teach a lot about how we choose to view and interpret history?

That's a good point. If you go for it (I wouldn't worry about "endless conversation" in this particular forum, due to the blanket ban on politics ), perhaps you should also include Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will (1934), as a Prelude to WWII.

I'll try one more time to pitch The Battle of Algiers. It touches a very delicate subject without flinching from its ugliest aspects, and yet manages to neither idealize nor vilify anyone. This subject is of enormous importance for the end of colonialism in Africa. And finally, if it matters, it's an amazing film, with stunning visuals (realistic enough to look like newsreel footage, and at the same time breathtakingly beautiful) and unconventional storytelling (in a sense, the protagonist is not a person, it's the casbah itself).

For the same category, I'd also suggest Dien Bien Phu (1954), because the subject is equally important: the fall of Dien Bien Phu marked the very first time that a colonial power suffered a decisive defeat, initiating a domino effect. But I haven't seen it, so I don't know how balanced or accurate it is. And if anyone knows of a decent film about Patrice Lumumba or the Congo Crisis in general, I believe it should be included too.

Finally, for the Civil Rights Movement, I'll do the obvious and suggest Malcolm X.

[Kurgan]

Hmmm...it is not a perfect fit, but The Proposition could work for western imperialism. It is basically a western, but set in Australia.

If you wanted to take a look at Germany in the 1920s and 30s, you can do a lot worse than Mephisto. This follows the tale of an actor who ingratiates himself with the Nazi party in order to build up his career, and is modeled on the tale of Faust.

[HeadlessMermaid]

More!

• The New World: 1492: Conquest of Paradise (1492-1503), The Mission (~1750)
• The French Revolution: Danton (1794)
• The Cold War (South America): Evita (~1952), State of Siege (~1970), Missing (1973), The House of the Spirits (1970's), Death and the Maiden (~1970's)
• The Cold War (Europe): Z (1963), The Unbearable Lightness of Being (1968)

[Ninjadeadbeard]

I still say Gangs of New York for Civil War Era, Twelve Chairs for Revolutionary Russia and HBO's Rome for...Rome.

[Aedilred]

Well, the consensus appears to be that the American Revolution stays. I guess I was just over-compensating for my natural cultural bias towards seeing my own country's history as exceptionally important. Sometimes it's hard to tell "what's really important to world history" from "what American audiences like to watch."

I think the American Revolution (or as we call it over here, the American War of Independence) is an important historical event and worth including, not necessarily because of its immediate significance or impact but because it's the starting point of one of the superpowers of recent history. Whether anything else from American domestic history would make my cut... well, that depends on the number of films the project is planning to include.

Cromwell might be worth a look for the same reason. It's not a great film, but it's decent, and close enough to actual history not to set off my alarm bells. Although I can't stand Cromwell as an individual, this is probably as close as you're likely to get to the "starting-point" of modern British history in film. Unless anyone knows of any good Glorious Revolution films.

I would very much like to recommend Vatel, as I think it captures the peak of the ancien regime (not to mention the beginnings of the legendary modern French cuisine) better than any other English-language film I've seen (and better than a number of French-language films, including the turgid 1990 Cyrano de Bergerac), but the actual events depicted are probably too minor to merit inclusion overall. Perhaps La Prise de Pouvoir de Louis XIV, about which I have heard good things but not seen, would be more suitable... but getting hold of it would probably be a royal pain.

[Karoht]

The Lion in Winter-Plantagenet England under King Henry II, sets up Prince John and Richard very nicely, leads right into any of the tellings of Robin Hood you might care for. Not highly entertaining though, but some great acting. I'm refering of course to the Peter Otoole version.

Dances with Wolves. Not sure what era that goes in, if that is Wild West or early America.

Do we feel that Rob Roy and/or Braveheart deserve to go on the list? The historian in me says not so much, but they were pretty decent films.

Did anyone mention the Ghandi biopic yet? I didn't see it, just thought I'd mention it.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Cromwell might be worth a look for the same reason. It's not a great film, but it's decent, and close enough to actual history not to set off my alarm bells. Although I can't stand Cromwell as an individual, this is probably as close as you're likely to get to the "starting-point" of modern British history in film.

I was about to suggest this, when I realized it didn't fall under a given category, so I let it go. But now that someone mentioned it, I'll chip in. If I had to choose what's more important in the grand scope of things, I'd pick the English Civil War before the American one - with the understanding that it set off reforms which would only be concluded much later. And so many conflicts exploded during that period (political, social, religious, national, whatever) that the ripple effect was staggering. Given that the political system of England would affect - via the British Empire - a large part of the world for a long long time, I think it's a pivotal point in history.

The movie was decent, though it didn't manage to present all conflicts - for example, the conquest of Ireland was left out completely IIRC. Then again, the whole business was frightfully complicated, and you can't expect a film to cover everything.

[SuperDave]

I've been very, very pleased with the outpouring of support which this thread has been getting; I just want you all to know that.

I've been adding movies left and right, and it's rapidly becoming clear that there are not enough categories to really capture the depth and breadth of history across the world. What others would you recommend? We really can't go on filing every Chinese history movie under "The Yellow Emperor," but I don't know their history well enough to propose categories of my own.

I've seen recommendations for several films, mainly South American but a few from other continents and eras (including The Proposition, Evita, State of Seige, Missing, Death and the Maiden, Z, and
Cromwell) which don't really have a place in the categories I've written out so far. The South American ones are technically about European colonies, so they could go under "Colonialism", but they're also about "The New World", and they're also set in the 20th century, but they're not really part of the major social movements of that century (though they would certainly help Americans gain a better understanding of South American life and culture.) Does this separateness from the rest of world events indicate that they're regional-interest films, and shouldn't be included in this list?

Also, I think it's time to call for a moratorium on World War II films. The war is an incredibly popular subject for filmmakers, and the era already contains more movies than any three eras combined. This makes the list seem a little heavy on the 20th-century, especially when there are whole eras of history that still haven't gotten a single film. I understand that there aren't as many movies about the historico-mythological hero-king Sundiata Keita as there are about D-Day, but if we're expanding horizons, then it doesn't really help to cover and re-cover a historical era which most Americans are already familiar with.

P.S. Bonus points to anyone who can find a movie about Sundiata!

[HeadlessMermaid]

I've seen recommendations for several films, mainly South American but a few from other continents and eras (including The Proposition, Evita, State of Seige, Missing, Death and the Maiden, Z, and Cromwell) which don't really have a place in the categories I've written out so far. The South American ones are technically about European colonies, so they could go under "Colonialism", but they're also about "The New World", and they're also set in the 20th century, but they're not really part of the major social movements of that century (though they would certainly help Americans gain a better understanding of South American life and culture.) Does this separateness from the rest of world events indicate that they're regional-interest films, and shouldn't be included in this list?

First of all, I'd like to say that categorizing even simple things is always arbitrary to a degree, and a huge pain. You are trying to categorize the entire human history. That's just scary. So take it easy. Begin by acknowledging that there's no one way to do it, no perfect way to do it, and no universally accepted way to do it. For sanity's sake.

Now, since I suggested most of the films about South America, let me explain why I filed The Mission under "The New World" category, and the rest under "The Cold War". The Mission is about the Guarani, an indigenous people of South America, and how they interacted with the European Church(es) and colonialists, circa 1750. The others are about South American states (specifically Chile, Argentina and Uruguay) after WWII. And these states had already gained independence from Spain back in the 19th century.

So the films are not about the End of Colonialism, or about the New World in the sense of discovery and conquest by European powers. They are about conflict during the Cold War, because that's what defines South America (and a large part of the world) during that period: governments under the sphere of influence of this or that superpower, clashing ruthlessly with their own people, who are deeply divided among themselves, too.

Every country has its own peculiarities, of course. But take The Unbearable Lightness of Being (about the Prague Spring in 1968) and The House of the Spirits (about Pinochet's coup in Chile, in 1973). They refer to different countries, in different continents, with different superpowers in charge which use different means of intervention. But in essence, they're both battlefields of a single worldwide conflict. So they should be filed under the same category, that of The Cold War.

And for that matter, so should Good Night, and Good Luck. Acknowledging, of course, that all categories are arbitrary to a degree.

P.S. I may be guilty of overlapping here. Missing, State of Siege, The House of the Spirits, and Death and the Maiden basically talk about the same thing. (Evita is another animal.) If you want to choose fewer for the sake of brevity, here's some more info, to use as you please:

Spoiler

Show

• The House of the Spirits is the most mainstream one: successful in the box office, all-star cast, big fancy production etc. Although the book was written by the daughter of Allende, in the end it's more about reconciling with the ugly past, and therefore has some rounded edges. It's a fictitious romantic story, in a (mostly) realistic setting.
• State of Siege is the most classic, and the most important one for film buffs. It's based on actual events, and it depicts fantastically the era, and the mindset of different factions. It's the most historically accurate film, and IMHO, the best.
• Missing, by the same director and in the same vein, is based on events disputed to this day. More famous and emotional than State of Siege, it features an amazing Jack Lemon.
• Death and the Maiden is pure fiction, set in an unnamed South American country. It tells us less about history and more about the human condition under extraordinary historical conditions. I included it because the general climate was depicted pretty well (even though the entire movie is set inside a house, and all we have is the story told by the protagonists), and because the acting by Sigourney Weaver and Ben Kingsley was truly haunting. Seriously: goosebumps.

[Kurgan]

I haven't seen the movie, but Sunshine looks like a good movie to include on this list. It does unfortunately tread over World War II again, but from what I have read, it still seems worth a look.

The film follows through three generations of a family of Hungarian Jews, from the end of the 19th century until the failed revolution against communist rule.

Here, found the trailer for it too.

[razark]

World War II

Tora Tora Tora, Midway, and 30 Seconds Over Tokyo

The Space Race

The Right Stuff

[SuperDave]

First of all, I'd like to say that categorizing even simple things is always arbitrary to a degree, and a huge pain. You are trying to categorize the entire human history. That's just scary. So take it easy. Begin by acknowledging that there's no one way to do it, no perfect way to do it, and no universally accepted way to do it. For sanity's sake.

Too right, HeadlessMermaid. Too right. I need to take a deep breath and relax. This is a pretty enormous undertaking. No need to stress out or over-think it.

Thanks for your input on the aforementioned movies. I'll add them to The Cold War right away.

But that still leaves the question: Where should Cromwell go, if anywhere?

[Aedilred]

From existing categories, Cromwell could go in either with "Newton and the Enlightenment", where it happens roughly contemporaneously with and provides a political context for the first Enlightenment philosophers (Locke, Spinoza), or with "European Colonialism", where it sets the scene for Britain's colonial expansion (most of the West Indies, Britain's most consistently lucrative colonies for most of its imperial history, were added by Cromwell; the rest followed thereafter.)

I would also move Vatel to "The French Revolution": I think chronologically it takes place after Louis XIV.

Having said that, I'd be inclined to create a new category altogether of "The Reformation in Europe", or something along those lines, and put all the above films in it. None of them fit entirely comfortably within existing categories - they're a little late for the Renaissance but early for the Enlightenment and French Revolution.

There are probably a lot of other good Reformation films, although I can't think of many (in particular, some about Martin Luther would be good). I wonder whether The Three Musketeers (1973) and The Four Musketeers (1974) could find a place. Most Musketeers films are dreadful but these follow the books fairly closely and as a result aren't a million miles off historically, although they are strictly adventure films in an historical setting rather than historical films.

I'd also suggest The Glass Crow, an arty (but very short) animated film for the same category, which briefly covers the Thirty Years War, with particular focus on the Defenestration of Prague.

Slightly surprised it's not been mentioned yet (unless I've missed it) but I think Cabaret would fit nicely into the interbellum/Great Depression period.

[HeadlessMermaid]

Having said that, I'd be inclined to create a new category altogether of "The Reformation in Europe", or something along those lines, and put all the above films in it.

I concur. (Though I have nothing helpful to add.)

Slightly surprised it's not been mentioned yet (unless I've missed it) but I think Cabaret would fit nicely into the interbellum/Great Depression period.

I concur! Basically, "The Great Depression" can stay as is, since it's an important subcategory, but an "Interbellum" or "Interwar Period" category would fit nicely a lot of things: Cabaret, Mephisto, Land and Freedom (which has no business before WWI, or under "Nationalism and Imperialism" unless I'm missing something), and, come to think of it, Triumph of the Will, too.

Oh, and since we're talking categories, The Counterfeiters is set inside a concentration camp, so maybe it should be filed under "The holocaust" and not generally "WWII" - my mistake.

[SuperDave]

Thanks so much for the outporing of support and ideas which have been showered upon my little thread!

I've been trolling the internet for more films from the eras that still need work, and I've found these to be quite useful. I've already added a few of them to the list, but let me know if you're reminded of any others that need to be included.

Fordham University: Modern History in the Movies

Screen Junkies: Industrial Revolution Movies

----------

As a matter of fact, we've found so many great films for this list that I think it may be necessary to cut back a little on the list's length.

We don't want to overwhelm the viewer with a lengthy and impossible-to-digest menu of films. We want to give them just a few options to pick and choose from. Only the best and most entertaining films should be included here, to maximize enjoyment on the viewers' part.

Can anyone see any reason for certain films to be removed from the list? I'm sure we don't need two instances of Cleopatra, A Tale of Two Cities, or Anarkali.

What's more, I selected a lot of the films I haven't seen based on having famous cast members and directors, but even experts can make mistakes. Are any of the movies on the list already famous for being box-office flops, were panned by critics and the public alike, or would be seen by the bulk of the general populace as "unwatchable"?

[Aedilred]

The one that jumps out at me most from that list is Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. It's a fun film, but elements of it have become a bit of a joke (Kevin Costner's diabolical accent, principally). The historical period in which it's set is also rather muddled, so I wonder how much of value there is in there for the purpose of this project.

Given the number of film about Troy on the list, too, some of them could probably be cut. In fact, although it pains me to say it, I wonder whether the Trojan War really needs to be included at all. Obviously the legend is of enormous cultural importance for Western civilisation, but it is definitely a legend, so far removed from anything that might have actually happened as to be to all intents and purposes entirely fictional - as opposed to things like 300, where, although mythologised, it is still based fairly closely on identifiable historical events. I think the Trojan War sits closer to things like Beowulf or even Lord of the Rings than to real history.

On the other hand, you might think it's too important to leave out, which I would completely understand. In any case, a couple of them could probably go. Of those listed I've only seen Troy, which I didn't find overly impressive by any measure, but it might be better than the others - I don't know.