-Jarvie: Historical films are like Shakespearean tragedies. They are concise, they offer not reflection or
debate. They have beginning, middle, and end. They offer no space for debate. The undeducated mind
will not analyze it properly. They will not be appropriately criticial. Emotional investment and thinking
that you are looking at reality prevents you from interpreting the past and thinking about its
significance, i.e. You can't put footnotes in a movie. History should stay in a written format. Film
causes too many simplifications.
-Third world film makers work harder to make it clear that you are viewing the story from a specific
vantage point. Hollywood means only the entertain.
-Raack: We can gain historical knowledge from film that we could not otherwise achieve. It can give a
view of the multidimensional world in which people live.
-Film asks us to get engaged intensely in human emotions.
-Film can give us more of a sense of detail and specificity
-Similarities between the process of reconstructing the past in both mediums. The historian brings in
his own bias, the same way that the filmmaker does. Both are reconstructions and representations.
-Motion picture can humanize the past.
-3 world cinema wants to make you thinks.
-Feels strongly that different viewpoints must be represented. This may be less entertaining, but more
-The closer a film is to its