5 Movies for an American History Class

Tools    





RIP www.moviejustice.com 2002-2010
This would be difficult to answer.

I would probably choose

All Quiet on the Western Front
On the Waterfront
Singin' in the Rain
Little Big Man
King of the Hill
(1993, Soderbergh)

I think all of those touch on a point in American history and a different setting. A nice mix of older and newer films. All relevant I think.
__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201



Sidney Lumet's suspenseful and timelessly powerful dramatization of the flaws and strengths of our legal system is a quintessential American movie. Individuals may have their own petty points of view and deep-seeded prejudices which, unchecked, can lead to injustice. But the system is constructed so that reason and reasonable doubt can override and overrule on the side of equality and fairness.
I agree "12 Angry Men" is a great movie, but it is not very accurate. Take for example, Henry Fonda goes out at lunch and buys an identical switchblade that he then brings into the jury room as evidence that such weapons are common. In the first place, today--and I suspect even then when the film was made--courts do not allow jurors in amurder trial to go out on their own to lunch. They go in a group, accompanied by a baliff to make sure jurors do not talk to others or even each other about the proceedings outside the jury room. So Fonda's character would have had no chance for individual shopping. Secondly, jurors or other court officials cannot introduce into the jury room during deliberations any evidence not produced in the courtroom during the trial. The switchblade--which triggered the resulting reenactments--was not legitimate evidence introduced during the trial and therefore was grounds for stopping the trial because of misbehavior of a juror. The jurors could ask to see the murder weapon that was introduced as evidence during the trial, but they couldn't bring in a similar knife that wasn't part of the evidence chain. All Fonda's character could do was to tell the others he's seen switchblades similar to the murder weapon, but he couldn't bring in one to show it to them.

I think there were other mistakes, but it's been a long time since I last saw that film. But I never believed Lee J. Cobb's and Ed Beagley's switching their votes. What was their motivation? Cobb had been too angry too long to give in like that, and if Beagley's racial prejuduce really would wilt that easily in the face of public disapproval, the world would be a much better place.

The Navy court martial scenes in "The Caine Mutiny" were more authentic as to procedure, but even there they went for drama over reality.



I agree "12 Angry Men" is a great movie, but it is not very accurate. Take for example, Henry Fonda goes out at lunch and buys an identical switchblade that he then brings into the jury room as evidence that such weapons are common. In the first place, today--and I suspect even then when the film was made--courts do not allow jurors in a murder trial to go out on their own to lunch.
Hi rufnek.

I think the point of 12 Angry Men being shown in History class is not only that the Jury system is very real and very possible to participate in but also the message behind it and how you should behave if you get there. Precise accuracy doesn't matter so much. The message being that everyone has a responsibility to their fellow countrymen and woman if ever to be called for Jury duty to not assume or go rushing into the facts whether he/she is guilty or innocent just because you want to go to some ball game.
Hopefully, it will instill some sort of a well formed conscience into the students watching the film in case it's ever their turn to be part of the Jury.



I'd definitely agree with Citizen Kane, because it really was based on newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst and it captured the spirit of that time period.

As for the others I'd pick Manchurian Candidate, Birth of a Nation, Saving Private Ryan, and...Forrest Gump?



I think the point of 12 Angry Men being shown in History class is not only that the Jury system is very real and very possible to participate in but also the message behind it and how you should behave if you get there. Precise accuracy doesn't matter so much.


I understand and appreciate where you're coming from. Where we disagree is with your statement, “Precise accuracy doesn't matter so much.” As a history buff, I'm convinced that precise accuracy is essential in teaching history. Which is why I would hesitate about showing nearly any Hollywood film as part of a history class. "12 Angry Men" might make a good object lesson for a civics class where the concentration is solely on civic responsibilities of citizens. But even then, I would want an experienced attorney to explain all the inaccuracies to students. Otherwise, they are going to be very surprised about the role of jurors and the presentation of evidence when they are called for jury duty.

If we just had to show a film about U.S. jurisprudence in a history class, I'd pick the 1941 movie “The Devil and Daniel Webster,” based on a short story by Stephen Vincent Benet in which the historic New England legislator in the days just prior to the Civil War is called on to defend a neighbor in a dispute with the Devil over the man's soul before a jury picked from hell. Jurors include “Walter Butler, the Loyalist, who spread fire and horror through the Mohawk Valley in the times of the Revolution; and there was Simon Girty, the renegade, who saw white men burned at the stake and whooped with the Indians to see them burn. His eyes were green, like a catamount's, and the stains on his hunting shirt did not come from the blood of the deer. King Philip was there, wild and proud as he had been in life, with the great gash in his head that gave him his death wound, and cruel Governor Dale, who broke men on the wheel. There was Morton of Merry Mount, who so vexed the Plymouth Colony, with his flushed, loose, handsome face and his hate of the godly. There was Teach, the bloody pirate, with his black beard curling on his breast. The Reverend John Smeet, with his strangler's hands and his Geneva gown, walked as daintily as he had to the gallows. The red print of the rope was still around his neck, but he carried a perfumed handkerchief in one hand. One and all, they came into the room with the fires of hell still upon them, and the stranger named their names and their deeds as they came, till the tale of twelve was told. Yet the stranger had told the truth --- they had all played a part in America.” The presiding judge was “Justice Hathorne” who presided at certain witch trials once held in Salem. There were others who repented of the business later, but not he.”

As for the integrity of trial by jury, at the end of the trial in “The Devil and Mr. Webster, “Walter Butler rose in his place and his face had a dark, gay pride on it. ‘The jury has considered its verdict,’ he said, and looked the stranger [the Devil] full in the eye. ‘We find for the defendant, Jabez Stone.’ With that, the smile left the stranger's face, but Walter Butler did not flinch. ‘Perhaps 'tis not strictly in accordance with the evidence,’ he said, ‘but even the damned may salute the eloquence of Mr. Webster.’”
Both stories are fiction, but “The Devil and Daniel Webster” at least involved real figures from American history. I also found a website with class instructions for a course in which students were conduct a mock trial. Those instructions said: “Lawyers and witnesses read ‘A Retrieved Reformation’ from the xeroxed copy. Jurors read ‘The Devil and Daniel Webster’ on page 583 in the Literature book.”
http://www.villagechristian.org/faculty/petersonb/sept26-30.html

Apparently I’m not the only one who thinks it might be instructive about U.S. jurisprudence.



I'd definitely agree with Citizen Kane, because it really was based on newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst and it captured the spirit of that time period.

As for the others I'd pick Manchurian Candidate, Birth of a Nation, Saving Private Ryan, and...Forrest Gump?
"Citizen Kane" is indeed a great film--my favorite, in fact, but I'm not sure what history lesson it teaches or about what period since it essentially covers the fictitious Kane from his boyhood in the late 1800s to his death sometime in the 1930s-1940s, maybe 1950s. I might consider it for a journalism class--it's very true to investigative reporting in general and the filming of movie news reels in the 1940s-1950s.

Anyway, I'm curious about the original "Manchurian Candidate." It's another of my favorites but I'm not sure what history lesson it illustrates.



I understand and appreciate where you're coming from. Where we disagree is with your statement, “Precise accuracy doesn't matter so much.” As a history buff, I'm convinced that precise accuracy is essential in teaching history.
Ok you have a good point. I think I was getting carried away with the morality of the story as opposed with the History of the film of which this thread intended.
Maybe it would be best if I try to fit that movie in the historically exceptional films category lol.


Both stories are fiction, but “The Devil and Daniel Webster” at least involved real figures from American history.
Hmm, but now I have to disagree with you here if we are to try to get as close to precise History as possible. Ok the figures involved in this fictional story were real but the large part of it was not. I dunno. I could likewise say that in '12 Angry Men', I'm almost positive that there are or were many men and woman who in real life, witnesses similar attitudes during their jury duty experience, that we encountered in that movie. Just a matter of finding out the whos and the whens.
But if your looking for popular and recognizable historical figures that were caught up in a similar setting of a hot, muggy jury deliberation room with a wide range of deliberators from bright and empathetic to arrogant, impatient, and prejudiced.....well then that may be tough to find.



Hmm, but now I have to disagree with you here if we are to try to get as close to precise History as possible.


Like I said, both stories are purest fiction. You and I agree on that. But if forced to use a Hollywood movie for historical instruction, I see more historic significance in the verdict delivered in the "The Devil and Daniel Webster" because something very like that verdict led to the idea of freedom of the press as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. In 1735, a printer, John Peter Zenger was prosecuted by the colonial governor of New York for seditious libel. It was an open and shut case under British law. Any written criticism of the king’s government was sedition, and criticism of the king’s officers was libelous, especially if the charges were true. Once those charges were proven under British law, the only thing left for a jury to do was to return a verdict of guilty.

Andrew Hamilton, Zenger’s lawyer, said yes, Zenger wrote it and yes it was libelous under English law. However, he went on to argue that an American jury has the right to decide if a law deserves to be enforced or not, an argument previously unheard of in British courts. He argued that the jurors had the right to decide, contrary to English law, there is no libel if the charges are true. To the horror of the king’s officials (much like the Devil’s displeasure in the Benet story), the jury found Zenger not guilty. And truth of the charges remains a defense against libel in US courts today.



Hey, Escape, I'm really not dissing your selection of "12 Angry Men." Like I said before, I really like the film and I agree with you that it does support our jury system, more so than a lot of other films about the judiciary.

It may play with reality to enhance the drama, but at least it doesn't come out with a flat-out lie like some so-called "historic" films--"Flags of Our Fathers," for one.



A system of cells interlinked
Just a couple words here, more of an extended welcome to Rufnek...

From my very brief and I must say, pleasant encounters with Rufnek, I have quickly gathered that his knowledge of historical accuracy in film is, although not totally comprehensive, pretty accurate and on point. A welcome, addition, I might add. I mean, hey, if you need some info on surrealist, clearly historically inaccurate film, I'm your guy, but.... This cat knows his stuff, from what I can tell. Well read and articulate, I am glad he stopped by....


Here is to a lengthy tenure on MoFo....


Re: Manchurian Candidate (1962) - This is clearly fiction, or, even science fiction if you stretch. I would actually dog-ear this one as a film NOT to show in a history class. A film class, sure, as it is some piece of work. Chilling, even today. One of the best films of the 60s, IMO. Quite outlandish, and with a BIG slant, so not for history, but man, the underlying political concepts beyond the sleeper agent stuff are important and downright scary. A must see.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Like I said, both stories are purest fiction. You and I agree on that. But if forced to use a Hollywood movie for historical instruction, I see more historic significance in the verdict delivered in the "The Devil and Daniel Webster" because something very like that verdict led to the idea of freedom of the press as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
Yep, I believe I get you now.

Hey, Escape, I'm really not dissing your selection of "12 Angry Men." Like I said before, I really like the film and I agree with you that it does support our jury system, more so than a lot of other films about the judiciary.

It may play with reality to enhance the drama, but at least it doesn't come out with a flat-out lie like some so-called "historic" films--"Flags of Our Fathers," for one.
Oh I know rufnek. I never for one minute thought you were. And Sedai's right. You do know your stuff.



"Citizen Kane" is indeed a great film--my favorite, in fact, but I'm not sure what history lesson it teaches or about what period since it essentially covers the fictitious Kane from his boyhood in the late 1800s to his death sometime in the 1930s-1940s, maybe 1950s. I might consider it for a journalism class--it's very true to investigative reporting in general and the filming of movie news reels in the 1940s-1950s.
Citizen Kane revealed aspects about the Spanish American War and the fact that yellow journalism was so rampant during that time period. The public was basically believed anything the newspapers said and the newspaper took advantage of this to the fullest by exaggerating and sensetionalizing the stories. Kane said something like "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war" which directly relates to the Spanish American War and how he went out of his way to exaggerate the true situation in Cuba.

And plus, some aspects are almost biographical about William Randolph Hearst. That's the reason it didn't win the Oscars it rightfully deserved: because Hearst was so violently against the movie he threatened Hollywood...to something if they gave Welles the Oscars and so the awards went to worse, less deserving movies.



A system of cells interlinked
And I suppose Manchurian Candidate is completely off your list, so never mind.

Well.... if you have strong reasons why this should be on the list, I would like to hear them. Speaking about the original release here. I haven't seen the new cut, and don't plan on it.



Citizen Kane revealed aspects about the Spanish American War and the fact that yellow journalism was so rampant during that time period. . . . Kane said something like "You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war" which directly relates to the Spanish American War and how he went out of his way to exaggerate the true situation in Cuba.
Okay, I see what you're spotlighting now. By the way, Hearst's (Kane's) instructions have long been quoted by us journalists, but to the best of my knowledge never actually proved. Here’s what a freedomforum.org report said about that:

"[O]ne of the most famous purported boasts of American journalism" was made during Cuba's civil war, which took place in 1896 and 1897, Campbell said [W. Joseph Campbell, an American University professor and a consultant at The Freedom Forum].
Hearst reputedly sent a cable to New York Journal illustrator Frederic Remington, who was then in Cuba and wanting to return to the United States. Supposedly the cable said: "Please remain. You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war."
But Hearst's sending such a message would have made no sense, Campbell said, because there was already a war under way at the time.
"Hearst vowing to furnish the war just was incongruous with what his own newspapers were saying at the time," he said. "That anecdote deserves to be relegated to the closet of historical imprecision."
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13715

On the other hand, remember Kane's instruction to send a reporter to the husband of a missing woman and demand loudly, in front of his neighbors, that he produce her? "If the man questions the reporter's authority, he is to accuse him of being a communist and anarchist," Kane said. Now things like that frequently happened in turn-of-the-century Yellow Journalism.

Like I said, I love "Citizen Kane." But if you want a film that would teach students about the use and abuse of The Press, I would suggest any of the several film versions of "Front Page," especially "His Girl Friday," with Cary Grant and Roz Russel which I think is the best of the bunch. It has everything--crooked politicians trying to cash in on an execution, press exaggerations of events, power plays among government officials and editors. It takes place in the 1930s, which really is after the Yellow Press days, but it has all of the same elements. Plus it was written by two experienced ex-newsmen who had worked the police beat for big city papers (One was the father of James McArthur who later played "Dan-O" in the "Hawaii Five-0" TV series).

That's the reason it didn't win the Oscars it rightfully deserved: because Hearst was so violently against the movie he threatened Hollywood...to something if they gave Welles the Oscars and so the awards went to worse, less deserving movies.
Well, certainly Welles and his supporters always claimed that, and there probably is some truth in it, but how much, I don't know. Remember that was Welles' first film and he did a lot of new things with sets and camera shots that Hollywood had never seen before and that some of the Hollywood producers didn't like. Welles had a gift for alienating a lot of Hollywood bigwigs and they may have been more influential than Hearst in torpedoing Welles' career. Of course, Welles contributed to that himself by running films over budget and going off on other projects when he should have been editing his last film instead.



And I suppose Manchurian Candidate is completely off your list, so never mind.
I love the original "Manchurian Candidate"! You've got great taste in films! I just wondered what history lesson you see in that particular movie. I can think of others that better explain the Korean War or the use of brainwashing. Or if it's the political process and presidential succession, how about "Advise and Consent"? For attempts at presidential assassination, you can't beat Frank Sinatra in "Suddenly."



Yep, I believe I get you now.



Oh I know rufnek. I never for one minute thought you were. And Sedai's right. You do know your stuff.
Wow! Thanks for the endorsements, Escape and Sedai. The checks are in the mail!

Seriously, I've enjoyed our exchanges, too.



RIP www.moviejustice.com 2002-2010
I agree "12 Angry Men" is a great movie, but it is not very accurate. Take for example, Henry Fonda goes out at lunch and buys an identical switchblade that he then brings into the jury room as evidence that such weapons are common. In the first place, today--and I suspect even then when the film was made--courts do not allow jurors in amurder trial to go out on their own to lunch. They go in a group, accompanied by a baliff to make sure jurors do not talk to others or even each other about the proceedings outside the jury room. So Fonda's character would have had no chance for individual shopping. Secondly, jurors or other court officials cannot introduce into the jury room during deliberations any evidence not produced in the courtroom during the trial. The switchblade--which triggered the resulting reenactments--was not legitimate evidence introduced during the trial and therefore was grounds for stopping the trial because of misbehavior of a juror. The jurors could ask to see the murder weapon that was introduced as evidence during the trial, but they couldn't bring in a similar knife that wasn't part of the evidence chain. All Fonda's character could do was to tell the others he's seen switchblades similar to the murder weapon, but he couldn't bring in one to show it to them.

I think there were other mistakes, but it's been a long time since I last saw that film. But I never believed Lee J. Cobb's and Ed Beagley's switching their votes. What was their motivation? Cobb had been too angry too long to give in like that, and if Beagley's racial prejuduce really would wilt that easily in the face of public disapproval, the world would be a much better place.

The Navy court martial scenes in "The Caine Mutiny" were more authentic as to procedure, but even there they went for drama over reality.
Well if I remember right, the switchblade they brought in was the actual murder weapon. Fonda had just bought a similar one and had it on him. And I don't know what procedure would have been back then or even today for juries.

As for Ed Beagley's prejudice, I don't think the movie (and it's been a long time since I've seen it as well) said he wasn't still racist, but I think it's realistic that even though a person might be racist, they're not going to allow an innocent person of that race to die. Now if he would have gone home and promised never say wetback again, then I would agree with you.

As for Cobb, yes he was angry, but he's never had a release for that anger until it was sparked with the jury. It was the first time that he brought that out in the open. I think the bit with Cobb is some of the best material in the entire film and the most realistic.

And The Caine Mutiny is a great movie as well.



RIP www.moviejustice.com 2002-2010

[size=3][font=Times New Roman]I understand and appreciate where you're coming from. Where we disagree is with your statement, “Precise accuracy doesn't matter so much.” As a history buff, I'm convinced that precise accuracy is essential in teaching history. Which is why I would hesitate about showing nearly any Hollywood film as part of a history class.

Well, as a history buff you should know that there is no such thing as precise accuracy. If you gather 12 people around to watch one event and then get them alone you're going to get 12 different tellings of the same event. That's how history is. No one ever knows what really happened with certain incidents because there are many sides to it. Now I understand you can have historical figures like the length of a ship, the weight of a cannon and items like that be based on fact. But as far as the stories, which are what movies tell, you're not going to have an objective thing to adapt.

I greatly favor showing movies in history class, if for nothing else, to have the students gain a visual and a context to put what they read in. I think you need to put a face to it. I know that if I hadn't watched The Grapes of Wrath and All Quiet on the Western Front in history classes I wouldn't have been able to understand and put a frame around those time periods like I can now.



Having criticized aspects of others’ selections, let me take a shot at picking films for a class in US history. Of course, it depends on what aspect of American history you want to examine. And all of these selections naturally would require some discussion with students over what is real and what is fantasy.

Starting with the discovery and early exploration period, I’d pick Captain From Castille (1948). Cesar Romero appears older and has many more Spaniards (men and women) with him than did the real Cortez, but the film provides an insight into the motivation of the conquistadores and their recruitment of other tribes to overthrow the Aztec.

On the other hand, if you were looking at British colonization, I’d suggest Plymouth Adventure (1952), a romanticized telling of the Mayflower adventure. For French colonization, Black Robe (1991).

Two good films about the French & Indian wars, Drums Along the Mohawk (1939) and the 1992 remake of The Last of the Mohicans (1992) The latter contains a lot of little unmentioned historical details that add a lot of color, like the Jesuit priest leading a choir of Indian children in serenading the French commander outside the beleaguered British fort.

There are surprisingly few good films about the American Revolution. The most historically accurate one I’ve seen is a 2000 A&E film The Crossing about the key battle for Trenton, with Jeff Daniels as an impressive George Washington. My other favorite Revolutionary War film is The Devil's Disciple (1959) with Burt Lancaster, Kirk Douglas, and Laurence Olivier, from George Bernard Shaw’s play. It accurately portrays the arrogance and ignorance of British officials that forced many reluctant American colonists to revolt and the British blunders that resulted in an American victory.

For the early Western movement, A Man Called Horse (1970) and Man in the Wilderness (1971), interestingly both starring Richard Harris, long before his Dumbledore days. Both are about as historically accurate as Hollywood can get. Across the Wide Missouri (1951) with Clark Gable as a mountain man is another good film. For a later view of the Indian Wars in the late 19th Century, The Searchers (1956) is about as good as it gets, although The Unforgiven (1960) with Burt Lancaster and Audrey Hepburn, is a good account of the animosities and prejudices among settlers and Indians on the Texas plains. Little Big Man (1970) also gives a more-comic-than-historic overview of that general period.

As for depicting the Civil War, not too many films have done a good job of that. The Red Badge of Courage (1951) is probably the best movie ever to capture the confusion of battle, but it doesn’t tell you much about the cause and effects of the war. Glory (1989) depicts the white abolitionists’, freed blacks’ and exslaves’ contributions to the war but doesn’t touch on other aspects. Ironically, the lesser Band of Angels (1957) gives more background in its exploration of the same subject. Despite some glaring flaws, I think Gettysburg (1993) best depicts both the horror and the bravery of that war.

Now comes the tough subject: the emergence of the US as an economic and world power in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Red River (1948) depicts the brief period of the cattle drives up from Texas, as does Cowboy (1958) with Jack Lemmon in an unusual role. The Westerner (1940), The Sea of Grass with Spencer Tracy (1947), and Shane (1953) explore the conflicts between cattlemen and sodbusters. Broken Lance (1954) pitted cattlemen against miners and bankers on a background of prejudice against Indians; The Sheepman (1958) gave us a tongue-in-cheek view of the cattleman-sheepman conflict (which was covered as well and in less time in some 1950s cartoons featuring “Droopy”). The end of the Old West: Monte Walsh (1970), although the 2003 remake with Tom Selleck wasn’t bad.

Development of the United States’ international power during Theodore Roosevelt’s presidency is nicely depicted in The Wind and the Lion (1975)

Set a little later in the early 20th century, Boom Town (1940), with Tracy and Gable looks at the development of the oil industry. There are some flaws, but this remains the most accurate film Hollywood ever made about the oil industry.

Probably the best film about American enterprise and society in the period before and after our entry into World War I is East of Eden (1955).

As for World War I, Hell's Angels (1930), All Quiet on the Western Front (1930), and Gallipoli (1981).

The period between the world wars: Elmer Gantry (1960), and The Music Man (1962); yep, a musical but it captures Middle America small-town life in that period. Centering on the Great Depression: The Grapes of Wrath (1940), as good as it gets. Second choice, Dead End (1937)—depression, labor problems, rich vs. poor, slums, and the criminals they produced.

World War II: This is another subject that’s hard to teach accurately through movies: The film that I think best captures the horror, inhumanity, and futility of war is Yesterday's Enemy (1959), actually made in Britain and starring Stanley Baker. No one film does a good job at explaining the causes and aftermath of World War II, but several give good snapshots of particular moments. Ike - Countdown to D-Day (2004) gives a nice overview of the complications behind Allied efforts in the war. The Longest Day (1962) does a good job of following Cornelius Ryan’s book. The Battle of Britain (1969) and Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo (1944) give a good view of the early days of the war when an Allied victory was far from assured. The Victors (1963) demonstrates the tragic losses of even the winning side and suggests why World War II led to the cold war. Judgment at Nuremberg (1961) best explains why that war had to be fought and won.

Post-war recovery: The Big Lift (1950) gives some insight into post-war European relief by the US. The Best Years of Our Lives (1946) addresses the problems of returning veterans, including some who were horribly wounded. Gentleman's Agreement (1947) showed bigotry and hatred were not dead or restricted to foreign lands. Pressure Point (1962) was one of the best and earliest films about racial prejudice, with outstanding performances by Sidney Portier and Bobby Darin. .

The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit (1956) explored the post-war corporate rat race in the US. So did How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying (1967) via music and comedy.

As for political campaigns and the political process in the 20th century, you can’t top The Last Hurrah (1958) or Advise and Consent (1962).