It is often debated whether or not films can be used as a historical source. People such as Ian Jarvie, an English philosopher, argue that films are nothing more than mere entertainment. He said that “At best, film is a visual aid.”. On the other hand, you have people like French theorist, Pierre Sorlin, who said that “historians have admitted for a long time that films are important pieces of evidence for any study of the twentieth century and it is no longer necessary to justify an incursion into this field”.
Films can be used as a historical source because they can put the audience in the time and in the setting of the event that the film is portraying. Films such as Dunkirk and Schindler’s List, while not completely true, put the audience …show more content…
Churchill was an ex-senior official in the British Army, who then sat on the House of Commons, and in 1940 became Prime Minister of Great Britain. Great Britain were going through a rough patch at the time of his appointment, Germany were about to invade France, and the country did not trust then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to lead them through the war.
The movie starts with Chamberlain resigning, which occurred on the 10th of May 1940. Despite doubt from a lot of the Conservative Party, who wanted Viscount Halifax as leader, the senior officials recommended Churchill to King George VI, who then appointed Churchill as Prime …show more content…
The film has made up dialogue, such as the war cabinet scenes, where arguments erupt over peace negotiations. It also overdramatizes a ‘feud’ between Halifax and Churchill, which wasn’t exactly the case. This provides no use to historians as it is factually not true, meaning that there is nothing to learn from these scenes and lines. The film also has a sense of British patriotism, meaning that there is a bias towards the British in the events shown throughout the film. This also provides no use to historians, as the bias towards the British alters the facts of what happened in these events. Overall, there are instances of uselessness as a source for historians in the film, due to the use of false dialogue, over dramatization, and bias.
To conclude, Darkest Hour has parts that can be a source to historians, but overall cannot be considered a source due to the false dialogue, over dramatization and bias. The film doesn’t really address historical reliability, but what it does, however, is show that the story is always told by the
Films can be used as a historical source because they can put the audience in the time and in the setting of the event that the film is portraying. Films such as Dunkirk and Schindler’s List, while not completely true, put the audience …show more content…
Churchill was an ex-senior official in the British Army, who then sat on the House of Commons, and in 1940 became Prime Minister of Great Britain. Great Britain were going through a rough patch at the time of his appointment, Germany were about to invade France, and the country did not trust then Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to lead them through the war.
The movie starts with Chamberlain resigning, which occurred on the 10th of May 1940. Despite doubt from a lot of the Conservative Party, who wanted Viscount Halifax as leader, the senior officials recommended Churchill to King George VI, who then appointed Churchill as Prime …show more content…
The film has made up dialogue, such as the war cabinet scenes, where arguments erupt over peace negotiations. It also overdramatizes a ‘feud’ between Halifax and Churchill, which wasn’t exactly the case. This provides no use to historians as it is factually not true, meaning that there is nothing to learn from these scenes and lines. The film also has a sense of British patriotism, meaning that there is a bias towards the British in the events shown throughout the film. This also provides no use to historians, as the bias towards the British alters the facts of what happened in these events. Overall, there are instances of uselessness as a source for historians in the film, due to the use of false dialogue, over dramatization, and bias.
To conclude, Darkest Hour has parts that can be a source to historians, but overall cannot be considered a source due to the false dialogue, over dramatization and bias. The film doesn’t really address historical reliability, but what it does, however, is show that the story is always told by the