explaining history, and that relativism ends up removing any sense to criticizing culture at all. In terms of grand theories, Bottomore points to postmodern historians construct difficult language or jargon in their attempt to explain and construct the narratives in history (8), all of which service a singular conception of history based on a theoretical framework. This singular conception derived from one supposedly valid interpretation is so pervasive in the construction of history that evidence that would otherwise not support a theory is made to fit the relativist framework. Moreover, by stating that any interpretation of history is valid questions all acts of criticizing culture. If anyone can make a valid claim about film history, then
…show more content…
Michele Lagny proposes one such reconciliation, which is to view film history as a form of mediation. A mediating function allows "historians to use films as much as helping film analysts to evaluate them in their own context, regardless of their own assumptions, while keeping the right... to study them following non-historical ideologies or aesthetic postulates within other (non-historical) perspectives (Lagny 27).” The objectivity remains in the centrality of the films and films’ contexts, while still allowing evaluations from more relativistic positions. In mediation, there arises what Jeffrey F. Klennotic identifies as discourse, which is a “'fitting response' by which the exigence can be alleviated or the particular problem resolved via the response of audience to the given rhetorical discourse (47).” Essentially the tension between objectivity and relativist film histories are welcomed as points of discourse, and resolving the tension through discursive practices allows film history to mediate historiographical knowledge with the audience. This mediating function is assumed by Chaplin, given the way that it uses both objective histories and relativist histories of its subject as a discursive practice in the form of an autobiographical …show more content…
Aesthetic film history is often criticised for having “a comparatively narrow approach to film history (Chapman, Glancy and Harper 2)” because it limits itself to a small number of elite films that are supposedly art. Moreover, aesthetic film history often ignores “the institutional and cultural contexts of production (Chapman, Glancy and Harper 3; Allen 12).” Aesthetic film history is certainly part of the discourse of Chaplin, but the movie also identifies institutional and cultural contexts that informed Chaplin and his movies. For example, the film features scenes of Chaplin’s transition from vaudeville to cinema, as he joins Mack Sennett’s film production studio. During these scenes, the role of cinema as entertainment and business is highlighted, and for the most part identifies their contributions to Chaplin’s move towards producing his artistically significant works. The institutional aspects of film history are integrated into the movie that is supposedly an aesthetic film history of Chaplin and the Silent Era. Indeed, the film’s identification of Chaplin’s economically deprived background at the late nineteenth century and the immigration towards the United States during America’s Progressive Era cover state institutions and their influence in filmmaking and film
Michele Lagny proposes one such reconciliation, which is to view film history as a form of mediation. A mediating function allows "historians to use films as much as helping film analysts to evaluate them in their own context, regardless of their own assumptions, while keeping the right... to study them following non-historical ideologies or aesthetic postulates within other (non-historical) perspectives (Lagny 27).” The objectivity remains in the centrality of the films and films’ contexts, while still allowing evaluations from more relativistic positions. In mediation, there arises what Jeffrey F. Klennotic identifies as discourse, which is a “'fitting response' by which the exigence can be alleviated or the particular problem resolved via the response of audience to the given rhetorical discourse (47).” Essentially the tension between objectivity and relativist film histories are welcomed as points of discourse, and resolving the tension through discursive practices allows film history to mediate historiographical knowledge with the audience. This mediating function is assumed by Chaplin, given the way that it uses both objective histories and relativist histories of its subject as a discursive practice in the form of an autobiographical …show more content…
Aesthetic film history is often criticised for having “a comparatively narrow approach to film history (Chapman, Glancy and Harper 2)” because it limits itself to a small number of elite films that are supposedly art. Moreover, aesthetic film history often ignores “the institutional and cultural contexts of production (Chapman, Glancy and Harper 3; Allen 12).” Aesthetic film history is certainly part of the discourse of Chaplin, but the movie also identifies institutional and cultural contexts that informed Chaplin and his movies. For example, the film features scenes of Chaplin’s transition from vaudeville to cinema, as he joins Mack Sennett’s film production studio. During these scenes, the role of cinema as entertainment and business is highlighted, and for the most part identifies their contributions to Chaplin’s move towards producing his artistically significant works. The institutional aspects of film history are integrated into the movie that is supposedly an aesthetic film history of Chaplin and the Silent Era. Indeed, the film’s identification of Chaplin’s economically deprived background at the late nineteenth century and the immigration towards the United States during America’s Progressive Era cover state institutions and their influence in filmmaking and film