After watching two episodes of Canada: A People's History I became skeptical of their truth. I know there really isn't such a thing as truth but how can a person know so much detail about an event that occurred hundreds of years ago. Then I start thinking that if I don't believe the information given to me by this (I can't really call it a documentary) re-enactment, then I shouldn't believe what is written in textbooks because that is what the re-enactments are showing. They are showing the viewer the history of our land with visuals.
I'm a little wishy-washy when it comes to these re-enactments. They convey the same information in textbooks, but for some reason I believe textbooks and I have a hard time believing these re-enactments. It was discussed in class that the interviews portrayed in Canada: A People's History are the written word of the famous person's journal, but they could always be construing the facts of what actually happened.
Believe it or not I do enjoy watching Canada: A People's History because the new generation that I discussed last week are visual learners and it's easier for my generation to WANT to learn about history if they are shown by video. BUT I am also a university student and I rely on doctors and professors who are must more educated then me to teach me the facts. I feel that Canada: A People's History is not an academic source therefore I have a hard time accepting the "so-called" facts given.
In class we also watched clips from Canadian Aboriginal History: Olive Dickason's Story and I had a better time believing the story because I was told be an academic, Olive Dickason, the facts that she had researched and discovered.
As a film student, I know that a "so-called" documentary that uses the voice of god narrative (Canada: A People's History) wants the viewer to believe what they tell us. The narrator is telling us what to believe. The use of interviews by academics is much more believable because the academics are giving you the facts that they have researched and are allowing the viewer to come up with their own conclusions.
I think Canada: A People's History is a great source of information to give children in elementary schools and high schools, but for university students, we are more educated and understand that film can be fabricated to tell the positive side of our history. The films are a great way to visualize the future for children and get them excited about learning, but they are, in my opinion, construed and only used for entertainment.
I watched Canada: A People's History - Plains of Abraham which had no journal entries from actors, and was only a re-enactment of a war between the French and the British. If we are told that the information coming from the shorts are information found in the journals of important people, why are there no interviews? Where is there information coming from? I guess I don't believe the information shown because there is no proof and the source of their information is not given. In a textbook or academic book, the sources of their research are given to give the reader an idea of how academic the source is. With the shorts, there is no proof and I believe that the company that creates these re-enactments are just construing information to look entertaining to the viewer. Of course the films tell the moral of the story but the fine details given are hard to take into consideration when I don't know the source of the information.
I also watched Canada: A People's History - Jacques Cartier which could be taken into more consideration because they have interviews of the famous characters with words from their journals. The episode was about the French coming to barter with the Aboriginals of Canada (the name the Aboriginals gave their land). However I still don't believe what the episode is trying to make me believe. The episodes of Canada: A People's History do give the viewer the moral of the story but in order to show a video of history there has to be some invention of a story to re-enact. And maybe thats all they are trying to portray. Maybe the episodes are just trying to give us the moral of the story but in order to keep the viewer entertained they must build a story to re-enact. I would just rather read an academic book to get my information about my history.
A question asked my the instructor in class was: what role does popular history play in establishing Canadian identity? In my opinion popular history does give the population a sense of pride in being Canadian, and I'm not arguing that it is a false sense of pride because Canadians did win in the battle of Vimy Ridge and Canada should be proud that we are peace keepers and not fighters. I do believe that some documentaries do give a false sense of pride when it comes to the land ownership. Some documentaries make the white male look superior and manly when they take over the land but in actual fact, the white male is a disgrace to our nation because this land belonged to the Aboriginals before us and we stole it. But to show this information in a documentary is to insult Canada and crush their pride. All documentaries have to be careful when portraying this part of history to try and make sure they do not insult anyone but the real facts would insult people. The reality of the matter is, the taking over of the land was disrespectful and that is part of our history. But in order to reflect a certain amount of pride, the documentaries and re-enactments have to sugar coat certain facts.
Overall, I prefer to read textbooks and academic journals, but to get the younger generation interested, I can see the need for films about our history since the new generation are visual learners.
Until next time - Be Proud Canadian
No comments:
Post a Comment