Tarihçi sinemayı keşfediyor: sinema, tarihçiler tarafından nasıl değerlendirilmeli?
Yükleniyor...
Dosyalar
Tarih
2020
Yazarlar
Dergi Başlığı
Dergi ISSN
Cilt Başlığı
Yayıncı
İstanbul Ticaret Üniversitesi
Erişim Hakkı
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Özet
Tarihin sinemayla olan etkileşimi, sinemanın ortaya çıktığı ilk günden itibaren kendisini göstermiştir. Sinema, tarihsel olaylardan esinlenerek ortaya çıkardığı filmlerle hem geçmişi bugün üzerinden yeniden inşa eder; hem de yeni bir tarih yazımı oluşmasına katkıda bulunur. Ayrıca kurgu ve haber filmleri de, toplumsal tarihe katkı sağlamakta; toplumun yaşamından kesitler sunmaktadır. Bu nedenle tarihçiler, sinema ve tarih ilişkisi üzerine çalışmalar yapmış, tarihsel filmler ve aktüalite filmler için birçok yorum getirmişlerdir. Bu çalışmada Batı’dan ve Türkiye’den bazı tarihçilerin sinema hakkındaki yorumlarına değinilmiş, sinemanın tarihçiler tarafından nasıl değerlendirilmesi gerektiği anlaşılmaya çalışılmıştır.
The interaction of history and cinema has shown itself since the first day of cinema began. With films inspired by historical events, cinema reconstructs history through today; and contributes to the creation of a new historiography. In addition, fiction and news films contribute to social history; presents sections from the life of society. For this reason, historians have worked on the relationship between cinema and history, and have provided many comments for historical films and actuality films. The first studies on history and cinema emerged in the United States and European countries towards the end of the 1960’s. Theoretical approaches to the relationship between cinema and history have begun to be introduced with the first journal studies and conferences that brought these two disciplines together. Cinema and History, which includes works on history and cinema by the French historian Marc Ferro, which comes from the Annales School style, is one of the most fundamental works created in this field. Ferro has dealt with many aspects of the relationship between history and cinema in his work and emphasized that it is an inevitable fact that cinema is used as a historical source. Ferro first speaks of the power of cinema to create an informal counter-history that we can confront official history. The effort of cinema to be kept under control by the government is a phenomenon that Ferro frequently mentions. Ferro also emphasizes that the film to be used as a document was created as a result of someone’s orientation just like a text, and emphasizes a basic feature that distinguishes the film document from the text: Unlike the written text, the film document may contain unwanted qualities formed outside the influence of its creator. According to him, this is the most fundamental feature that distinguishes cinema from other archive documents. Historian Lawrence L. Murray stated that motion pictures could be used as documents. According to Murray, each film reflects the social structure of the period it was shot. American historian Robert Rosenstone is also one of the historians working on the relationship between history and cinema. Rosenstone was one of the first scholars to come up with the idea that history reconstructs the past through cinema. According to Rosenstone, although the films reflect the political and social conditions of the period they were shot, they do not attach much importance to printed material. Another American historian, Robert Brent Toplin, who has worked in fields such as history, cinema and politics, has developed various theoretical approaches on the relationship between cinema and history. In his article entitled The Filmmaker as Historian, Toplin criticized the historians’ failure to consider cinema as a representation of the past, stating that they approached media and cinema with a skeptical and distant understanding. Toplin also emphasized that filmmakers should now be considered as historians. Professor Graeme Turner, known for his cultural studies, makes an interpretation of the cinema through ideological discourse. In his book Film as Social Practice, he argues that motion pictures reproduce the dominant ideologies of the period. Turner uses the 1927 film Metropolis to prove his thesis. The science-fiction Metropolis, directed by Fritz Lang, is about a social crisis between boss and workers in a futuristic dystopian setting. In the film, in which a German expressionist cinema movement is felt, the conflict between the two sides is resolved through anti-socialism and capital advocacy. Ottoman historian Cemal Kafadar, who teaches cinema at Harvard University, is one of the first Turkish historians to comment on the relationship between cinema and history. Kafadar thinks that motion pictures should be considered as historical documents. According to him, whether movies are news films or fictional films, they contain many historical materials about the period they were shot. Ahmet Yaşar Ocak complaints dealt with many aspects of the subject matter described in the historical film making in Turkey. This is a reflection of our view of history. The person or subject projected in cinema is humiliated or glorified as a result of our perception of history. Ocak also expressed his views on the compatibility of historical films with historical facts. According to Ocak, a historical film can benefit from the fictional aspect of cinema as long as it is in line with that time and place and the worldview of the period. İlber Ortaylı has expressed his comments on cinema and historical films in various conferences and television programs. Ortaylı emphasized that cinema is a very effective area in directing the masses and that filmmakers should be very careful when dealing with a historical subject. Abdülhamit Kırmızı made a new interpretation by looking at the relationship between history and cinema from a different perspective. According to Kırmızı, the historians have the right to criticize the films, and the filmmaker has the right to criticize the history created by historians. Because the historian, like the filmmaker, inevitably applies to the power of editing while creating his work. In this study it touched on the reviews of some historian from the West and Turkey about cinema and it was tried to understand how the cinema should be evaluated by historians.
The interaction of history and cinema has shown itself since the first day of cinema began. With films inspired by historical events, cinema reconstructs history through today; and contributes to the creation of a new historiography. In addition, fiction and news films contribute to social history; presents sections from the life of society. For this reason, historians have worked on the relationship between cinema and history, and have provided many comments for historical films and actuality films. The first studies on history and cinema emerged in the United States and European countries towards the end of the 1960’s. Theoretical approaches to the relationship between cinema and history have begun to be introduced with the first journal studies and conferences that brought these two disciplines together. Cinema and History, which includes works on history and cinema by the French historian Marc Ferro, which comes from the Annales School style, is one of the most fundamental works created in this field. Ferro has dealt with many aspects of the relationship between history and cinema in his work and emphasized that it is an inevitable fact that cinema is used as a historical source. Ferro first speaks of the power of cinema to create an informal counter-history that we can confront official history. The effort of cinema to be kept under control by the government is a phenomenon that Ferro frequently mentions. Ferro also emphasizes that the film to be used as a document was created as a result of someone’s orientation just like a text, and emphasizes a basic feature that distinguishes the film document from the text: Unlike the written text, the film document may contain unwanted qualities formed outside the influence of its creator. According to him, this is the most fundamental feature that distinguishes cinema from other archive documents. Historian Lawrence L. Murray stated that motion pictures could be used as documents. According to Murray, each film reflects the social structure of the period it was shot. American historian Robert Rosenstone is also one of the historians working on the relationship between history and cinema. Rosenstone was one of the first scholars to come up with the idea that history reconstructs the past through cinema. According to Rosenstone, although the films reflect the political and social conditions of the period they were shot, they do not attach much importance to printed material. Another American historian, Robert Brent Toplin, who has worked in fields such as history, cinema and politics, has developed various theoretical approaches on the relationship between cinema and history. In his article entitled The Filmmaker as Historian, Toplin criticized the historians’ failure to consider cinema as a representation of the past, stating that they approached media and cinema with a skeptical and distant understanding. Toplin also emphasized that filmmakers should now be considered as historians. Professor Graeme Turner, known for his cultural studies, makes an interpretation of the cinema through ideological discourse. In his book Film as Social Practice, he argues that motion pictures reproduce the dominant ideologies of the period. Turner uses the 1927 film Metropolis to prove his thesis. The science-fiction Metropolis, directed by Fritz Lang, is about a social crisis between boss and workers in a futuristic dystopian setting. In the film, in which a German expressionist cinema movement is felt, the conflict between the two sides is resolved through anti-socialism and capital advocacy. Ottoman historian Cemal Kafadar, who teaches cinema at Harvard University, is one of the first Turkish historians to comment on the relationship between cinema and history. Kafadar thinks that motion pictures should be considered as historical documents. According to him, whether movies are news films or fictional films, they contain many historical materials about the period they were shot. Ahmet Yaşar Ocak complaints dealt with many aspects of the subject matter described in the historical film making in Turkey. This is a reflection of our view of history. The person or subject projected in cinema is humiliated or glorified as a result of our perception of history. Ocak also expressed his views on the compatibility of historical films with historical facts. According to Ocak, a historical film can benefit from the fictional aspect of cinema as long as it is in line with that time and place and the worldview of the period. İlber Ortaylı has expressed his comments on cinema and historical films in various conferences and television programs. Ortaylı emphasized that cinema is a very effective area in directing the masses and that filmmakers should be very careful when dealing with a historical subject. Abdülhamit Kırmızı made a new interpretation by looking at the relationship between history and cinema from a different perspective. According to Kırmızı, the historians have the right to criticize the films, and the filmmaker has the right to criticize the history created by historians. Because the historian, like the filmmaker, inevitably applies to the power of editing while creating his work. In this study it touched on the reviews of some historian from the West and Turkey about cinema and it was tried to understand how the cinema should be evaluated by historians.
Açıklama
Anahtar Kelimeler
Tarih, Sinema, Tarihçi, Film, İlişki, History, Cinema, Historian, Film, Relation
Kaynak
Intermedia Uluslararası Hakemli İletişim Bilimleri E-Dergisi
WoS Q Değeri
Scopus Q Değeri
Cilt
7
Sayı
13
