Expertise in history is important in the film industry
Answers
History is an important part of the movie industry. If a director is directing historical film, it requires the services of an expert who knows the traditional ancient culture in great detail.
For instance, to create a war movie one should have the knowledge about the weapons and the army formation that existed in these times.
If the film is authentic from the perspective of history, it would go a long way in delivering sterling results to the users.
please mark me as brainliest
Within the academic community over the past 35 years, the study of film has developed across three kinds of enquiry. Douglas Gomery and Robert C. Allen delineated these approaches in their pioneering work, Film History: Theory and Practice (New York, 1985). The first paid attention to the nature of the medium itself and its communicative power, elaborating theories derived from Marxism, feminism, structuralism and poststructuralism, and psychoanalysis. Its essentialist ambitions meant that its purchase upon film culture became increasingly tenuous the more rarefied and internecine its postulations grew.
The second avenue of enquiry drew upon literary and cultural studies approaches, focusing on ways of reading and classifying film texts. In this manner, film might be categorised, for example, by the work of particular directors (auteurs) or in terms of genres. Here, attention to specific texts was generally astute and thorough, but film criticism's interpretative strategies lacked contextual grounding. And theories of both genre and the auteur came to be considered limited and problematic when they ventured beyond an approved critical canon.
Film history has become the third branch of investigation, though its historiography has much longer roots. In the early 1930s Paul Rotha's seminal, if partisan, The Film Till Now: a Survey of World Cinema (1930), and Frances Consitt's The Value of Films in the Teaching of History (London, 1931), demonstrated different, though parallel, concerns with film history, the latter under the auspices of the Historical Association.(1) And these pioneers established the fundamental dualism of the discipline: histories of cinemas and film as a historical source.
That said, it is more accurate to locate the origins of academic film history in four key initiatives of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The first of these was a conference held at University College London in April 1968, papers from which were published as Film and the Historian (London, 1969). The second was John Grenville's inaugural lecture at Birmingham University in 1970, reproduced in Film as History: the Nature of Film Evidence (Birmingham, 1971). These advances, as Anthony Aldgate notes, were accompanied by two significant publications: Raymond Durgnat's A Mirror For England: British Movies from Austerity to Affluence (London, 1970) and Jeffrey Richards's Visions of Yesterday (London, 1973). Both, in different ways, addressed the problems of using popular film as historical evidence.(2)
In the evaluation of any kind of historical enquiry it is important to ask: what are its aims, what are its methods, and what are its sources? The aim of film history is to recover evidence about the past through an examination of film texts. It proceeds from the assumption that any film text will always have something to reveal about the time, place and circumstances in which it was made. However, film history, pace Durgnat, resists the notion that films can be read straightforwardly as reflecting period concerns. Rather, films (and particularly feature films) occupy an uneasy twilight zone as both primary and secondary sources. They do not yield their meanings (no matter how unequivocal) in a transparent way, because film is a dense medium. To some extent such an assertion throws us back upon film theory and film criticism to explain the range and nature of film's power and influence. But film history goes further too.
Film history asserts that since film is a collaborative, creative medium, due attention must be paid to production, sponsorship and the negotiations between the creative agents involved. Examination of the production context may not only offer a conventional Marxist sense of the extent to which the economic base determines the cultural superstructure; it may also reveal something of the cultural capital of its progenitors. From careful analysis it may be possible to determine how the circumstances of production (results of planning, struggle and happenstance) affect the nature of the finished film, and how the ideas of its collaborators are realised and transformed there.
With its emphasis on the importance of contextual enquiry, film history's methods have been primarily empiricist, relying upon the availability and interpretation of archival evidence from a range of public and private sources. To this extent film history has been as concerned with the regimes of production (film studios, financiers and personnel) and constraint (government legislation, censorship) as it is with the film text itself.
Read more on Brainly.in - https://brainly.in/question/5949219#readmore