Author: H-Survey Co-Editor Bill Cecil-Fronsman Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1996 15:35:25 -0600
How many of you have seen the Oliver Stone film "Nixon"? Would you recommend that students in your US-2 survey class go to it?
Bill Cecil-Fronsman
Co-Editor, H-Survey
Author: Richard A Greenwald
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 08:39:49 -0600
I have seen it and I do think under the right direction the film would work well. My reservations are that it could not stand on its own, it would need a great amount of introduction. Also, it would be a good way to introduce a discussion of "populism" in our recent past." As much as I might dislike Nixon, the film is not entirely fair and we would need to be more objective before we subject our students to this film. We must remember that many of our students believe everything they see.
Rich Greenwald
State University of New York
College at Morrisville
greenwra@snymorva.cs.snymor.edu
Author: wagnon william
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 08:40:37 -0600
I saw it and found it fascinating. It is as Stone claims, drama rather than history. The distinction is important and offers a chance to explore with beginning students the nature of history and multiple ways students can access the past. In this sense the opportunity to grasp what was going on becomes less important than wrestling with fact and determining veracity. To me that comes at a different stage in mastering the craft. In the meantime Stone has done our society a favor by portraying Nixon, undeniably a major figure in the postwar world, in ways that should help the postwatergate generation imagine what was transpiring. I wonder though whether very many of them will find it as engaging as did I, a prebaby boomer. The X generation just might find the movie boring, as so many seem to find politics irrelevant.
--
William O. Wagnon zzwagn@acc.wuacc.edu Professor of History Voice: 913.231.1010 X1316 Washburn University Fax: 913.231.1084
Topeka, KS 66621-0001
On Wed, 10 Jan 1996, H-Survey Co-Editor Bill Cecil-Fronsman wrote:
How many of you have seen the Oliver Stone film "Nixon"? Would you
recommend that students in your US-2 survey class go to it?
Bill Cecil-Fronsman
Co-Editor, H-Survey
Author: peter c holloran
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 08:41:17 -0600
I use many feature films in undergraduate history and American Studies classes, and I am an Oliver Stone fan, but, no, I would not use Nixon. The PBS/American Experience film on Nixon is much more useful, I think. But Stone certainly created a new image of Pat Nixon in his bio-pic. Joan Allen steal the movie as Pat.
Peter Holloran, Mount Ida College, pch@world.std.com
Author: Annette Laing
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 08:42:12 -0600
Yes, I have seen it and, yes, I will encourage my students to see it. I must add, however, that my US survey class does an extended project on Nixon, culminating in a visit to the Nixon Library. I shall urge them to delay seeing the movie until they have completed their research, and are better able to view the movie, as well as the library, with a critical eye.
Cheers,
Annette Laing
Visiting Assistant Professor
University of Redlands
laing@ultrix.uor.edu
Author: Mary Todd
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 08:42:53 -0600
University of Illinois at Chicago
My college senior son took me to see "Nixon" as revenge, he said, for making him sit through "JFK" a couple of years ago. I found "Nixon" to be more compelling and would certainly recommend US history survey students see it. What I think Stone did masterfully was depict the unraveling of the man and the coverup. At the very least students would have a sense of the whole of Watergate, which could be a valuable discussion starter re historical truth, evidence, perceptions of reality, memory and more. I'm less concerned about the conspiracy theory re Cuba/JFK/etc than I am about conspiracy to subvert the Constitution.
Author: Laura Weber
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 12:15:34 -0600
I have seen "Nixon," and I also recently watched a rerun of a 3-hour PBS series on Nixon.
While watching Stone's film, it struck me that if I was a young person who had not lived through any of the main events of Nixon's life (1974 and before) or had never paid attention during Watergate, that the film would not engage me or really show *why* this was an important story. If you are already interested, the film is entertaining. The PBS series told many of the same highlights of Nixon's life and career, using actual footage of the man, and did not clutter up with hints of possible indirect involvment of Nixon with the assassination of Kennedy.
I don't think showing "Nixon" in a survey class would be preferable to showing the PBS series.
Laura Weber, senior editor Phone (612) 625-0552 Communications & Publications Fax (612) 626-1754 University of Minnesota E-mail l-webe@maroon.tc.umn.edu
110 Williamson Hall
231 Pillsbury Drive S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Author: Kirk Jeffrey
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 12:16:24 -0600
I haven't seen "Nixon" and doubt that I will go. From reviews and discussions I have read, it sounds as if the film takes extreme liberties with the historical record by depicting events and motives that did not happen. Real historians disagree about many things, such as the causes and consequences of events; but on large public events of this sort they do not ordinarily disagree about the factual record. No serious historian would ever put forward Stone's conspiracy ideas about Nixon, JFK, and Cuba. It seems to me that if we regard Holocaust revisionism as pseudo-history because it claims that a well documented historical event did not even happen, we should be equally wary of film makers who make up fictions built on nonexistent evidence and try to pass them off as plausible interpretations.
Not every commentary on "the past" qualifies as history. Just because a film is well-acted, interesting, and politically congenial, that doesn't warrant our taking notice of it as teachers of history.
Kirk Jeffrey
Carleton College
Author: LORNE HAMMOND
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 12:41:40 -0600
A short comment: Too long for classroom use! Same problem with Malcolm X. Problems with the material can be dealt with by the instructor in discussions or extra readings that contradict. But there is only a limited amount of time. I find films of about 20 minutes allow you to set a context before/after. "Plow that broke the plains" is a good example. Many students pickup on the propoganda aspects quite quickly and the next thing you know we are plunged into the general disussion of views of the dustbowl and the politics of blame.
Generally I reject lots of epics and documentaries as soon as I look at the length. Something would have to hit 3 major themes before I'd give up a substantial chunk of time to it.
lorne hammond
University of Victoria
Author: Bill Cecil-Fronsman
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 1996 13:07:47 -0600
I have seen the movie and think it was great. It reminded me a lot of "Citizen Kane" -- in terms of how the story was told and in terms of the efforts to reconstruct an individual who abused power and was destroyed by his own abuses.
It is easy to poke holes in the movie and show the places where Stone took liberties with the historical record. I would be hard pressed to find any movie that isn't a documentary that doesn't take some liberties with the past. As a historian I'd have liked it better if Stone had called the character "Smith" or "Jones" and changed the title accordingly
The Nixon I saw on the screen reminded me of the Nixon I read about these days and the Nixon I loathed. Stone *did* make an effort to credit Nixon with accomplishments like opening up China and promoting detente. His Nixon gets criticized by J.R. Ewing -- I mean, Larry Hagman -- for the EPA interfering with his business, which is also consistent with the way that historians see Nixon. The fact that Stone quotes Nixon as saying he had "Big Mo'" on his side instead of George Bush, or that he has Nixon drinking scotch rather than martini's doesn't seem to me to be particularly critical. I'd like to hear from people who object to the film who find that it fundamentally distorts the historical record (the way that many people believe Stone's "JFK" did).
I was struck by what the movie did well. It portrayed Nixon as a tremendously talented individual who was driven to gain power. He comes across as someone who would go to any lengths to get it and to keep it. It offered an explanation for Nixon's obscession, which may or may not be historically accurate, but makes artistic sense. The quality of the film doesn't depend on the historical Nixon's relationship with his mother, any more than "Citizen Kane"'s quality depended on the historical Hearst's relationship with his.
I will be recommending to my students that they see the movie. This semester I am allowing students to receive extra credit by seeing a movie, museum display, TV program, etc. on a historical event, figure, etc. and writing a paper that compares the view of their text with the film they have seen. I think our job is to teach students to become informed consumers of history, and this is one way to do it. I wouldn't show a 3 hour movie in my class -- but since students go to the movies already, I would encourage them to take this one in and to try to think about the view of history that it conveys. In general, I'd encourage us to use popular media as a springboard to help students understand how their views of history are shaped.
Bill Cecil-Fronsman
Washburn University
Author: Kelly A. Woestman
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 08:36:04 -0600
I think it would be interesting to add another dimension to this thread -
Whether viewers agree or disagree with Oliver Stone, he is making some kind of impact on our culture. How will future students of history/culture view him and his impact on the late 20th century?
The best thing by far that has come out of Oliver Stone's work is that
the general public is doing much more discussing of history. It's a
great chance to teach our students about divergent viewpoints and
evaluating sources of information.
--
Kelly in Kansas
kwoestma@pittstate.edu
316-235-4316
Author: peter c holloran
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 08:38:30 -0600
Like Bill Cecil-Fronsman, I also permit students to write short papers (with some library research) on popular films. I will add Nixon to the list of recommended films, although Oliver Stone is no historian. Ask your students to name five movies they have seen last semester, you will be shocked to find you saw none of these movies. Undergraduates see an amazingly bad selection of movies, so Stone's Nixon can do them little harm and may even arouse their interest in recent US History. Or at least that is my hope!
Peter Holloran, Mount Ida College, pch@world.std.com
Author: John Heron
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 08:40:32 -0600
Regarding the demands of class time to show documentaries, etc.:
If copies of these videotapes were available in the school library, students could be assigned to watch them in the same way as assigned readings are found in the library. Despite my desire that students see some of the great visual material that comes from PBS, the use of classtime really dents a curriculum--even in high school with five 55-minute periods per week.
Another approach, used by some of my colleagues, is to show five or ten minutes of a film as a springboard to discussion. The scene in the Henry Fonda Grapes of Wrath where the Joads lose the farm can be used effectively.
John Heron
South San Francisco High School
Return to H-SURVEY Home Page.
| ||||
