“Movie or Monograph? A Historian/Filmmaker’s Perspective”, Natalie Zemon Davis

This short article by Natalie Zemon Davis entitled “Movie or Monograph? A Historian/Filmmaker’s Perspective” commences with her experience in the making of the French movie “Le Retour de Martin Guerre” and then leads on to a reflection on the possible contributions of historians in historical movies.
As an early modern historian, Natalie Zemon Davis saw in the story of Martin Guerre an opportunity to show the lives of French peasants in the 16th century. She thought it would be a very interesting way of reaching wider audiences that would know nothing about this time period and those people under other circumstances. She was ready to work on that movie when she learned that a French director had already started working on the film script. Because of her notoriety as a historian, and especially as a 16th century France historian, Jean-Claude Carrière and Daniel Vigne were thrilled to work with her on the script. That is how Zemon Davis became the “historical advisor” for the movie.
One of the more intriguing interesting aspects of this experience is that Zemon Davis chose not to limit herself to working on the script, but she also chose to write a book on the story of Martin Guerre. The movie-making had its limitation and some changes were not possible as time went by, therefore she decides to use her research for a contributing book. Consequently, her book became a complement through which she was able to convey additional or more precise information to the public.
Zemon Davis’s article leads to a reflection on how historians and movie directors should work together when preparing a historical film. She calls for the taking into consideration of both cinematic and historical criteria as a way for the movie to be plausible and “historically understandable” for its audience. Her last example about acceptable and misleading historical errors in the Martin Guerre movie is very interesting. She considers as acceptable that the judges’ robe to be of the wrong color, but she is very critical about the choice to make the trial public whereas it was something closed in Old Regime France. Indeed, if the error of color might not be particularly misleading, the erroneous representation of the judicial life in the Old Regime conveys to the audience an inaccurate portrait of life in the 16th century; and criminal justice was an important aspect of life in that period. For Natalie Zemon Davis, such elements should not only reinforce the contribution of historians in the making of historical movies, but it should also encourage them to write about and comment about the historical events depicted in the movie, whether they have participated in the movie or not.
I think Zemon Davis’ article is an excellent reflection-basis for public historians. Indeed, historical movies are a great way to connect with a broader public and public historians should therefore find new and creative ways to contribute to and interact with this sort of history making.