Introduction

Although historians' connection with film has been only a brief encounter, a ‘conventional wisdom’ already pervades professional discussions of film as a source of information about the past. I am referring to the notion that, except for a few minor technical differences, film is just like other historical documents, and may be understood and criticised in the same manner. This insistence on preserving old and familiar orthodoxies is perfectly understandable, for historians – like other academicians – are extremely conservative on matters involving the fundamentals of their discipline. By tradition, we have preferred written documents over other sources, and it is reassuring for us to believe that a few simple refinements of our familiar research strategies will enable us to master the accumulated motion picture record. Acceptability, as J.K. Galbraith observes, is the hallmark of conventional wisdom.

Admittedly, there is some merit in even the most conventional of our professional wisdom. With film, as with other sources, we must be concerned with the familiar problems of dating, authorship, point of view, authentication, and verification. To resolve these problems we may adapt and apply to film sources the established techniques of internal and external criticism.

The projected film will often provide useful data in the form of slating, credits, and date of copyright. Certain stylistic elements of a film (editing or lighting styles, for example) may indicate the source of a film, or its approximate date. In addition, the visual content of a film may provide important clues.