CINEMATIC DISCOURSE OF HISTORY IN THE CAMERA GLASS OF A HISTORIAN

DOI: 10.47026/2712-9454-2023-4-2-51-61

УДК 930.2

ББК 63.2

Lyubov M. ARKHIPOVA

Key words

cinematic discourse, mythologization, historical narrative, concrete historical approach, semiotic images

Abstract

The article is devoted to the interdisciplinary problem of using cinematic interpretations of the historical past in the professional activity of a historian, including its research and educational tasks.

The purpose of the study is to create opportunities for a scientifically based definition of a historian’s professional “niche” when he turns to the cinematic discourse of the historical past.

Materials and methods. To determine the methodological foundations of selected cognitive models, the principles of neo-positivism, narrative philosophy, methods of discursive analysis of texts, including such features of the language of cinema as imagery and pronounced symbolism, as well as the provisions of phenomenological epistemology, were used. In their unity, these cognitive theories of culture allowed the author of the article to present a verified version of the results obtained by analyzing interpretations of the creative intent of film directors found in the scientific literature.

Study results. In the first part of the article, the main debatable aspects of the problem are considered in line with modern scientific trends, convincing of the relevance of the research undertaken. In its second part, the analysis of existing research practices in this field of knowledge is presented, the algorithms for reading historical information in feature films characteristic of each variant are identified and disclosed.

Conclusions. The final part of the article contains as results the definition for each of the identified research models, conventionally called “descriptive-informational”, “imagological”, “source studies” and “memorial”. The classification is based on the criterion of goal-setting and the scientific apparatus associated with it – the methodological approach, methods, the object and the subject of research. The author of the article gives assessment of their importance in the interdisciplinary paradigm of scientific historical creativity, thereby determining possible prospects for the development of historians’ research practice in the field of cognition of the past based on cinematography works. It seems obvious that the practical significance of observations proposed by the article’s author about the possibilities of solving the problem posed by not only active, but also critically meaningful inclusion of the cinematic discourse of history in the sphere of research practice and in the construction of educational space.

References

1. Ankersmit F.R. History and Tropology: The Rise and Fall of Metaphor Berkeley [etc.]: University of California Press, [1994] (Russ. ed.: Istoriya i tropologiya: vzlet i padenie metafory. Moscow, «Kanon+» ROII «Reablitatsiya» Publ., 2009, 400 p.).
2. Aronson O.V. Kino i filosofiya: ot teksta k obrazu [Cinema and Philosophy: From Text to Image]. Moscow, 2018, 109 p.
3. Volkov E.V., Ponomareva E.V. Igrovoe kino kak istoricheskii istochnik dlya izucheniya kul’turnoi pamyati [Feature Films as a Historical Source for the Study of Cultural Memory]. Vestnik Yuzhno-Ural’skogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser. Sotsial’no-gumanitarnye nauki, 2012, no. 10(269), pp. 22–26.
4. Gorbachev O.V. Sovetskii khudozhestvennyi kinematograf kak istoricheskii dokument: osobennosti analiza i interpretatsii [Soviet Art Cinema as a Historical Document: Features of Analysis and Interpretation]. Arkhiv. Istoriya. Sovremennost, 2015, no. 15, pp. 126–136.
5. Sekirinskiy S.S., ed. Istoriya strany/Istoriya kino [History of the country/History of cinema]. Moscow, Znak Publ., 2004, 496 p.
6. Karavashkin A.V., Yurganov A.L. Region Doksa. Istochnikovedenie kul’tury [Doxa Region. Source Studies of Culture]. Moscow, 2005, 210 p.
7. Klushina N.I. Intentsional’nyi metod v sovremennoi lingvisticheskoi paradigme [Intentional Method in the Modern Linguistic Paradigm]. Mediaskop, 2012, no. Available at: http://www.mediascope.ru/node/1242.
8. Lapina-Kratasyuk E.G. Affekty istorii: rasskazy o proshlom v kino i na televidenii [The Affects of History: Tales of the Past in Film and Television]. Artikul’t, 2014, no. 4(16), pp. 6–13.
9. Lubskii A.V. Neopozitivizm v istoricheskom poznanii [Neopositivism in Historical Cognition]. In: Chubar’yan O.A. Teoriya i metodologiya istoricheskoi nauki. Terminologicheskii slovar’ [Theory and methodology of historical science. Terminological dictionary]. Moscow, Akvilon Publ., 2014, pp. 332–334.
10. Makarov A.I. Simvolicheskaya interpretatsiya mifa kak metodologicheskii priem [Symbolic interpretation of myth as a methodological device]. In: Zvereva G.I., comp., ed. Vybor metoda: Izuchenie kul’tury v Rossii 1990-kh godov. Sbornik nauchnykh statei [Choice of method: The study of culture in Russia in the 1990s. Collection of scientific articles]. Moscow, 2001, pp. 107–112.
11. Malinova O.Yu. Politika pamyati kak oblast’ simvolicheskoi politiki [The Politics of Memory as an Area of Symbolic Politics]. In: Miller A.I., Efremenko D.V., eds. Metodologicheskie voprosy izucheniya politiki pamyati: sb. nauch. trudov [ Methodological issues of studying the politics of memory]. Moscow, St. Petersburg, Nestor Istoriya Publ., 2018, pp. 27–53.
12. Polyakov O.Yu. Imagologiya [Imagology]. Kirov, 2015, 184 p.
13. Samutina N.V. Retsenziya na knigu «Istoriya strany/istoriya kino. : Znak, 2004. 496 s.» [Review of the book «History of the Country / History of Cinema. Edited by Doctor of Historical Sciences S.S. Sekirinsky. Moscow: Znak, 2004. 496 p.»]. Kriticheskaya massa, 2004, no. 1. Available at: https://www.hse.ru/data/2015/12/14/1134454668/Самутина%20об%20Истории%20страны%20-истории%20кино%20КМ.pdf.
14. Sekirinskii S.S. Kinematografichnost’ istorii. Istorichnost’ kinematografa [The cinematic nature of the story. The historicity of cinema]. Otechestvennaya istoriya, 2003, no. 6, pp. 3–7.
15. Talaver A. Pamyat’ o Velikoi Otechestvennoi voine v postsovetskom kinematografe. Etapy osmysleniya proshlogo (ot 1990-kh k 2000-m): preprint WP20/2013/06 [The memory of the Great Patriotic War in post-Soviet cinema. Stages of comprehension of the past (from the 1990 to the 2000): preprint WP20/2013/06]. Moscow, 2013, 56 p.
16. Usenko O.G. Metodologiya izucheniya mentaliteta po igrovomu kino i ee aprobatsiya na primere rossiiskogo kinematografa 1908–1919 gg. [The methodology of studying the mentality of feature films and its approbation on the example of Russian cinema of 1908–1919].Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser. Istoriya, 2009, Iss. 3, no. 40, pp. 36–71; Iss. 4, no. 43, pp. 50–97.
17. Ustyugova V.V. Vzglyad kinoveda vs. vzglyad istorika na sovetskie istoricheskie fil’my[The view of a film critic vs. the view of a historian on Soviet historical films]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Istoriya, 2021, no. 4(55), pp. 39–45.
18. Ferro M. Kino i istoriya [Cinema and history]. Voprosy istorii, 1993, no. 2, pp. 47–57.
19. Yakovleva L.I. Diskurs-analiz kak odin iz srezov sotsial’no-filosofskogo, kul’turologicheskogo i lingvisticheskogo issledovaniya [Discourse analysis as one of the slices of socio-philosophical, cultural and linguistic research]. Filosofskie opyty, 2011, no. 4, pp. 22–66.
20. Yampol’skii M.B. Pamyat’ Tiresiya. Intertekstual’nost’ i kinematograf [Memory of Tiresias. Intertextuality and cinematography]. Moscow, Kul’tura Publ., 1993, 464 p.

Information about the author

Lyubov M. Arkhipova – Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Department of Russian History, Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after K.D. Ushinsky, Russia, Yaroslavl (Lubov.a2011@yandex.ru; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8285-5720).

For citations

Arkhipova L.M. CINEMATIC DISCOURSE OF HISTORY IN THE CAMERA GLASS OF A HISTORIAN. Historical Search, 2023, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 51–61. DOI: 10.47026/2712-9454-2023-4-2-51-61 (in Russian).

Download the full article