jor motion pictures is that because they are produced for acceptance by the mass society, we are able to disect values of the time period it was created. Visually we are also able to get a sense (of movies that are contemporary in focus especially) is gather a sense of living styles, clothing, mannerisms, popular culture or its antithesis. Historically accurate movies that are also captivating have an immense burden to meet. In terms of historical accuracy, it does not mean trying to encompass everything that happened in a particular time period. Rather, it requires a story that highlights key elements of the period involved while containing nothing that could never have happened in the time allotted for the human attention span. The balance of historical accuracy in movies lies in finding an original story that hits on the key points of the era while not abusing realities of the period in question. Hollywood's goal is not to make a great historical film, but to make money. (Schindler's List and other such movies being an exception). When the public craves blood and sex; historical accuracy can take be de-emphasized in favor of the sensational and scandalous. What is overlooked is that history can be the most captivating story of all, because it is the ongoing story of humanity. So should films be primary sources for history? Both an affirmative and a negative are the answers. Many factors including, the time of film, who created it, who the intended audience is, what the film is about, etc. in relation to the topic being studied are what make film a valuable historical source. Films, in many respects, are no different from any other type of historical sources and should be treated as such. Visual resources are a peculiarly direct and telling source of encounter with the past, even if the image cannot always be taken as truthful, and film, being the one of the youngest visual mediums, is usually discredited. Film is a historical tool, ...
