In the 2003 movie The Last Samurai, Tom Cruise plays a former U.S. Army captain named Nathan Algren, an alcoholic and mercenary who in the 1870s goes to Japan to work for the Emperor Meiji. The young emperor is facing a samurai rebellion, and Algren trains a ragtag bunch of farmers and peasants in modern warfare, including the use of rifles. When Algren is captured by the samurai, however, he is gradually converted to their ways and ends up fighting alongside the warriors in a losing battle against the Imperial Army he helped to create.
The movie was both a critical and popular success, and why not? It offers lots of exciting swordplay, exotic costumes and a fascinating piece of history that was probably unfamiliar to most Americans before the film was released. Indeed, it’s fair to say that many Americans have learned much of what they know about the westernization of Japan from watching films such as The Last Samurai.
That’s probably not a good thing, because the film is full of historical errors. Most notably, it was the French and Dutch, not Americans, who played the key role in Japan’s modernization in the late 19th century. The Algren character is loosely based on a French officer named Jules Brunet. What’s more, the movie conflates two decades of military history for the sake of simplicity and presents a highly romanticized view of the samurai warriors.
I know, I know. The Last Samurai is not a documentary, and people go to the movies to be entertained, not to be instructed in history. No argument there. But films such as The Last Samurai are increasingly used in the classroom as well, as adjuncts to textbooks and lectures. Educators believe that the vividness of film can be a valuable teaching tool, enlivening and reinforcing students’ memories for otherwise dry historical text. But is that a good thing if the facts are wrong? Are they doing more harm than good?
A team of psychologists has begun exploring these questions experimentally. Andrew Butler of Washington University in St. Louis and his colleagues decided to simulate a classroom where popular films are used as a teaching tool, to see if the practice improved or distorted students’ understanding. The Last Samurai was in fact one of the films they used in the experiment, along with Amadeus, Glory, Amistad and a few others. All the films contained both accurate and inaccurate information about the historical incidents they depicted.
The students watched the film clips either before or after they read an accurate version of the historical events. So with The Last Samurai, for example, they read a version that accurately identified the hero as French, not American, and was faithful to the actual timeline of Japanese history. In addition, some of the students received a general warning about the inaccuracy of popular historical films, whereas others got very specific warnings—for instance, about changing the hero’s nationality. The idea was to see which teaching method led to the most accurate comprehension of the events: reading or watching a movie, or both, with or without the teacher’s commentary.
When the psychologists tested all the students a week later, the verdict for classroom movies was one thumb up, one thumb down. Watching the films did clearly help the students learn more, but only when the information was the same in both text and film. Apparently the vividness of the film (and simply having a second version of the same facts) did help the students create stronger memories of the material. But when the information in the film and the reading were contradictory—that is, when the film was inaccurate—the students were more likely to recall the film’s distorted version. What’s more, they were very confident in their memories, even though they were wrong. This happened even when the students were warned that filmmakers often play fast and loose with the facts.
See what we're tweeting about
10 Comments
Add CommentUltimately, what does it matter how correct the history is?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs Arthur C. Clarke said: "In a million years from now, historians will debate whether or not the great pyramids ever existed at all".
Information degrades over time, no matter how carefully preserved or in what format. The digital libraries of mankind can be wiped clean in the next big war.
I have a 12 year old son who is fascinated by military history. We often watch movies together, just for the comradery. After we watch movies like "Saving Private Ryan", "Braveheart", "Rob Roy" (personally censored), "The Patriot", "Getteysburg" etc. we both go off for a few days and do research on our own and then discuss the accuracy of the movie i.e. "What really happened". My son takes great pleasure in "one-upping" me on the reality check. I don't think, without the movie part I could get hime to just research any topic I "assigned". Debunking is educational!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRecently as my 4-year old son and I were looking through a book on fossils, dinosaurs, and general archeology, he saw a picture of the Great Wall of China. He pointed to it and said "Look, Mommy. China." Now my son can't read yet, so I was astounded. I asked him how he knew it was China, and he said "From Mulan" (the Disney film). Clearly, he had picked up the images of the great wall from the few brief scenes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wasn't disturbed by "the Last Samurai's" conflation of an American officer for a French one. What bothered me was far more fundamental -- its portrayal of the Samurai caste as some kind of persecuted ethnic tribe, admirable (as in all movies) in direct proportion to their obstinate disdain for modernity. Never mentioned was the fact that this had been the ruling caste, in Japan, for a thousand brutally oppressive years. In fact, the Meiji emperor, presented in the movie as a clueless wimp, was one of the geniuses of the 19th century, a man of profound assertiveness, who forced desperately needed change. Change that was tragic only to the degree that it was incomplete.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou see this same thread of romanticism all across Hollywood presentations of non-Western cultures. Wherever those cultures showed agility and intelligence, trying to adapt carefully to the West, in balanced ways -- e.g. the Cherokee Nation, or the Emperor's soldiers in "the Last Samurai" -- they are depicted as traitors to native purity. Only pristine obstinacy, a smug refusal to learn anything new, is seen as honorable... as in the movies "Dances With Wolves," "300," and the recent "Avatar." Hollywood also chooses to ignore the moral faults of those tribes it admires. Both Samurai and Spartans practiced brutal slavery, as did many of the plains indian tribes.
I do not say this out of some intolerant rightwing chauvinism. Overall, I am proud that our culture is filled with messages that extol "otherness" - or an appreciation of the many cultures in a vibrant world-human stew. I don't even mind the relentless (and often tedious) accompanying reflex, that anything American (or western or male etc) must always be portrayed as morally reprehensible. Hey, we have crimes to make up for and bad habits to fix.
No, it is the implicit insult toward non-western peoples that bugs me. The notion that they must be gussied and dolled up and all their warts hidden... blurred behind a vaseline layer of forgetfulness and romanticized obstinacy...in order for anybody to appreciate their contribution to the human story. In the end, these producers and directors are the worst racists of all.
With cordial regards,
David Brin, author of The Postman
http://www.davidbrin.com
I wasn't disturbed by "the Last Samurai's" conflation of an American officer for a French one. What bothered me was far more fundamental -- its portrayal of the Samurai caste as some kind of persecuted ethnic tribe, admirable (as in all movies) in direct proportion to their obstinate disdain for modernity. Never mentioned was the fact that this had been the ruling caste, in Japan, for a thousand brutally oppressive years. In fact, the Meiji emperor, presented in the movie as a clueless wimp, was one of the geniuses of the 19th century, a man of profound assertiveness, who forced desperately needed change. Change that was tragic only to the degree that it was incomplete.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou see this same thread of romanticism all across Hollywood presentations of non-Western cultures. Wherever those cultures showed agility and intelligence, trying to adapt carefully to the West, in balanced ways -- e.g. the Cherokee Nation, or the Emperor's soldiers in "the Last Samurai" -- they are depicted as traitors to native purity. Only pristine obstinacy, a smug refusal to learn anything new, is seen as honorable... as in the movies "Dances With Wolves," "300," and the recent "Avatar." Hollywood also chooses to ignore the moral faults of those tribes it admires. Both Samurai and Spartans practiced brutal slavery, as did many of the plains indian tribes.
I do not say this out of some intolerant rightwing chauvinism. Overall, I am proud that our culture is filled with messages that extol "otherness" - or an appreciation of the many cultures in a vibrant world-human stew. I don't even mind the relentless (and often tedious) accompanying reflex, that anything American (or western or male etc) must always be portrayed as morally reprehensible. Hey, we have crimes to make up for and bad habits to fix.
No, it is the implicit insult toward non-western peoples that bugs me. The notion that they must be gussied and dolled up and all their warts hidden... blurred behind a vaseline layer of forgetfulness and romanticized obstinacy...in order for anybody to appreciate their contribution to the human story. In the end, these producers and directors are the worst racists of all.
With cordial regards,
David Brin, author of The Postman
http://www.davidbrin.com
I think this is an area that should be looked into with great interest as vicarious public education.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI frequently notice that many people make assumptions of fact based on what they percieve to be 'common knowledge' when in fact it's erroneous information perpetuated into society by, predoiminantly, mainstream media. (For instance, the myth that we only use 10% of our brains.)
Rather than label it a deliberate 'dumbing down' of the population (as this would imply a deliberate attempt to do so), I believe that popular media should make more of an attempt to represent the correct picture of reality and to pay attention to fact-checking.
Consider the very many "movie physics" scenarios where the physics only really works in the minds of the writer/fx-artist/producer/director rather than what would happen in real life. The easy example here is sounds in outer space; however, a less obvious but more ubiquitous example would be movie collisions with multiple roll-overs and explosions in situations where the physics 'just don't play out'.
I believe that if the attempt was made by media to properly represent facts and reality, it would go from being 'just entertainment' to being entertainment that would also teach the populace vicariously.
I also, personally, believe that this should actually be a responsibility upon the media. People have the right to be given information that is not misleading. Some people, especially children, don't always have the cognitive discrimination (or, in some cases, the will) to be able to self-correct erroneous data, whilst others prefer to remain ignorant.
Individuals have the responsibility to ensure they are correctly informed. This assists in their ability to survive and provide. Strangely, individuals also seem to have the right to choose to remain ignorant. However, society, and the organisations making it up, should take the responsibility for correctly informing the public so as to provide the best opportunity to ensure that people are correctly informed about things.
To take me literally, you'd have to be willing to believe that I am saying that George Lucas should never have introduced the (as far as we know) impossible lightsabre. This is not what I mean. We, as humans telling stories, need to retain elements of fantasy and imagination. Actually, the creative faculty should also be promoted. But the media should properly represent facts/physics with accuracy where it is blatantly wrong or incredulous.
Don't we owe it to ourselves as a race to be properly informed?
I read with interest the results of the experiments reported in this article and that films with historical inaccuracies can be valuable. The caveat is that the teacher should provide adequate warnings to the students and ask them to "pay attention" to what they watch. I wonder why in the first instance show a film that has historically inaccurate information/names/events and then try to correct the students comprehension with the so-called "correct" written version and lectures. If the teacher knows already that the film has historical inaccuracies, then would it not be wise not to show it to the students. It is not only a waste of time but a terribly wrong thing to do. But the same film may have other things (worth showing) as a supplement to teaching certain other aspects.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, the media does not have this responsibility, nor can you expect that it will be thrust upon them. Several years ago there was a court case in which viewers tried to sue Fox News for its heavily slanted and inaccurate portrayal of events. The judge's verdict was that NO network was required to be completely honest when delivering news stories or other information.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe result is that now even the news can be classified as an entertainment industry, labelled 'infotainment'. Sounds disgusting, doesn't it?
If even news networks aren't bound to tell the truth, what is there to make anyone think it will happen with the movie industry? The saddest part is these are the only education we have left.
It is important for teachers to use various sources of information when discussing topics in the classroom. However, there must be a clear reason for the teacher to use such information. It is correct to give students detailed information about the inconsistencies with the movies with the historical facts. It is even more important for students be able to differentiate between dramatization and historical accuracies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe importance about education is to read, and to research topics that you don't understand.
This sort of comment makes me wonder, why you are reading a scientific journal at all? I mean, ultimately everything we learn about the universe and our place in it will be lost eventually in a big crunch or heat death of the universe. So why do anything?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut for those of us who are responding to the imperatives of living and the great evolutionary experiment called human life, a concern with inaccurate history is the same as being concerned about inaccurate science. Knowledge is power, or more importantly, ignorance is weakness. Unless we have correct information we are liable to be deceived by people who want to further their own agendas.
Think Galileo v Catholic Church - ultimately an argument about whether the Biblical account was accurate "history".
Do you advise be should we be happy to let children live in whatever fairy stories the prevailing dominant culture presents as a preferred version of truth?
We study history to learn from it, just like we study physics. Both are worthwhile because they can improve the survival chances of our offspring. "Those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it" could be an evolutionary doctrine. Except of course in evolution the individual subject does not often get a chance to repeat a failed experiement themself. They die.