Motion Pictures and the Study of Attitudes: Some Problems for Historians

MOTION PICTURES AND THE STUDY OF ATTITUDES: Some Problems for Historians By Melvin Small Melvin Small is Associate Professor ofHistory at Wayne State University, and the editor ofPublic Opinion and Historians (Detroit 1970). He began working on the generalproblem ofhistorians and attitudes as an American Council ofLearned Societies FellowforAdvanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford in 1969-1970. I have been working on a project relating to American attitudes towards Russia during the Second World War and have been trying to study motion pictures as one of the sources, which helped to shape those attitudes (1). Along the way, I ran into several theoretical and methodological problems, which may be of interest to the readers of this Newsletter. Movies are one ofthe most underdeveloped sources in the writing ofhistory (2). Diplomatic and political historians interested in public opinion have all but ignored this source, perhaps because the study ofmovies seems hardly a scholarly endeavor when compared to the study ofthe New York Times or State Department files. Or more seriously, those who thought ofusing the film in other than social histories are distressed by the unorthodox nature ofthe data compared to a speech, letter or editorial, which, of course, can be held in one's hand. Two basic questions confront the historian who dares to leave the printed page for the silver screen. First, how do motion pictures affect images? And then, and even more troublesome, how can the historian manage such an unusual source? Obviously, motion pictures play some role in shaping images ofvarious ethnic and national groups. Millions ofAmericans may still think of Charlie Chan when they think of Chinese while millions ofAsians may think ofJohn Wayne when they think ofAmericans (3). When it comes to dealing with such phenomena in more precise terms, however, even behavioral scientists cannot offer much aid. Although motion pictures have been an integral part ofthe world's culture since the turn ofthe century, only a limited body of theory has developed about their impact, and much ofthis has come from laboratory testing on specific message films (4). Moreover, even ifwe know something about the bias of the filmmaker or the scriptwriter, it is difficult to ascertain how that bias, protected on the screen, will be perceived by the audience. Thus, the pioneer director, D. W. Griffith, never expected the Birth ofa Nation to elicit the response that it did, and consequently felt compelled to atone for his racism by making Intolerance (5). Or, more recently, it would be difficult to determine whether the audiences become more violent or less violent after seeing such films as the Wild Bunch, Straw Dogs or A Clockwork Orange. At the same time, we do know a few things about the relationship between movies and attitudes. One study ofthe World War II "Why We Fight" film, The Battle of Britain, found that: the film's message was accepted most readily by the more intelligent viewers; the initial mental set ofthose viewers was all-important; more people were convinced when both sides, and not just one side, ofthe story was told; and images or opinions affected by exposure to the film were retained over time (6). Another scholar who studied the effects ofGentleman's Agreement, a popular 1 947 feature which dealt with anti-Semitism, confirmed many ofthese findings (7). Despite the limited applicability ofsuch case studies, we can safely conclude that films do affect the beliefs, images, attitudes, opinions and maybe even the values of viewers to a considerable degree (8). Accepting this premise, the historian must still deal with the problem ofrelativism when he attempts to discern the direction or magnitude of change ofopinion attributable to a motion picture. Thus, movie patrons who howled at the mugging and shuffling ofthe black character actor, Stepin Fetchit, might react differently were they to see those same vintage films on television today. Nevertheless, it would not seem incautious to suggest that a motion picture which displayed a Russia which resembled Kansas, full ofpretty girls, smiling, well-clothed and well-fed children, open churches and benign leaders would purvey pleasant images, especially ifthat picture was being seen in 1943 when the Red Army was winning the Battle ofStalingrad (9...