# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Have you watched Starz's adaptation of Diana Gabaldon's epic novel series, Outlander? If not, here's a quick synopsis: boss-ass feminist lady hero falls through time from the 1940s, ending up in Scotland circa 1744 and forced to navigate the very testy waters of being alive at that time. It involves time travel, romance, cool ladies being resourceful, a hundred million kilts, and a ginger lad named Jamie Fraser.

Jamie ends up - spoiler alert - becoming the husband of Claire in order to protect her, and quickly integrates her into his immediate and extended family: the clans Fraser and Mackenzie, respectively. Several of the story's major players are cousins or siblings of Jamie and play a major part in the series, including his sister Jenny Fraser and the Mackenzie leaders: laird Colum Mackenzie and his brother/the war chieftain Dougal Mackenzie.

Which is a really fun bit of historical trivia because, guess what? The Clans Fraser of Lovat and Mackenzie were actually pretty major rulers in their time. Really!

When they were at their most influential, the Mackenzie clan was the 4th most powerful in the country, their lands extending far and wide and butting up against those of Clan Fraser.

In a time when loyalties were divided between the ruling monarchy and the Stuart king, the Mackenzies and Frasers were staunch Jacobites. Not sure what the heck that word means? Well, Jacobites considered themselves supporters of the deposed King James II and all his descendants that followed thereafter. It was the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688 - when the English Parliament overthrew him in order to put William the Orange (seriously, google that ish) on the throne - that caused the divide between the highlands, lowlands, and England overall that ultimately fueled the Jacobian revolutions to reinsert their king to the throne. This happened several times in the years that followed: 1689-90, 1715, 1719, and finally 1745-46.

It was after the failed rebellion of 1746 that the Mackenzie and Fraser clans (amongst other Highlanders) reconciled their ties with the British, formally assimilating and ended up as quite the posh British aristocrat types.

Don't you just love a bit of time-traveling historical fiction? It gets to be so layered and fun!
Main Image Credit: Starz
Map of Scotland:Time Slips/Wordpress

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learn the Very Real History Behind OUTLANDER's Main Clans | Geek and Sundry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Have you watched Starz's adaptation of Diana Gabaldon's epic novel series, Outlander? If not, here's a quick synopsis: boss-ass feminist lady hero falls through time from the 1940s, ending up in Scotland circa 1744 and forced to navigate the very testy waters of being alive at that time.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In the first book in Diana Gabaldon's fictional Outlander series, Claire Randall, on her second honeymoon with her husband in Scotland after World War II, visits Craigh na Dun, a make-believe prehistoric stone circle near Inverness, and falls through the stones-and into the 18th century.

Written in My Own Heart's Blood is the eighth-and latest-book in the series. In all, the Outlander books have cracked the New York Times Best Seller list six times and have sold more than 25 million copies worldwide, in 26 countries and 23 languages.

Well-drawn characters and vivid descriptions are part of Outlande r's appeal, but Gabaldon's use of historically accurate details-aside from the time travel-also undergirds the plots. Through her writings, she's become an expert in 18th-century Scotland.

The long-awaited Outlander television show premieres tomorrow night at 9 p.m. on STARZ.

Coincidentally, National Geographic's August cover story, "The First Stonehenge," is about recently discovered Neolithic ruins in Scotland's Orkney Islands that, author Roff Smith writes, are "turning British prehistory on its head."

Gabaldon's story lines center on Scotland's ancient standing stones, so we asked her to give us a Scottish history lesson- Outlander style.
Our August story focuses on the Orkney Islands. Have you visited Orkney?
I actually just visited Orkney about 18 months ago. A guide we know in Scotland took us to a number of the places mentioned in the article. We went to Skara Brae and Maeshowe and the Ring of Brodgar, and all of that. Fascinating place!
When reading the NG Orkney story, did you connect it with Outlander at all?
Oh, yes, indeed. Not with the present book or the one I'm about to start working on, but to a different project. It will be a long time coming, but for a while now I've intended to write a book-or possibly more than one, as these things have a tendency to grow-about Master Raymond. He's the little apothecary Claire meets in Paris in Dragonfly in Amber [the second book in the series].

The moment I looked at Skara Brae, I said, OK, this is it. This book will focus on Master Raymond, and Orkney is part of his story. I don't know what the whole story is yet-I just feel this deep resonating connection with him in Orkney.
What resonated with you the most when you visited the Neolithic sites in Orkney?
The connection the culture had to the landscape. Orkney has the kind of landscape that sort of lends itself to a relationship with the people. I think that relationship is intensified because of its remoteness and the long periods of time when there was no interaction with other cultures.
One structure remaining in Orkney is the standing stones. You use a similar circle of stones as a time portal for your main character, Claire Randall. Why did you choose the stones for a time portal?
Originally, I was just going to write historical fiction, but at about the third day of writing, I introduced this English woman, just to see what she'd do. I loosed her into a cottage full of Scotsmen, and one of the men stood up and said, "My name is Dougal McKenzie, and who might you be?" Without stopping to think, I just typed, "My name is Claire Elizabeth Beauchamp, and who the hell are you?" And then I thought, "You don't sound at all like an 18th-century person." [Chuckles]

I fought with her for several pages, but she wasn't having any of this-she just kept making smart-ass modern remarks. She also took over and started telling the story herself, so I said, "Well, I'm not going to fight with you all the way through this book. Go ahead and be modern. I'll figure out how you got there later." So it's all her fault that there is time travel in these books!

I was doing a lot of research on Scotland at that point because I'd never been there and kept coming across the standing stone circles. Every time I'd read about the stone circles, it would describe how they worked as an astronomical observance. For example, some of the circles are oriented so that at the winter solstice the sun will strike a standing stone. But all the texts speculate that nobody knows what the actual function of these stone circles was. And so I began thinking, Well, I bet I can think of one. [Laughs]
In the Outlander universe, how did you make time travel seem plausible?
If you're going to write time travel stories, you have to sort of figure out how does time travel work in this particular universe that I'm dealing with.

There are lines of geomagnetic force running through the Earth's crust, and most of the time these run in opposing directions-forward and backward. In some places they deviate and will cross each other, and when that happens, you kind of get a geomagnetic mess going in all different directions. I call these vertices.

Essentially, it could be possible to have something like this nexus of crossing lines to create a little time vortex. And if you could have a person whose sensibility to geomagnetism is sufficiently advanced so that they can not only detect this but enter into it in some way, then you have a plausible way of time travel.

So if prehistoric people noticed that every so often when people crossed that particular patch of grass, they disappeared, it would cause considerable consternation, and they might think it worthwhile marking that spot. So that might be the reason why the stones are there, and why they're set up the way they are, as in, "People tended to disappear on the winter solstice when they step over here, so don't do that!"

I will have to do a write-up called the Gabaldon Theory of Time Travel. [Laughs]
How much research have you conducted for the Outlander series?
I'm not sure how you would quantify that. I've been doing research practically nonstop since I started writing. I do the research at the same time as I write, and it kind of feeds off itself. I would say I've been in a constant state of research for the past 24 years.
Can you give us a quick rundown on what history you have covered in your plot lines so far?
The story traces the political and physical revolution from the Jacobite rising all the way through the American Revolution. And on the other side of the time travel, we're dealing with World War II, and Claire's occasional flashbacks and knowledge of that war.

We began in 1743, just before the Jacobite rebellion and traced the climactic confrontation at Culloden, which crushed the clan system and all but destroyed the Highlands for a hundred years. We move on from there, as the Scots did, to America. That's because in the 1730s a large number of the Highland Scots had already immigrated and settled along the banks of the Cape Fear River [in present-day North Carolina]. By the late 1740s most of these earlier immigrants were settled and fairly prosperous, and kinship being what it was in the 18th century, you went where you had relatives.

A lot of Scots ended up settling in the mountains of North Carolina and Tennessee. And of course, these people were ideally placed to be in the middle of the American Revolution, and that's where Jamie and Claire are at the moment. At the time of the revolution, one in three colonists came from Scotland and, in fact, there were Scots fighting on both sides with great ferocity.
Was there ever a time when you purposefully wrote something you knew to be historically inaccurate?
Yes-only once that I can think of, and that was in Outlander [the first book]. I wanted to have a witch trial, but looking into it, I could see that the last witch trial in Scotland took place in 1722. So I was telling my husband that I'd really like a witch trial, but it doesn't fit. He looked at me and said, "You start right off with a book in which you expect people to believe that Stonehenge is a time machine, and you're worried that your witches are 20 years too late?" [Laughs] So I did stretch that point. I figured that possibly this witch trial was an ad hoc affair that didn't make it into the record. That's the only place where I can remember I deliberately moved something that I knew was not quite there.
Claire Randall goes back in time through the standing stones and immediately meets a band of Scottish Highland warriors. What was the clan system like in Scotland?
The clan system was very tribal. It was composed of extensive family units, and as it grew larger, the clans became political entities. And you didn't have to be born to a clan, you could come in and swear allegiance to your clan chief, and you'd become a MacKenzie or a Grant or whatever, and then you'd change your surname. People usually did this as a trade of armed service or farm service in return for food or land.

If the clan chief decided to declare war on someone, you had to bring whatever you owned in the way of a weapon. These tactics worked on a small level, but get in with the British army and you were in trouble.

The level of the clan chieftain was different than the system in England-it wasn't hereditary. The son of a chief might have the inside track, but the next chieftain was elected by consent of the senior clansmen present. So they sometimes got better leaders than the British did on a hereditary system.

That said, the system was good for the clan, but it wasn't necessarily good for Scotland. The way the clan system evolved was cellular: You had very strong people who couldn't lead more than their own clan without a lot of trouble.
Out of all the Highland clans, why did you choose Clan Fraser for the beloved character Jamie Fraser?
Through the course of my research, Jamie was just called Jamie Blank for a long time. I took Jamie from the name of a "Dr. Who" character who originally caused me to choose Scotland as my setting. I was reading a book for research called the Prince in the Heather, by Eric Linklater, which described what happened after Culloden. It said that, following the battle, 19 wounded Jacobite officers took refuge in the farmhouse by the side of the field. There they lay for two days with their wounds, unattended in pain. At the end of that time they were taken out and shot, except one man, a Fraser of the Master of Lovet's regiment, who survived the slaughter. And I was thinking that if I expect Jamie to survive Culloden then his last name better be Fraser.
A referendum on Scottish independence is coming up. Do you have thoughts on that because of your connection with your characters?
There's a line of philosophy in the events in my books to the events happening in Scotland now. That said, I'm very careful not to take a public view on it. It's not my country, so its not my business to be telling them what I think.

I have a number of Scottish friends from the Outlander TV show, all of whom are on the "yes" side. I was talking to them once, and I said, "You know, this is all well and good, democracy, etc., and it's a romantic idea too. But I've read a lot of Scottish history as of late, and you guys have never been able to cooperate about anything for longer than ten years at a stretch. You think you're going to do it now?"
This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity. Read other interesting stories in National Geographic's Book Talk series.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fictional Outlander Series Has Real Links to Scotland's Newly Unearthed Neolithic Ruins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In the first book in Diana Gabaldon's fictional Outlander series, Claire Randall, on her second honeymoon with her husband in Scotland after World War II, visits Craigh na Dun, a make-believe prehistoric stone circle near Inverness, and falls through the stones-and into the 18th century.

# data[].attributes.headline
Artikel: History and fiction as Modes of Comprehension

# data[].attributes.subject
Artikel: History and fiction as Modes of Comprehension

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The interactive Scottish History Site of BBC Online

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Download documents and transcripts

Teachers' notes

The purpose of this document collection is to allow students and teachers to develop their own questions and lines of historical enquiry on the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745.

There is also a second collection based on the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715.

The documents themselves are titled on the web page so it is possible for teachers and pupils to detect different themes and concentrate on documents on similar topics if they wish. Some of the topics include:

accounts of the battle of Culloden and Prestonpans

Flora MacDonald

control of Scotland

the lives of Jacobite soldiers

Jacobite trials

treatment of Jacobite prisoners

the defence of London

Charles Edward Stuart

Jacobite support from abroad

examples of museum objects such as a secret portrait

the Prince's clothes and some Jacobite glass

Students can work with a group of sources or source type on a certain theme or linked themes. They can also match documents to the timeline provided as a starting point. We hope that the documents will offer them a chance to develop their powers of evaluation and analysis. Alternatively, teachers may wish to use the collection to develop their own resources or encourage students to 'curate' their own 'exhibition' of the most significant sources on the topic or they could attempt the enquiry question on the Jacobite Rising of 1745: A serious threat to the Hanoverians? Students could also use more documents from other linked websites.

All of our sources have been provided with a transcript and more difficult language has been explained in square brackets to support students. Obvious differences in the spelling have not been altered however. Each source is captioned and dated to provide a sense of what the document is about. Nearly all written sources have an audio version where appropriate. All document images and sound files can be downloaded as a zip file for educational purposes.

The resource includes an introduction by a historian of the period, Daniel Szechi, family trees of the Houses of Hanover and Stuart and a timeline all to help provide further context to the documents.

Finally there is a Pinterest Board on the Jacobites available which could serve as an exciting window into the topic of the Jacobites as a whole as well as two short movie clips based on the sources used in both of our resources on the risings of 1715 and 1745.
AQA Edexcel OCR
Introduction
By Professor Daniel Szechi
Unlike the rebellion of 1715, the '45 came out of nowhere. As far as the Whigs, who had ruled Britain as a one-party state since 1714 were concerned, the Jacobite threat was over. But with the rejection of the Tories in England, the continuing persecution of Catholics in Ireland and the on-going sense of betrayal with respect to the Union among a sizeable minority in Scotland, the Jacobite movement remained alive in all three kingdoms.

The Jacobite King James III's energetic and handsome son, Charles Edward Stuart, (Bonnie Prince Charlie) had also come to represent a bright new hope for many Jacobites. Then in 1739, for the first time in twenty years, Britain became involved in a major European war. Both France and Spain's interest in supporting a Jacobite revolution was revived, and in 1743-4 the French government secretly allied with King James and the English Tories and planned to launch an invasion of England led by Charles Edward. At the last minute, hesitation on the part of the Tories, bad weather and the action of the Royal Navy prevented the invasion. The relieved British government soon released the Tory leaders swept up in a wave of arrests when news of the French plan broke, and the troops brought over to fight any invasion went back to the war in Flanders. As the months passed and the Jacobites kept their heads down, government control relaxed and life carried on. Meanwhile in France the Jacobite prince was quietly preparing his own daring venture.

Depending on how you view it, Charles Edward's plan was either foolhardy or brilliant. By 1745 many French merchant companies were involved in financing privateering ventures to attack British shipping. With the help of Irish merchants in Nantes in France, Charles Edward was thus able to prepare a small secret expedition to Scotland without alerting either the British or French governments. On 5 July 1745 his two ships (Du Teillay and Elisabeth), laden with money, arms and Irish troops in French service set sail for Scotland. They were stopped by a patrolling Royal Navy warship and fought a hard action that so damaged the Elisabeth that she had to return to France, but - nothing daunted - Charles Edward sailed on to Scotland and on 23 July landed on Eriskay.

He managed to gain support in Scotland by skilfully presenting the Scots Jacobites with a problem: they could rise to follow him and possibly have to take on the military might of the British government, or they could betray their principles and abandon him to possible capture and death. The first response of many Scots Jacobites was to refuse to act without major French support, but Charles tilted the balance in favour of going it alone to begin with by promising them that he had assurances the French would invade and the English Jacobites would rise if he raised Scotland and invaded England with a Jacobite army. Most Scots Jacobites were persuaded to follow him on this basis, and so began the '45.

Professor Daniel Szechi is the author of The Jacobites: Britain and Europe 1688-1788.

External links

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jacobite Rising of 1745 - The National Archives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Download documents and transcripts The purpose of this document collection is to allow students and teachers to develop their own questions and lines of historical enquiry on the Jacobite Rebellion of 1745. There is also a second collection based on the Jacobite Rebellion of 1715.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dr. Tony Pollard: I read all of the scripts at an early stage and provide comments on issues related to accuracy, sometimes offering alternative scenarios if there's a more authentic way of illustrating something.
In my day job I am an archaeologist and historian based at the University of Glasgow. I specialize in conflict and the Jacobite Wars are one of my specialities. I am also a novelist and I think my experience in writing historical fiction appealed to the producers as it meant I understood the relationship between history and fiction and could work with the compromises that come with the territory.
BHT: A lot of our readers would love to be historical consultants. How does one get that gig?
TP: Well, being a university lecturer, I would say get a degree. But I know lots of people that write books on history that have come from other backgrounds. I think the key is to develop an interest in a specific period and learn all you can about it. Primary sources are vital, so get to know archives and how they work. Writing is a good way in.
BHT: What's the hardest part to get right about 1700s Scotland? The thing most people don't usually consider? BHT: Politically, how involved was France in the Jacobite rebellion?
TP: I think its breaking down the popular misconception that the Jacobite Wars, and in this case the '45, was a straightforward battle between Scotland and England and that all Jacobites were Catholics (in the '45 most were Episcopalian). As ever with history, the reality is a lot more complicated and the edges are blurred. The Jacobite wars were in many ways Scottish civil wars and wars between the Highlands and Lowlands. There obviously was an England versus Scotland element, and some historians regard the Jacobites as a nationalist movement, but this is only a part of the story (Bonnie Prince Charlie might have had more success if had played the nationalist card more strongly).

TP: This relates to the previous question as there has been a tendency to view the '45 as an isolated event. In reality it was part of the War of Austrian Succession which was being fought in Europe among several nations, but of most importance here was the conflict between France and Britain (it was the British army that fought at Culloden and not a Hanoverian army - another popular misconception). The French had long been friends of the exiled Stuarts, it was a good way of getting at the British establishment. The Jacobites could also be useful, especially if they could open a second front in Scotland, which would drain British military resources from the continent, and there were some serious attempts to assist them with this. In 1708 the French sent a fleet to Scotland, carrying with it James Stuart, 'the Old Pretender' and father of Bonnie Prince Charlie, and 6000 French troops. The plan was for this invasion force to be supported by Jacobites in Scotland. However, the fleet was intercepted by the Royal Navy off the coast of Fife and chased away. There was second French invasion in support of the Jacobites planned for 1745 but this was wrecked by a storm before it set sail.
BHT: Can you tell us about the importance of Culloden? How the battle changed the clan system?
The French were supportive when it suited them. After disaster befell the fleet in early 1745, there was little enthusiasm for another all-out attempt, particularly as they were doing quite well against the British in the war on the continent. The Duke of Cumberland, who was to command the British army at Culloden, was badly defeated at the Battle of Fontenoy in May 1745 and the French made various gains after this. Certainly the Jacobite Rising in Scotland did help but French support was limited to sending over weapons, money and some Scots and Irish troops in French service. Prince Charles promised his men a French invasion but it never came.
BHT: How much research goes into making sure all the little touches on the show are just right?
TP: Culloden was a terrible defeat for the Jacobites militarily but it needn't have been the end of the campaign. Many Jacobites wanted to fight on but Charles had had enough. There followed a period of terrible reprisals across the Highlands, which in a way fed into old clan rivalries. The power of the clans was definitely reduced - previously clan chiefs had acted as potentates dishing out justice and calling out their followers to war. With the confiscation of estates and the disarming act of 1746 the clans were partially emasculated and though many no doubt hoped for another crack of the whip there would never be another rising. Many Jacobites were drawn into the British army and Highland regiments proved very effective in the wars in America and elsewhere in the growing British empire. Industrialization and changes in the economy saw people moving away from the Highlands, with the notorious clearances being a part of this process, which was not entirely down to Culloden but part of a more general process of change.
BHT: Was representing that battle difficult?
TP: I spend most of my time looking at the scripts, but I have visited the studio and spoken to the costume designers and seen the built sets. I had a good chat with the armourer about swords. When I pointed out that the British army's infantry at Culloden were not carrying the swords that were normal for the time, he was delighted as it saved him money!

TP: Presenting a battle on screen is always a challenge, and there have been several attempts to portray Culloden, most notably in the groundbreaking Peter Watkins film from 1964. I was pleased with the way the Outlander script dealt with the battle, but I don't want to give too much away here, so I'll just leave it at that.

Dr. Tony Pollard is an archaeologist specialising in the archaeology of conflict. He is Director of the Centre for Battlefield Archaeology at Glasgow University, the co-presenter of the BBC series Two Men in a Trench and co-founder of the Journal of Conflict Archaeology. Outlander airs Saturdays at 9/8c on Starz. Go here for more on Dr. Tony Pollard, or visit his Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Keeping it Real: Q&A with Outlander's Historical Advisor

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Tony Pollard: I read all of the scripts at an early stage and provide comments on issues related to accuracy, sometimes offering alternative scenarios if there's a more authentic way of illustrating something. In my day job I am an archaeologist and historian based at the University of Glasgow.

# data[].attributes.headline
Kridtstregen mellem historie og fiktion (se også bibliografi)

# data[].attributes.subject
Kridtstregen mellem historie og fiktion (se også bibliografi)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Skal historieundervisningen altid være så teksttung? Historie i levende billeder giver en solid indgang til brug af levende billeder - spille- og dokumentarfilm - i historieundervisningen i STX og HF. Bogen har tre dele.

Den første er metodedelen, hvor den historiske film gennemgås i forhold til kildekritik, filmiske virkemidler og fakta og fiktionskoder. I et selvstændigt kapitel gives der en række eksempler på brug af forskellige typer dokumentarfilm i undervisningen. Herefter følger et introducerende kapitel til analyse af fiktionsfilm i historie. Disse kapitler vil også være en hjælp til elever og lærere i forbindelse med SRP, SSO og AT.

I bogens anden del er der i en række kapitler grundige eksempler på, hvordan analyse af historiske spillefilm og dokumentarfilm kan bidrage til...

Læs mere Fold sammen

Udgave

1

Oplag

1

Udgivelsesår

2013

Niveau

A-, B-niveau

Sideantal

176

ISBN

978-87-7970-226-4

Vis priser for Private Skoler Inkl. moms Ekskl. moms

Relaterede produkter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Historie i levende billeder - Forlaget Columbus

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Skal historieundervisningen altid være så teksttung? 'Historie i levende billeder' giver en solid indføring i brugen af levende billeder - spille- og dokumentarfilm - i historieundervisningen i STX og HF. Bogen falder i tre dele. Efter metodedelen er der i bogen anden del grundige eksempler på, hvordan analyse af historiske spillefilm og...

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Historien er fuld af historier, og rigtigt mange film fortæller dem. Nogle nært og næsten historisk som Der Untergang, G ood Night, and Good Luck og Thirteen Days, der alle forsøger at genskabe et troværdigt billede af en konkret fortidig begivenhed. Skuespillere agerer kendte historiske personer, som Hitler, CBS-studieværten Edward R. Morrow og John F. Kennedy, og filmene bestræber sig ikke bare på at genskabe fortiden så troværdigt som muligt, men også på at formidle selve det historiske drama, som det "i virkeligheden" fandt sted.

Det er lettere sagt end gjort.

Selv om en film bygger på omfattende research og på historiske kilder, og selv om den kysk holder sig tæt på "sandheden", kommer filmen ikke udenom, at den - som al anden historiefortælling - kun genskaber en lille, udvalgt del af fortiden. Den virkelighed, der fandtes engang, er definitivt forbi og kan kun genskabes som en kulisse, hvor hver detalje er udvalgt, så det ligner vores billede af, hvordan fortiden så ud.

Filmen er med andre ord en nutidig fortolkning af fortiden, og den henvender sig til et helt aktuelt publikum: til os. Det, der interesserer os, er ikke fortiden, men det genskin af vor egen tid og vore egne problemer, konflikter og følelser, som vi ser i den historie, filmen fortæller.

Distance til stoffet
End ikke den mest omhyggelige research og den mest udstrakte brug af scener, der er bygget op over virkelige begivenheder, ændrer filmenes grundlæggende fiktion. Ved at vælge til og skære fra, betone og underbelyse, sammenbinde og adskille skaber filmene deres egen virkelighed, der nok er stærkt inspireret af et historisk drama, men som grundlæggende er iscenesættelse. Alligevel, eller måske netop af samme grund, formidler film stærkt alle de modsætninger og tvetydigheder, fortiden rummer. Hvor den historiske afhandling i bogform kan vælge helt at undlade personers optræden og stadig være både relevant, fascinerende og bevægende, har filmen en unik evne til at sætte levende personer ind i en historisk sammenhæng, så begge får liv og bliver nærværende.

Den afgørende forskel på den gode historiske film og den gode historiske bog er, at mens filmen forbliver iscenesættelse, der skal skabe indlevelse, kan bogen forholde sig med større distance til sit stof og formidle forskellige teser med større nærhed til kilderne. Begge kan forløse den historiske fortælling, og selv om de arbejder forskelligt, har de respekten for den gode historie tilfælles.

Et mere afgørende spring sker hen til den genre, der sætter en historisk ramme omkring en fortælling, som har sin egen dynamik og indre logik. Matador og Krøniken er begge eksempler på, at det ikke er det historiske drama, men den historiske ramme, der inspirerer. Det er tiden snarere end historien, der interesserer. Fortællingerne handler om mennesker og deres indbyrdes relationer. Det historiske er en setting, der giver klangbund og karakter, og som skaber en ydre forandringsproces, der udfordrer de karakterer, som bærer historierne. Historien har sit eget drive og benyttes som den motor, der sikrer bundtrækket i plottet.

Formidlingskraft
Selv om det historiske altså ikke er hovedsagen for hverken Matador eller Krøniken, har sådanne serier, der udfolder sig i et historisk miljø, en formidabel historisk formidlingskraft. Netop fordi det historiske ligger som et lag neden under og uden om de skæbner, vi følger og identificerer os med, tror vi på det som en virkelighed, der ikke sættes spørgsmålstegn ved.

Når vi er med Hitler i bunkeren, er vores kritiske sans helt vågen: Hvor meget af det, vi ser, kan understøttes med kilder og citater? Hvor meget er opspind og gætværk? Selve det kildemæssige spørgsmål bliver interessant, og vi tørster efter at kunne skille "sandhed" fra fiktion, også selv om vi godt ved, at fortiden for længst er forbi og ikke har efterladt nogen endegyldig historisk sandhed, som vi kan udgrave.

Helt omvendt med Matador og Krøniken, hvis fiktive personer jo ikke giver sig ud for at være nogen, vi ville, men nogen vi kunne være stødt på i fortiden. Netop fordi vi godt ved, at det hele er fiktion, opleves den historiske iscenesættelse mere virkelig. Når plottet står i centrum, fortoner de historiske detaljer sig, og forfatter og instruktør genskaber uden smålige hensyn til kildekritik og historievidenskab en historisk ramme, der passer til den historie, filmen vil fortælle.

Moderne myte
At iscenesættelsen bliver mindre kildenær, betyder imidlertid ikke, at den også bliver mindre overbevisende.

Den bliver tværtimod snarere mere overbevisende, særlig når en series skæbner og figurer, som man afsnit for afsnit lærer bedre og bedre at kende, snor sig ind og ud af historien, der dermed fremstår uantastet som deres virkelighed. Kun et enkelt blink med øjet, før deres virkelighed også er vores - altså den virkelighed, vi som land og folk gennemlevede dengang. Den kritiske sans sløves, når det historiske ikke er omdrejningspunktet, men baggrundstæppet.

Når Palle From som ung, håbefuld student i Krøniken møder Jens Otto Krag og får til opgave at skrive en tale for ham, handler det hverken om Jens Otto Krag eller om Danmarks kriseøkonomi omkring 1950. Det handler om Palle From og om den figur, Krøniken gerne vil bygge op omkring ham.

Pointen er ikke, at From er en fiktiv person, og at episoden naturligvis aldrig har fundet sted. At den altså ikke er "sand". Det er for så vidt ligegyldigt. Krøniken vil ikke være "sand". Den vil spinde en moderne myte omkring nogle opdigtede personer, der optræder i en historisk kulisse. Den vil gennem fortællingens dramatiske plot fortælle en underliggende historie om, hvordan den danske folkesjæl blev formet og forandret midt i det tyvende århundrede, og den vil gøre det, så vi sanser selve epoken.

Det virker - sådan som myter ofte gør. Det skaber en stærk fælles historisk oplevelse, som uden tvivl er med til at danne en moderne historisk bevidsthed - ganske uden hensyn til, om faghistorikere kan pege på denne eller hine fejl og forenklinger.

Forståelse af fortiden
I forhold til det historiske er problemet, at fortællingens fokus glider fra tiden med dens problemer og sammenhænge og over til det personlige, som kredser om et par familiers indbyrdes (kærligheds-)forhold og genvordigheder i og omkring radiofabrikken Bella.

Jens Otto Krag var en hovedperson i Danmarks historie, men i Krøniken er han en biperson, en statist, der træder ind og ud af filmens historie. Han optræder som en MacGuffin, en Hitchcock'sk rekvisit, hvis betydning kun ligger i den rolle, som den symbolsk tilkendes for filmens handling. Dermed gør episoden med Palle From os ikke klogere på hverken Krag eller Danmarks historie omkring 1950.

Fra historiske film og tv-serier aflejres billeder og stem-ninger, som mange endda kan genkende, eller mener at kunne genkende, når de ser den svundne tids biler og gader og sommerkjoler genskabt netop sådan, som vi gerne husker dem - eller gerne ville huske dem, hvis vi havde været født dengang. Billederne bliver siddende og kommer for mange til at udgøre den historiske grundfortælling, nemlig det, som man uden videre "ved" om Besættelsen og om 50'erne.

Med billedmediernes fantastiske fascinations- og overbevisningskraft er det i høj grad det billede, de efterlader, der bliver stående. Derfor er det ikke ligegyldigt, hvad det er for en historie, de formidler, eller hvor godt, de gør det.

Når det lykkes Matador og Krøniken at ramme tidsånden og de menneskelige og sociale brydninger, der hørte dengang til, formidler de et virkeligt historisk indtryk. De fortæller en underliggende historie om tidens samfund og om de forandringer, det gennemgik. Når det er bedst, kan det være fremragende historieformidling, som er med til at styrke vores forståelse af fortiden. Når det er værst, forbliver det en kliché uden historisk dybde.

Lette at manipulere
Er der grund til at være bekymret over, at vi som samfund i stadig højere grad lever med den tv- og filmskabte historie som eneste fælles historiske referencepunkt? At med andre ord Korsbæk for de fleste er mere virkelig end Korsør, når det gælder Besættelsen.

Eller, for at udtrykke det mere brutalt, at den skolelærte, faglige historie fortrænges af en medieskabt fortid, som forholder sig afslappet til kilder og kronologi, og som kun i de færreste tilfælde lever op til de faglige krav, historikere ville stille? Svaret er både ja og nej.

I takt med, at den fælles historiske referenceramme bliver stadig mere spinkel, blandt andet fordi historieundervisningen er blevet meget fragmentarisk, svækkes også bevidstheden om den fortid, vi har tilfælles, og forståelsen af, hvordan vi som land og folk kom fra dengang til nu. Det betyder, at vi har sværere ved at gennemskue også aktuelle problemstillinger og bliver lettere at manipulere, når demagoger bruger historiske billeder for at fremme deres synspunkter. Vi har ikke egen viden at holde op mod de lette pointer og forstår hverken, hvordan vi i nutiden ligner eller adskiller os fra dem, der var her før os. Historien er vores kollektive erindring og bærer af vores kultur i bredeste forstand. Uden den mister vi retningssansen.

Sagen er bare den, at det ikke er film og tv, men den svage faglige historiefortælling, der er synderen. Den historiske bevidsthed, der formidles gennem film og tv i en historisk ramme, kan tværtimod være med til i nogen grad at udfylde det historiske hul.

Begrænsningens kunst
De fleste historikere deler appetitten på den gode historie med filmfolk, biografgængere og tv-seere. Tænk blot på, at historikere er de eneste, der har selve historien som deres fag, og som hver dag lever med den dobbelte betydning af ordet, som både betyder "det historiske" og "historien om det".

Derfor tager vi også historien på ordet, eller på billedet, om man vil.

En roman kan digte frit med eller mod kilderne, mens den, der sætter sig for at formidle det historiske, må forholde sig mere nøgternt til de spor, som fortiden har efterladt. Det sætter sine begrænsninger, men giver også vældige muligheder, fordi historien også - ja, måske især - i sin mere stramme form har så vældig fascinationskraft.

Virkeligheden overgår fantasien, og det er svært at forestille sig, hvem der skulle have haft fantasi til at finde på historiens uendelighed af små og store skæbnefortællinger.

Som historiker balancerer man på en line, der er mere eller mindre stramt spændt ud mellem ønsket om at fortælle den gribende historie og den faglige forpligtelse til at holde sig til det, som med rimelighed kan udledes af kilderne - og som i hvert fald aldrig må stride mod dem. Det er den begrænsning, der ligger i det sidste punkt, som de førstnævnte historiske film så nogenlunde respekterer. Og den, som ikke indhegner Matador og Krøniken, fordi de ikke er historiske, men fortællinger sat i en historisk ramme.

Dér står så historikeren med de gode historier, han gerne vil fortælle på film. Af egen faglig erfaring er historikeren overbevist om, at forløsningen af det historiske ligger i begrænsningens kunst. Og medbegrænsning tænkes her hverken på omfang eller tema, men på at begrænse sig til det, som er historisk, det vil sige det, der kan udledes af historiske kilder.

Min påstand er altså, at den historiske filmfortælling lever bedst og udfolder sig mest frit, når den underkaster sig en stram historisk disciplin, der forsøgsvis kan udtrykkes i disse fem enkle fordringer:

1) I filmen optræder kun historiske personer
2) Filmen respekterer begivenhedernes kronologiske rækkefølge
3) Alle scener er stedmæssigt autentiske
4) Handlingsforløb og udlægninger er forankrede i kilder
5) Replikker respekterer, hvad der kunne være sagt

Der findes næppe en spillefilm, der fuldt ud respekterer alle fem fordringer. Måske kan den heller ikke laves, men er det en grund til ikke at forsøge? Grib til historien! Film den!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Historien er fuld af historier, og rigtigt mange film fortæller dem. Nogle nært og næsten historisk som Der Untergang, G ood Night, and Good Luck og Thirteen Days, der alle forsøger at genskabe et troværdigt billede af en konkret fortidig begivenhed. Skuespillere agerer kendte historiske personer, som Hitler, CBS-studieværten Edward R.

# data[].attributes.headline
Gode råd til struktur, fx problemformulering

# data[].attributes.subject
Gode råd til struktur, fx problemformulering

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Hvad er kildekritik? - Københavns Universitet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For det første er det vigtigt at gøre sig klart, at der ikke findes "dårlige" kilder. Det kommer helt an på problemformuleringen, hvilke kilder, der kan bruges. Nazistisk propaganda kan f.eks. ikke sige noget om "hvordan jøderne var", men det kan sige noget om "hvordan nazisterne ønskede at fremstille jøderne".

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Om Film og Historie - nogle metodiske reflektioner | Arne Sørensen | Historie

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Om Film og Historie - nogle metodiske reflektioner