Murder at Harvard, reviewed

Schama’s book, Dead Certainties presented several problems for me, the most compelling of which was that Schama failed to differentiate between fact and fiction.  He presented the story as a narrative, and without prior knowledge of the Parkman murder, it was hard to know which part of his story could be fact checked and which could not.  The film, Murder at Harvard, was much clearer about making the distinction, and it allowed Schama the chance to tell his audience which parts of the book were his own imagination.

The film had several problems, notably Schama himself.  If it was not for his commentary, the film might have been able to come across as a documentary, or an episode that could have been shown on the History Channel.  It presented an episode of American history that has not been resolved, and different view points regarding what really took place.  These types of films, particularly those involving re-enactments are valuable and can be a great tool for the general public.  Unfortunately, Murder at Harvard stopped with Schama’s take on the events around Parkman’s murder.  The film makes use of several experts, but stops short of really allowing them to debate the issue and the murder, instead they seem almost to be mouthpieces for Schama’s conclusions.

It might be that reading the book influenced my dislike of the film, but I disagreed with Schama’s classification of his story as history.  He presented no source material at all to support his conclusions. Schama makes the point in the film, and it has also been discussed in this blog that the distance between history and fiction is short.  That might be true, but the distance is not anywhere near as short as Schama portrays.  The difference between solid history and fictional speculation is that history built on evidence and facts.  While the movie certainly has more historical merit than the book, Schama is incorrect to pass off his story as anything but fiction.

I believe that the documentary as an art form has great benefits and can be an extremely useful teaching tool.  I do not think that Murder at Harvard falls into this category.  Documentary, when produced properly, can tell a story about a historical event, illuminate an ongoing controversy, and display informed debate.  Schama and Murder at Harvard displays one side of the controversy without letting its audience make their own conclusions.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
One Response
  1. lparks says:

    I definitely agree with your reactions to Dead Certainties. To me, it was historical fiction and nothing about it could be considered true historical scholarship. I also agree with your point that Murder at Harvard is not a good example of documentary film if it’s interpreted as telling the story of the murder case itself. Schama inserts himself, his bias, and his thought process into the film too much for it to be an objective telling of the story. However, I don’t think that this was the type of documentary he set out to make. I think the argument can be made that he was documenting the writing of the book and the development of his arguments about what happened, rather than the pure history of the case. If you look at it from this perspective, it makes sense for Schama’s opinions to be featured so prominently and his conclusions to take precedence.