Post-modernists, such as Keith Jenkins and Hayden White argue that is impossible to totally step out of one's own world. They claim that all history is interpretation, and is merely 'a representation of the past, not the past itself' . Our society greatly influences the way in which we approach, read and interpret history. So, in this sense, filmmakers, trained or not, are as subjected to their own societal values and attitudes in their interpretations of history as historians are. .
But to what degree do films necessarily reflect the attitudes of the society in which they were created? History is not carved in stone. The past does not change, however our evaluation and interpretation of the past (this being history) changes as our societal values change over time. Film is no different. William Hughes states that films are 'visual recreations' and that they reflect popular attitudes and are also indicators of 'covert culture traits'. He goes further to explain that a feature film is not the work of one person, like a novel, but rather a collective effort of many involved all with the desire to profit from their labour. In order to attract an audience the films will 'necessarily reflect those themes, attitudes, values, stars and styles which will best guarantee popular success ' On the whole, it is not unreasonable to assume that films do reflect the values of the society within which they were created. The film industry makes a conscious effort to appeal to the wider public and popular attitudes; therefore controversial attitudes are unsurprisingly avoided. Hence, historic feature films are not made to cater for students of history, but rather to satisfy potential audiences. There is an exception in experimental and art house independent films, however, again, this type of cinema is restricted to a small audience and is not viewed by the wider public. .
Film is a useful indicator of societies changing views.
