According to film historians there is no such thing as a film history, only one general history of film. What is meant by that? Discuss the notions proposed by film theorists about this belief, as well as the weaknesses of historiography as a theory of film

What will be an ideal response?

Answer: The ideal answer should include:
1. Film historians scoff at the naive notion that there is a film history. Rather, they insist that there are many film histories, and each is defined by the historian’s particular interests, biases, and prejudices.
2. Theorists have charted four different types of film history, each with its own set of philosophical assumptions, methods, and sources of evidence: (1) aesthetic film histories—film as art; (2) technological film histories— motion pictures as inventions and machines; (3) economic histories—film as industry; and (4) social histories—movies as a reflection of the audience’s values, desires, and fears.
3. Each historian concentrates on a given type of evidence, highlighting its significance while de-emphasizing or ignoring “irrelevant” data. Critics sometimes refer to this process of selection and emphasis as foregrounding—isolating fragments of evidence for the purpose of closer study. Foregrounding is always an implicit value judgment.
4. Each type of film historian necessarily wrenches these fragments from their ecological context, thus presenting us with a somewhat skewed view of the whole. Each type of historian will also choose to focus on different movies, personalities, and events.
5. In Film History: Theory and Practice, Robert C. Allen and Douglas Gomery set forth the principal advantages and shortcomings of the various types of film history, arguing that a more integrated approach would minimize the dangers of distortion. As in other areas of film theory, film history is increasingly being viewed as a monolithic ecological system that must be studied from various perspectives to be comprehensively understood.