Explore the vast range of titles available.

The New American Cinema Group (NACG) organized various tours across Europe throughout the 1960s. Known as the New American Cinema Expositions, these became instrumental in the conceptualization of the NAC and would lay foundations for emerging historiographies of experimental film. Applying historian Allan Megill's three concepts of historiography--affirmative, critical, and didactic--we argue that most of experimental film history has been either affirmative or didactic. Hence, based on extensive archival research, this article sets out to accomplish a critical historiography. We discuss the organization, presentation, development, and reception of three stops of the NAC expositions--the Festival dei Due Mondi (Festival of Two Worlds) in Spoleto, Italy (1961), Moderna Museet in Stockholm (1964), and the Freunde der Deutschen Kinemathek in West Berlin (1967). Our analysis highlights the discrepancies and differences among the shows and permits us to question and problematize the narrative and historiography of the NAC.

Is the use of private messaging apps like Signal by politicians erasing crucial historical evidence? Historian Niall Ferguson warns that in the future it might be much harder to write the biographies of modern leaders.

A new wave of progressive historians have not only challenged older accounts of the American Revolution but portrayed their interpretations as overturning an overwhelmingly dominant mainstream consensus or as revealing ignored but essential aspects of the revolution. These historians sometimes associate their own work with the New York Times' controversial 1619 Project. In this article, I examine the writings of two such historians: William Hogeland and Woody Holton. In contrast to their popular articles, their purely scholarly works do not in fact support the sweeping factual claims of the 1619 Project. While both these historians have their own unique perspective, focus, and contributions, they in no way are running up against a monolithic consensus or dramatically overturning standard interpretations of the revolution.

A new wave of progressive historians have not only challenged older accounts of the American Revolution but portrayed their interpretations as overturning an overwhelmingly dominant mainstream consensus or as revealing ignored but essential aspects of the revolution. These historians sometimes associate their own work with the New York Times' controversial 1619 Project. In this article, I examine the writings of two such historians: William Hogeland and Woody Holton. In contrast to their popular articles, their purely scholarly works do not in fact support the sweeping factual claims of the 1619 Project. While both these historians have their own unique perspective, focus, and contributions, they in no way are running up against a monolithic consensus or dramatically overturning standard interpretations of the revolution.

A new wave of progressive historians have not only challenged older accounts of the American Revolution but portrayed their interpretations as overturning an overwhelmingly dominant mainstream consensus or as revealing ignored but essential aspects of the revolution. These historians sometimes associate their own work with the New York Times' controversial 1619 Project. In this article, I examine the writings of two such historians: William Hogeland and Woody Holton. In contrast to their popular articles, their purely scholarly works do not in fact support the sweeping factual claims of the 1619 Project. While both these historians have their own unique perspective, focus, and contributions, they in no way are running up against a monolithic consensus or dramatically overturning standard interpretations of the revolution.

For many years there has been disagreement about the innovative trick films issued by Robert Paul during the late 1890s and early 1900s. Some historians have maintained that Paul was largely responsible for their creation, while others argue that they were the work of stage magician Walter Robert Booth. Although Paul's life and career has been fully documented by Dr. John Barnes and Professor Ian Christie, little has previously been known about Booth. New research strongly suggest that Booth was responsible for many of the films and that his influence can be detected in numerous aspects of their production.

As said by Alfred Korzybski, time-binding is the most prevalent ability, which is by and large clubbed the spiritual or mental ability of man as it makes erstwhile accomplishments subsist in the present and present enterprises in futurity. It is an ability that facilitates; it is an ability that brings about; it is an ability that can decipher the past and forecast the future; it is a historian as well as a prophet; it is an ability that loads abstract time, the vehicle of events, with an ever-accumulating obligation of double-dome accomplishments, of spiritual bushel predestined for the refinement of thought, manners, or taste of all future generations. But unfortunately, some people infelicitously employ this ability and because of that, they and the people around them face many disastrous causes as a consequence. Dharmaraja Yudhisthira is a failed time-binder, and a wrong evaluator as well. Even after getting horribly humiliated by the Kauravas, Yudhisthira accepts the second proposal sent by Duryodhana and Shakuni. Pitamah Bhishma warned Yudhisthira not to fall into their trap, but Yudhisthira, being a follower of Dharma and a King, accepts their second proposal and plays the dice game. He even evaluates Duryodhana wrongly while accepting the proposal. He accepts the punishment as it was declared without any objections. At that time, if he had allowed Pitamah Bhishma and other elders to have a talk over the given punishment, the consequences could have been in their part. But the latter never happened and it resulted into The Grand War of Kurukshetra.