Los Angeles Documentary and the Production of Public History

In this review of Los Angeles Documentary and the Production of Public History, 1958-1977, the reviewer finds a focused, archival study ideal for readers interested in film history and urban social change. Joshua Glick traces how documentarians between the Kennedy era and the Bicentennial produced competing narratives of American memory, showing both mainstream Hollywood practitioners and radical independents drawing on archives and civic institutions. The book's strongest reason to buy is its close use of primary documents and film case studies to reveal how documentary practice shaped public history in a deeply divided city.

Key Features

• Archival research: The book uses a wide range of primary documents to support claims about film practice and public memory.
• Film case studies: Specific analysis of filmmakers such as David Wolper, Mel Stuart, and Kent Mackenzie clarifies different approaches to documentary work.
• Comparative framing: Glick contrasts mainstream Hollywood documentarians with independents and activists to highlight ideological differences in representation.
• Urban focus: Concentrating on Los Angeles, the text situates films within the city's class stratification and racial segregation for deeper historical context.
• Institutional perspective: The study traces how filmmakers engaged archives and civic institutions, showing practical routes for producing public history.

Who It's For

This book is for scholars, graduate students, and serious readers of film and public history who want a grounded, document-driven account of how documentary filmmaking influenced civic memory in mid-20th-century Los Angeles. It will also interest archivists and historians of the Americas who study state and local cultural production.

Readers seeking a general audience survey or a how-to guide for filmmaking should look elsewhere, as the text emphasizes analysis of films and archival materials rather than production technique or light popular storytelling.

Pros & Cons

Pros

• Detailed archival evidence supports the book's arguments about documentary practice and public history.
• Clear comparative chapters show the contrast between Hollywood documentarians and activist filmmakers.
• The Los Angeles focus gives specificity to discussions of race, class, and civic institutions in film production.

Cons

• The specialized, academic tone may be dense for casual readers or those looking for a broad popular history.

Specifications

Title	Los Angeles Documentary and the Production of Public History, 1958-1977
Author	Joshua Glick
Period covered	1958-1977
Geographic focus	Los Angeles, United States
Subjects	Documentary film, public history, archives, civic institutions
Filmmakers discussed	David Wolper, Mel Stuart, Kent Mackenzie, Lynne Littman, Jesus Salvador Trevino

Our Verdict

Glick's study is a persuasive, well-documented contribution for readers who want to understand how documentary filmmaking shaped public memory in a major American city during a pivotal era. Its archival depth and focused case studies make it good value for scholars and advanced students, though casual readers should expect a dense, analytical read rather than a breezy narrative.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does this book focus only on Hollywood documentarians?
The book examines both Hollywood figures and lesser-known independents and activists to compare competing documentary approaches.

Is the work primarily archival or theoretical?
It is primarily archival, relying on a wide range of primary documents while situating findings in historical and cultural analysis.

Will readers learn filmmaking technique from this book?
No, the book analyzes films and institutions rather than offering practical production instruction.