The ideas of using videos for history or history in film are not a new development in the slightest. People have been making historic movies since the invention of movies pretty much, though their accuracy is questionable a lot of the time. Hollywood's obsession with period pieces aside, shorter history videos have been around for almost as long. I have very vivid memories of a specific National Film Board 20 minute short titled The Voyageurs (1964) that played on a constant loop in the background of a job I had with Parks Canada at Fort St. Joseph National Historic Site (which you can watch here, if you're willing to spend the rest of your day singing C'est l'aviron much like I will be now). The NFB is a really great resource for films considered "culturally significant" to Canada, which coincidentally includes a lot of "history" related films.
Another idea of short history films that pretty much anyone who watched TV in Canada from the 1990s until now has been exposed to the Heritage Minutes produced by Historica Canada. The basis of these is in 60 seconds, a quick overview of a significant event in Canadian history. Some of the more popular ones include the invention of basketball (peach baskets, anyone?) and the Halifax Explosion. For almost thirty years (!!), the Heritage Minutes have been entertaining Canadians on commercial breaks (and now online). There's also CrashCourse on YouTube, started by John and Hank Green that has some really informative, short videos that can give someone the basic understanding of pretty much anything, and there's almost 100 of them related to history in some way, which is probably every high school student's dream (most of these were made after I graduated high school, yikes for me). The idea of using short videos to get information across is becoming more and more prominent, especially with the popularity of social media. As someone with a tragically short attention span, I really appreciate the existence of these videos if I need to grasp a basic understanding of something, but obviously we can't hold them as the be-all-end-all source.
Recently, everyone in Digital History got the marks back for our podcasts that we handed in at the beginning of the month. You may remember my overview of my own podcast, "Culinary Landmarks": Exploring Culinary Heritage from a blog post a few weeks back, and if you don't that's fine because I'm going to talk about it here again. What I feel was the star of my podcast was the discussion of the unfortunate existence of salmon pudding (Tim stated that my podcast should have had the subtitle "It looks like a bread pudding; it tastes like cat food” and I wholeheartedly agree, but hindsight is 20/20). I am not a serious person. I have never claimed to be a serious person. If I can make a joke (and the setting is appropriate) I will make it. The idea of a totally serious podcast never appealed to me, so I had fun with it while trying to make it informative. Part of my research process for my podcast included actually making the salmon pudding, and before recording the podcast audio I made a short (8 minute) video of everything. Some of my language is less than professional (and potentially NSFW) but I am highly amused by it, and it provides a good visual for what I was actually dealing with salmon pudding-wise. This is by no means professionally done as it was mostly recorded in Snapchat to send to some people who had a vested interest in the process, but I figured I'd share it here anyway to add to the different types of history in video.
Without further ado, salmon pudding, live in colour.