The film Midnight in Paris and the novel Prague both explore the theme of nostalgia and its relationship to history, suggesting that nostalgia reflects people's personal stories instead of a collective agreement on history, and these personal stories are what have an effect on how the present is processed. Nostalgia is entirely about the feelings an individual experiences in response to a historical event and building the future on those experiences; Nostalgia is not about the common specificities of an event that leave no room for diverse effects in the future. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why violent video games should not be banned"? Get the original essay The character of Paul in Midnight in Paris directly reflects the idea that personal history is the basis of nostalgia and of its implications for the present. During the scene where Paul discusses the meaning of Rodin's statue (12:15-13:35), he still disagrees with the tour guide, saying, "Much of Rodin's work was influenced by his wife, Camille. » “Yes, she had an influence, even if Camille was not his wife but his mistress.” “Camilla? No." "Yes. Yes, Rose was the woman. "No, he was never married to Rose." “Yes, he married Rose, during the last year of their love affair.” “I think you are wrong. » Clearly, the tour guide and Paul have different stories about Rodin's work. These are two personal stories in that the tour guide and Paul have opposing sources of information about the collective history that is Rodin's work. They both firmly believe that their history of the work is correct because their feelings about the work in the present were based on the personal collective of information about the work. The correct interpretation of the history of Rodin's work is not relevant since the two characters did not reach a consensus on the work, but what is relevant is the passion aroused in these characters in the present through their personal experiences of Rodin's work. Without divergent opinions on a collective history, there would be no chance for active interactions in the present, which would also create the possibility of multiple perspectives in the future. Another example in the film that deals with the concepts of personal and collective history is that of an interaction between Gil and Gabrielle. The interactions between the characters of Gil and Gabrielle suggest the absence of nostalgia through their collective history of Paris in the 1920s. At the end of the film (1:28:30-1:30:46), Gil offers to accompany Gabrielle home but then hesitates when it starts to rain. Gabrielle responds, “I don’t mind getting wet. And in fact, Paris is the most beautiful in the rain. The idea that Paris is most beautiful in the rain is one that Gil has repeated throughout the film. Since Gil's wife constantly disagreed with him, finding Gabrielle, who agrees with him, provides Gil with a sense of security in his personal history. But since the stories of the two characters from Paris in the Rain are shared, they no longer become personal stories but a collective story. As a result, the present is directly treated in the same way as both characters' nostalgia for the event; there is no possibility of treating the future differently, which discredits the idea that the characters are nostalgic. They don't yearn for rain in 1920s Paris because they experience it in the present. The novel Prague expresses a statement about nostalgia and history in accordance..