The film Midnight in Paris and the novel Prague both explore the theme of nostalgia and its relationship to history, suggesting that nostalgia it reflects people's personal stories instead of people's collective historical contract, and these personal stories are the things that have an effect on how the present is treated. 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 shared specificities of an event that leave no room for different effects in the future. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The character of Paul in Midnight in Paris directly reflects the idea that personal history is the basis of nostalgia and its implications for the present. During the scene where Paul discusses the meaning behind the Rodin statue (12:15-13:35), he constantly disagrees with the tour guide who says, "Much of Rodin's work was influenced by his wife Camille" . “Yes, he had an influence, even though Camille was not his wife but his lover.” “Camilla? NO." "YES. Yes, Rose was the wife. "No, he was never married to Rose." "Yes, he married Rose, in the last year of their love." "I think you're wrong." Clearly, the tour guide and Paul have different stories about Rodin's work. These are both personal stories as the tour guide and Paul have opposing sources of information about the collective story that is Rodin's work. Both are adamant that their work history is correct because their feelings about work in the present were based on their personal collective of information about work. The correct interpretation of the history of Rodin's work is irrelevant 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 by their personal experiences of Rodin's work. Without divergent views on a collective history, there would be no possibility of active interactions in the present that 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 seen in an interaction between Gil and Gabrielle. The interactions between Gil and Gabrielle's characters suggest an absence of nostalgia through their collective story of 1920s Paris. At the end of the film (1:28:30-1:30:46), Gil offers to take Gabrielle home but then hesitates when it starts raining. Gabrielle replies, “I don't mind getting wet. And indeed, Paris is the most beautiful in the rain." The idea that Paris is more beautiful when it rains is an idea that Gil repeats 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 stories. But since the stories of the two characters of Paris in the rain are shared, they no longer become personal stories but collective stories. As a result, the present is treated directly as both characters' nostalgia for the event; there is no possibility for a different treatment of the future that would discredit the idea that the characters are nostalgic. They don't wish for rain in 1920s Paris because they are experiencing it in the present. The novel Prague makes a statement about nostalgia and history in accord with that of Midnight in Paris. In Prague, the Horváth print reinforces the idea of ​​nostalgia as there is a longing for an unattainable past by symbolizing people's personal stories in response to a.