McClurken Wiki

<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php</b> on line <b>195</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>571</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>585</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>578</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>603</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>553</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>186</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>203</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>196</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>212</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>175</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php</b> on line <b>135</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php</b> on line <b>234</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php</b> on line <b>292</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php</b> on line <b>755</b><br />
<br />
<b>Warning</b>:  preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php</b> on line <b>907</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>627</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>629</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>630</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>631</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>633</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>634</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php</b> on line <b>402</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/skins/common/feed.css?303"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Agrussell</id>
		<title>McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Agrussell"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Agrussell"/>
		<updated>2026-09-18T19:11:31Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.22.0</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 15 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-12-04T01:46:26Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* Comments on Reading in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039; */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m going to assume that all of the video clips and radio broadcasts were the originals, so showing the clips and audio clips of the time brings authenticity to the movie. Seeing as the movie was released only a few years after the scandal dissipated, and two years after Nixon&amp;#039;s resignation, it feels real. Nixon&amp;#039;s impeachment hearings made history back in the 1970s, and much like 9/11 was to us in 2003, people remember how they felt during that time. It&amp;#039;s akin to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in that it&amp;#039;s so close to the event. Unlike in the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039; where people were acting as people who lived two hundred years ago, these actors -remember-. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went.  The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film didn&amp;#039;t do a ton to explain this in detail, but through the newspaper headlines we see that Eagleton was picked as the original VP but then in other news snippets we see that McGovern is forced to be dropped from the ticket. Then in one of the planning meetings the editors joke over how nobody wants to take the now vacant VP spot, referencing the names mentioned in class. While this was something that fell outside of the focus of the film, it was nice to see that it was subtly worked into the story.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the women shown working in this movie were doing various types of secretarial work, and not working as say reporters.  I&amp;#039;m guessing this is an accurate portrayal of working women of this time, since this movie took place during the woman&amp;#039;s rights movement.  -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wondered for a while why &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; always introduced themselves as &amp;quot;Hi this is ____ from the Washington Post,&amp;quot; and then go on. But then I realized that it was important (at least back then) for reporters to identify themselves. I felt that the &amp;quot;on record&amp;quot; vs &amp;quot;off record&amp;quot; barriers were really clearly defined. Somehow I am a little skeptical that reporters today are so gracious and just, though I haven&amp;#039;t been interviewed by the Washington Post recently so how do I really know? - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kellye&amp;#039;s comment about Deep Throat, I thought his role in the movie was sufficient.  In the film, it seemed that Woodward only went to his source when he and Bernstein ran into a road-block during their investigation (which was often).  I also wondered why DT only met with Woodward and not Bernstein, but apparently DT was only Woodward&amp;#039;s source and DT never met Bernstein at all during the investigation.  This was key when Felt (DT) was asked if he ever leaked information to Woodward AND Bernstein.  According to the book, Woodward wondered if Felt denied this and got out of it b/c of a technicality (he only leaked info to Woodward).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt the movie did a pretty good job of portraying the relationship of Bernstein and Woodward. Though they worked together in the movie their were several signs that they didn&amp;#039;t particularly like each other since they would do things without telling each other about it and they were portrayed a bit competitive. This movie also does a good job at showing the depth and significance of CREEP in showing just how deep they were in the American government and talking about the various things they were involved in. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps things have changed since the 70s, but how did Woodstein never get caught in traffic? I mean this is DC we are talking about here. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am curious as to whether the safety of Woodward and Bernstein was played up for the sake of the film? Certainly they were being spied on, but did they really have to fear their lives? That whole fear aspect seemed a bit awkward in the film and I am curious if it was a real fear or something played up to add tension in the film?- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the book and in the movie, Woodward would put the flag up whenever he wanted to meet w/ Deep Throat, and DT would mark the NY Times in case he wanted to meet w/ Woodward.  However, the movie primarily showed Woodward making an effort to meet DT.  How often did DT request to meet w/ Woodward?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a hard time believing that it was so easy to get into contact with high ranking White House officials. I am fairly certain that White House security was not that lax. Woodward and Bernstein would need to get into contact with someone and could just call the direct lines to their secretaries. I may be wrong but this seems unrealistic to me. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
Would this movie really be a secondary source about the Watergate scandal? Dr. McClurken said that the filmmaker was thinking about making the movie as the scandal was happening and that the rights to make a movie out of the book was bought some time around then.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One revelation that the movie showed through Woodstein&amp;#039;s work that I think is important is how the dirty tricks had been going on since long before the Watergate break-in, back at least to the formation of CREEP.  At one point, Bradlee told Woodstein that only half the public polled had heard of the name Watergate.  We know that by the time Nixon resigned, the whole nation knew about it, but they may not have known just how far back it went.  With all Woodstein&amp;#039;s investigation and the stated realization of how much larger the issue was than the break-in, this shows that CREEP&amp;#039;s workings had been successfully kept secret for a long time. -Whitney Holcomb.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Kellye, this movie may have definitely helped to push people over to Democrats in 1976 because they were reminded right before the election about the Watergate Scandal and that many Republicans tried to cover it up and lied about it.--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning, there was darkness and it was good; then there was a loud and jolting noise of a typewriter. I wonder if the filmmakers did that to convey how the American were in relation to knowing what was going on with President Nixon? The people were happy because they didn&amp;#039;t know what was happening, then Woodstein reported what their investigation had uncovered and since they wrote via the typewriter, that machine woke the population up with a startle.-Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tagging onto Christine&amp;#039;s comment, I think it was a very important preface to the movie that McClurken specified that it was a movie about the Washington Post breaking the story of Watergate. Part of me was like &amp;quot;what? we didn&amp;#039;t see what actually happens!&amp;quot; but we did see the Post succeed in cracking the story, and the trial and all those details were irrelevant to the Post story. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that it shows the half-legitimate ways Woodstein were &amp;quot;confirming&amp;quot; information from sources.  They could be very indirect, without making the people being questioned explicitly state an answer, effectively getting information from those who didn&amp;#039;t want to talk.  My favorite was when Bernstein counted to ten on the phone about Haldeman.  Also, there was getting the bookkeeper to nod at the initials L, M, and P.  Third, when they got Sloan to finally say that he &amp;quot;would not have a problem&amp;quot; with their accusatory article if they published it. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reference to Dr. M&amp;#039;s reference to the Orioles in lecture, I recognized the actor who played Rosenfeld, Jack Warden, as Juror 7 from 12 Angry Men. He was the guy who kept wanting to reach a verdict quickly because he had Yankees tickets and said the line which still resonates for dopes like me who still root for the O&amp;#039;s: &amp;quot;Baltimore? That&amp;#039;s like being hit in the head with a crow bar once a day. &amp;quot; Ugh. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too am a Baltimore sports fan! Baltimore Sports teams have been quite successful considering none of their franchises are ancient. The Colts were only in Baltimore for roughly 30 years yet had many championships to boast. They were also involved in some of the most pivotal games in NFL history: the 1958 Championship game versus the New York Giants which ushered in the era of televised football, Super Bowl III where the upstart New York Jets from the Mickey Mouse League (the AFL) beat the Colts in one of the biggest upsets leading to the merger in 1970, and &amp;quot;the ghost to the post&amp;quot; game in 1977 vs. the Raiders. The Orioles were a great team in the late &amp;#039;60s and early &amp;#039;70s and could have won even more championships. Cal Ripken will go down as one of the best and purest players in the game, now if he could just take over the team they could return to prominence. Now to my point, I think this is an important movie because without the Post article (or any other press investigation of the break-in) there is a good chance that the crimes of the Nixon administration would have gone unchecked. Movies like Stone&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Nixon&amp;#039;&amp;#039; do not place much emphasis on the Post article, but without Woodstein&amp;#039;s work would there have been a resignation? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of the methods of historical movies talked about in &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; are present in this movie. Historic TV clips were used throughout the movie and did a good job of helping contributing to the historic feel of the movie. They also follow the method of the protagonist character Bernstein and Woodward and villian character CREEP and those involved with the coverup. There is always a feeling of paranoia throughout the movie showed by the dark scenes and especially when Woodward meets with Bernstein to show the potential danger even when it never directly shows any characters planning to do anything against Woodward and Bernstein. There is also the resolution at the end of the movie that shows the success of the protagonists. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall Comments on Movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I completely agree that this type of journalism is vital to preserving democracy, does anyone feel like in the post-Watergate world we are too quick in assuming the worst of our politicians (perhaps this is a bad question in the post Bush era)? This was a sentiment brought up in a book I had to read for another class which addressed declining voter turnout, and I was curious if anyone else felt that the media now perhaps tries too hard to uncover the next Watergate? The book (The Vanishing Voter) argues that the media has taken a &amp;quot;never again&amp;quot; type stance toward political corruption and that this has at times led to overly negative news coverage, which has in turn depressed voters into apathy towards the whole political process. Is this a change in the practices of the media, or has this simply been exacerbated by the 24/7 news hole? This is a tricky situation in that we need to be kept abreast of these types of abuses, but after a while every little lead on political corruption does take its toll.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It&amp;#039;s largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was more of a lecture thing, but I did not realize how popular Nixon was. “Nixon and the environment”, “Nixon and China”, even “Nixon and Vietnam” seemed to all be pluses for him- and his approval ratings showed it. Nixon was an effective President, but because of Watergate I suppose that effectiveness will always be suspect. Because of the aforementioned reasons I kept asking myself, why would Nixon do this? Why would he utterly destroy his opponents when he had achieved rather impressive political feats?(I guess that begs the question: did he only have successes because of the obliteration of his opponents?) Either way I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that Nixon was a man so fraught with insecurity that he could never be satisfied with his successes.  Nixon was so plagued by his past failures that he was determined to have as much power as possible. The Alger Hiss case and The Checkers Speech were our warnings, but alas!-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very glad that the -Gate phenomenon was referenced in lecture. That is something that seriously drives me nuts. Who decides what gets -Gate status anyway? Why is there a Troopergate and Cigargate, but other political scandals get off the -Gate hook, so to speak? Why wasn&amp;#039;t John Edwards&amp;#039; cheating scandal called Infidelity-gate, or Dick Cheney&amp;#039;s hunting incident a few years back Shot-in-the-face-gate? Is there some unwritten journalist code that determines this naming process? And just last year this practice made its way into the sports world with the Spygate scandal that tainted the Patriots&amp;#039; undefeated regular season. What happens if there is a scandal involving an American spy in the future? Does this theoretical incident then get dubbed Spygate II, or does it get a less cool sounding -Gate name, I mean shouldn&amp;#039;t real life spies get first dibs on the -Gate name? What happens when there is a political scandal on the Golden Gate Bridge, is it then called Golden Gate-Gate or is that too stupid? What if there is a scandal literally involving a gate? Does this bother anyone else? Is it sad that I can muster more vitriol over something trivial like a scandal naming process rather than the scandal that supplied the name in the first place? Can I fit any more questions into a wiki-post?- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So I did some research and apparently there are 3 (!) Troopergates, 2 Spygates (both of which were sports related, as real spies the world over are no doubt shaking their heads in dismay) and 2 Grannygates. Also, there is an Iguanagate, a Tasergate (Sweet), and even a Bingogate. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Niiiice. Well said.  And no, I don&amp;#039;t think it&amp;#039;s sad that you&amp;#039;ve mustered this much vitriol about a trivial aspect. I do the same thing sometimes.  However, that may mean I&amp;#039;m just a sad case, too. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of sad that the name combo has degenerated in much the same way as the -Gate phenomenon. Where Woodstein was a combo of two young journalists on the rise, now we are subjected to Bennifer, Branjelina and others. I blame Nixon.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised by how small a role Deep Throat seemed to play in the film. He is referenced so much in pop culture and has been parodied by The Simpsons AND Family Guy, so he seems like a big deal. In the movie, though, he didn&amp;#039;t really do much or even seem to help that much. I guess I was just surprised by the amount of controversy over DT contrasted with what seems to be the role he played. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I&amp;#039;m in the minority so far... I really didn&amp;#039;t like the movie, I kept staring at the time elapse to see how much time was left in the film.  I was hoping I would like it because it sounded similar to the film I did for my project, but I just couldn&amp;#039;t get into this one. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;All the President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; had an interesting way of telling the Watergate Scandal. As we learned about the scandal yesterday we went from the inside out, whereas in the film we go from the outside in. It definitely gives a different but very informative perspective. I also found it interesting how little of a part Nixon played. Aside from the various news clips, which did give the movie an accurate feel, his name was not mentioned as often as other White House names. The movie focused more on his lackeys. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on Reading in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; mentioned how the other important figures involved in uncovering Watergate are never really talked about in the movie. I think it is reasonable in this movie because the movie never shows what really happens to cause Nixon to resign and never shows anything of what happens in the courts. The movie really is not about the Watergate Scandal, but about the role of Bernstein and Woodward in investigating the scandal. I think the primary message the movie is presenting is that Bernstein and Woodward helped pave the way towards the exposure of Nixon even if they did not have the big role in the Nixon investigations. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say, I liked how Toplin commented, in &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; that even if a historical film is horrible there is usually something correct about it, Such as the clothing or the backdrop setting.  There are very few comprehensive failures.  I really liked that, because we&amp;#039;ve had a variety of films this semester, ones that have been fairly awesome to not so much... (i.e. Pocahontas), but all of them have had some resounding correctness to it... even if just the backdrop scenery. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Toplin&amp;#039;s criticism of the movie is that it portrays Woodstein as being solely responsible for investigating and uncovering the Watergate scandal. I actually think that the film spent a good amount of time on the Post editors, Sloan, Segretti, the woman in charge of the money, etc. It seemed to show that they didn&amp;#039;t do it all on their own, and they had a lot of help along the way. Maybe part of his criticism is the fact that, regardless of the other characters in the movie, society has remembered only Woodstein (when we&amp;#039;ve discussed all semester how historical films should convey actual history to people). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case of this movie, though applicable to many historical films, I don&amp;#039;t think that criticism of creative license is overly important. For example, I don&amp;#039;t care if the exchanges between Woodstein were word-for-word. What is important is conveying the big picture story. I will agree, as we have discussed all semester, that the addition of new things is often pointless and off-putting to historians; however, as Toplin says, historical evidence is so fragmented, it is impossible to convey all sides. George Kennan discusses this idea in an article we read in 299, where he says that a historian, at the time they are writing, can only see such a small portion of the historical truth, and always at an angle - it is impossible to see all evidence from all sides. We can&amp;#039;t deny that historical books face the same problems, but the movies sure do get more people excited and interested (esp for a movie like this - how many kids wanted to grow up and be Wash Post reporters??) -- Amanda Russell&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 15 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-12-04T01:31:05Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* Comments on Reading in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039; */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m going to assume that all of the video clips and radio broadcasts were the originals, so showing the clips and audio clips of the time brings authenticity to the movie. Seeing as the movie was released only a few years after the scandal dissipated, and two years after Nixon&amp;#039;s resignation, it feels real. Nixon&amp;#039;s impeachment hearings made history back in the 1970s, and much like 9/11 was to us in 2003, people remember how they felt during that time. It&amp;#039;s akin to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in that it&amp;#039;s so close to the event. Unlike in the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039; where people were acting as people who lived two hundred years ago, these actors -remember-. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went.  The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film didn&amp;#039;t do a ton to explain this in detail, but through the newspaper headlines we see that Eagleton was picked as the original VP but then in other news snippets we see that McGovern is forced to be dropped from the ticket. Then in one of the planning meetings the editors joke over how nobody wants to take the now vacant VP spot, referencing the names mentioned in class. While this was something that fell outside of the focus of the film, it was nice to see that it was subtly worked into the story.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the women shown working in this movie were doing various types of secretarial work, and not working as say reporters.  I&amp;#039;m guessing this is an accurate portrayal of working women of this time, since this movie took place during the woman&amp;#039;s rights movement.  -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wondered for a while why &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; always introduced themselves as &amp;quot;Hi this is ____ from the Washington Post,&amp;quot; and then go on. But then I realized that it was important (at least back then) for reporters to identify themselves. I felt that the &amp;quot;on record&amp;quot; vs &amp;quot;off record&amp;quot; barriers were really clearly defined. Somehow I am a little skeptical that reporters today are so gracious and just, though I haven&amp;#039;t been interviewed by the Washington Post recently so how do I really know? - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kellye&amp;#039;s comment about Deep Throat, I thought his role in the movie was sufficient.  In the film, it seemed that Woodward only went to his source when he and Bernstein ran into a road-block during their investigation (which was often).  I also wondered why DT only met with Woodward and not Bernstein, but apparently DT was only Woodward&amp;#039;s source and DT never met Bernstein at all during the investigation.  This was key when Felt (DT) was asked if he ever leaked information to Woodward AND Bernstein.  According to the book, Woodward wondered if Felt denied this and got out of it b/c of a technicality (he only leaked info to Woodward).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt the movie did a pretty good job of portraying the relationship of Bernstein and Woodward. Though they worked together in the movie their were several signs that they didn&amp;#039;t particularly like each other since they would do things without telling each other about it and they were portrayed a bit competitive. This movie also does a good job at showing the depth and significance of CREEP in showing just how deep they were in the American government and talking about the various things they were involved in. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps things have changed since the 70s, but how did Woodstein never get caught in traffic? I mean this is DC we are talking about here. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am curious as to whether the safety of Woodward and Bernstein was played up for the sake of the film? Certainly they were being spied on, but did they really have to fear their lives? That whole fear aspect seemed a bit awkward in the film and I am curious if it was a real fear or something played up to add tension in the film?- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the book and in the movie, Woodward would put the flag up whenever he wanted to meet w/ Deep Throat, and DT would mark the NY Times in case he wanted to meet w/ Woodward.  However, the movie primarily showed Woodward making an effort to meet DT.  How often did DT request to meet w/ Woodward?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a hard time believing that it was so easy to get into contact with high ranking White House officials. I am fairly certain that White House security was not that lax. Woodward and Bernstein would need to get into contact with someone and could just call the direct lines to their secretaries. I may be wrong but this seems unrealistic to me. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
Would this movie really be a secondary source about the Watergate scandal? Dr. McClurken said that the filmmaker was thinking about making the movie as the scandal was happening and that the rights to make a movie out of the book was bought some time around then.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One revelation that the movie showed through Woodstein&amp;#039;s work that I think is important is how the dirty tricks had been going on since long before the Watergate break-in, back at least to the formation of CREEP.  At one point, Bradlee told Woodstein that only half the public polled had heard of the name Watergate.  We know that by the time Nixon resigned, the whole nation knew about it, but they may not have known just how far back it went.  With all Woodstein&amp;#039;s investigation and the stated realization of how much larger the issue was than the break-in, this shows that CREEP&amp;#039;s workings had been successfully kept secret for a long time. -Whitney Holcomb.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Kellye, this movie may have definitely helped to push people over to Democrats in 1976 because they were reminded right before the election about the Watergate Scandal and that many Republicans tried to cover it up and lied about it.--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning, there was darkness and it was good; then there was a loud and jolting noise of a typewriter. I wonder if the filmmakers did that to convey how the American were in relation to knowing what was going on with President Nixon? The people were happy because they didn&amp;#039;t know what was happening, then Woodstein reported what their investigation had uncovered and since they wrote via the typewriter, that machine woke the population up with a startle.-Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tagging onto Christine&amp;#039;s comment, I think it was a very important preface to the movie that McClurken specified that it was a movie about the Washington Post breaking the story of Watergate. Part of me was like &amp;quot;what? we didn&amp;#039;t see what actually happens!&amp;quot; but we did see the Post succeed in cracking the story, and the trial and all those details were irrelevant to the Post story. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that it shows the half-legitimate ways Woodstein were &amp;quot;confirming&amp;quot; information from sources.  They could be very indirect, without making the people being questioned explicitly state an answer, effectively getting information from those who didn&amp;#039;t want to talk.  My favorite was when Bernstein counted to ten on the phone about Haldeman.  Also, there was getting the bookkeeper to nod at the initials L, M, and P.  Third, when they got Sloan to finally say that he &amp;quot;would not have a problem&amp;quot; with their accusatory article if they published it. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reference to Dr. M&amp;#039;s reference to the Orioles in lecture, I recognized the actor who played Rosenfeld, Jack Warden, as Juror 7 from 12 Angry Men. He was the guy who kept wanting to reach a verdict quickly because he had Yankees tickets and said the line which still resonates for dopes like me who still root for the O&amp;#039;s: &amp;quot;Baltimore? That&amp;#039;s like being hit in the head with a crow bar once a day. &amp;quot; Ugh. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too am a Baltimore sports fan! Baltimore Sports teams have been quite successful considering none of their franchises are ancient. The Colts were only in Baltimore for roughly 30 years yet had many championships to boast. They were also involved in some of the most pivotal games in NFL history: the 1958 Championship game versus the New York Giants which ushered in the era of televised football, Super Bowl III where the upstart New York Jets from the Mickey Mouse League (the AFL) beat the Colts in one of the biggest upsets leading to the merger in 1970, and &amp;quot;the ghost to the post&amp;quot; game in 1977 vs. the Raiders. The Orioles were a great team in the late &amp;#039;60s and early &amp;#039;70s and could have won even more championships. Cal Ripken will go down as one of the best and purest players in the game, now if he could just take over the team they could return to prominence. Now to my point, I think this is an important movie because without the Post article (or any other press investigation of the break-in) there is a good chance that the crimes of the Nixon administration would have gone unchecked. Movies like Stone&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Nixon&amp;#039;&amp;#039; do not place much emphasis on the Post article, but without Woodstein&amp;#039;s work would there have been a resignation? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of the methods of historical movies talked about in &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; are present in this movie. Historic TV clips were used throughout the movie and did a good job of helping contributing to the historic feel of the movie. They also follow the method of the protagonist character Bernstein and Woodward and villian character CREEP and those involved with the coverup. There is always a feeling of paranoia throughout the movie showed by the dark scenes and especially when Woodward meets with Bernstein to show the potential danger even when it never directly shows any characters planning to do anything against Woodward and Bernstein. There is also the resolution at the end of the movie that shows the success of the protagonists. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall Comments on Movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I completely agree that this type of journalism is vital to preserving democracy, does anyone feel like in the post-Watergate world we are too quick in assuming the worst of our politicians (perhaps this is a bad question in the post Bush era)? This was a sentiment brought up in a book I had to read for another class which addressed declining voter turnout, and I was curious if anyone else felt that the media now perhaps tries too hard to uncover the next Watergate? The book (The Vanishing Voter) argues that the media has taken a &amp;quot;never again&amp;quot; type stance toward political corruption and that this has at times led to overly negative news coverage, which has in turn depressed voters into apathy towards the whole political process. Is this a change in the practices of the media, or has this simply been exacerbated by the 24/7 news hole? This is a tricky situation in that we need to be kept abreast of these types of abuses, but after a while every little lead on political corruption does take its toll.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It&amp;#039;s largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was more of a lecture thing, but I did not realize how popular Nixon was. “Nixon and the environment”, “Nixon and China”, even “Nixon and Vietnam” seemed to all be pluses for him- and his approval ratings showed it. Nixon was an effective President, but because of Watergate I suppose that effectiveness will always be suspect. Because of the aforementioned reasons I kept asking myself, why would Nixon do this? Why would he utterly destroy his opponents when he had achieved rather impressive political feats?(I guess that begs the question: did he only have successes because of the obliteration of his opponents?) Either way I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that Nixon was a man so fraught with insecurity that he could never be satisfied with his successes.  Nixon was so plagued by his past failures that he was determined to have as much power as possible. The Alger Hiss case and The Checkers Speech were our warnings, but alas!-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very glad that the -Gate phenomenon was referenced in lecture. That is something that seriously drives me nuts. Who decides what gets -Gate status anyway? Why is there a Troopergate and Cigargate, but other political scandals get off the -Gate hook, so to speak? Why wasn&amp;#039;t John Edwards&amp;#039; cheating scandal called Infidelity-gate, or Dick Cheney&amp;#039;s hunting incident a few years back Shot-in-the-face-gate? Is there some unwritten journalist code that determines this naming process? And just last year this practice made its way into the sports world with the Spygate scandal that tainted the Patriots&amp;#039; undefeated regular season. What happens if there is a scandal involving an American spy in the future? Does this theoretical incident then get dubbed Spygate II, or does it get a less cool sounding -Gate name, I mean shouldn&amp;#039;t real life spies get first dibs on the -Gate name? What happens when there is a political scandal on the Golden Gate Bridge, is it then called Golden Gate-Gate or is that too stupid? What if there is a scandal literally involving a gate? Does this bother anyone else? Is it sad that I can muster more vitriol over something trivial like a scandal naming process rather than the scandal that supplied the name in the first place? Can I fit any more questions into a wiki-post?- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So I did some research and apparently there are 3 (!) Troopergates, 2 Spygates (both of which were sports related, as real spies the world over are no doubt shaking their heads in dismay) and 2 Grannygates. Also, there is an Iguanagate, a Tasergate (Sweet), and even a Bingogate. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Niiiice. Well said.  And no, I don&amp;#039;t think it&amp;#039;s sad that you&amp;#039;ve mustered this much vitriol about a trivial aspect. I do the same thing sometimes.  However, that may mean I&amp;#039;m just a sad case, too. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of sad that the name combo has degenerated in much the same way as the -Gate phenomenon. Where Woodstein was a combo of two young journalists on the rise, now we are subjected to Bennifer, Branjelina and others. I blame Nixon.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised by how small a role Deep Throat seemed to play in the film. He is referenced so much in pop culture and has been parodied by The Simpsons AND Family Guy, so he seems like a big deal. In the movie, though, he didn&amp;#039;t really do much or even seem to help that much. I guess I was just surprised by the amount of controversy over DT contrasted with what seems to be the role he played. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I&amp;#039;m in the minority so far... I really didn&amp;#039;t like the movie, I kept staring at the time elapse to see how much time was left in the film.  I was hoping I would like it because it sounded similar to the film I did for my project, but I just couldn&amp;#039;t get into this one. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;All the President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; had an interesting way of telling the Watergate Scandal. As we learned about the scandal yesterday we went from the inside out, whereas in the film we go from the outside in. It definitely gives a different but very informative perspective. I also found it interesting how little of a part Nixon played. Aside from the various news clips, which did give the movie an accurate feel, his name was not mentioned as often as other White House names. The movie focused more on his lackeys. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on Reading in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; mentioned how the other important figures involved in uncovering Watergate are never really talked about in the movie. I think it is reasonable in this movie because the movie never shows what really happens to cause Nixon to resign and never shows anything of what happens in the courts. The movie really is not about the Watergate Scandal, but about the role of Bernstein and Woodward in investigating the scandal. I think the primary message the movie is presenting is that Bernstein and Woodward helped pave the way towards the exposure of Nixon even if they did not have the big role in the Nixon investigations. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say, I liked how Toplin commented, in &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; that even if a historical film is horrible there is usually something correct about it, Such as the clothing or the backdrop setting.  There are very few comprehensive failures.  I really liked that, because we&amp;#039;ve had a variety of films this semester, ones that have been fairly awesome to not so much... (i.e. Pocahontas), but all of them have had some resounding correctness to it... even if just the backdrop scenery. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Toplin&amp;#039;s criticism of the movie is that it portrays Woodstein as being solely responsible for investigating and uncovering the Watergate scandal. I actually think that the film spent a good amount of time on the Post editors, Sloan, Segretti, the woman in charge of the money, etc. It seemed to show that they didn&amp;#039;t do it all on their own, and they had a lot of help along the way. Maybe part of his criticism is the fact that, regardless of the other characters in the movie, society has remembered only Woodstein (when we&amp;#039;ve discussed all semester how historical films should convey actual history to people). --Amanda Russell&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 15 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-12-04T01:30:26Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* Comments on Reading in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039; */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m going to assume that all of the video clips and radio broadcasts were the originals, so showing the clips and audio clips of the time brings authenticity to the movie. Seeing as the movie was released only a few years after the scandal dissipated, and two years after Nixon&amp;#039;s resignation, it feels real. Nixon&amp;#039;s impeachment hearings made history back in the 1970s, and much like 9/11 was to us in 2003, people remember how they felt during that time. It&amp;#039;s akin to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in that it&amp;#039;s so close to the event. Unlike in the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039; where people were acting as people who lived two hundred years ago, these actors -remember-. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went.  The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film didn&amp;#039;t do a ton to explain this in detail, but through the newspaper headlines we see that Eagleton was picked as the original VP but then in other news snippets we see that McGovern is forced to be dropped from the ticket. Then in one of the planning meetings the editors joke over how nobody wants to take the now vacant VP spot, referencing the names mentioned in class. While this was something that fell outside of the focus of the film, it was nice to see that it was subtly worked into the story.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the women shown working in this movie were doing various types of secretarial work, and not working as say reporters.  I&amp;#039;m guessing this is an accurate portrayal of working women of this time, since this movie took place during the woman&amp;#039;s rights movement.  -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wondered for a while why &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; always introduced themselves as &amp;quot;Hi this is ____ from the Washington Post,&amp;quot; and then go on. But then I realized that it was important (at least back then) for reporters to identify themselves. I felt that the &amp;quot;on record&amp;quot; vs &amp;quot;off record&amp;quot; barriers were really clearly defined. Somehow I am a little skeptical that reporters today are so gracious and just, though I haven&amp;#039;t been interviewed by the Washington Post recently so how do I really know? - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kellye&amp;#039;s comment about Deep Throat, I thought his role in the movie was sufficient.  In the film, it seemed that Woodward only went to his source when he and Bernstein ran into a road-block during their investigation (which was often).  I also wondered why DT only met with Woodward and not Bernstein, but apparently DT was only Woodward&amp;#039;s source and DT never met Bernstein at all during the investigation.  This was key when Felt (DT) was asked if he ever leaked information to Woodward AND Bernstein.  According to the book, Woodward wondered if Felt denied this and got out of it b/c of a technicality (he only leaked info to Woodward).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt the movie did a pretty good job of portraying the relationship of Bernstein and Woodward. Though they worked together in the movie their were several signs that they didn&amp;#039;t particularly like each other since they would do things without telling each other about it and they were portrayed a bit competitive. This movie also does a good job at showing the depth and significance of CREEP in showing just how deep they were in the American government and talking about the various things they were involved in. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps things have changed since the 70s, but how did Woodstein never get caught in traffic? I mean this is DC we are talking about here. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am curious as to whether the safety of Woodward and Bernstein was played up for the sake of the film? Certainly they were being spied on, but did they really have to fear their lives? That whole fear aspect seemed a bit awkward in the film and I am curious if it was a real fear or something played up to add tension in the film?- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the book and in the movie, Woodward would put the flag up whenever he wanted to meet w/ Deep Throat, and DT would mark the NY Times in case he wanted to meet w/ Woodward.  However, the movie primarily showed Woodward making an effort to meet DT.  How often did DT request to meet w/ Woodward?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a hard time believing that it was so easy to get into contact with high ranking White House officials. I am fairly certain that White House security was not that lax. Woodward and Bernstein would need to get into contact with someone and could just call the direct lines to their secretaries. I may be wrong but this seems unrealistic to me. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
Would this movie really be a secondary source about the Watergate scandal? Dr. McClurken said that the filmmaker was thinking about making the movie as the scandal was happening and that the rights to make a movie out of the book was bought some time around then.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One revelation that the movie showed through Woodstein&amp;#039;s work that I think is important is how the dirty tricks had been going on since long before the Watergate break-in, back at least to the formation of CREEP.  At one point, Bradlee told Woodstein that only half the public polled had heard of the name Watergate.  We know that by the time Nixon resigned, the whole nation knew about it, but they may not have known just how far back it went.  With all Woodstein&amp;#039;s investigation and the stated realization of how much larger the issue was than the break-in, this shows that CREEP&amp;#039;s workings had been successfully kept secret for a long time. -Whitney Holcomb.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Kellye, this movie may have definitely helped to push people over to Democrats in 1976 because they were reminded right before the election about the Watergate Scandal and that many Republicans tried to cover it up and lied about it.--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning, there was darkness and it was good; then there was a loud and jolting noise of a typewriter. I wonder if the filmmakers did that to convey how the American were in relation to knowing what was going on with President Nixon? The people were happy because they didn&amp;#039;t know what was happening, then Woodstein reported what their investigation had uncovered and since they wrote via the typewriter, that machine woke the population up with a startle.-Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tagging onto Christine&amp;#039;s comment, I think it was a very important preface to the movie that McClurken specified that it was a movie about the Washington Post breaking the story of Watergate. Part of me was like &amp;quot;what? we didn&amp;#039;t see what actually happens!&amp;quot; but we did see the Post succeed in cracking the story, and the trial and all those details were irrelevant to the Post story. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that it shows the half-legitimate ways Woodstein were &amp;quot;confirming&amp;quot; information from sources.  They could be very indirect, without making the people being questioned explicitly state an answer, effectively getting information from those who didn&amp;#039;t want to talk.  My favorite was when Bernstein counted to ten on the phone about Haldeman.  Also, there was getting the bookkeeper to nod at the initials L, M, and P.  Third, when they got Sloan to finally say that he &amp;quot;would not have a problem&amp;quot; with their accusatory article if they published it. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reference to Dr. M&amp;#039;s reference to the Orioles in lecture, I recognized the actor who played Rosenfeld, Jack Warden, as Juror 7 from 12 Angry Men. He was the guy who kept wanting to reach a verdict quickly because he had Yankees tickets and said the line which still resonates for dopes like me who still root for the O&amp;#039;s: &amp;quot;Baltimore? That&amp;#039;s like being hit in the head with a crow bar once a day. &amp;quot; Ugh. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too am a Baltimore sports fan! Baltimore Sports teams have been quite successful considering none of their franchises are ancient. The Colts were only in Baltimore for roughly 30 years yet had many championships to boast. They were also involved in some of the most pivotal games in NFL history: the 1958 Championship game versus the New York Giants which ushered in the era of televised football, Super Bowl III where the upstart New York Jets from the Mickey Mouse League (the AFL) beat the Colts in one of the biggest upsets leading to the merger in 1970, and &amp;quot;the ghost to the post&amp;quot; game in 1977 vs. the Raiders. The Orioles were a great team in the late &amp;#039;60s and early &amp;#039;70s and could have won even more championships. Cal Ripken will go down as one of the best and purest players in the game, now if he could just take over the team they could return to prominence. Now to my point, I think this is an important movie because without the Post article (or any other press investigation of the break-in) there is a good chance that the crimes of the Nixon administration would have gone unchecked. Movies like Stone&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Nixon&amp;#039;&amp;#039; do not place much emphasis on the Post article, but without Woodstein&amp;#039;s work would there have been a resignation? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of the methods of historical movies talked about in &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; are present in this movie. Historic TV clips were used throughout the movie and did a good job of helping contributing to the historic feel of the movie. They also follow the method of the protagonist character Bernstein and Woodward and villian character CREEP and those involved with the coverup. There is always a feeling of paranoia throughout the movie showed by the dark scenes and especially when Woodward meets with Bernstein to show the potential danger even when it never directly shows any characters planning to do anything against Woodward and Bernstein. There is also the resolution at the end of the movie that shows the success of the protagonists. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall Comments on Movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I completely agree that this type of journalism is vital to preserving democracy, does anyone feel like in the post-Watergate world we are too quick in assuming the worst of our politicians (perhaps this is a bad question in the post Bush era)? This was a sentiment brought up in a book I had to read for another class which addressed declining voter turnout, and I was curious if anyone else felt that the media now perhaps tries too hard to uncover the next Watergate? The book (The Vanishing Voter) argues that the media has taken a &amp;quot;never again&amp;quot; type stance toward political corruption and that this has at times led to overly negative news coverage, which has in turn depressed voters into apathy towards the whole political process. Is this a change in the practices of the media, or has this simply been exacerbated by the 24/7 news hole? This is a tricky situation in that we need to be kept abreast of these types of abuses, but after a while every little lead on political corruption does take its toll.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It&amp;#039;s largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was more of a lecture thing, but I did not realize how popular Nixon was. “Nixon and the environment”, “Nixon and China”, even “Nixon and Vietnam” seemed to all be pluses for him- and his approval ratings showed it. Nixon was an effective President, but because of Watergate I suppose that effectiveness will always be suspect. Because of the aforementioned reasons I kept asking myself, why would Nixon do this? Why would he utterly destroy his opponents when he had achieved rather impressive political feats?(I guess that begs the question: did he only have successes because of the obliteration of his opponents?) Either way I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that Nixon was a man so fraught with insecurity that he could never be satisfied with his successes.  Nixon was so plagued by his past failures that he was determined to have as much power as possible. The Alger Hiss case and The Checkers Speech were our warnings, but alas!-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very glad that the -Gate phenomenon was referenced in lecture. That is something that seriously drives me nuts. Who decides what gets -Gate status anyway? Why is there a Troopergate and Cigargate, but other political scandals get off the -Gate hook, so to speak? Why wasn&amp;#039;t John Edwards&amp;#039; cheating scandal called Infidelity-gate, or Dick Cheney&amp;#039;s hunting incident a few years back Shot-in-the-face-gate? Is there some unwritten journalist code that determines this naming process? And just last year this practice made its way into the sports world with the Spygate scandal that tainted the Patriots&amp;#039; undefeated regular season. What happens if there is a scandal involving an American spy in the future? Does this theoretical incident then get dubbed Spygate II, or does it get a less cool sounding -Gate name, I mean shouldn&amp;#039;t real life spies get first dibs on the -Gate name? What happens when there is a political scandal on the Golden Gate Bridge, is it then called Golden Gate-Gate or is that too stupid? What if there is a scandal literally involving a gate? Does this bother anyone else? Is it sad that I can muster more vitriol over something trivial like a scandal naming process rather than the scandal that supplied the name in the first place? Can I fit any more questions into a wiki-post?- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So I did some research and apparently there are 3 (!) Troopergates, 2 Spygates (both of which were sports related, as real spies the world over are no doubt shaking their heads in dismay) and 2 Grannygates. Also, there is an Iguanagate, a Tasergate (Sweet), and even a Bingogate. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Niiiice. Well said.  And no, I don&amp;#039;t think it&amp;#039;s sad that you&amp;#039;ve mustered this much vitriol about a trivial aspect. I do the same thing sometimes.  However, that may mean I&amp;#039;m just a sad case, too. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of sad that the name combo has degenerated in much the same way as the -Gate phenomenon. Where Woodstein was a combo of two young journalists on the rise, now we are subjected to Bennifer, Branjelina and others. I blame Nixon.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised by how small a role Deep Throat seemed to play in the film. He is referenced so much in pop culture and has been parodied by The Simpsons AND Family Guy, so he seems like a big deal. In the movie, though, he didn&amp;#039;t really do much or even seem to help that much. I guess I was just surprised by the amount of controversy over DT contrasted with what seems to be the role he played. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I&amp;#039;m in the minority so far... I really didn&amp;#039;t like the movie, I kept staring at the time elapse to see how much time was left in the film.  I was hoping I would like it because it sounded similar to the film I did for my project, but I just couldn&amp;#039;t get into this one. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;All the President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; had an interesting way of telling the Watergate Scandal. As we learned about the scandal yesterday we went from the inside out, whereas in the film we go from the outside in. It definitely gives a different but very informative perspective. I also found it interesting how little of a part Nixon played. Aside from the various news clips, which did give the movie an accurate feel, his name was not mentioned as often as other White House names. The movie focused more on his lackeys. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on Reading in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; mentioned how the other important figures involved in uncovering Watergate are never really talked about in the movie. I think it is reasonable in this movie because the movie never shows what really happens to cause Nixon to resign and never shows anything of what happens in the courts. The movie really is not about the Watergate Scandal, but about the role of Bernstein and Woodward in investigating the scandal. I think the primary message the movie is presenting is that Bernstein and Woodward helped pave the way towards the exposure of Nixon even if they did not have the big role in the Nixon investigations. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say, I liked how Toplin commented, in &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; that even if a historical film is horrible there is usually something correct about it, Such as the clothing or the backdrop setting.  There are very few comprehensive failures.  I really liked that, because we&amp;#039;ve had a variety of films this semester, ones that have been fairly awesome to not so much... (i.e. Pocahontas), but all of them have had some resounding correctness to it... even if just the backdrop scenery. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Toplin&amp;#039;s criticism of the movie is that it portrays Woodstein as being solely responsible for investigating and uncovering the Watergate scandal. I actually think that the film spent a good amount of time on the Post editors, Sloan, Segretti, the woman in charge of the money, etc. It seemed to show that they didn&amp;#039;t do it all on their own, and they had a lot of help along the way. Maybe part of his criticism is the fact that, regardless of the other characters in the movie, society has remembered only Woodstein. --Amanda Russell&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 15 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-12-03T20:53:12Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 6 Overall Comments on Movie */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m going to assume that all of the video clips and radio broadcasts were the originals, so showing the clips and audio clips of the time brings authenticity to the movie. Seeing as the movie was released only a few years after the scandal dissipated, and two years after Nixon&amp;#039;s resignation, it feels real. Nixon&amp;#039;s impeachment hearings made history back in the 1970s, and much like 9/11 was to us in 2003, people remember how they felt during that time. It&amp;#039;s akin to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in that it&amp;#039;s so close to the event. Unlike in the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039; where people were acting as people who lived two hundred years ago, these actors -remember-. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went.  The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film didn&amp;#039;t do a ton to explain this in detail, but through the newspaper headlines we see that Eagleton was picked as the original VP but then in other news snippets we see that McGovern is forced to be dropped from the ticket. Then in one of the planning meetings the editors joke over how nobody wants to take the now vacant VP spot, referencing the names mentioned in class. While this was something that fell outside of the focus of the film, it was nice to see that it was subtly worked into the story.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the women shown working in this movie were doing various types of secretarial work, and not working as say reporters.  I&amp;#039;m guessing this is an accurate portrayal of working women of this time, since this movie took place during the woman&amp;#039;s rights movement.  -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wondered for a while why &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; always introduced themselves as &amp;quot;Hi this is ____ from the Washington Post,&amp;quot; and then go on. But then I realized that it was important (at least back then) for reporters to identify themselves. I felt that the &amp;quot;on record&amp;quot; vs &amp;quot;off record&amp;quot; barriers were really clearly defined. Somehow I am a little skeptical that reporters today are so gracious and just, though I haven&amp;#039;t been interviewed by the Washington Post recently so how do I really know? - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kellye&amp;#039;s comment about Deep Throat, I thought his role in the movie was sufficient.  In the film, it seemed that Woodward only went to his source when he and Bernstein ran into a road-block during their investigation (which was often).  I also wondered why DT only met with Woodward and not Bernstein, but apparently DT was only Woodward&amp;#039;s source and DT never met Bernstein at all during the investigation.  This was key when Felt (DT) was asked if he ever leaked information to Woodward AND Bernstein.  According to the book, Woodward wondered if Felt denied this and got out of it b/c of a technicality (he only leaked info to Woodward).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps things have changed since the 70s, but how did Woodstein never get caught in traffic? I mean this is DC we are talking about here. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am curious as to whether the safety of Woodward and Bernstein was played up for the sake of the film? Certainly they were being spied on, but did they really have to fear their lives? That whole fear aspect seemed a bit awkward in the film and I am curious if it was a real fear or something played up to add tension in the film?- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the book and in the movie, Woodward would put the flag up whenever he wanted to meet w/ Deep Throat, and DT would mark the NY Times in case he wanted to meet w/ Woodward.  However, the movie primarily showed Woodward making an effort to meet DT.  How often did DT request to meet w/ Woodward?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
Would this movie really be a secondary source about the Watergate scandal? Dr. McClurken said that the filmmaker was thinking about making the movie as the scandal was happening and that the rights to make a movie out of the book was bought some time around then.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One revelation that the movie showed through Woodstein&amp;#039;s work that I think is important is how the dirty tricks had been going on since long before the Watergate break-in, back at least to the formation of CREEP.  At one point, Bradlee told Woodstein that only half the public polled had heard of the name Watergate.  We know that by the time Nixon resigned, the whole nation knew about it, but they may not have known just how far back it went.  With all Woodstein&amp;#039;s investigation and the stated realization of how much larger the issue was than the break-in, this shows that CREEP&amp;#039;s workings had been successfully kept secret for a long time. -Whitney Holcomb.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning, there was darkness and it was good; then there was a loud and jolting noise of a typewriter. I wonder if the filmmakers did that to convey how the American were in relation to knowing what was going on with President Nixon? The people were happy because they didn&amp;#039;t know what was happening, then Woodstein reported what their investigation had uncovered and since they wrote via the typewriter, that machine woke the population up with a startle.-Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tagging onto Christine&amp;#039;s comment, I think it was a very important preface to the movie that McClurken specified that it was a movie about the Washington Post breaking the story of Watergate. Part of me was like &amp;quot;what? we didn&amp;#039;t see what actually happens!&amp;quot; but we did see the Post succeed in cracking the story, and the trial and all those details were irrelevant to the Post story. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that it shows the half-legitimate ways Woodstein were &amp;quot;confirming&amp;quot; information from sources.  They could be very indirect, without making the people being questioned explicitly state an answer, effectively getting information from those who didn&amp;#039;t want to talk.  My favorite was when Bernstein counted to ten on the phone about Haldeman.  Also, there was getting the bookkeeper to nod at the initials L, M, and P.  Third, when they got Sloan to finally say that he &amp;quot;would not have a problem&amp;quot; with their accusatory article if they published it. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reference to Dr. M&amp;#039;s reference to the Orioles in lecture, I recognized the actor who played Rosenfeld, Jack Warden, as Juror 7 from 12 Angry Men. He was the guy who kept wanting to reach a verdict quickly because he had Yankees tickets and said the line which still resonates for dopes like me who still root for the O&amp;#039;s: &amp;quot;Baltimore? That&amp;#039;s like being hit in the head with a crow bar once a day. &amp;quot; Ugh. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too am a Baltimore sports fan! Baltimore Sports teams have been quite successful considering none of their franchises are ancient. The Colts were only in Baltimore for roughly 30 years yet had many championships to boast. They were also involved in some of the most pivotal games in NFL history: the 1958 Championship game versus the New York Giants which ushered in the era of televised football, Super Bowl III where the upstart New York Jets from the Mickey Mouse League (the AFL) beat the Colts in one of the biggest upsets leading to the merger in 1970, and &amp;quot;the ghost to the post&amp;quot; game in 1977 vs. the Raiders. The Orioles were a great team in the late &amp;#039;60s and early &amp;#039;70s and could have won even more championships. Cal Ripken will go down as one of the best and purest players in the game, now if he could just take over the team they could return to prominence. Now to my point, I think this is an important movie because without the Post article (or any other press investigation of the break-in) there is a good chance that the crimes of the Nixon administration would have gone unchecked. Movies like Stone&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Nixon&amp;#039;&amp;#039; do not place much emphasis on the Post article, but without Woodstein&amp;#039;s work would there have been a resignation? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall Comments on Movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I completely agree that this type of journalism is vital to preserving democracy, does anyone feel like in the post-Watergate world we are too quick in assuming the worst of our politicians (perhaps this is a bad question in the post Bush era)? This was a sentiment brought up in a book I had to read for another class which addressed declining voter turnout, and I was curious if anyone else felt that the media now perhaps tries too hard to uncover the next Watergate? The book (The Vanishing Voter) argues that the media has taken a &amp;quot;never again&amp;quot; type stance toward political corruption and that this has at times led to overly negative news coverage, which has in turn depressed voters into apathy towards the whole political process. Is this a change in the practices of the media, or has this simply been exacerbated by the 24/7 news hole? This is a tricky situation in that we need to be kept abreast of these types of abuses, but after a while every little lead on political corruption does take its toll.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It&amp;#039;s largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was more of a lecture thing, but I did not realize how popular Nixon was. “Nixon and the environment”, “Nixon and China”, even “Nixon and Vietnam” seemed to all be pluses for him- and his approval ratings showed it. Nixon was an effective President, but because of Watergate I suppose that effectiveness will always be suspect. Because of the aforementioned reasons I kept asking myself, why would Nixon do this? Why would he utterly destroy his opponents when he had achieved rather impressive political feats?(I guess that begs the question: did he only have successes because of the obliteration of his opponents?) Either way I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that Nixon was a man so fraught with insecurity that he could never be satisfied with his successes.  Nixon was so plagued by his past failures that he was determined to have as much power as possible. The Alger Hiss case and The Checkers Speech were our warnings, but alas!-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very glad that the -Gate phenomenon was referenced in lecture. That is something that seriously drives me nuts. Who decides what gets -Gate status anyway? Why is there a Troopergate and Cigargate, but other political scandals get off the -Gate hook, so to speak? Why wasn&amp;#039;t John Edwards&amp;#039; cheating scandal called Infidelity-gate, or Dick Cheney&amp;#039;s hunting incident a few years back Shot-in-the-face-gate? Is there some unwritten journalist code that determines this naming process? And just last year this practice made its way into the sports world with the Spygate scandal that tainted the Patriots&amp;#039; undefeated regular season. What happens if there is a scandal involving an American spy in the future? Does this theoretical incident then get dubbed Spygate II, or does it get a less cool sounding -Gate name, I mean shouldn&amp;#039;t real life spies get first dibs on the -Gate name? What happens when there is a political scandal on the Golden Gate Bridge, is it then called Golden Gate-Gate or is that too stupid? What if there is a scandal literally involving a gate? Does this bother anyone else? Is it sad that I can muster more vitriol over something trivial like a scandal naming process rather than the scandal that supplied the name in the first place? Can I fit any more questions into a wiki-post?- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So I did some research and apparently there are 3 (!) Troopergates, 2 Spygates (both of which were sports related, as real spies the world over are no doubt shaking their heads in dismay) and 2 Grannygates. Also, there is an Iguanagate, a Tasergate (Sweet), and even a Bingogate. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Niiiice. Well said.  And no, I don&amp;#039;t think it&amp;#039;s sad that you&amp;#039;ve mustered this much vitriol about a trivial aspect. I do the same thing sometimes.  However, that may mean I&amp;#039;m just a sad case, too. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of sad that the name combo has degenerated in much the same way as the -Gate phenomenon. Where Woodstein was a combo of two young journalists on the rise, now we are subjected to Bennifer, Branjelina and others. I blame Nixon.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised by how small a role Deep Throat seemed to play in the film. He is referenced so much in pop culture and has been parodied by The Simpsons AND Family Guy, so he seems like a big deal. In the movie, though, he didn&amp;#039;t really do much or even seem to help that much. I guess I was just surprised by the amount of controversy over DT contrasted with what seems to be the role he played. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on Reading in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Project_List</id>
		<title>329--Project List</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Project_List"/>
				<updated>2008-11-11T05:59:47Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 329--Project List */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 329--Project List ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Place your name and the link to the start of your project below.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
James Drury: [http://jwdrury.umwblogs.org/]   jwdrury.umwblogs.org/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye Sorber: http://ksorb2yv.umwblogs.org/apollo-13-study/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley Wilkins: http://awilkins.umwblogs.org/  (Its a variety of pages on the Side Links, 5 to be exact)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elle Weaver: http://eweaver.umwblogs.org/bonnieandclyde/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mary Beth Conrad:  http://embea.umwblogs.org/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash Nelson: http://nickn87.umwblogs.org/2008/11/06/jfk-project-page-one/ (the blog directly after this one chronologically is part two, and then the biblio)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whitney Holcomb: http://wholcomb.umwblogs.org/sounder/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jonathan Bell: http://jbell2ja.umwblogs.org/history-in-film-patton/ Mine is all in one page with two columns read the left side first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lauren: [http://pyrgress.umwblogs.org] I have the main article and a &amp;quot;works cited&amp;quot; post. Be sure to look at both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly Wuyscik: http://kwuyscik.umwblogs.org/thirteen-days/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Flores:  http://daflo05.umwblogs.org/cinderella-man-introduction/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan Mull: http://bmull.umwblogs.org/introduction-to-the-searchers/ (Follow right side page links)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine W.: http://cwueb5yr.umwblogs.org/pearl-harbor-project/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katherine Stinson: http://kstinson88.umwblogs.org/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amanda Russell: http://agrussell.umwblogs.org/wall-street-the-project/&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-06T01:57:03Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 4 Public reaction/impact */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as source about the mid-1940s US (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, 31% of all marriages existing in the US in 1946 ended in divorce that year.  This would have been due to a variety of causes, primarily from the readjusting to family or friends.  People can change a lot in three years, and remember there were quick marriages like Fred&amp;#039;s before deployment, women becoming independent, veterans having mental problems, but also the new marriages like Homer coming home to marry his girl, though I don&amp;#039;t know numbers for that, and, of course, the baby boom.  I think this film pretty well represents different marriage situations resulting from war.  Al kept his marriage and loved his family, but now he drank more. However, I believe that his wife Milly still being the sweetest, most selfless person in the movie is just that image of the ideal wife to a returning husband. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I&amp;#039;m glad to be seeing this after the lecture.  Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn&amp;#039;t help Fred much.  One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tidbits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn&amp;#039;t just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We didn&amp;#039;t discuss this in class, but the I think it was common for soldiers fighting in Japan to take items such as samurai swords as souvenirs, like what Al brought home.  I interviewed my great-uncle, about his WWII experiences for my oral history project, and he talked about souvenirs he got from Japan, including a samurai sword, which he still has.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women represented in the film were all very independent. I felt that this was accurate to the time because they were forced to be autonomous while their men were away. This can be demonstrated in Marie taking a job at the nightclub, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
In addition - the film portrayed how the workforce had moved on without the soldiers. There were several grumbles about jobs not being safe due to the returning veterans, and it was obviously a source of tension for both sides of the conflict. Finally, in regards to war time production - the scene where they fly in and see all the unused airplanes that will be scrapped is pretty accurate as well.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does well at showing what soldiers returning from overseas had to face when they came back home.  Freddy comes home to learn that his wife has found a new job and moved in with herself, Mr. Stevenson(AL) finds that he is entitled to an even better job (unlike Fred) and Homer faces the tough task of adjusting to life in general with artificial hands.  Although it may seem that Homer faces the most psychological challenge, Freddy also faces challenges of confronting his past, as war memories seem to haunt him sporadically throughout the movie.  The wives of the soldiers also seem to be portrayed in extremes; Homer&amp;#039;s wife supports him and shows her love for him more than the other two and Freddy&amp;#039;s wife gave him a hard as they end up divorcing.  I would talk more about Al, but he just seems to have no problems at all at adjusting with the exception of maybe an acute fondness of drinking. -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Got a few notes on the economic issues portrayed in the film.  The movie shows Mr. Cameron making predictions that there will be a depression because of all the soldiers returning home, a widespread thought at the time.  Also, I thought other servicemen were guaranteed loans, however Al seems overly hesitant to give a loan to another serviceman because he has no collateral.  The movie also makes reference to and shows soldiers receiving unemployment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
War time savings put a lot of soldiers at an advantage, or at least helped make their transition home a lot easier.  Fred mentions he saved 1000 or received it from the treasury somehow.  That seems like a lot of money in an economy when groceries might have been a few cents and the most expensive of perfumes were a few bucks.  How did he go through all that money so fast?--Especially since the time span of the movie looks to only be a few months if that.--James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that the returning soldiers didn&amp;#039;t let Homers lose of hands effect the relationship. they are initially thrown off but accept it in a considerably short time. But his family take a long time to accept his situation. I  feel this is a good description of how families had a hard time dealing with returning soldiers, and how they often assumed that soldier was psychologically changed.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the depiction of the mental state of all three men was an accurate account of how some people were after the war.  Homer mostly fit right back in no problem, but he had his disability to work through, which many families had to deal with after the war.  Fred had the marriage right before the war, that in ended in divorce after the war.  Al was the example of the returning veteran who had been married long before the war, and dealt with a drinking problem after the war.  I felt the movie accurately depicted at least three varieties of people&amp;#039;s experiences after the war. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning when the three main characters are returning home in a taxi, Homer suggests &amp;quot;going to Butch&amp;#039;s for a drink&amp;quot; before being dropped off at his home.  This statement had some implications, primarily the anxiety being felt by the soldiers about returning home.  This is important because it shows that the hesitance and reluctance goes both ways (between soldiers and their families).  Furthermore, I assumed that all the men would be excited about returning home, but this movie shows how complex their feelings were about returning to their families.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with portraying how upon entering Boone, the soldiers are almost shocked to find that nothing has changed. Visually, to them, it seemed as if they never left home. I believe it&amp;#039;s Homer who points out that men are playing golf and the high school football team was playing a game and it is he who first points out that nothing has changed. As we discussed in class, these veterans saw and experienced things that most Americans couldn&amp;#039;t even conceive. For these men to have changed so drastically and to come home to a place that seemed as if time had stood still, was an idea they had a hard time grasping. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the scene with Fred and all of the now defunct places was really staggering and drove home the question of what happens after the war and what does a nation do. It&amp;#039;s also a subtle nod to the droves of people who must have been working to crank out so many planes during the war and echoes their uselessness post-war. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jonathan, the movie is limited to three experiences in one town.  There&amp;#039;s no broad sense of understanding how many troops actually came back and how they would have impacted societal, economic, and political realms of small towns, states, and the nation. -JamesD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The minority issue was a HUGE issue for me too as I watched the film, those of us who watched it at the regular screening actually started counting at one point - I believe that there were only three black people that I remember in the film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue I had might not be one at all.  In the unemployment line there were women.  I thought the scene was depicting the unemployment checks being handed out to veterans, I thought women didn&amp;#039;t get veterans pay for many years.  Or was it just unemployment in general? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that Peggy accuses her parents of never having had troubles. Considering the time that the movie takes place, the Great Depression was not that long ago, and most likely put at least a little strain on many marriages. Somehow the idea of a traditional wedding and a fancy honeymoon equals a good marriage, and I think this is an example of social myths we are still trying to get away from. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My biggest issue with the representation of minorities was that Fred was so dismissive of his medals for heroism, when so many (unrepresented) women and racial minorities weren&amp;#039;t even awarded medals for what they did. Despite the medals being handed out &amp;quot;with the rations,&amp;quot; I feel as if this was probably not true for groups like the WASPS. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that struck me from a portion of the reading was how hard it must have been on loved ones who were awaiting their sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends return home. In the reading it mentions that letters are sent to wounded soldiers family members. The letters weren&amp;#039;t specific - just a &amp;quot;seriously injured&amp;quot; category and a forwarding address. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine having that little information about a loved one. All in all, I think that the film primarily focuses its attention on how it would have been to be a veteran returning to home, and somewhat avoided the situation of how life really was for those who had been left behind. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Fred is packing up to leave Boone City, he lets his parents keep the citations for his medals.  He tells them they just came with his K-rations, and they don&amp;#039;t mean much to him.  Does this mean that his citation was like a fill-in-the-blank that lots of people in his situation (whatever exactly that may have been) got, something that they were all issued?  Or that the citation was just so insignificant that it merely came with rations?  Paul Fussell reveals the dishonesty behind writing medal citations, and Fred&amp;#039;s attitude toward his is that it is also essentially meaningless.  Whatever it may be, his parents take pride in it, so that&amp;#039;s one mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ah, the ubiquitous &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;! Fussell talks about his arrival at the field hospital by saying, “It was like the scene of the aftermath of the Battle of Atlanta in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;”. Whether it was an exaggeration or not, Fussell uses this comparison to show the carnage of war (and everyone would have gotten it!). The other part of the reading that struck me as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;-esque was his discussion of the roles of nurses. Obviously, WWII nurses had the job of mending and dealing with soldiers in a very medical way, but they still seemed to serve the same kind of comforting role as Scarlet did in the Civil War. Fussell wrote about the nurse’s “freshness, affection, and good cheer” and how they shared “inside jokes”. It seems that the intangible qualities of nurses were just as important to a soldier’s psychological condition as their medical services were to a soldier’s physical well-being. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the second section of the Fussell reading, he noted that once out of the service, he no longer had to boast of the infantry&amp;#039;s supposed superiority when in all actuality they were the dregs of the armed forces. This sentiment does not seem to jibe with Al&amp;#039;s character in the movie. Early in the film when the 3 men meet, there is a scene where Al is quick to defend the honor of the infantry. Also, Al is a more prosperous man which belies Fussell&amp;#039;s assertion that the infantry is made up the lower rungs of society.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fussell also noted that upon his return he vowed to never work under anyone again and to get as far away from his combat clothes as he could manage. This reminded me a lot of Fred&amp;#039;s character. He swears that he won&amp;#039;t work the soda jerk job, and clearly hates wearing his uniform as evident when he and Marie argue over his suit.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Al states in the movie the likelihood of him being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; by his family.  I found this to be an interesting term, and even more interesting coming from a soldier.  This again derives from my assumption that soldiers would have been nothing but excited about seeing their families.  This movie, though, has made realize that the soldiers (especially them, not just the families) had all kinds of doubts and expectations about returning home.  The expectation of being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; was something I thought would come from the family and not Al.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The humor in this movie stood out to me as well.  Most of it was sarcastic and even dark, but nonetheless enjoyable.  I also like how the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; goes back to this time period.  It makes me feel better in case I ever go back in time and want to get drunk at a bar, and in order to describe my experience I use the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; and the people will know what I was talking about.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place.  Peggy then makes a comment about taking a class in domestic science, an interesting title.  Was this a common course in most school&amp;#039;s curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Best Years&amp;quot; won 7 Academy Awards in 1947 and it is preserved in the Library of Congress. It only lost the award for Best Sound. The American Film Institute included in 3 times in its top 100 movie lists. The producer, Samuel Goldwyn received the Irving Thalberg Award, a special honor for outstanding work in production. Harold Russell was given a Special Oscar® &amp;quot;for bringing hope and courage to his fellow veterans.&amp;quot; Obviously this film had a large impact on the general audience, critics, and other actors of the time. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of generational tensions going on in the movie… about twenty years before generational tensions were “in”. The scene in Butch’s pub where Al pressures Fred into abandoning his feelings and intentions with Peggy reminded me of the scene in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Graduate&amp;#039;&amp;#039; when Mr. Robinson said to Ben, “I want you to stay away from Elaine”. In both examples we see a traditionally strong father figure dissuading a “drifting”/ unconventional suitor from pursuing a girl who deserves nothing but the best. Even though the mid-1940s and the late-1960s were radically different for many reasons, the uncertainty and optimism that existed in those two eras made the storyline of ‘love conquering all’ very appealing. It seems as though “Father Knows Best” was a notion reserved for the 1950s! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck at how successful the movie was in depicting an era that was still ongoing when the movie was released. In recent years nearly all of the movies made about the Iraq war have flopped commercially. I wonder why Best Years of Our Lives could be so successful during its day whereas similar attempts to depict a current war on screen have failed? Are we so tired of the 24/7 news bombardment that we shun movies depicting the war? It as not as though all the Iraq war movies have been bad either, some have been highly regarded by critics. Does it say more about society now or in the 40s that nobody watches movies about the Iraq war today, yet BYOL was such a success?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the story was and interesting concept. They took three men who returned and all are of different ranks. On their way home Fred is the man of power and is looked up to by the other two men but as the story continues he is the one who has the hardest fall. Al is of a lower rank but has rising power through out the story. Homer has a difficult time just like the other two but it has more to with psychology. His adjustment is considerably better at least with money then that of Fred. The story is well written and very compelling.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this movie better than any that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  It was more engaging and had good suspense.  I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we&amp;#039;re supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred&amp;#039;s marriage.  I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him....  I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed.  I didn&amp;#039;t get that from any of the other movies.  That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts.  In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history.  I wasn&amp;#039;t judging it like I judge historical movies.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie did such a good job portraying the time period accurately because the movie was made during the time period it depicts.  For a movie such as this, not a whole lot of research would have been necessary since the people involved with the movie are living in the time period the movie is supposed to portray.  I also think that this movie is very relevant to audiences today, just as it was when it first came out in 1946.  Today, we have soldiers returning home from Iraq, and some of them are facing problems similar to those of the WWII veterans, such as post traumatic stress disorder, combat related injuries and disabilities, etc. -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would have been really cool to see a post- WWII movie done with the same type of concept as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Crash&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. You know, have five to eight different storylines representing different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds from different parts of the country. To a certain extent, filmmakers have to rely on stereotypes in order to connect with the audience, but by widening the scope of post- war situations, the viewer could gain a deeper understanding of what the time was like. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does a remarkable job of depicting the realities of post-war, white, small town America.– Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really liked the film.  The film was longer, yes, but that didn&amp;#039;t hamper it at all!  I meant to only watch 1/2 on Tuesday and the other half on Wednesday, but I ended up watching about 130 minutes of it the first day because I wasn&amp;#039;t paying attention and was enjoying the film!  The only thing that made me stop watching was my husband texting me saying &amp;quot;I just got off the train be by the house in 5 minutes to get you to go vote&amp;quot; and I was like &amp;quot;Eep!&amp;quot;  So I liked the movie overall and would most definitely recommend it to other people! -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i felt that Peggy was a very strong character. Are they using Peggy&amp;#039;s character to show &lt;br /&gt;
women in a stronger role?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. It was centered around ordinary people, trying to accomplish an act that people have to go through everyday, acclimating to their surroundings. It&amp;#039;s a very real and telling movie, especially since it&amp;#039;s a film about returning from the war, filmed at a time when people were returning from the war. --Mallory C.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-06T01:56:43Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 4 Public reaction/impact */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as source about the mid-1940s US (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, 31% of all marriages existing in the US in 1946 ended in divorce that year.  This would have been due to a variety of causes, primarily from the readjusting to family or friends.  People can change a lot in three years, and remember there were quick marriages like Fred&amp;#039;s before deployment, women becoming independent, veterans having mental problems, but also the new marriages like Homer coming home to marry his girl, though I don&amp;#039;t know numbers for that, and, of course, the baby boom.  I think this film pretty well represents different marriage situations resulting from war.  Al kept his marriage and loved his family, but now he drank more. However, I believe that his wife Milly still being the sweetest, most selfless person in the movie is just that image of the ideal wife to a returning husband. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I&amp;#039;m glad to be seeing this after the lecture.  Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn&amp;#039;t help Fred much.  One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tidbits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn&amp;#039;t just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We didn&amp;#039;t discuss this in class, but the I think it was common for soldiers fighting in Japan to take items such as samurai swords as souvenirs, like what Al brought home.  I interviewed my great-uncle, about his WWII experiences for my oral history project, and he talked about souvenirs he got from Japan, including a samurai sword, which he still has.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women represented in the film were all very independent. I felt that this was accurate to the time because they were forced to be autonomous while their men were away. This can be demonstrated in Marie taking a job at the nightclub, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
In addition - the film portrayed how the workforce had moved on without the soldiers. There were several grumbles about jobs not being safe due to the returning veterans, and it was obviously a source of tension for both sides of the conflict. Finally, in regards to war time production - the scene where they fly in and see all the unused airplanes that will be scrapped is pretty accurate as well.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does well at showing what soldiers returning from overseas had to face when they came back home.  Freddy comes home to learn that his wife has found a new job and moved in with herself, Mr. Stevenson(AL) finds that he is entitled to an even better job (unlike Fred) and Homer faces the tough task of adjusting to life in general with artificial hands.  Although it may seem that Homer faces the most psychological challenge, Freddy also faces challenges of confronting his past, as war memories seem to haunt him sporadically throughout the movie.  The wives of the soldiers also seem to be portrayed in extremes; Homer&amp;#039;s wife supports him and shows her love for him more than the other two and Freddy&amp;#039;s wife gave him a hard as they end up divorcing.  I would talk more about Al, but he just seems to have no problems at all at adjusting with the exception of maybe an acute fondness of drinking. -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Got a few notes on the economic issues portrayed in the film.  The movie shows Mr. Cameron making predictions that there will be a depression because of all the soldiers returning home, a widespread thought at the time.  Also, I thought other servicemen were guaranteed loans, however Al seems overly hesitant to give a loan to another serviceman because he has no collateral.  The movie also makes reference to and shows soldiers receiving unemployment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
War time savings put a lot of soldiers at an advantage, or at least helped make their transition home a lot easier.  Fred mentions he saved 1000 or received it from the treasury somehow.  That seems like a lot of money in an economy when groceries might have been a few cents and the most expensive of perfumes were a few bucks.  How did he go through all that money so fast?--Especially since the time span of the movie looks to only be a few months if that.--James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that the returning soldiers didn&amp;#039;t let Homers lose of hands effect the relationship. they are initially thrown off but accept it in a considerably short time. But his family take a long time to accept his situation. I  feel this is a good description of how families had a hard time dealing with returning soldiers, and how they often assumed that soldier was psychologically changed.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the depiction of the mental state of all three men was an accurate account of how some people were after the war.  Homer mostly fit right back in no problem, but he had his disability to work through, which many families had to deal with after the war.  Fred had the marriage right before the war, that in ended in divorce after the war.  Al was the example of the returning veteran who had been married long before the war, and dealt with a drinking problem after the war.  I felt the movie accurately depicted at least three varieties of people&amp;#039;s experiences after the war. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning when the three main characters are returning home in a taxi, Homer suggests &amp;quot;going to Butch&amp;#039;s for a drink&amp;quot; before being dropped off at his home.  This statement had some implications, primarily the anxiety being felt by the soldiers about returning home.  This is important because it shows that the hesitance and reluctance goes both ways (between soldiers and their families).  Furthermore, I assumed that all the men would be excited about returning home, but this movie shows how complex their feelings were about returning to their families.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with portraying how upon entering Boone, the soldiers are almost shocked to find that nothing has changed. Visually, to them, it seemed as if they never left home. I believe it&amp;#039;s Homer who points out that men are playing golf and the high school football team was playing a game and it is he who first points out that nothing has changed. As we discussed in class, these veterans saw and experienced things that most Americans couldn&amp;#039;t even conceive. For these men to have changed so drastically and to come home to a place that seemed as if time had stood still, was an idea they had a hard time grasping. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the scene with Fred and all of the now defunct places was really staggering and drove home the question of what happens after the war and what does a nation do. It&amp;#039;s also a subtle nod to the droves of people who must have been working to crank out so many planes during the war and echoes their uselessness post-war. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jonathan, the movie is limited to three experiences in one town.  There&amp;#039;s no broad sense of understanding how many troops actually came back and how they would have impacted societal, economic, and political realms of small towns, states, and the nation. -JamesD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The minority issue was a HUGE issue for me too as I watched the film, those of us who watched it at the regular screening actually started counting at one point - I believe that there were only three black people that I remember in the film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue I had might not be one at all.  In the unemployment line there were women.  I thought the scene was depicting the unemployment checks being handed out to veterans, I thought women didn&amp;#039;t get veterans pay for many years.  Or was it just unemployment in general? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that Peggy accuses her parents of never having had troubles. Considering the time that the movie takes place, the Great Depression was not that long ago, and most likely put at least a little strain on many marriages. Somehow the idea of a traditional wedding and a fancy honeymoon equals a good marriage, and I think this is an example of social myths we are still trying to get away from. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My biggest issue with the representation of minorities was that Fred was so dismissive of his medals for heroism, when so many (unrepresented) women and racial minorities weren&amp;#039;t even awarded medals for what they did. Despite the medals being handed out &amp;quot;with the rations,&amp;quot; I feel as if this was probably not true for groups like the WASPS. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that struck me from a portion of the reading was how hard it must have been on loved ones who were awaiting their sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends return home. In the reading it mentions that letters are sent to wounded soldiers family members. The letters weren&amp;#039;t specific - just a &amp;quot;seriously injured&amp;quot; category and a forwarding address. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine having that little information about a loved one. All in all, I think that the film primarily focuses its attention on how it would have been to be a veteran returning to home, and somewhat avoided the situation of how life really was for those who had been left behind. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Fred is packing up to leave Boone City, he lets his parents keep the citations for his medals.  He tells them they just came with his K-rations, and they don&amp;#039;t mean much to him.  Does this mean that his citation was like a fill-in-the-blank that lots of people in his situation (whatever exactly that may have been) got, something that they were all issued?  Or that the citation was just so insignificant that it merely came with rations?  Paul Fussell reveals the dishonesty behind writing medal citations, and Fred&amp;#039;s attitude toward his is that it is also essentially meaningless.  Whatever it may be, his parents take pride in it, so that&amp;#039;s one mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ah, the ubiquitous &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;! Fussell talks about his arrival at the field hospital by saying, “It was like the scene of the aftermath of the Battle of Atlanta in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;”. Whether it was an exaggeration or not, Fussell uses this comparison to show the carnage of war (and everyone would have gotten it!). The other part of the reading that struck me as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;-esque was his discussion of the roles of nurses. Obviously, WWII nurses had the job of mending and dealing with soldiers in a very medical way, but they still seemed to serve the same kind of comforting role as Scarlet did in the Civil War. Fussell wrote about the nurse’s “freshness, affection, and good cheer” and how they shared “inside jokes”. It seems that the intangible qualities of nurses were just as important to a soldier’s psychological condition as their medical services were to a soldier’s physical well-being. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the second section of the Fussell reading, he noted that once out of the service, he no longer had to boast of the infantry&amp;#039;s supposed superiority when in all actuality they were the dregs of the armed forces. This sentiment does not seem to jibe with Al&amp;#039;s character in the movie. Early in the film when the 3 men meet, there is a scene where Al is quick to defend the honor of the infantry. Also, Al is a more prosperous man which belies Fussell&amp;#039;s assertion that the infantry is made up the lower rungs of society.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fussell also noted that upon his return he vowed to never work under anyone again and to get as far away from his combat clothes as he could manage. This reminded me a lot of Fred&amp;#039;s character. He swears that he won&amp;#039;t work the soda jerk job, and clearly hates wearing his uniform as evident when he and Marie argue over his suit.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Al states in the movie the likelihood of him being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; by his family.  I found this to be an interesting term, and even more interesting coming from a soldier.  This again derives from my assumption that soldiers would have been nothing but excited about seeing their families.  This movie, though, has made realize that the soldiers (especially them, not just the families) had all kinds of doubts and expectations about returning home.  The expectation of being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; was something I thought would come from the family and not Al.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The humor in this movie stood out to me as well.  Most of it was sarcastic and even dark, but nonetheless enjoyable.  I also like how the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; goes back to this time period.  It makes me feel better in case I ever go back in time and want to get drunk at a bar, and in order to describe my experience I use the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; and the people will know what I was talking about.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place.  Peggy then makes a comment about taking a class in domestic science, an interesting title.  Was this a common course in most school&amp;#039;s curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Best Years&amp;quot; won 7 Academy Awards in 1947 and it is preserved in the Library of Congress. The American Film Institute included in 3 times in its top 100 movie lists. It only lost the award for Best Sound. The producer, Samuel Goldwyn received the Irving Thalberg Award, a special honor for outstanding work in production. Harold Russell was given a Special Oscar® &amp;quot;for bringing hope and courage to his fellow veterans.&amp;quot; Obviously this film had a large impact on the general audience, critics, and other actors of the time. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of generational tensions going on in the movie… about twenty years before generational tensions were “in”. The scene in Butch’s pub where Al pressures Fred into abandoning his feelings and intentions with Peggy reminded me of the scene in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Graduate&amp;#039;&amp;#039; when Mr. Robinson said to Ben, “I want you to stay away from Elaine”. In both examples we see a traditionally strong father figure dissuading a “drifting”/ unconventional suitor from pursuing a girl who deserves nothing but the best. Even though the mid-1940s and the late-1960s were radically different for many reasons, the uncertainty and optimism that existed in those two eras made the storyline of ‘love conquering all’ very appealing. It seems as though “Father Knows Best” was a notion reserved for the 1950s! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck at how successful the movie was in depicting an era that was still ongoing when the movie was released. In recent years nearly all of the movies made about the Iraq war have flopped commercially. I wonder why Best Years of Our Lives could be so successful during its day whereas similar attempts to depict a current war on screen have failed? Are we so tired of the 24/7 news bombardment that we shun movies depicting the war? It as not as though all the Iraq war movies have been bad either, some have been highly regarded by critics. Does it say more about society now or in the 40s that nobody watches movies about the Iraq war today, yet BYOL was such a success?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the story was and interesting concept. They took three men who returned and all are of different ranks. On their way home Fred is the man of power and is looked up to by the other two men but as the story continues he is the one who has the hardest fall. Al is of a lower rank but has rising power through out the story. Homer has a difficult time just like the other two but it has more to with psychology. His adjustment is considerably better at least with money then that of Fred. The story is well written and very compelling.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this movie better than any that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  It was more engaging and had good suspense.  I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we&amp;#039;re supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred&amp;#039;s marriage.  I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him....  I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed.  I didn&amp;#039;t get that from any of the other movies.  That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts.  In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history.  I wasn&amp;#039;t judging it like I judge historical movies.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie did such a good job portraying the time period accurately because the movie was made during the time period it depicts.  For a movie such as this, not a whole lot of research would have been necessary since the people involved with the movie are living in the time period the movie is supposed to portray.  I also think that this movie is very relevant to audiences today, just as it was when it first came out in 1946.  Today, we have soldiers returning home from Iraq, and some of them are facing problems similar to those of the WWII veterans, such as post traumatic stress disorder, combat related injuries and disabilities, etc. -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would have been really cool to see a post- WWII movie done with the same type of concept as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Crash&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. You know, have five to eight different storylines representing different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds from different parts of the country. To a certain extent, filmmakers have to rely on stereotypes in order to connect with the audience, but by widening the scope of post- war situations, the viewer could gain a deeper understanding of what the time was like. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does a remarkable job of depicting the realities of post-war, white, small town America.– Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really liked the film.  The film was longer, yes, but that didn&amp;#039;t hamper it at all!  I meant to only watch 1/2 on Tuesday and the other half on Wednesday, but I ended up watching about 130 minutes of it the first day because I wasn&amp;#039;t paying attention and was enjoying the film!  The only thing that made me stop watching was my husband texting me saying &amp;quot;I just got off the train be by the house in 5 minutes to get you to go vote&amp;quot; and I was like &amp;quot;Eep!&amp;quot;  So I liked the movie overall and would most definitely recommend it to other people! -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i felt that Peggy was a very strong character. Are they using Peggy&amp;#039;s character to show &lt;br /&gt;
women in a stronger role?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. It was centered around ordinary people, trying to accomplish an act that people have to go through everyday, acclimating to their surroundings. It&amp;#039;s a very real and telling movie, especially since it&amp;#039;s a film about returning from the war, filmed at a time when people were returning from the war. --Mallory C.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-06T01:53:27Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 4 Public reaction/impact */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as source about the mid-1940s US (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, 31% of all marriages existing in the US in 1946 ended in divorce that year.  This would have been due to a variety of causes, primarily from the readjusting to family or friends.  People can change a lot in three years, and remember there were quick marriages like Fred&amp;#039;s before deployment, women becoming independent, veterans having mental problems, but also the new marriages like Homer coming home to marry his girl, though I don&amp;#039;t know numbers for that, and, of course, the baby boom.  I think this film pretty well represents different marriage situations resulting from war.  Al kept his marriage and loved his family, but now he drank more. However, I believe that his wife Milly still being the sweetest, most selfless person in the movie is just that image of the ideal wife to a returning husband. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I&amp;#039;m glad to be seeing this after the lecture.  Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn&amp;#039;t help Fred much.  One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tidbits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn&amp;#039;t just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We didn&amp;#039;t discuss this in class, but the I think it was common for soldiers fighting in Japan to take items such as samurai swords as souvenirs, like what Al brought home.  I interviewed my great-uncle, about his WWII experiences for my oral history project, and he talked about souvenirs he got from Japan, including a samurai sword, which he still has.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women represented in the film were all very independent. I felt that this was accurate to the time because they were forced to be autonomous while their men were away. This can be demonstrated in Marie taking a job at the nightclub, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
In addition - the film portrayed how the workforce had moved on without the soldiers. There were several grumbles about jobs not being safe due to the returning veterans, and it was obviously a source of tension for both sides of the conflict. Finally, in regards to war time production - the scene where they fly in and see all the unused airplanes that will be scrapped is pretty accurate as well.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does well at showing what soldiers returning from overseas had to face when they came back home.  Freddy comes home to learn that his wife has found a new job and moved in with herself, Mr. Stevenson(AL) finds that he is entitled to an even better job (unlike Fred) and Homer faces the tough task of adjusting to life in general with artificial hands.  Although it may seem that Homer faces the most psychological challenge, Freddy also faces challenges of confronting his past, as war memories seem to haunt him sporadically throughout the movie.  The wives of the soldiers also seem to be portrayed in extremes; Homer&amp;#039;s wife supports him and shows her love for him more than the other two and Freddy&amp;#039;s wife gave him a hard as they end up divorcing.  I would talk more about Al, but he just seems to have no problems at all at adjusting with the exception of maybe an acute fondness of drinking. -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Got a few notes on the economic issues portrayed in the film.  The movie shows Mr. Cameron making predictions that there will be a depression because of all the soldiers returning home, a widespread thought at the time.  Also, I thought other servicemen were guaranteed loans, however Al seems overly hesitant to give a loan to another serviceman because he has no collateral.  The movie also makes reference to and shows soldiers receiving unemployment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
War time savings put a lot of soldiers at an advantage, or at least helped make their transition home a lot easier.  Fred mentions he saved 1000 or received it from the treasury somehow.  That seems like a lot of money in an economy when groceries might have been a few cents and the most expensive of perfumes were a few bucks.  How did he go through all that money so fast?--Especially since the time span of the movie looks to only be a few months if that.--James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that the returning soldiers didn&amp;#039;t let Homers lose of hands effect the relationship. they are initially thrown off but accept it in a considerably short time. But his family take a long time to accept his situation. I  feel this is a good description of how families had a hard time dealing with returning soldiers, and how they often assumed that soldier was psychologically changed.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the depiction of the mental state of all three men was an accurate account of how some people were after the war.  Homer mostly fit right back in no problem, but he had his disability to work through, which many families had to deal with after the war.  Fred had the marriage right before the war, that in ended in divorce after the war.  Al was the example of the returning veteran who had been married long before the war, and dealt with a drinking problem after the war.  I felt the movie accurately depicted at least three varieties of people&amp;#039;s experiences after the war. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning when the three main characters are returning home in a taxi, Homer suggests &amp;quot;going to Butch&amp;#039;s for a drink&amp;quot; before being dropped off at his home.  This statement had some implications, primarily the anxiety being felt by the soldiers about returning home.  This is important because it shows that the hesitance and reluctance goes both ways (between soldiers and their families).  Furthermore, I assumed that all the men would be excited about returning home, but this movie shows how complex their feelings were about returning to their families.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with portraying how upon entering Boone, the soldiers are almost shocked to find that nothing has changed. Visually, to them, it seemed as if they never left home. I believe it&amp;#039;s Homer who points out that men are playing golf and the high school football team was playing a game and it is he who first points out that nothing has changed. As we discussed in class, these veterans saw and experienced things that most Americans couldn&amp;#039;t even conceive. For these men to have changed so drastically and to come home to a place that seemed as if time had stood still, was an idea they had a hard time grasping. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the scene with Fred and all of the now defunct places was really staggering and drove home the question of what happens after the war and what does a nation do. It&amp;#039;s also a subtle nod to the droves of people who must have been working to crank out so many planes during the war and echoes their uselessness post-war. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jonathan, the movie is limited to three experiences in one town.  There&amp;#039;s no broad sense of understanding how many troops actually came back and how they would have impacted societal, economic, and political realms of small towns, states, and the nation. -JamesD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The minority issue was a HUGE issue for me too as I watched the film, those of us who watched it at the regular screening actually started counting at one point - I believe that there were only three black people that I remember in the film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue I had might not be one at all.  In the unemployment line there were women.  I thought the scene was depicting the unemployment checks being handed out to veterans, I thought women didn&amp;#039;t get veterans pay for many years.  Or was it just unemployment in general? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that Peggy accuses her parents of never having had troubles. Considering the time that the movie takes place, the Great Depression was not that long ago, and most likely put at least a little strain on many marriages. Somehow the idea of a traditional wedding and a fancy honeymoon equals a good marriage, and I think this is an example of social myths we are still trying to get away from. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My biggest issue with the representation of minorities was that Fred was so dismissive of his medals for heroism, when so many (unrepresented) women and racial minorities weren&amp;#039;t even awarded medals for what they did. Despite the medals being handed out &amp;quot;with the rations,&amp;quot; I feel as if this was probably not true for groups like the WASPS. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that struck me from a portion of the reading was how hard it must have been on loved ones who were awaiting their sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends return home. In the reading it mentions that letters are sent to wounded soldiers family members. The letters weren&amp;#039;t specific - just a &amp;quot;seriously injured&amp;quot; category and a forwarding address. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine having that little information about a loved one. All in all, I think that the film primarily focuses its attention on how it would have been to be a veteran returning to home, and somewhat avoided the situation of how life really was for those who had been left behind. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Fred is packing up to leave Boone City, he lets his parents keep the citations for his medals.  He tells them they just came with his K-rations, and they don&amp;#039;t mean much to him.  Does this mean that his citation was like a fill-in-the-blank that lots of people in his situation (whatever exactly that may have been) got, something that they were all issued?  Or that the citation was just so insignificant that it merely came with rations?  Paul Fussell reveals the dishonesty behind writing medal citations, and Fred&amp;#039;s attitude toward his is that it is also essentially meaningless.  Whatever it may be, his parents take pride in it, so that&amp;#039;s one mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ah, the ubiquitous &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;! Fussell talks about his arrival at the field hospital by saying, “It was like the scene of the aftermath of the Battle of Atlanta in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;”. Whether it was an exaggeration or not, Fussell uses this comparison to show the carnage of war (and everyone would have gotten it!). The other part of the reading that struck me as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;-esque was his discussion of the roles of nurses. Obviously, WWII nurses had the job of mending and dealing with soldiers in a very medical way, but they still seemed to serve the same kind of comforting role as Scarlet did in the Civil War. Fussell wrote about the nurse’s “freshness, affection, and good cheer” and how they shared “inside jokes”. It seems that the intangible qualities of nurses were just as important to a soldier’s psychological condition as their medical services were to a soldier’s physical well-being. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the second section of the Fussell reading, he noted that once out of the service, he no longer had to boast of the infantry&amp;#039;s supposed superiority when in all actuality they were the dregs of the armed forces. This sentiment does not seem to jibe with Al&amp;#039;s character in the movie. Early in the film when the 3 men meet, there is a scene where Al is quick to defend the honor of the infantry. Also, Al is a more prosperous man which belies Fussell&amp;#039;s assertion that the infantry is made up the lower rungs of society.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fussell also noted that upon his return he vowed to never work under anyone again and to get as far away from his combat clothes as he could manage. This reminded me a lot of Fred&amp;#039;s character. He swears that he won&amp;#039;t work the soda jerk job, and clearly hates wearing his uniform as evident when he and Marie argue over his suit.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Al states in the movie the likelihood of him being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; by his family.  I found this to be an interesting term, and even more interesting coming from a soldier.  This again derives from my assumption that soldiers would have been nothing but excited about seeing their families.  This movie, though, has made realize that the soldiers (especially them, not just the families) had all kinds of doubts and expectations about returning home.  The expectation of being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; was something I thought would come from the family and not Al.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The humor in this movie stood out to me as well.  Most of it was sarcastic and even dark, but nonetheless enjoyable.  I also like how the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; goes back to this time period.  It makes me feel better in case I ever go back in time and want to get drunk at a bar, and in order to describe my experience I use the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; and the people will know what I was talking about.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place.  Peggy then makes a comment about taking a class in domestic science, an interesting title.  Was this a common course in most school&amp;#039;s curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Best Years&amp;quot; won 7 Academy Awards in 1947 and it is preserved in the Library of Congress. The American Film Institute included in 3 times in its top 100 movie lists. Pretty impressive film overall.. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of generational tensions going on in the movie… about twenty years before generational tensions were “in”. The scene in Butch’s pub where Al pressures Fred into abandoning his feelings and intentions with Peggy reminded me of the scene in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Graduate&amp;#039;&amp;#039; when Mr. Robinson said to Ben, “I want you to stay away from Elaine”. In both examples we see a traditionally strong father figure dissuading a “drifting”/ unconventional suitor from pursuing a girl who deserves nothing but the best. Even though the mid-1940s and the late-1960s were radically different for many reasons, the uncertainty and optimism that existed in those two eras made the storyline of ‘love conquering all’ very appealing. It seems as though “Father Knows Best” was a notion reserved for the 1950s! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck at how successful the movie was in depicting an era that was still ongoing when the movie was released. In recent years nearly all of the movies made about the Iraq war have flopped commercially. I wonder why Best Years of Our Lives could be so successful during its day whereas similar attempts to depict a current war on screen have failed? Are we so tired of the 24/7 news bombardment that we shun movies depicting the war? It as not as though all the Iraq war movies have been bad either, some have been highly regarded by critics. Does it say more about society now or in the 40s that nobody watches movies about the Iraq war today, yet BYOL was such a success?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the story was and interesting concept. They took three men who returned and all are of different ranks. On their way home Fred is the man of power and is looked up to by the other two men but as the story continues he is the one who has the hardest fall. Al is of a lower rank but has rising power through out the story. Homer has a difficult time just like the other two but it has more to with psychology. His adjustment is considerably better at least with money then that of Fred. The story is well written and very compelling.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this movie better than any that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  It was more engaging and had good suspense.  I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we&amp;#039;re supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred&amp;#039;s marriage.  I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him....  I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed.  I didn&amp;#039;t get that from any of the other movies.  That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts.  In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history.  I wasn&amp;#039;t judging it like I judge historical movies.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie did such a good job portraying the time period accurately because the movie was made during the time period it depicts.  For a movie such as this, not a whole lot of research would have been necessary since the people involved with the movie are living in the time period the movie is supposed to portray.  I also think that this movie is very relevant to audiences today, just as it was when it first came out in 1946.  Today, we have soldiers returning home from Iraq, and some of them are facing problems similar to those of the WWII veterans, such as post traumatic stress disorder, combat related injuries and disabilities, etc. -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would have been really cool to see a post- WWII movie done with the same type of concept as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Crash&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. You know, have five to eight different storylines representing different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds from different parts of the country. To a certain extent, filmmakers have to rely on stereotypes in order to connect with the audience, but by widening the scope of post- war situations, the viewer could gain a deeper understanding of what the time was like. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does a remarkable job of depicting the realities of post-war, white, small town America.– Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really liked the film.  The film was longer, yes, but that didn&amp;#039;t hamper it at all!  I meant to only watch 1/2 on Tuesday and the other half on Wednesday, but I ended up watching about 130 minutes of it the first day because I wasn&amp;#039;t paying attention and was enjoying the film!  The only thing that made me stop watching was my husband texting me saying &amp;quot;I just got off the train be by the house in 5 minutes to get you to go vote&amp;quot; and I was like &amp;quot;Eep!&amp;quot;  So I liked the movie overall and would most definitely recommend it to other people! -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i felt that Peggy was a very strong character. Are they using Peggy&amp;#039;s character to show &lt;br /&gt;
women in a stronger role?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. It was centered around ordinary people, trying to accomplish an act that people have to go through everyday, acclimating to their surroundings. It&amp;#039;s a very real and telling movie, especially since it&amp;#039;s a film about returning from the war, filmed at a time when people were returning from the war. --Mallory C.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-06T01:53:11Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 4 Public reaction/impact */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as source about the mid-1940s US (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, 31% of all marriages existing in the US in 1946 ended in divorce that year.  This would have been due to a variety of causes, primarily from the readjusting to family or friends.  People can change a lot in three years, and remember there were quick marriages like Fred&amp;#039;s before deployment, women becoming independent, veterans having mental problems, but also the new marriages like Homer coming home to marry his girl, though I don&amp;#039;t know numbers for that, and, of course, the baby boom.  I think this film pretty well represents different marriage situations resulting from war.  Al kept his marriage and loved his family, but now he drank more. However, I believe that his wife Milly still being the sweetest, most selfless person in the movie is just that image of the ideal wife to a returning husband. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I&amp;#039;m glad to be seeing this after the lecture.  Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn&amp;#039;t help Fred much.  One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tidbits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn&amp;#039;t just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We didn&amp;#039;t discuss this in class, but the I think it was common for soldiers fighting in Japan to take items such as samurai swords as souvenirs, like what Al brought home.  I interviewed my great-uncle, about his WWII experiences for my oral history project, and he talked about souvenirs he got from Japan, including a samurai sword, which he still has.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women represented in the film were all very independent. I felt that this was accurate to the time because they were forced to be autonomous while their men were away. This can be demonstrated in Marie taking a job at the nightclub, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
In addition - the film portrayed how the workforce had moved on without the soldiers. There were several grumbles about jobs not being safe due to the returning veterans, and it was obviously a source of tension for both sides of the conflict. Finally, in regards to war time production - the scene where they fly in and see all the unused airplanes that will be scrapped is pretty accurate as well.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does well at showing what soldiers returning from overseas had to face when they came back home.  Freddy comes home to learn that his wife has found a new job and moved in with herself, Mr. Stevenson(AL) finds that he is entitled to an even better job (unlike Fred) and Homer faces the tough task of adjusting to life in general with artificial hands.  Although it may seem that Homer faces the most psychological challenge, Freddy also faces challenges of confronting his past, as war memories seem to haunt him sporadically throughout the movie.  The wives of the soldiers also seem to be portrayed in extremes; Homer&amp;#039;s wife supports him and shows her love for him more than the other two and Freddy&amp;#039;s wife gave him a hard as they end up divorcing.  I would talk more about Al, but he just seems to have no problems at all at adjusting with the exception of maybe an acute fondness of drinking. -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Got a few notes on the economic issues portrayed in the film.  The movie shows Mr. Cameron making predictions that there will be a depression because of all the soldiers returning home, a widespread thought at the time.  Also, I thought other servicemen were guaranteed loans, however Al seems overly hesitant to give a loan to another serviceman because he has no collateral.  The movie also makes reference to and shows soldiers receiving unemployment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
War time savings put a lot of soldiers at an advantage, or at least helped make their transition home a lot easier.  Fred mentions he saved 1000 or received it from the treasury somehow.  That seems like a lot of money in an economy when groceries might have been a few cents and the most expensive of perfumes were a few bucks.  How did he go through all that money so fast?--Especially since the time span of the movie looks to only be a few months if that.--James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that the returning soldiers didn&amp;#039;t let Homers lose of hands effect the relationship. they are initially thrown off but accept it in a considerably short time. But his family take a long time to accept his situation. I  feel this is a good description of how families had a hard time dealing with returning soldiers, and how they often assumed that soldier was psychologically changed.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the depiction of the mental state of all three men was an accurate account of how some people were after the war.  Homer mostly fit right back in no problem, but he had his disability to work through, which many families had to deal with after the war.  Fred had the marriage right before the war, that in ended in divorce after the war.  Al was the example of the returning veteran who had been married long before the war, and dealt with a drinking problem after the war.  I felt the movie accurately depicted at least three varieties of people&amp;#039;s experiences after the war. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning when the three main characters are returning home in a taxi, Homer suggests &amp;quot;going to Butch&amp;#039;s for a drink&amp;quot; before being dropped off at his home.  This statement had some implications, primarily the anxiety being felt by the soldiers about returning home.  This is important because it shows that the hesitance and reluctance goes both ways (between soldiers and their families).  Furthermore, I assumed that all the men would be excited about returning home, but this movie shows how complex their feelings were about returning to their families.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with portraying how upon entering Boone, the soldiers are almost shocked to find that nothing has changed. Visually, to them, it seemed as if they never left home. I believe it&amp;#039;s Homer who points out that men are playing golf and the high school football team was playing a game and it is he who first points out that nothing has changed. As we discussed in class, these veterans saw and experienced things that most Americans couldn&amp;#039;t even conceive. For these men to have changed so drastically and to come home to a place that seemed as if time had stood still, was an idea they had a hard time grasping. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the scene with Fred and all of the now defunct places was really staggering and drove home the question of what happens after the war and what does a nation do. It&amp;#039;s also a subtle nod to the droves of people who must have been working to crank out so many planes during the war and echoes their uselessness post-war. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jonathan, the movie is limited to three experiences in one town.  There&amp;#039;s no broad sense of understanding how many troops actually came back and how they would have impacted societal, economic, and political realms of small towns, states, and the nation. -JamesD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The minority issue was a HUGE issue for me too as I watched the film, those of us who watched it at the regular screening actually started counting at one point - I believe that there were only three black people that I remember in the film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue I had might not be one at all.  In the unemployment line there were women.  I thought the scene was depicting the unemployment checks being handed out to veterans, I thought women didn&amp;#039;t get veterans pay for many years.  Or was it just unemployment in general? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that Peggy accuses her parents of never having had troubles. Considering the time that the movie takes place, the Great Depression was not that long ago, and most likely put at least a little strain on many marriages. Somehow the idea of a traditional wedding and a fancy honeymoon equals a good marriage, and I think this is an example of social myths we are still trying to get away from. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My biggest issue with the representation of minorities was that Fred was so dismissive of his medals for heroism, when so many (unrepresented) women and racial minorities weren&amp;#039;t even awarded medals for what they did. Despite the medals being handed out &amp;quot;with the rations,&amp;quot; I feel as if this was probably not true for groups like the WASPS. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that struck me from a portion of the reading was how hard it must have been on loved ones who were awaiting their sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends return home. In the reading it mentions that letters are sent to wounded soldiers family members. The letters weren&amp;#039;t specific - just a &amp;quot;seriously injured&amp;quot; category and a forwarding address. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine having that little information about a loved one. All in all, I think that the film primarily focuses its attention on how it would have been to be a veteran returning to home, and somewhat avoided the situation of how life really was for those who had been left behind. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Fred is packing up to leave Boone City, he lets his parents keep the citations for his medals.  He tells them they just came with his K-rations, and they don&amp;#039;t mean much to him.  Does this mean that his citation was like a fill-in-the-blank that lots of people in his situation (whatever exactly that may have been) got, something that they were all issued?  Or that the citation was just so insignificant that it merely came with rations?  Paul Fussell reveals the dishonesty behind writing medal citations, and Fred&amp;#039;s attitude toward his is that it is also essentially meaningless.  Whatever it may be, his parents take pride in it, so that&amp;#039;s one mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ah, the ubiquitous &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;! Fussell talks about his arrival at the field hospital by saying, “It was like the scene of the aftermath of the Battle of Atlanta in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;”. Whether it was an exaggeration or not, Fussell uses this comparison to show the carnage of war (and everyone would have gotten it!). The other part of the reading that struck me as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;-esque was his discussion of the roles of nurses. Obviously, WWII nurses had the job of mending and dealing with soldiers in a very medical way, but they still seemed to serve the same kind of comforting role as Scarlet did in the Civil War. Fussell wrote about the nurse’s “freshness, affection, and good cheer” and how they shared “inside jokes”. It seems that the intangible qualities of nurses were just as important to a soldier’s psychological condition as their medical services were to a soldier’s physical well-being. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the second section of the Fussell reading, he noted that once out of the service, he no longer had to boast of the infantry&amp;#039;s supposed superiority when in all actuality they were the dregs of the armed forces. This sentiment does not seem to jibe with Al&amp;#039;s character in the movie. Early in the film when the 3 men meet, there is a scene where Al is quick to defend the honor of the infantry. Also, Al is a more prosperous man which belies Fussell&amp;#039;s assertion that the infantry is made up the lower rungs of society.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fussell also noted that upon his return he vowed to never work under anyone again and to get as far away from his combat clothes as he could manage. This reminded me a lot of Fred&amp;#039;s character. He swears that he won&amp;#039;t work the soda jerk job, and clearly hates wearing his uniform as evident when he and Marie argue over his suit.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Al states in the movie the likelihood of him being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; by his family.  I found this to be an interesting term, and even more interesting coming from a soldier.  This again derives from my assumption that soldiers would have been nothing but excited about seeing their families.  This movie, though, has made realize that the soldiers (especially them, not just the families) had all kinds of doubts and expectations about returning home.  The expectation of being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; was something I thought would come from the family and not Al.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The humor in this movie stood out to me as well.  Most of it was sarcastic and even dark, but nonetheless enjoyable.  I also like how the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; goes back to this time period.  It makes me feel better in case I ever go back in time and want to get drunk at a bar, and in order to describe my experience I use the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; and the people will know what I was talking about.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place.  Peggy then makes a comment about taking a class in domestic science, an interesting title.  Was this a common course in most school&amp;#039;s curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Best Years&amp;quot; won 7 Academy Awards in 1947 and it is preserved in the Library of Congress. The American Film Institute included in 3 times in its top 100 movie lists. Pretty impressive film overall.. --Amanda Rssell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of generational tensions going on in the movie… about twenty years before generational tensions were “in”. The scene in Butch’s pub where Al pressures Fred into abandoning his feelings and intentions with Peggy reminded me of the scene in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Graduate&amp;#039;&amp;#039; when Mr. Robinson said to Ben, “I want you to stay away from Elaine”. In both examples we see a traditionally strong father figure dissuading a “drifting”/ unconventional suitor from pursuing a girl who deserves nothing but the best. Even though the mid-1940s and the late-1960s were radically different for many reasons, the uncertainty and optimism that existed in those two eras made the storyline of ‘love conquering all’ very appealing. It seems as though “Father Knows Best” was a notion reserved for the 1950s! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck at how successful the movie was in depicting an era that was still ongoing when the movie was released. In recent years nearly all of the movies made about the Iraq war have flopped commercially. I wonder why Best Years of Our Lives could be so successful during its day whereas similar attempts to depict a current war on screen have failed? Are we so tired of the 24/7 news bombardment that we shun movies depicting the war? It as not as though all the Iraq war movies have been bad either, some have been highly regarded by critics. Does it say more about society now or in the 40s that nobody watches movies about the Iraq war today, yet BYOL was such a success?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the story was and interesting concept. They took three men who returned and all are of different ranks. On their way home Fred is the man of power and is looked up to by the other two men but as the story continues he is the one who has the hardest fall. Al is of a lower rank but has rising power through out the story. Homer has a difficult time just like the other two but it has more to with psychology. His adjustment is considerably better at least with money then that of Fred. The story is well written and very compelling.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this movie better than any that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  It was more engaging and had good suspense.  I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we&amp;#039;re supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred&amp;#039;s marriage.  I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him....  I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed.  I didn&amp;#039;t get that from any of the other movies.  That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts.  In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history.  I wasn&amp;#039;t judging it like I judge historical movies.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie did such a good job portraying the time period accurately because the movie was made during the time period it depicts.  For a movie such as this, not a whole lot of research would have been necessary since the people involved with the movie are living in the time period the movie is supposed to portray.  I also think that this movie is very relevant to audiences today, just as it was when it first came out in 1946.  Today, we have soldiers returning home from Iraq, and some of them are facing problems similar to those of the WWII veterans, such as post traumatic stress disorder, combat related injuries and disabilities, etc. -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would have been really cool to see a post- WWII movie done with the same type of concept as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Crash&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. You know, have five to eight different storylines representing different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds from different parts of the country. To a certain extent, filmmakers have to rely on stereotypes in order to connect with the audience, but by widening the scope of post- war situations, the viewer could gain a deeper understanding of what the time was like. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does a remarkable job of depicting the realities of post-war, white, small town America.– Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really liked the film.  The film was longer, yes, but that didn&amp;#039;t hamper it at all!  I meant to only watch 1/2 on Tuesday and the other half on Wednesday, but I ended up watching about 130 minutes of it the first day because I wasn&amp;#039;t paying attention and was enjoying the film!  The only thing that made me stop watching was my husband texting me saying &amp;quot;I just got off the train be by the house in 5 minutes to get you to go vote&amp;quot; and I was like &amp;quot;Eep!&amp;quot;  So I liked the movie overall and would most definitely recommend it to other people! -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i felt that Peggy was a very strong character. Are they using Peggy&amp;#039;s character to show &lt;br /&gt;
women in a stronger role?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. It was centered around ordinary people, trying to accomplish an act that people have to go through everyday, acclimating to their surroundings. It&amp;#039;s a very real and telling movie, especially since it&amp;#039;s a film about returning from the war, filmed at a time when people were returning from the war. --Mallory C.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-06T01:48:25Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as source about the mid-1940s US (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, 31% of all marriages existing in the US in 1946 ended in divorce that year.  This would have been due to a variety of causes, primarily from the readjusting to family or friends.  People can change a lot in three years, and remember there were quick marriages like Fred&amp;#039;s before deployment, women becoming independent, veterans having mental problems, but also the new marriages like Homer coming home to marry his girl, though I don&amp;#039;t know numbers for that, and, of course, the baby boom.  I think this film pretty well represents different marriage situations resulting from war.  Al kept his marriage and loved his family, but now he drank more. However, I believe that his wife Milly still being the sweetest, most selfless person in the movie is just that image of the ideal wife to a returning husband. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I&amp;#039;m glad to be seeing this after the lecture.  Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn&amp;#039;t help Fred much.  One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tidbits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn&amp;#039;t just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We didn&amp;#039;t discuss this in class, but the I think it was common for soldiers fighting in Japan to take items such as samurai swords as souvenirs, like what Al brought home.  I interviewed my great-uncle, about his WWII experiences for my oral history project, and he talked about souvenirs he got from Japan, including a samurai sword, which he still has.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women represented in the film were all very independent. I felt that this was accurate to the time because they were forced to be autonomous while their men were away. This can be demonstrated in Marie taking a job at the nightclub, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
In addition - the film portrayed how the workforce had moved on without the soldiers. There were several grumbles about jobs not being safe due to the returning veterans, and it was obviously a source of tension for both sides of the conflict. Finally, in regards to war time production - the scene where they fly in and see all the unused airplanes that will be scrapped is pretty accurate as well.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does well at showing what soldiers returning from overseas had to face when they came back home.  Freddy comes home to learn that his wife has found a new job and moved in with herself, Mr. Stevenson(AL) finds that he is entitled to an even better job (unlike Fred) and Homer faces the tough task of adjusting to life in general with artificial hands.  Although it may seem that Homer faces the most psychological challenge, Freddy also faces challenges of confronting his past, as war memories seem to haunt him sporadically throughout the movie.  The wives of the soldiers also seem to be portrayed in extremes; Homer&amp;#039;s wife supports him and shows her love for him more than the other two and Freddy&amp;#039;s wife gave him a hard as they end up divorcing.  I would talk more about Al, but he just seems to have no problems at all at adjusting with the exception of maybe an acute fondness of drinking. -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Got a few notes on the economic issues portrayed in the film.  The movie shows Mr. Cameron making predictions that there will be a depression because of all the soldiers returning home, a widespread thought at the time.  Also, I thought other servicemen were guaranteed loans, however Al seems overly hesitant to give a loan to another serviceman because he has no collateral.  The movie also makes reference to and shows soldiers receiving unemployment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
War time savings put a lot of soldiers at an advantage, or at least helped make their transition home a lot easier.  Fred mentions he saved 1000 or received it from the treasury somehow.  That seems like a lot of money in an economy when groceries might have been a few cents and the most expensive of perfumes were a few bucks.  How did he go through all that money so fast?--Especially since the time span of the movie looks to only be a few months if that.--James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that the returning soldiers didn&amp;#039;t let Homers lose of hands effect the relationship. they are initially thrown off but accept it in a considerably short time. But his family take a long time to accept his situation. I  feel this is a good description of how families had a hard time dealing with returning soldiers, and how they often assumed that soldier was psychologically changed.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the depiction of the mental state of all three men was an accurate account of how some people were after the war.  Homer mostly fit right back in no problem, but he had his disability to work through, which many families had to deal with after the war.  Fred had the marriage right before the war, that in ended in divorce after the war.  Al was the example of the returning veteran who had been married long before the war, and dealt with a drinking problem after the war.  I felt the movie accurately depicted at least three varieties of people&amp;#039;s experiences after the war. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning when the three main characters are returning home in a taxi, Homer suggests &amp;quot;going to Butch&amp;#039;s for a drink&amp;quot; before being dropped off at his home.  This statement had some implications, primarily the anxiety being felt by the soldiers about returning home.  This is important because it shows that the hesitance and reluctance goes both ways (between soldiers and their families).  Furthermore, I assumed that all the men would be excited about returning home, but this movie shows how complex their feelings were about returning to their families.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with portraying how upon entering Boone, the soldiers are almost shocked to find that nothing has changed. Visually, to them, it seemed as if they never left home. I believe it&amp;#039;s Homer who points out that men are playing golf and the high school football team was playing a game and it is he who first points out that nothing has changed. As we discussed in class, these veterans saw and experienced things that most Americans couldn&amp;#039;t even conceive. For these men to have changed so drastically and to come home to a place that seemed as if time had stood still, was an idea they had a hard time grasping. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the scene with Fred and all of the now defunct places was really staggering and drove home the question of what happens after the war and what does a nation do. It&amp;#039;s also a subtle nod to the droves of people who must have been working to crank out so many planes during the war and echoes their uselessness post-war. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jonathan, the movie is limited to three experiences in one town.  There&amp;#039;s no broad sense of understanding how many troops actually came back and how they would have impacted societal, economic, and political realms of small towns, states, and the nation. -JamesD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The minority issue was a HUGE issue for me too as I watched the film, those of us who watched it at the regular screening actually started counting at one point - I believe that there were only three black people that I remember in the film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue I had might not be one at all.  In the unemployment line there were women.  I thought the scene was depicting the unemployment checks being handed out to veterans, I thought women didn&amp;#039;t get veterans pay for many years.  Or was it just unemployment in general? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that Peggy accuses her parents of never having had troubles. Considering the time that the movie takes place, the Great Depression was not that long ago, and most likely put at least a little strain on many marriages. Somehow the idea of a traditional wedding and a fancy honeymoon equals a good marriage, and I think this is an example of social myths we are still trying to get away from. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My biggest issue with the representation of minorities was that Fred was so dismissive of his medals for heroism, when so many (unrepresented) women and racial minorities weren&amp;#039;t even awarded medals for what they did. Despite the medals being handed out &amp;quot;with the rations,&amp;quot; I feel as if this was probably not true for groups like the WASPS. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that struck me from a portion of the reading was how hard it must have been on loved ones who were awaiting their sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends return home. In the reading it mentions that letters are sent to wounded soldiers family members. The letters weren&amp;#039;t specific - just a &amp;quot;seriously injured&amp;quot; category and a forwarding address. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine having that little information about a loved one. All in all, I think that the film primarily focuses its attention on how it would have been to be a veteran returning to home, and somewhat avoided the situation of how life really was for those who had been left behind. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Fred is packing up to leave Boone City, he lets his parents keep the citations for his medals.  He tells them they just came with his K-rations, and they don&amp;#039;t mean much to him.  Does this mean that his citation was like a fill-in-the-blank that lots of people in his situation (whatever exactly that may have been) got, something that they were all issued?  Or that the citation was just so insignificant that it merely came with rations?  Paul Fussell reveals the dishonesty behind writing medal citations, and Fred&amp;#039;s attitude toward his is that it is also essentially meaningless.  Whatever it may be, his parents take pride in it, so that&amp;#039;s one mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ah, the ubiquitous &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;! Fussell talks about his arrival at the field hospital by saying, “It was like the scene of the aftermath of the Battle of Atlanta in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;”. Whether it was an exaggeration or not, Fussell uses this comparison to show the carnage of war (and everyone would have gotten it!). The other part of the reading that struck me as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;-esque was his discussion of the roles of nurses. Obviously, WWII nurses had the job of mending and dealing with soldiers in a very medical way, but they still seemed to serve the same kind of comforting role as Scarlet did in the Civil War. Fussell wrote about the nurse’s “freshness, affection, and good cheer” and how they shared “inside jokes”. It seems that the intangible qualities of nurses were just as important to a soldier’s psychological condition as their medical services were to a soldier’s physical well-being. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the second section of the Fussell reading, he noted that once out of the service, he no longer had to boast of the infantry&amp;#039;s supposed superiority when in all actuality they were the dregs of the armed forces. This sentiment does not seem to jibe with Al&amp;#039;s character in the movie. Early in the film when the 3 men meet, there is a scene where Al is quick to defend the honor of the infantry. Also, Al is a more prosperous man which belies Fussell&amp;#039;s assertion that the infantry is made up the lower rungs of society.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fussell also noted that upon his return he vowed to never work under anyone again and to get as far away from his combat clothes as he could manage. This reminded me a lot of Fred&amp;#039;s character. He swears that he won&amp;#039;t work the soda jerk job, and clearly hates wearing his uniform as evident when he and Marie argue over his suit.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Al states in the movie the likelihood of him being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; by his family.  I found this to be an interesting term, and even more interesting coming from a soldier.  This again derives from my assumption that soldiers would have been nothing but excited about seeing their families.  This movie, though, has made realize that the soldiers (especially them, not just the families) had all kinds of doubts and expectations about returning home.  The expectation of being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; was something I thought would come from the family and not Al.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The humor in this movie stood out to me as well.  Most of it was sarcastic and even dark, but nonetheless enjoyable.  I also like how the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; goes back to this time period.  It makes me feel better in case I ever go back in time and want to get drunk at a bar, and in order to describe my experience I use the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; and the people will know what I was talking about.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place.  Peggy then makes a comment about taking a class in domestic science, an interesting title.  Was this a common course in most school&amp;#039;s curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of generational tensions going on in the movie… about twenty years before generational tensions were “in”. The scene in Butch’s pub where Al pressures Fred into abandoning his feelings and intentions with Peggy reminded me of the scene in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Graduate&amp;#039;&amp;#039; when Mr. Robinson said to Ben, “I want you to stay away from Elaine”. In both examples we see a traditionally strong father figure dissuading a “drifting”/ unconventional suitor from pursuing a girl who deserves nothing but the best. Even though the mid-1940s and the late-1960s were radically different for many reasons, the uncertainty and optimism that existed in those two eras made the storyline of ‘love conquering all’ very appealing. It seems as though “Father Knows Best” was a notion reserved for the 1950s! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck at how successful the movie was in depicting an era that was still ongoing when the movie was released. In recent years nearly all of the movies made about the Iraq war have flopped commercially. I wonder why Best Years of Our Lives could be so successful during its day whereas similar attempts to depict a current war on screen have failed? Are we so tired of the 24/7 news bombardment that we shun movies depicting the war? It as not as though all the Iraq war movies have been bad either, some have been highly regarded by critics. Does it say more about society now or in the 40s that nobody watches movies about the Iraq war today, yet BYOL was such a success?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the story was and interesting concept. They took three men who returned and all are of different ranks. On their way home Fred is the man of power and is looked up to by the other two men but as the story continues he is the one who has the hardest fall. Al is of a lower rank but has rising power through out the story. Homer has a difficult time just like the other two but it has more to with psychology. His adjustment is considerably better at least with money then that of Fred. The story is well written and very compelling.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this movie better than any that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  It was more engaging and had good suspense.  I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we&amp;#039;re supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred&amp;#039;s marriage.  I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him....  I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed.  I didn&amp;#039;t get that from any of the other movies.  That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts.  In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history.  I wasn&amp;#039;t judging it like I judge historical movies.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie did such a good job portraying the time period accurately because the movie was made during the time period it depicts.  For a movie such as this, not a whole lot of research would have been necessary since the people involved with the movie are living in the time period the movie is supposed to portray.  I also think that this movie is very relevant to audiences today, just as it was when it first came out in 1946.  Today, we have soldiers returning home from Iraq, and some of them are facing problems similar to those of the WWII veterans, such as post traumatic stress disorder, combat related injuries and disabilities, etc. -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would have been really cool to see a post- WWII movie done with the same type of concept as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Crash&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. You know, have five to eight different storylines representing different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds from different parts of the country. To a certain extent, filmmakers have to rely on stereotypes in order to connect with the audience, but by widening the scope of post- war situations, the viewer could gain a deeper understanding of what the time was like. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does a remarkable job of depicting the realities of post-war, white, small town America.– Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really liked the film.  The film was longer, yes, but that didn&amp;#039;t hamper it at all!  I meant to only watch 1/2 on Tuesday and the other half on Wednesday, but I ended up watching about 130 minutes of it the first day because I wasn&amp;#039;t paying attention and was enjoying the film!  The only thing that made me stop watching was my husband texting me saying &amp;quot;I just got off the train be by the house in 5 minutes to get you to go vote&amp;quot; and I was like &amp;quot;Eep!&amp;quot;  So I liked the movie overall and would most definitely recommend it to other people! -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i felt that Peggy was a very strong character. Are they using Peggy&amp;#039;s character to show &lt;br /&gt;
women in a stronger role?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. It was centered around ordinary people, trying to accomplish an act that people have to go through everyday, acclimating to their surroundings. It&amp;#039;s a very real and telling movie, especially since it&amp;#039;s a film about returning from the war, filmed at a time when people were returning from the war. --Mallory C.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-06T01:37:56Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as source about the mid-1940s US (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, 31% of all marriages existing in the US in 1946 ended in divorce that year.  This would have been due to a variety of causes, primarily from the readjusting to family or friends.  People can change a lot in three years, and remember there were quick marriages like Fred&amp;#039;s before deployment, women becoming independent, veterans having mental problems, but also the new marriages like Homer coming home to marry his girl, though I don&amp;#039;t know numbers for that, and, of course, the baby boom.  I think this film pretty well represents different marriage situations resulting from war.  Al kept his marriage and loved his family, but now he drank more. However, I believe that his wife Milly still being the sweetest, most selfless person in the movie is just that image of the ideal wife to a returning husband. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I&amp;#039;m glad to be seeing this after the lecture.  Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn&amp;#039;t help Fred much.  One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tidbits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn&amp;#039;t just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We didn&amp;#039;t discuss this in class, but the I think it was common for soldiers fighting in Japan to take items such as samurai swords as souvenirs, like what Al brought home.  I interviewed my great-uncle, about his WWII experiences for my oral history project, and he talked about souvenirs he got from Japan, including a samurai sword, which he still has.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women represented in the film were all very independent. I felt that this was accurate to the time because they were forced to be autonomous while their men were away. This can be demonstrated in Marie taking a job at the nightclub, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
In addition - the film portrayed how the workforce had moved on without the soldiers. There were several grumbles about jobs not being safe due to the returning veterans, and it was obviously a source of tension for both sides of the conflict. Finally, in regards to war time production - the scene where they fly in and see all the unused airplanes that will be scrapped is pretty accurate as well.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does well at showing what soldiers returning from overseas had to face when they came back home.  Freddy comes home to learn that his wife has found a new job and moved in with herself, Mr. Stevenson(AL) finds that he is entitled to an even better job (unlike Fred) and Homer faces the tough task of adjusting to life in general with artificial hands.  Although it may seem that Homer faces the most psychological challenge, Freddy also faces challenges of confronting his past, as war memories seem to haunt him sporadically throughout the movie.  The wives of the soldiers also seem to be portrayed in extremes; Homer&amp;#039;s wife supports him and shows her love for him more than the other two and Freddy&amp;#039;s wife gave him a hard as they end up divorcing.  I would talk more about Al, but he just seems to have no problems at all at adjusting with the exception of maybe an acute fondness of drinking. -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Got a few notes on the economic issues portrayed in the film.  The movie shows Mr. Cameron making predictions that there will be a depression because of all the soldiers returning home, a widespread thought at the time.  Also, I thought other servicemen were guaranteed loans, however Al seems overly hesitant to give a loan to another serviceman because he has no collateral.  The movie also makes reference to and shows soldiers receiving unemployment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
War time savings put a lot of soldiers at an advantage, or at least helped make their transition home a lot easier.  Fred mentions he saved 1000 or received it from the treasury somehow.  That seems like a lot of money in an economy when groceries might have been a few cents and the most expensive of perfumes were a few bucks.  How did he go through all that money so fast?--Especially since the time span of the movie looks to only be a few months if that.--James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that the returning soldiers didn&amp;#039;t let Homers lose of hands effect the relationship. they are initially thrown off but accept it in a considerably short time. But his family take a long time to accept his situation. I  feel this is a good description of how families had a hard time dealing with returning soldiers, and how they often assumed that soldier was psychologically changed.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the depiction of the mental state of all three men was an accurate account of how some people were after the war.  Homer mostly fit right back in no problem, but he had his disability to work through, which many families had to deal with after the war.  Fred had the marriage right before the war, that in ended in divorce after the war.  Al was the example of the returning veteran who had been married long before the war, and dealt with a drinking problem after the war.  I felt the movie accurately depicted at least three varieties of people&amp;#039;s experiences after the war. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning when the three main characters are returning home in a taxi, Homer suggests &amp;quot;going to Butch&amp;#039;s for a drink&amp;quot; before being dropped off at his home.  This statement had some implications, primarily the anxiety being felt by the soldiers about returning home.  This is important because it shows that the hesitance and reluctance goes both ways (between soldiers and their families).  Furthermore, I assumed that all the men would be excited about returning home, but this movie shows how complex their feelings were about returning to their families.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with portraying how upon entering Boone, the soldiers are almost shocked to find that nothing has changed. Visually, to them, it seemed as if they never left home. I believe it&amp;#039;s Homer who points out that men are playing golf and the high school football team was playing a game and it is he who first points out that nothing has changed. As we discussed in class, these veterans saw and experienced things that most Americans couldn&amp;#039;t even conceive. For these men to have changed so drastically and to come home to a place that seemed as if time had stood still, was an idea they had a hard time grasping. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jonathan, the movie is limited to three experiences in one town.  There&amp;#039;s no broad sense of understanding how many troops actually came back and how they would have impacted societal, economic, and political realms of small towns, states, and the nation. -JamesD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The minority issue was a HUGE issue for me too as I watched the film, those of us who watched it at the regular screening actually started counting at one point - I believe that there were only three black people that I remember in the film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue I had might not be one at all.  In the unemployment line there were women.  I thought the scene was depicting the unemployment checks being handed out to veterans, I thought women didn&amp;#039;t get veterans pay for many years.  Or was it just unemployment in general? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that Peggy accuses her parents of never having had troubles. Considering the time that the movie takes place, the Great Depression was not that long ago, and most likely put at least a little strain on many marriages. Somehow the idea of a traditional wedding and a fancy honeymoon equals a good marriage, and I think this is an example of social myths we are still trying to get away from. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My biggest issue with the representation of minorities was that Fred was so dismissive of his medals for heroism, when so many (unrepresented) women and racial minorities weren&amp;#039;t even awarded medals for what they did. Despite the medals being handed out &amp;quot;with the rations,&amp;quot; I feel as if this was probably not true for groups like the WASPS. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that struck me from a portion of the reading was how hard it must have been on loved ones who were awaiting their sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends return home. In the reading it mentions that letters are sent to wounded soldiers family members. The letters weren&amp;#039;t specific - just a &amp;quot;seriously injured&amp;quot; category and a forwarding address. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine having that little information about a loved one. All in all, I think that the film primarily focuses its attention on how it would have been to be a veteran returning to home, and somewhat avoided the situation of how life really was for those who had been left behind. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Fred is packing up to leave Boone City, he lets his parents keep the citations for his medals.  He tells them they just came with his K-rations, and they don&amp;#039;t mean much to him.  Does this mean that his citation was like a fill-in-the-blank that lots of people in his situation (whatever exactly that may have been) got, something that they were all issued?  Or that the citation was just so insignificant that it merely came with rations?  Paul Fussell reveals the dishonesty behind writing medal citations, and Fred&amp;#039;s attitude toward his is that it is also essentially meaningless.  Whatever it may be, his parents take pride in it, so that&amp;#039;s one mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ah, the ubiquitous &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;! Fussell talks about his arrival at the field hospital by saying, “It was like the scene of the aftermath of the Battle of Atlanta in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;”. Whether it was an exaggeration or not, Fussell uses this comparison to show the carnage of war (and everyone would have gotten it!). The other part of the reading that struck me as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;-esque was his discussion of the roles of nurses. Obviously, WWII nurses had the job of mending and dealing with soldiers in a very medical way, but they still seemed to serve the same kind of comforting role as Scarlet did in the Civil War. Fussell wrote about the nurse’s “freshness, affection, and good cheer” and how they shared “inside jokes”. It seems that the intangible qualities of nurses were just as important to a soldier’s psychological condition as their medical services were to a soldier’s physical well-being. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the second section of the Fussell reading, he noted that once out of the service, he no longer had to boast of the infantry&amp;#039;s supposed superiority when in all actuality they were the dregs of the armed forces. This sentiment does not seem to jibe with Al&amp;#039;s character in the movie. Early in the film when the 3 men meet, there is a scene where Al is quick to defend the honor of the infantry. Also, Al is a more prosperous man which belies Fussell&amp;#039;s assertion that the infantry is made up the lower rungs of society.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fussell also noted that upon his return he vowed to never work under anyone again and to get as far away from his combat clothes as he could manage. This reminded me a lot of Fred&amp;#039;s character. He swears that he won&amp;#039;t work the soda jerk job, and clearly hates wearing his uniform as evident when he and Marie argue over his suit.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Al states in the movie the likelihood of him being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; by his family.  I found this to be an interesting term, and even more interesting coming from a soldier.  This again derives from my assumption that soldiers would have been nothing but excited about seeing their families.  This movie, though, has made realize that the soldiers (especially them, not just the families) had all kinds of doubts and expectations about returning home.  The expectation of being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; was something I thought would come from the family and not Al.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The humor in this movie stood out to me as well.  Most of it was sarcastic and even dark, but nonetheless enjoyable.  I also like how the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; goes back to this time period.  It makes me feel better in case I ever go back in time and want to get drunk at a bar, and in order to describe my experience I use the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; and the people will know what I was talking about.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place.  Peggy then makes a comment about taking a class in domestic science, an interesting title.  Was this a common course in most school&amp;#039;s curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of generational tensions going on in the movie… about twenty years before generational tensions were “in”. The scene in Butch’s pub where Al pressures Fred into abandoning his feelings and intentions with Peggy reminded me of the scene in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Graduate&amp;#039;&amp;#039; when Mr. Robinson said to Ben, “I want you to stay away from Elaine”. In both examples we see a traditionally strong father figure dissuading a “drifting”/ unconventional suitor from pursuing a girl who deserves nothing but the best. Even though the mid-1940s and the late-1960s were radically different for many reasons, the uncertainty and optimism that existed in those two eras made the storyline of ‘love conquering all’ very appealing. It seems as though “Father Knows Best” was a notion reserved for the 1950s! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck at how successful the movie was in depicting an era that was still ongoing when the movie was released. In recent years nearly all of the movies made about the Iraq war have flopped commercially. I wonder why Best Years of Our Lives could be so successful during its day whereas similar attempts to depict a current war on screen have failed? Are we so tired of the 24/7 news bombardment that we shun movies depicting the war? It as not as though all the Iraq war movies have been bad either, some have been highly regarded by critics. Does it say more about society now or in the 40s that nobody watches movies about the Iraq war today, yet BYOL was such a success?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the story was and interesting concept. They took three men who returned and all are of different ranks. On their way home Fred is the man of power and is looked up to by the other two men but as the story continues he is the one who has the hardest fall. Al is of a lower rank but has rising power through out the story. Homer has a difficult time just like the other two but it has more to with psychology. His adjustment is considerably better at least with money then that of Fred. The story is well written and very compelling.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this movie better than any that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  It was more engaging and had good suspense.  I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we&amp;#039;re supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred&amp;#039;s marriage.  I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him....  I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed.  I didn&amp;#039;t get that from any of the other movies.  That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts.  In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history.  I wasn&amp;#039;t judging it like I judge historical movies.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie did such a good job portraying the time period accurately because the movie was made during the time period it depicts.  For a movie such as this, not a whole lot of research would have been necessary since the people involved with the movie are living in the time period the movie is supposed to portray.  I also think that this movie is very relevant to audiences today, just as it was when it first came out in 1946.  Today, we have soldiers returning home from Iraq, and some of them are facing problems similar to those of the WWII veterans, such as post traumatic stress disorder, combat related injuries and disabilities, etc. -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would have been really cool to see a post- WWII movie done with the same type of concept as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Crash&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. You know, have five to eight different storylines representing different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds from different parts of the country. To a certain extent, filmmakers have to rely on stereotypes in order to connect with the audience, but by widening the scope of post- war situations, the viewer could gain a deeper understanding of what the time was like. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does a remarkable job of depicting the realities of post-war, white, small town America.– Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really liked the film.  The film was longer, yes, but that didn&amp;#039;t hamper it at all!  I meant to only watch 1/2 on Tuesday and the other half on Wednesday, but I ended up watching about 130 minutes of it the first day because I wasn&amp;#039;t paying attention and was enjoying the film!  The only thing that made me stop watching was my husband texting me saying &amp;quot;I just got off the train be by the house in 5 minutes to get you to go vote&amp;quot; and I was like &amp;quot;Eep!&amp;quot;  So I liked the movie overall and would most definitely recommend it to other people! -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i felt that Peggy was a very strong character. Are they using Peggy&amp;#039;s character to show &lt;br /&gt;
women in a stronger role?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. It was centered around ordinary people, trying to accomplish an act that people have to go through everyday, acclimating to their surroundings. It&amp;#039;s a very real and telling movie, especially since it&amp;#039;s a film about returning from the war, filmed at a time when people were returning from the war. --Mallory C.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-06T01:27:44Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as source about the mid-1940s US (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, 31% of all marriages existing in the US in 1946 ended in divorce that year.  This would have been due to a variety of causes, primarily from the readjusting to family or friends.  People can change a lot in three years, and remember there were quick marriages like Fred&amp;#039;s before deployment, women becoming independent, veterans having mental problems, but also the new marriages like Homer coming home to marry his girl, though I don&amp;#039;t know numbers for that, and, of course, the baby boom.  I think this film pretty well represents different marriage situations resulting from war.  Al kept his marriage and loved his family, but now he drank more. However, I believe that his wife Milly still being the sweetest, most selfless person in the movie is just that image of the ideal wife to a returning husband. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I&amp;#039;m glad to be seeing this after the lecture.  Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn&amp;#039;t help Fred much.  One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tidbits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn&amp;#039;t just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We didn&amp;#039;t discuss this in class, but the I think it was common for soldiers fighting in Japan to take items such as samurai swords as souvenirs, like what Al brought home.  I interviewed my great-uncle, about his WWII experiences for my oral history project, and he talked about souvenirs he got from Japan, including a samurai sword, which he still has.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women represented in the film were all very independent. I felt that this was accurate to the time because they were forced to be autonomous while their men were away. This can be demonstrated in Marie taking a job at the nightclub, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
In addition - the film portrayed how the workforce had moved on without the soldiers. There were several grumbles about jobs not being safe due to the returning veterans, and it was obviously a source of tension for both sides of the conflict. Finally, in regards to war time production - the scene where they fly in and see all the unused airplanes that will be scrapped is pretty accurate as well.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does well at showing what soldiers returning from overseas had to face when they came back home.  Freddy comes home to learn that his wife has found a new job and moved in with herself, Mr. Stevenson(AL) finds that he is entitled to an even better job (unlike Fred) and Homer faces the tough task of adjusting to life in general with artificial hands.  Although it may seem that Homer faces the most psychological challenge, Freddy also faces challenges of confronting his past, as war memories seem to haunt him sporadically throughout the movie.  The wives of the soldiers also seem to be portrayed in extremes; Homer&amp;#039;s wife supports him and shows her love for him more than the other two and Freddy&amp;#039;s wife gave him a hard as they end up divorcing.  I would talk more about Al, but he just seems to have no problems at all at adjusting with the exception of maybe an acute fondness of drinking. -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Got a few notes on the economic issues portrayed in the film.  The movie shows Mr. Cameron making predictions that there will be a depression because of all the soldiers returning home, a widespread thought at the time.  Also, I thought other servicemen were guaranteed loans, however Al seems overly hesitant to give a loan to another serviceman because he has no collateral.  The movie also makes reference to and shows soldiers receiving unemployment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
War time savings put a lot of soldiers at an advantage, or at least helped make their transition home a lot easier.  Fred mentions he saved 1000 or received it from the treasury somehow.  That seems like a lot of money in an economy when groceries might have been a few cents and the most expensive of perfumes were a few bucks.  How did he go through all that money so fast?--Especially since the time span of the movie looks to only be a few months if that.--James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that the returning soldiers didn&amp;#039;t let Homers lose of hands effect the relationship. they are initially thrown off but accept it in a considerably short time. But his family take a long time to accept his situation. I  feel this is a good description of how families had a hard time dealing with returning soldiers, and how they often assumed that soldier was psychologically changed.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the depiction of the mental state of all three men was an accurate account of how some people were after the war.  Homer mostly fit right back in no problem, but he had his disability to work through, which many families had to deal with after the war.  Fred had the marriage right before the war, that in ended in divorce after the war.  Al was the example of the returning veteran who had been married long before the war, and dealt with a drinking problem after the war.  I felt the movie accurately depicted at least three varieties of people&amp;#039;s experiences after the war. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning when the three main characters are returning home in a taxi, Homer suggests &amp;quot;going to Butch&amp;#039;s for a drink&amp;quot; before being dropped off at his home.  This statement had some implications, primarily the anxiety being felt by the soldiers about returning home.  This is important because it shows that the hesitance and reluctance goes both ways (between soldiers and their families).  Furthermore, I assumed that all the men would be excited about returning home, but this movie shows how complex their feelings were about returning to their families.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with portraying how upon entering Boone, the soldiers are almost shocked to find that nothing has changed. Visually, to them, it seemed as if they never left home. I believe it&amp;#039;s Homer who points out that men are playing golf and the high school football team was playing a game and it is he who first points out that nothing has changed. As we discussed in class, these veterans saw and experienced things that most Americans couldn&amp;#039;t even conceive. For these men to have changed so drastically and to come home to a place that seemed as if time had stood still, was an idea they had a hard time grasping. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jonathan, the movie is limited to three experiences in one town.  There&amp;#039;s no broad sense of understanding how many troops actually came back and how they would have impacted societal, economic, and political realms of small towns, states, and the nation. -JamesD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The minority issue was a HUGE issue for me too as I watched the film, those of us who watched it at the regular screening actually started counting at one point - I believe that there were only three black people that I remember in the film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue I had might not be one at all.  In the unemployment line there were women.  I thought the scene was depicting the unemployment checks being handed out to veterans, I thought women didn&amp;#039;t get veterans pay for many years.  Or was it just unemployment in general? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that Peggy accuses her parents of never having had troubles. Considering the time that the movie takes place, the Great Depression was not that long ago, and most likely put at least a little strain on many marriages. Somehow the idea of a traditional wedding and a fancy honeymoon equals a good marriage, and I think this is an example of social myths we are still trying to get away from. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that struck me from a portion of the reading was how hard it must have been on loved ones who were awaiting their sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends return home. In the reading it mentions that letters are sent to wounded soldiers family members. The letters weren&amp;#039;t specific - just a &amp;quot;seriously injured&amp;quot; category and a forwarding address. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine having that little information about a loved one. All in all, I think that the film primarily focuses its attention on how it would have been to be a veteran returning to home, and somewhat avoided the situation of how life really was for those who had been left behind. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Fred is packing up to leave Boone City, he lets his parents keep the citations for his medals.  He tells them they just came with his K-rations, and they don&amp;#039;t mean much to him.  Does this mean that his citation was like a fill-in-the-blank that lots of people in his situation (whatever exactly that may have been) got, something that they were all issued?  Or that the citation was just so insignificant that it merely came with rations?  Paul Fussell reveals the dishonesty behind writing medal citations, and Fred&amp;#039;s attitude toward his is that it is also essentially meaningless.  Whatever it may be, his parents take pride in it, so that&amp;#039;s one mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ah, the ubiquitous &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;! Fussell talks about his arrival at the field hospital by saying, “It was like the scene of the aftermath of the Battle of Atlanta in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;”. Whether it was an exaggeration or not, Fussell uses this comparison to show the carnage of war (and everyone would have gotten it!). The other part of the reading that struck me as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;-esque was his discussion of the roles of nurses. Obviously, WWII nurses had the job of mending and dealing with soldiers in a very medical way, but they still seemed to serve the same kind of comforting role as Scarlet did in the Civil War. Fussell wrote about the nurse’s “freshness, affection, and good cheer” and how they shared “inside jokes”. It seems that the intangible qualities of nurses were just as important to a soldier’s psychological condition as their medical services were to a soldier’s physical well-being. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the second section of the Fussell reading, he noted that once out of the service, he no longer had to boast of the infantry&amp;#039;s supposed superiority when in all actuality they were the dregs of the armed forces. This sentiment does not seem to jibe with Al&amp;#039;s character in the movie. Early in the film when the 3 men meet, there is a scene where Al is quick to defend the honor of the infantry. Also, Al is a more prosperous man which belies Fussell&amp;#039;s assertion that the infantry is made up the lower rungs of society.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fussell also noted that upon his return he vowed to never work under anyone again and to get as far away from his combat clothes as he could manage. This reminded me a lot of Fred&amp;#039;s character. He swears that he won&amp;#039;t work the soda jerk job, and clearly hates wearing his uniform as evident when he and Marie argue over his suit.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Al states in the movie the likelihood of him being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; by his family.  I found this to be an interesting term, and even more interesting coming from a soldier.  This again derives from my assumption that soldiers would have been nothing but excited about seeing their families.  This movie, though, has made realize that the soldiers (especially them, not just the families) had all kinds of doubts and expectations about returning home.  The expectation of being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; was something I thought would come from the family and not Al.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The humor in this movie stood out to me as well.  Most of it was sarcastic and even dark, but nonetheless enjoyable.  I also like how the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; goes back to this time period.  It makes me feel better in case I ever go back in time and want to get drunk at a bar, and in order to describe my experience I use the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; and the people will know what I was talking about.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place.  Peggy then makes a comment about taking a class in domestic science, an interesting title.  Was this a common course in most school&amp;#039;s curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of generational tensions going on in the movie… about twenty years before generational tensions were “in”. The scene in Butch’s pub where Al pressures Fred into abandoning his feelings and intentions with Peggy reminded me of the scene in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Graduate&amp;#039;&amp;#039; when Mr. Robinson said to Ben, “I want you to stay away from Elaine”. In both examples we see a traditionally strong father figure dissuading a “drifting”/ unconventional suitor from pursuing a girl who deserves nothing but the best. Even though the mid-1940s and the late-1960s were radically different for many reasons, the uncertainty and optimism that existed in those two eras made the storyline of ‘love conquering all’ very appealing. It seems as though “Father Knows Best” was a notion reserved for the 1950s! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck at how successful the movie was in depicting an era that was still ongoing when the movie was released. In recent years nearly all of the movies made about the Iraq war have flopped commercially. I wonder why Best Years of Our Lives could be so successful during its day whereas similar attempts to depict a current war on screen have failed? Are we so tired of the 24/7 news bombardment that we shun movies depicting the war? It as not as though all the Iraq war movies have been bad either, some have been highly regarded by critics. Does it say more about society now or in the 40s that nobody watches movies about the Iraq war today, yet BYOL was such a success?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the story was and interesting concept. They took three men who returned and all are of different ranks. On their way home Fred is the man of power and is looked up to by the other two men but as the story continues he is the one who has the hardest fall. Al is of a lower rank but has rising power through out the story. Homer has a difficult time just like the other two but it has more to with psychology. His adjustment is considerably better at least with money then that of Fred. The story is well written and very compelling.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this movie better than any that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  It was more engaging and had good suspense.  I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we&amp;#039;re supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred&amp;#039;s marriage.  I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him....  I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed.  I didn&amp;#039;t get that from any of the other movies.  That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts.  In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history.  I wasn&amp;#039;t judging it like I judge historical movies.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie did such a good job portraying the time period accurately because the movie was made during the time period it depicts.  For a movie such as this, not a whole lot of research would have been necessary since the people involved with the movie are living in the time period the movie is supposed to portray.  I also think that this movie is very relevant to audiences today, just as it was when it first came out in 1946.  Today, we have soldiers returning home from Iraq, and some of them are facing problems similar to those of the WWII veterans, such as post traumatic stress disorder, combat related injuries and disabilities, etc. -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would have been really cool to see a post- WWII movie done with the same type of concept as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Crash&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. You know, have five to eight different storylines representing different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds from different parts of the country. To a certain extent, filmmakers have to rely on stereotypes in order to connect with the audience, but by widening the scope of post- war situations, the viewer could gain a deeper understanding of what the time was like. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does a remarkable job of depicting the realities of post-war, white, small town America.– Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really liked the film.  The film was longer, yes, but that didn&amp;#039;t hamper it at all!  I meant to only watch 1/2 on Tuesday and the other half on Wednesday, but I ended up watching about 130 minutes of it the first day because I wasn&amp;#039;t paying attention and was enjoying the film!  The only thing that made me stop watching was my husband texting me saying &amp;quot;I just got off the train be by the house in 5 minutes to get you to go vote&amp;quot; and I was like &amp;quot;Eep!&amp;quot;  So I liked the movie overall and would most definitely recommend it to other people! -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i felt that Peggy was a very strong character. Are they using Peggy&amp;#039;s character to show &lt;br /&gt;
women in a stronger role?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. It was centered around ordinary people, trying to accomplish an act that people have to go through everyday, acclimating to their surroundings. It&amp;#039;s a very real and telling movie, especially since it&amp;#039;s a film about returning from the war, filmed at a time when people were returning from the war. --Mallory C.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-30T02:18:35Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them.  They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job.  Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how Joe tapped into the idea of Scientific Management during his first rousing speech at the workers meeting. He described the exploitative practices of the bosses and how workers were like parts of a machine that could be replaced. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jason, I have to say I was actually kind of surprised that Kenehan brought up the subject of Scientific Management during his speech.  I think it was helpful for swaying the men to the union because I don&amp;#039;t think many men realized just how invaluable they really were to large companies.  The white men could easily have been (and were in the process of being) replaced by the Italian men and the blacks that were also arriving in Matewan.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that the Italian woman and the old white woman, though at first not being very good neighbors (at least the old one) eventually became reconciled to share and sit together--and to provide comfort when the old lady&amp;#039;s son (grandson?) was killed.  The union had to get the miners to accept the minority scabs who wanted to join the union with them, so it seems appropriate to show that their families had to learn to get along and accept each other, as well. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was pretty generally accurate. It&amp;#039;s not the most perfect of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched, but it did seem to present most of the different sides and opinions involved in the formation of unions and the difficulties of the time. For the record, &amp;#039;villain&amp;#039; is a side, in this case, as we are still talking about a Hollywood movie, and the corporations and secret police could be legitimately cruel. ---Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with showing how even though the men had skepticisms about joining the Union, it was necessary in order to stand up to the mining companies and to demand that they be treated better than just mere &amp;quot;equipment.&amp;quot; The movie accurately portrayed  the brutality that went along with the competition for jobs between races and ethnicities. Also, as Kenehan pointed out it was a fight between those who worked and those who didn&amp;#039;t ( bosses standing around holding guns as miners walked out of mine), it shouldn&amp;#039;t be about skin color or background because at the end of the day they&amp;#039;re all workers and they&amp;#039;re all oppressed. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I haven&amp;#039;t finished the movie yet, in fact I&amp;#039;m not in to it all that much.  However, from the beginning of the movie they did get right just how dirty the men got, and also that they coughed a lot from the dust and particles. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tensions between the whites/blacks, blacks/Italians and Italians/Whites were all very well-portrayed in my opinion. The attacks that Few Clothes incurred towards the beginning of the movie, as well as the tension between the Italian grandmother and white mother throughout the film were both very realistic to me. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We learned in class that the Red Scare was a real blow to the Labor Movement in the U.S and people were suspicious of anyone/anything that could be seen as promoting Communism. This is shown in the movie when Hatfield (I believe) is writing a letter to Felts and says he believes it&amp;#039;s possible Kenehan could be a Red. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt the movie did a good job in portraying the problems facing the workers. Particularly I felt they did a good job dealing with the issue of the company store and company owned houses. The movie made clear the problems mine workers faced because of this arrangement and also shows the fact that the company really did have a lot of power. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie portrayed the level of desperation and volatility that was present in these areas where unions were trying to get off the ground. Before the title even came up you are treated to the hostility of the miners toward the &amp;quot;dago&amp;quot; scabs. Then there is the attack of the black miners brought in as well. The ethnic/racial tension was pretty well represented. I also felt that the taking up of arms against the company was powerful in its depiction of the desperation of the miners, and the lack of real government control in the region. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From what I gathered from Tuesday&amp;#039;s lecture, I thought Matewan was an accurate portrayal of the time.  The racial tensions among the white miners, African-American miners, and the Italian immigrants were present, as was their coming together in the face of incredible adversity.  The racism, while certainly prevalent, didn&amp;#039;t overwhelm the characters.  Sayles also included the anti-Communist sentiment that plagued the labor movement.  All in all, probably the most historically accurate movie we&amp;#039;ve seen so far this semester.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would a woman shoot a dead man multiple times like that woman did after the massacre? I know people were pissed at the mine owners&amp;#039; treatment of miners and their families, but that&amp;#039;s excessive. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I was that woman, I probably would have done the same thing, simply because her boy just had his throat slit by those men.  She was pissed off and emotionally a wreck from not just the union stuff, but her boy being murdered.  Just my opinion though. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems.  The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real?  I do not remember talking about him in class at all?  Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that history is caricatured.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the movie a lot, but for the sake of criticism I think the stereotypical characters and characterizations need to be examined. Now that I have a complex about “stealing people’s thunder” I will only briefly layout my litany and encourage people to elaborate on and/or discredit my claims. The Stone Mountain men clearly mocked the hill people and miners’ way of life, but were especially damning (pun intended) of their religiosity. Were businessmen at this time secular, or was this a plot device to further distinguish the two groups? The mayor was quite noble and honest, was the real Testerman so virtuous or was that too a mechanism of contrast? Finally, the boy preacher Andrew, were young miners (another pun?) that well- educated and articulate, and capable of rallying the members of a community to champion a cause? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Kellye and Jason, I was caught off guard when the main character was fictional.  At least in the other movies we&amp;#039;ve watched, the main characters have been based off of, and were supposed to be, the historical figure.  To see &amp;quot;Few Clothes&amp;quot; Johnson and Sheriff Hatfield in this movie you would expect the writers to use an actual member of the union to be the central figure.  I just don&amp;#039;t understand why filmmakers decide to create people instead of take an historical event and follow through with it. -Kelly Wuyscik &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that although Testerman was noble and honest, he was also portrayed as naive and unassertive.  He&amp;#039;s the character to take pity on when he dies at the end because he was only for upholding what was right and never hurt anybody.  He was not assertive in anything he said, from a first &amp;quot;this is town property&amp;quot; to the agents (that was their point...) to his final &amp;quot;You people have no right to come to this town....&amp;quot;  Ultimately, we find that his words were pretty much in vain.  Nevertheless, his and Hatsfield&amp;#039;s standing up to the agents is a testament to their characters, who in reality refused bribes from coal corporations. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to point out another Glade Plug-In Moment - When Hillard&amp;#039;s (not sure how to spell) Mom offers her extra food to the large Italian family and there is some trouble in the communication - then all of the sudden a vague gesture indicates for the white lady to sit down and POOF the Italian woman understands a compliment about her beautiful children. I agree that there is a good point here that there was a mixing of cultures, immigrants, blacks and white hillbillies, but it is cinematic effect again that transcends all language barrier that is unbelievable to me. And for the record I was a grumbler as we left the theater, I didn&amp;#039;t particularly like the movie and I&amp;#039;m not a film buff but I do know what I like and don&amp;#039;t like entertainment-wise. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it common to have young people working in the coal mines?  I think the movie showed the boy preacher, I believe his name was Danny, working in the coal mines.  ~Katherine~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like someone as young as Danny would not have been allowed to work in the coal mines, or would he of because he would have been cheaper labor?  Also, would a congregation really sit and listen to a 15 year old preach to them?  That just seemed a bit weird to me. Danny also didn&amp;#039;t know how to throw a baseball apparently, but that&amp;#039;s a different subject altogether. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katherine and Kelly, I&amp;#039;m pretty sure that at the time, especially with labor like this, that there were HS-age kids working in the mines. They are cheap labor and are probably going to be healthier for longer, also making them long-available labor. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also don&amp;#039;t think the movie did all that great of a job showing the dangers of working in a coal mine.  None of the characters had coal mining related injuries, but there was one guy in the beginning of the movie who had a bad cough, he might have had black lung from all the coal dust. ~Katherine~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just a minor issue, the readings led me to believe, it could have been just the one, that most miners didn&amp;#039;t leave or get out of the mines until after dark, but they definitely left and got home in the daylight, at least in the beginning. I&amp;#039;ll try to remember to update this after I finish the movie. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the problems I had with this movie is that I feel it really simplified the race ethnic union unification. It would not be something that would happen as rapidly and easily as the movie showed, but something that would take a lot of effort over time. I also did not like the fact that after the first scene in the movie no one else was shown either sick or coughing although the damage to peoples lungs would carry on even when they were not working in the mines. A lot of scenes also felt cliche or just silly. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the reading &amp;quot;The Bitter Cry of Children,&amp;quot; there were kids working in the coal mines with men.  They acted as &amp;quot;breaker boys,&amp;quot; collecting coal deposits and doing other menial tasks.  The significance here is that they experienced the same harsh conditions as the men, but at a greater cost because they are weaker (i.e. most die as a result).  I think Danny is representative of this youth (but keep in mind that there were younger kids working as well), but I have trouble interpreting his role as a preacher-in-training.  How much of a role did religion play with the labor union?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the black scabs are considering joining the union, Few Clothes likens the mining situation to slavery, largely due to the fact that the miners are made to be entirely dependent upon the company for its needs.  Referring to the start of the UMWA, Ratliff has called the mining situation slavery.  In &amp;quot;The Tyranny of the Company Store&amp;quot; we read accounts of the forced dependence.  Having to work for as long as they did, in the danger they did, essentially getting in return their food and housing, perhaps clothing, all subtracted from the binding scrip wages, and not being economically able to move out of the town, was akin to some conditions of slavery. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the Piece Rate system that we heard only good things about in the reading was actually not endorsed by Joe in the film. Now I am skeptical of who wrote this account. Joe&amp;#039;s machinery explanation makes more sense to me.  - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another part of the readings that I found odd in comparison to the film was the passivity of the dying coal miners in their last notes to their loved ones. In the film these miners seemed anything but passive. Religious and definitely along the same lines of waiting for their loved ones in heaven, but a little more spiteful towards the poor conditions that caused deaths and injuries. Only one man writes to his sons to never become coal miners - I felt it should have been more than that. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I didn&amp;#039;t like about the movie was how little they focused on actually being in the mines (although, for the record you couldn&amp;#039;t see a thing while they were actually in the mines so maybe it&amp;#039;s for the best.)  because the audience never got a sense of how terrible work actually was in there.  In some of the readings you can really get a sense that there was little air and that they were getting sick and trapped and injured but in the movie, more people died of gunfire than via coal mining.  It just didn&amp;#039;t seem to measure up right. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading for this week titled “Oh God, For One More Breath”: Early 20th century Tennessee Coal Miners’ Last Words, showed how religious these people were.  They constantly referred to Jesus, and how they were going to go to Heaven, and wanted to meet their family up there too. These documents reminded me of how religious the miners in the movie, especially the Italians, were with their statues of Mary, and other religious items.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading, “The Greatest Thing” Hawkins and Ratliff were talking about the revival of the UMWA by John L. Lewis and the election of FDR as the end of “slavery”. The use of slavery- era rhetoric is interesting, and I think apt. Using this language has particular prudence in the American discussion of workers rights, but was it uniquely American? I imagine that in the European context “slavery” would not be as emotive and catalytic. So, I guess that begs the question, how effective was this kind of rhetoric in America in terms of union membership and support?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Considering how religious mine workers were from the readings it seems off the way movie treats religion. Joe Canahan is accepted in the movie easily enough even after he states he is not religious. It seems that type of behavior would alienate and anger a lot mine workers who were very religious. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Tennessee Coal Miners&amp;#039; Last Words&amp;quot; does not directly relate, but I think it does help to further impress just how serious a job coal mining was, and why it was so important to fight for better working conditions and more rights. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a United States Court of Appeals case that included UMWA and a coal company back in the 1980s (INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant-Appellant: 916 F.2d 1499; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18131; 135 L.R.R.M. 2663; 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,363 [Source: Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.com]). Since the events that was discussed in the case happened when the movie came out, this is evidence that there was unrest between the miners and the mine owners that they worked for, even up to the late 1980s. So, there had to be tensions during the production of the film. In this particular case, there was an agreement between the two parties that expired in spring of 1987. The employers gave the miners an offer that the union rejected by striking. Afterward, the company refused to let some of the workers back on the basis of misconduct during the strike (like Dr. M said during the lecture, the companies found ways to get at the strikers). The court ruled in favor of the union.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found an article comparing the 1920s and 1980s (in a general sense, it seems) that mentions the state of unions in both periods. Basically, it seems to say that unions in the 1980s were facing the same problems as in the 1920s - layoffs, wage slashes, inability to affect policy or working conditions. Union membership declined in the 1980s, from some 25 percent of the workforce to 17 percent, much like in the 1920s when union membership dropped from 4.5 million in 1920 to 2.7 million in 1928 (according to this article, but generally it does jive with what we learned on Tuesday). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was neat how they made the impression that the young boy, Danny, was the narrator in the movie. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving  our luxury theatre. So here&amp;#039;s my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of &amp;quot;There Will Be Blood,&amp;quot; a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out &amp;quot;I abandoned my boy!&amp;quot; There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t agree more! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holy crap. Take it back Jackie. Take it back right now. There Will Be Blood was the best movie I&amp;#039;ve seen in years, unquestionably. How can you possibly rag on a PT Anderson film?! And if we are going to nitpick actors, Will Oldham showed everyone why he should have stuck to music. He&amp;#039;s great in Old Joy, but pretty awful in this. However, Chris Cooper showed why he has been given so many solid roles in later years, and I have yet to see a James Earl Jones movie I don&amp;#039;t like. And did anyone else notice that the guy who plays Dr.Kelso on &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Scrubs&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was in this?? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, now I enjoyed Matewan, but I feel that comparisons to TWBB are mostly superficial. Yes they both are centered on extractive industries in rural areas pre WWII, and yes there is the young preacher in both films as well. But first, I have to say that the music (at least for me) served different purposes in each film. Whereas in Matewan (and again I wasn&amp;#039;t wholly focused on it) the music struck me more as just capturing the feel of the region, but TWBB&amp;#039;s score (by the guitarist from Radiohead I believe) served more to heighten tension and highlight the rise and fall of Daniel Plainview. Then there are the characters. Matewan as you said, has a strong ensemble, but TWBB was basically all Daniel Day Lewis all the time (though Paul Dano was effectively creepy). Also, Matewan focuses on the workers themselves and to my knowledge didn&amp;#039;t even name the owners, whereas in TWBB the lowly workers largely are ignored. Regarding the films&amp;#039; young preachers, I felt that in TWBB Dano&amp;#039;s character was used to be a sort of distorted mirror image of DDL. His church grows as does Plainview&amp;#039;s oil company, and in the end they are both men who have essentially fallen from grace, and I don&amp;#039;t feel that Matewan used the boy-preacher in the same manner. Also, Matewan was attempting to depict a specific historical event and place, whereas I felt that TWBB (based off an Upton Sinclair novel) was more allegorical in its approach by showing the self-made (and self-destructed) man. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I enjoy PT Anderson as well, but certainly he is not infallible. The ending to Magnolia, I don&amp;#039;t want to spoil it because it&amp;#039;s still a good movie, but seriously what the hell? -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I liked how the spy in Matewan was the guy who played the warden in Shawshank. That man is good at being evil. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh come, now, Jackie.  You couldn&amp;#039;t understand the WV accent?  I enjoyed listening to the dialect (and understanding it all), but I think my awareness of and interest in dialects other than my own (I&amp;#039;m told it&amp;#039;s largely Midwest) have been heightened since I&amp;#039;ve been taking linguistics. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slowest. Movie. Ever. I don&amp;#039;t care how accurate it was, for me it was as slow as Last of the Mohicans.  Scratch that, it felt 12 times longer. Also, I&amp;#039;m beyond upset that they killed Hillard.  He was my favorite.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this was the movie that was the hardest for me to get through. Although, I thought it was comparable to Patriot&amp;#039;s meandering story, not so much Mohicans, which I love every time I sit down to watch it. I&amp;#039;m not the biggest Heath Ledger fan though... -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that that this movie is very evenly paced for what it is depicting. Its not like a war movie, this deals with strikes and unions. Its not like Mel Gibson is in this movie. The miners have to strike hard enough to be noticed but not enough to be considered a riot.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Awh, come on now, those accents were bad or thick.  I should know, been out that way a lot with having lots of family from WV... I thought it was easy enough to understand them to be honest, but my golden rule is if you have trouble understanding put subtitles on.  :-D --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way the Baldwin detectives in the movie feels very stylistic too me. They are portrayed as complete vllians with no sympathetic attributes whatsoever. The movie takes a clear good versus evil approach. Sure the Baldwin detectives may have done terrible things, but I think this movie goes too far in portraying them as evil. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had to watch this movie over two days (not because it was boring, but because I had to leave in the middle of the screening, so I finished the next day).  So during my intermission, I IMDB&amp;#039;d the film and was impressed by how critically-acclaimed the movie was.  Upon finishing the film and the readings (and regarding the lecture), I found very strong correlations between all sources.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; included all the characters mentioned in class (unlike &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;), it implemented the main themes from the readings (children working in the mines, the idea of science in industry, the role of violence, etc).  So while the movie indeed moved at a snail&amp;#039;s pace, I think we should sacrifice that for movies that work hard to achieve historical accuracy.  I also challenge the class to not mention Mel Gibson once for next week&amp;#039;s wiki comments.  We can put his name in the same bubble as we did with &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the comparison with There Will Be Blood.  These are two very different, though great, films.  (TWWB or Atonement should have won the Oscar over No Country!)  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matewan is definitely a film buff&amp;#039;s movie.  It&amp;#039;s one of those films I&amp;#039;m glad I&amp;#039;ve seen, but probably wouldn&amp;#039;t watch again.  Stunning cinematography and use of music, great acting, etc.  It effectively conveys the oppressive, claustrophobic atmosphere of a West Virginia mining town (and of the mines themselves).  To echo what I said above, I think this is the best secondary source of the past that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  Too bad we couldn&amp;#039;t have watched this before the midterm!  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this movie being slow but it is definitely one of the more accurate movies we&amp;#039;ve watched (company stores and the cruel/creepy bosses/Felts just to name a few). But, the music is awesome and I felt claustrophobic (esp during the opening credits) just watching this movie! -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thoght the use of the church to tell parts of the story was a very well done and really moved it along.--matt&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-30T02:13:39Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them.  They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job.  Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how Joe tapped into the idea of Scientific Management during his first rousing speech at the workers meeting. He described the exploitative practices of the bosses and how workers were like parts of a machine that could be replaced. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jason, I have to say I was actually kind of surprised that Kenehan brought up the subject of Scientific Management during his speech.  I think it was helpful for swaying the men to the union because I don&amp;#039;t think many men realized just how invaluable they really were to large companies.  The white men could easily have been (and were in the process of being) replaced by the Italian men and the blacks that were also arriving in Matewan.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that the Italian woman and the old white woman, though at first not being very good neighbors (at least the old one) eventually became reconciled to share and sit together--and to provide comfort when the old lady&amp;#039;s son (grandson?) was killed.  The union had to get the miners to accept the minority scabs who wanted to join the union with them, so it seems appropriate to show that their families had to learn to get along and accept each other, as well. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was pretty generally accurate. It&amp;#039;s not the most perfect of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched, but it did seem to present most of the different sides and opinions involved in the formation of unions and the difficulties of the time. For the record, &amp;#039;villain&amp;#039; is a side, in this case, as we are still talking about a Hollywood movie, and the corporations and secret police could be legitimately cruel. ---Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with showing how even though the men had skepticisms about joining the Union, it was necessary in order to stand up to the mining companies and to demand that they be treated better than just mere &amp;quot;equipment.&amp;quot; The movie accurately portrayed  the brutality that went along with the competition for jobs between races and ethnicities. Also, as Kenehan pointed out it was a fight between those who worked and those who didn&amp;#039;t ( bosses standing around holding guns as miners walked out of mine), it shouldn&amp;#039;t be about skin color or background because at the end of the day they&amp;#039;re all workers and they&amp;#039;re all oppressed. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I haven&amp;#039;t finished the movie yet, in fact I&amp;#039;m not in to it all that much.  However, from the beginning of the movie they did get right just how dirty the men got, and also that they coughed a lot from the dust and particles. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tensions between the whites/blacks, blacks/Italians and Italians/Whites were all very well-portrayed in my opinion. The attacks that Few Clothes incurred towards the beginning of the movie, as well as the tension between the Italian grandmother and white mother throughout the film were both very realistic to me. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We learned in class that the Red Scare was a real blow to the Labor Movement in the U.S and people were suspicious of anyone/anything that could be seen as promoting Communism. This is shown in the movie when Hatfield (I believe) is writing a letter to Felts and says he believes it&amp;#039;s possible Kenehan could be a Red. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt the movie did a good job in portraying the problems facing the workers. Particularly I felt they did a good job dealing with the issue of the company store and company owned houses. The movie made clear the problems mine workers faced because of this arrangement and also shows the fact that the company really did have a lot of power. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie portrayed the level of desperation and volatility that was present in these areas where unions were trying to get off the ground. Before the title even came up you are treated to the hostility of the miners toward the &amp;quot;dago&amp;quot; scabs. Then there is the attack of the black miners brought in as well. The ethnic/racial tension was pretty well represented. I also felt that the taking up of arms against the company was powerful in its depiction of the desperation of the miners, and the lack of real government control in the region. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From what I gathered from Tuesday&amp;#039;s lecture, I thought Matewan was an accurate portrayal of the time.  The racial tensions among the white miners, African-American miners, and the Italian immigrants were present, as was their coming together in the face of incredible adversity.  The racism, while certainly prevalent, didn&amp;#039;t overwhelm the characters.  Sayles also included the anti-Communist sentiment that plagued the labor movement.  All in all, probably the most historically accurate movie we&amp;#039;ve seen so far this semester.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would a woman shoot a dead man multiple times like that woman did after the massacre? I know people were pissed at the mine owners&amp;#039; treatment of miners and their families, but that&amp;#039;s excessive. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I was that woman, I probably would have done the same thing, simply because her boy just had his throat slit by those men.  She was pissed off and emotionally a wreck from not just the union stuff, but her boy being murdered.  Just my opinion though. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems.  The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real?  I do not remember talking about him in class at all?  Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that history is caricatured.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the movie a lot, but for the sake of criticism I think the stereotypical characters and characterizations need to be examined. Now that I have a complex about “stealing people’s thunder” I will only briefly layout my litany and encourage people to elaborate on and/or discredit my claims. The Stone Mountain men clearly mocked the hill people and miners’ way of life, but were especially damning (pun intended) of their religiosity. Were businessmen at this time secular, or was this a plot device to further distinguish the two groups? The mayor was quite noble and honest, was the real Testerman so virtuous or was that too a mechanism of contrast? Finally, the boy preacher Andrew, were young miners (another pun?) that well- educated and articulate, and capable of rallying the members of a community to champion a cause? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Kellye and Jason, I was caught off guard when the main character was fictional.  At least in the other movies we&amp;#039;ve watched, the main characters have been based off of, and were supposed to be, the historical figure.  To see &amp;quot;Few Clothes&amp;quot; Johnson and Sheriff Hatfield in this movie you would expect the writers to use an actual member of the union to be the central figure.  I just don&amp;#039;t understand why filmmakers decide to create people instead of take an historical event and follow through with it. -Kelly Wuyscik &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that although Testerman was noble and honest, he was also portrayed as naive and unassertive.  He&amp;#039;s the character to take pity on when he dies at the end because he was only for upholding what was right and never hurt anybody.  He was not assertive in anything he said, from a first &amp;quot;this is town property&amp;quot; to the agents (that was their point...) to his final &amp;quot;You people have no right to come to this town....&amp;quot;  Ultimately, we find that his words were pretty much in vain.  Nevertheless, his and Hatsfield&amp;#039;s standing up to the agents is a testament to their characters, who in reality refused bribes from coal corporations. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to point out another Glade Plug-In Moment - When Hillard&amp;#039;s (not sure how to spell) Mom offers her extra food to the large Italian family and there is some trouble in the communication - then all of the sudden a vague gesture indicates for the white lady to sit down and POOF the Italian woman understands a compliment about her beautiful children. I agree that there is a good point here that there was a mixing of cultures, immigrants, blacks and white hillbillies, but it is cinematic effect again that transcends all language barrier that is unbelievable to me. And for the record I was a grumbler as we left the theater, I didn&amp;#039;t particularly like the movie and I&amp;#039;m not a film buff but I do know what I like and don&amp;#039;t like entertainment-wise. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it common to have young people working in the coal mines?  I think the movie showed the boy preacher, I believe his name was Danny, working in the coal mines.  ~Katherine~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like someone as young as Danny would not have been allowed to work in the coal mines, or would he of because he would have been cheaper labor?  Also, would a congregation really sit and listen to a 15 year old preach to them?  That just seemed a bit weird to me. Danny also didn&amp;#039;t know how to throw a baseball apparently, but that&amp;#039;s a different subject altogether. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katherine and Kelly, I&amp;#039;m pretty sure that at the time, especially with labor like this, that there were HS-age kids working in the mines. They are cheap labor and are probably going to be healthier for longer, also making them long-available labor. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also don&amp;#039;t think the movie did all that great of a job showing the dangers of working in a coal mine.  None of the characters had coal mining related injuries, but there was one guy in the beginning of the movie who had a bad cough, he might have had black lung from all the coal dust. ~Katherine~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just a minor issue, the readings led me to believe, it could have been just the one, that most miners didn&amp;#039;t leave or get out of the mines until after dark, but they definitely left and got home in the daylight, at least in the beginning. I&amp;#039;ll try to remember to update this after I finish the movie. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the problems I had with this movie is that I feel it really simplified the race ethnic union unification. It would not be something that would happen as rapidly and easily as the movie showed, but something that would take a lot of effort over time. I also did not like the fact that after the first scene in the movie no one else was shown either sick or coughing although the damage to peoples lungs would carry on even when they were not working in the mines. A lot of scenes also felt cliche or just silly. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the reading &amp;quot;The Bitter Cry of Children,&amp;quot; there were kids working in the coal mines with men.  They acted as &amp;quot;breaker boys,&amp;quot; collecting coal deposits and doing other menial tasks.  The significance here is that they experienced the same harsh conditions as the men, but at a greater cost because they are weaker (i.e. most die as a result).  I think Danny is representative of this youth (but keep in mind that there were younger kids working as well), but I have trouble interpreting his role as a preacher-in-training.  How much of a role did religion play with the labor union?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the black scabs are considering joining the union, Few Clothes likens the mining situation to slavery, largely due to the fact that the miners are made to be entirely dependent upon the company for its needs.  Referring to the start of the UMWA, Ratliff has called the mining situation slavery.  In &amp;quot;The Tyranny of the Company Store&amp;quot; we read accounts of the forced dependence.  Having to work for as long as they did, in the danger they did, essentially getting in return their food and housing, perhaps clothing, all subtracted from the binding scrip wages, and not being economically able to move out of the town, was akin to some conditions of slavery. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the Piece Rate system that we heard only good things about in the reading was actually not endorsed by Joe in the film. Now I am skeptical of who wrote this account. Joe&amp;#039;s machinery explanation makes more sense to me.  - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another part of the readings that I found odd in comparison to the film was the passivity of the dying coal miners in their last notes to their loved ones. In the film these miners seemed anything but passive. Religious and definitely along the same lines of waiting for their loved ones in heaven, but a little more spiteful towards the poor conditions that caused deaths and injuries. Only one man writes to his sons to never become coal miners - I felt it should have been more than that. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I didn&amp;#039;t like about the movie was how little they focused on actually being in the mines (although, for the record you couldn&amp;#039;t see a thing while they were actually in the mines so maybe it&amp;#039;s for the best.)  because the audience never got a sense of how terrible work actually was in there.  In some of the readings you can really get a sense that there was little air and that they were getting sick and trapped and injured but in the movie, more people died of gunfire than via coal mining.  It just didn&amp;#039;t seem to measure up right. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading for this week titled “Oh God, For One More Breath”: Early 20th century Tennessee Coal Miners’ Last Words, showed how religious these people were.  They constantly referred to Jesus, and how they were going to go to Heaven, and wanted to meet their family up there too. These documents reminded me of how religious the miners in the movie, especially the Italians, were with their statues of Mary, and other religious items.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading, “The Greatest Thing” Hawkins and Ratliff were talking about the revival of the UMWA by John L. Lewis and the election of FDR as the end of “slavery”. The use of slavery- era rhetoric is interesting, and I think apt. Using this language has particular prudence in the American discussion of workers rights, but was it uniquely American? I imagine that in the European context “slavery” would not be as emotive and catalytic. So, I guess that begs the question, how effective was this kind of rhetoric in America in terms of union membership and support?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Considering how religious mine workers were from the readings it seems off the way movie treats religion. Joe Canahan is accepted in the movie easily enough even after he states he is not religious. It seems that type of behavior would alienate and anger a lot mine workers who were very religious. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a United States Court of Appeals case that included UMWA and a coal company back in the 1980s (INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant-Appellant: 916 F.2d 1499; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18131; 135 L.R.R.M. 2663; 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,363 [Source: Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.com]). Since the events that was discussed in the case happened when the movie came out, this is evidence that there was unrest between the miners and the mine owners that they worked for, even up to the late 1980s. So, there had to be tensions during the production of the film. In this particular case, there was an agreement between the two parties that expired in spring of 1987. The employers gave the miners an offer that the union rejected by striking. Afterward, the company refused to let some of the workers back on the basis of misconduct during the strike (like Dr. M said during the lecture, the companies found ways to get at the strikers). The court ruled in favor of the union.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found an article comparing the 1920s and 1980s (in a general sense, it seems) that mentions the state of unions in both periods. Basically, it seems to say that unions in the 1980s were facing the same problems as in the 1920s - layoffs, wage slashes, inability to affect policy or working conditions. Union membership declined in the 1980s, from some 25 percent of the workforce to 17 percent, much like in the 1920s when union membership dropped from 4.5 million in 1920 to 2.7 million in 1928 (according to this article, but generally it does jive with what we learned on Tuesday). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was neat how they made the impression that the young boy, Danny, was the narrator in the movie. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving  our luxury theatre. So here&amp;#039;s my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of &amp;quot;There Will Be Blood,&amp;quot; a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out &amp;quot;I abandoned my boy!&amp;quot; There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t agree more! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holy crap. Take it back Jackie. Take it back right now. There Will Be Blood was the best movie I&amp;#039;ve seen in years, unquestionably. How can you possibly rag on a PT Anderson film?! And if we are going to nitpick actors, Will Oldham showed everyone why he should have stuck to music. He&amp;#039;s great in Old Joy, but pretty awful in this. However, Chris Cooper showed why he has been given so many solid roles in later years, and I have yet to see a James Earl Jones movie I don&amp;#039;t like. And did anyone else notice that the guy who plays Dr.Kelso on &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Scrubs&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was in this?? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, now I enjoyed Matewan, but I feel that comparisons to TWBB are mostly superficial. Yes they both are centered on extractive industries in rural areas pre WWII, and yes there is the young preacher in both films as well. But first, I have to say that the music (at least for me) served different purposes in each film. Whereas in Matewan (and again I wasn&amp;#039;t wholly focused on it) the music struck me more as just capturing the feel of the region, but TWBB&amp;#039;s score (by the guitarist from Radiohead I believe) served more to heighten tension and highlight the rise and fall of Daniel Plainview. Then there are the characters. Matewan as you said, has a strong ensemble, but TWBB was basically all Daniel Day Lewis all the time (though Paul Dano was effectively creepy). Also, Matewan focuses on the workers themselves and to my knowledge didn&amp;#039;t even name the owners, whereas in TWBB the lowly workers largely are ignored. Regarding the films&amp;#039; young preachers, I felt that in TWBB Dano&amp;#039;s character was used to be a sort of distorted mirror image of DDL. His church grows as does Plainview&amp;#039;s oil company, and in the end they are both men who have essentially fallen from grace, and I don&amp;#039;t feel that Matewan used the boy-preacher in the same manner. Also, Matewan was attempting to depict a specific historical event and place, whereas I felt that TWBB (based off an Upton Sinclair novel) was more allegorical in its approach by showing the self-made (and self-destructed) man. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I enjoy PT Anderson as well, but certainly he is not infallible. The ending to Magnolia, I don&amp;#039;t want to spoil it because it&amp;#039;s still a good movie, but seriously what the hell? -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I liked how the spy in Matewan was the guy who played the warden in Shawshank. That man is good at being evil. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh come, now, Jackie.  You couldn&amp;#039;t understand the WV accent?  I enjoyed listening to the dialect (and understanding it all), but I think my awareness of and interest in dialects other than my own (I&amp;#039;m told it&amp;#039;s largely Midwest) have been heightened since I&amp;#039;ve been taking linguistics. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slowest. Movie. Ever. I don&amp;#039;t care how accurate it was, for me it was as slow as Last of the Mohicans.  Scratch that, it felt 12 times longer. Also, I&amp;#039;m beyond upset that they killed Hillard.  He was my favorite.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this was the movie that was the hardest for me to get through. Although, I thought it was comparable to Patriot&amp;#039;s meandering story, not so much Mohicans, which I love every time I sit down to watch it. I&amp;#039;m not the biggest Heath Ledger fan though... -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that that this movie is very evenly paced for what it is depicting. Its not like a war movie, this deals with strikes and unions. Its not like Mel Gibson is in this movie. The miners have to strike hard enough to be noticed but not enough to be considered a riot.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Awh, come on now, those accents were bad or thick.  I should know, been out that way a lot with having lots of family from WV... I thought it was easy enough to understand them to be honest, but my golden rule is if you have trouble understanding put subtitles on.  :-D --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way the Baldwin detectives in the movie feels very stylistic too me. They are portrayed as complete vllians with no sympathetic attributes whatsoever. The movie takes a clear good versus evil approach. Sure the Baldwin detectives may have done terrible things, but I think this movie goes too far in portraying them as evil. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had to watch this movie over two days (not because it was boring, but because I had to leave in the middle of the screening, so I finished the next day).  So during my intermission, I IMDB&amp;#039;d the film and was impressed by how critically-acclaimed the movie was.  Upon finishing the film and the readings (and regarding the lecture), I found very strong correlations between all sources.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; included all the characters mentioned in class (unlike &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;), it implemented the main themes from the readings (children working in the mines, the idea of science in industry, the role of violence, etc).  So while the movie indeed moved at a snail&amp;#039;s pace, I think we should sacrifice that for movies that work hard to achieve historical accuracy.  I also challenge the class to not mention Mel Gibson once for next week&amp;#039;s wiki comments.  We can put his name in the same bubble as we did with &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the comparison with There Will Be Blood.  These are two very different, though great, films.  (TWWB or Atonement should have won the Oscar over No Country!)  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matewan is definitely a film buff&amp;#039;s movie.  It&amp;#039;s one of those films I&amp;#039;m glad I&amp;#039;ve seen, but probably wouldn&amp;#039;t watch again.  Stunning cinematography and use of music, great acting, etc.  It effectively conveys the oppressive, claustrophobic atmosphere of a West Virginia mining town (and of the mines themselves).  To echo what I said above, I think this is the best secondary source of the past that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  Too bad we couldn&amp;#039;t have watched this before the midterm!  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this movie being slow but it is definitely one of the more accurate movies we&amp;#039;ve watched (company stores and the cruel/creepy bosses/Felts just to name a few). But, the music is awesome and I felt claustrophobic (esp during the opening credits) just watching this movie! -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thoght the use of the church to tell parts of the story was a very well done and really moved it along.--matt&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-29T04:01:45Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them.  They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job.  Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how Joe tapped into the idea of Scientific Management during his first rousing speech at the workers meeting. He described the exploitative practices of the bosses and how workers were like parts of a machine that could be replaced. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that the Italian woman and the old white woman, though at first not being very good neighbors (at least the old one) eventually became reconciled to share and sit together--and to provide comfort when the old lady&amp;#039;s son (grandson?) was killed.  The union had to get the miners to accept the minority scabs who wanted to join the union with them, so it seems appropriate to show that their families had to learn to get along and accept each other, as well. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was pretty generally accurate. It&amp;#039;s not the most perfect of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched, but it did seem to present most of the different sides and opinions involved in the formation of unions and the difficulties of the time. For the record, &amp;#039;villain&amp;#039; is a side, in this case, as we are still talking about a Hollywood movie, and the corporations and secret police could be legitimately cruel. ---Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would a woman shoot a dead man multiple times like that woman did after the massacre? I know people were pissed at the mine owners&amp;#039; treatment of miners and their families, but that&amp;#039;s excessive. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems.  The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real?  I do not remember talking about him in class at all?  Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that history is caricatured.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the movie a lot, but for the sake of criticism I think the stereotypical characters and characterizations need to be examined. Now that I have a complex about “stealing people’s thunder” I will only briefly layout my litany and encourage people to elaborate on and/or discredit my claims. The Stone Mountain men clearly mocked the hill people and miners’ way of life, but were especially damning (pun intended) of their religiosity. Were businessmen at this time secular, or was this a plot device to further distinguish the two groups? The mayor was quite noble and honest, was the real Testerman so virtuous or was that too a mechanism of contrast? Finally, the boy preacher Andrew, were young miners (another pun?) that well- educated and articulate, and capable of rallying the members of a community to champion a cause? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that although Testerman was noble and honest, he was also portrayed as naive and unassertive.  He&amp;#039;s the character to take pity on when he dies at the end because he was only for upholding what was right and never hurt anybody.  He was not assertive in anything he said, from a first &amp;quot;this is town property&amp;quot; to the agents (that was their point...) to his final &amp;quot;You people have no right to come to this town....&amp;quot;  Ultimately, we find that his words were pretty much in vain.  Nevertheless, his and Hatsfield&amp;#039;s standing up to the agents is a testament to their characters, who in reality refused bribes from coal corporations. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a United States Court of Appeals case that included UMWA and a coal company back in the 1980s (INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant-Appellant: 916 F.2d 1499; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18131; 135 L.R.R.M. 2663; 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,363 [Source: Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.com]). Since the events that was discussed in the case happened when the movie came out, this is evidence that there was unrest between the miners and the mine owners that they worked for, even up to the late 1980s. So, there had to be tensions during the production of the film. In this particular case, there was an agreement between the two parties that expired in spring of 1987. The employers gave the miners an offer that the union rejected by striking. Afterward, the company refused to let some of the workers back on the basis of misconduct during the strike (like Dr. M said during the lecture, the companies found ways to get at the strikers). The court ruled in favor of the union.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving  our luxury theatre. So here&amp;#039;s my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of &amp;quot;There Will Be Blood,&amp;quot; a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out &amp;quot;I abandoned my boy!&amp;quot; There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t agree more! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh come, now, Jackie.  You couldn&amp;#039;t understand the WV accent?  I enjoyed listening to the dialect (and understanding it all), but I think my awareness of and interest in dialects other than my own (I&amp;#039;m told it&amp;#039;s largely Midwest) have been heightened since I&amp;#039;ve been taking linguistics. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-23T02:16:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...The names were right.  And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;d like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target.  I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West.  Also, even though the Clanton family didn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;rustle&amp;quot; the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Problems of the Old West&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 198).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C.  &lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona&amp;#039;s heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West?  Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then.  Were hospitals built?  If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong.  Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of &amp;#039;hero&amp;#039; in class on Tuesday, but that&amp;#039;s how he is portrayed in the film.  Also... I don&amp;#039;t remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier.  Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone?  This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have &amp;#039;heard&amp;#039; of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie.  It was very stereotypical of westerns.  It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn&amp;#039;t even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did the director kill of poor James Earp? as far as i can tell he was one of the only good brothers. I don&amp;#039;t understand why a director changes history in order to make a story work. The director apparently only want to have a classic western then an actually historical story. The Clanton&amp;#039;s are immediately made the villains and the Earp&amp;#039;s are the righteous heroes.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another major problem in this movies historical accuracy is the relationship between Doc Holliday and Wyatt Erp. They were already friends before they even came to Tombstone. They also had their own women and their wasn&amp;#039;t a rivalry between them like the movie portrays. Morgan dosen&amp;#039;t die to after the showdown not before. Wheres Wyatt&amp;#039;s pistol whipping. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt just wanted to play a nice game of honest poker and he basically quit after finding out about Chihuahua helping his rivals was just cute. He totally seemed like such an upstanding guy that he would never put up with that. He easily wins over the prettiest, smartest girl, doesn&amp;#039;t take up with the prostitute, and is only trying to avenge his family. What a vision of the Old West! -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Century of Dishonor&amp;#039;&amp;#039;). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;were&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the &amp;quot;Indian Department&amp;quot; help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage&amp;quot; at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as &amp;quot;naturally warlike&amp;quot; so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edward Gould Buffum&amp;#039;s Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to  a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out.  McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn&amp;#039;t have the skill, he couldn&amp;#039;t control the cattle and they would run away.  It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps&amp;#039; cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere.  Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother&amp;#039;s death.  Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle.  Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading &amp;quot;Major Problems in the American West&amp;quot; does mention vigilante action taken up for cattle rustling, and mentions Roosevelt&amp;#039;s advocacy. We definitely see plenty of vigilante action somewhat connected to rustling. The reading on women in the West makes conditions seem totally unfavorable and a rough life. It seems wrong that Clementine would be so clean, even-tempered and patient after such a long, roundabout, and seemingly dangerous journey. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says &amp;quot;Some day, this country&amp;#039;s gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come.&amp;quot; These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt kicks out the drunk indian reflects stereotypes and racism towards Indians during the time period. As far as history about the times goes this scene seems unusual because as racist as people were towards Indians at that time period it seems more likely that the people would have ganged up and killed the Indian and it seems unusual that there was even an Indian in the town in the first place. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie wasn&amp;#039;t really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn&amp;#039;t about her?! -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson&amp;#039;s character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don&amp;#039;t know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris&amp;#039; character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing.  In this film and in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Tombstone&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (not sure about &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;&amp;#039; though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out.  I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling).  So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I watched this movie I kept thinking back to Tombstone. Tombstone was one of my favorite movies and so I found myself constantly comparing the two movies in my head while watching it. Tombstone really did a much better job at portraying the characters then My Darling Clementine. First off all the important characters were included in Tombstone while many characters were excluded in My Darling Clementine such as Maddie, Mayor Beahan, Johnny Ringo etc. Tombstone also portrayed Wyatt in a more accurate way as a gambler who would use pistol whipping violence to get what he wanted and was only really interested in justice when he had something personal at stake. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t understand why the director would change so many details about the shoot out. When we talked about it in class it seems to me the real thing would have been dramatic enough to make into to a film. There were the two sides, the hatred between the two sides, the love triangle, the event that sparks the need for the fight, and the eventual showdown. Why make up other people and events? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My research project is on The Searchers, another Ford Western, and in many texts Ford is lauded for bringing his sensibilities from the silent film era where he started into the more modern film era. I was curious if anyone picked up any techniques that were rooted in silent era practices? I don&amp;#039;t really have any exposure to silent films so I was curious if anyone was and picked up on anything?- B Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did wonder who ran/started the Oriental Saloon, when we clearly saw the sign but no trace of &amp;quot;Orientals.&amp;quot; Even the drunk Indian was seen in poor light and could have been any race from where I was sitting. I imagine this was purposefully done. I would like to think that it was because they did not want to show an actual Native American drunk and being shamed and kicked out of town, however, we know that Hollywood often has few qualms. Perhaps it was to maintain the lack of focus on anyone other than the whites? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week.  Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?&amp;quot;  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan not as a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne&amp;#039;s westerns don&amp;#039;t lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don&amp;#039;t include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I&amp;#039;m guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it&amp;#039;s just a thought. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I&amp;#039;ve been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone&amp;#039;s style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn&amp;#039;t expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is up with Chihuahua is she Latino? why not get an actually Hispanic actress instead of a white actress? I totally didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino until I looked it up on IMDB then I found out she didn&amp;#039;t even have a last name. That is just sad that a director introduces a character without at least giving it a last name. Seriously, I didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino except by her name, she just looked like a white lady that has never taken a bath.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt, I think she was supposed to. From her name and the fact that at one point, she called out &amp;quot;Mamacita!&amp;quot; (Mexican word for &amp;quot;little mother.&amp;quot; Note that it&amp;#039;s the Mexican Spanish. Spaniards would used &amp;quot;mamita.&amp;quot;) when she threw the bag of gold that Doc threw at her when he rushed off. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being a big fan of Tombstone really makes it hard for me to see this movie in a good way. Although Tombstone get several things wrong as well it portrayed the actual characters and situation far better than My Darling Clementine. Also the Doc Holliday in My Darling Clementine can never compare to Val Kilmers Doc Holliday from Tombstone. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. I have seen parts of old westerns before and so I had some knowledge of the style but I was expecting something more related to what we talked about in class on Tues. By the end of the movie I was very disappointed and couldn&amp;#039;t really understand what was supposed to be the plot, there were so many side plots. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-23T02:13:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...The names were right.  And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;d like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target.  I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West.  Also, even though the Clanton family didn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;rustle&amp;quot; the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Problems of the Old West&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 198).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C.  &lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona&amp;#039;s heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West?  Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then.  Were hospitals built?  If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong.  Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of &amp;#039;hero&amp;#039; in class on Tuesday, but that&amp;#039;s how he is portrayed in the film.  Also... I don&amp;#039;t remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier.  Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone?  This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have &amp;#039;heard&amp;#039; of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie.  It was very stereotypical of westerns.  It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn&amp;#039;t even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did the director kill of poor James Earp? as far as i can tell he was one of the only good brothers. I don&amp;#039;t understand why a director changes history in order to make a story work. The director apparently only want to have a classic western then an actually historical story. The Clanton&amp;#039;s are immediately made the villains and the Earp&amp;#039;s are the righteous heroes.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another major problem in this movies historical accuracy is the relationship between Doc Holliday and Wyatt Erp. They were already friends before they even came to Tombstone. They also had their own women and their wasn&amp;#039;t a rivalry between them like the movie portrays. Morgan dosen&amp;#039;t die to after the showdown not before. Wheres Wyatt&amp;#039;s pistol whipping. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt just wanted to play a nice game of honest poker and he basically quit after finding out about Chihuahua helping his rivals was just cute. He totally seemed like such an upstanding guy that he would never put up with that. He easily wins over the prettiest, smartest girl, doesn&amp;#039;t take up with the prostitute, and is only trying to avenge his family. What a vision of the Old West! -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Century of Dishonor&amp;#039;&amp;#039;). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;were&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the &amp;quot;Indian Department&amp;quot; help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage&amp;quot; at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as &amp;quot;naturally warlike&amp;quot; so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edward Gould Buffum&amp;#039;s Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to  a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out.  McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn&amp;#039;t have the skill, he couldn&amp;#039;t control the cattle and they would run away.  It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps&amp;#039; cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere.  Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother&amp;#039;s death.  Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle.  Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading &amp;quot;Major Problems in the American West&amp;quot; does mention vigilante action taken up for cattle rustling, and mentions Roosevelt&amp;#039;s advocacy. We definitely see plenty of vigilante action somewhat connected to rustling. The reading on women in the West makes conditions seem totally unfavorable and a rough life. It seems wrong that Clementine would be so clean, even-tempered and patient after such a long, roundabout, and seemingly dangerous journey. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says &amp;quot;Some day, this country&amp;#039;s gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come.&amp;quot; These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt kicks out the drunk indian reflects stereotypes and racism towards Indians during the time period. As far as history about the times goes this scene seems unusual because as racist as people were towards Indians at that time period it seems more likely that the people would have ganged up and killed the Indian and it seems unusual that there was even an Indian in the town in the first place. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie wasn&amp;#039;t really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn&amp;#039;t about her?! -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson&amp;#039;s character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don&amp;#039;t know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris&amp;#039; character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing.  In this film and in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Tombstone&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (not sure about &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;&amp;#039; though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out.  I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling).  So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I watched this movie I kept thinking back to Tombstone. Tombstone was one of my favorite movies and so I found myself constantly comparing the two movies in my head while watching it. Tombstone really did a much better job at portraying the characters then My Darling Clementine. First off all the important characters were included in Tombstone while many characters were excluded in My Darling Clementine such as Maddie, Mayor Beahan, Johnny Ringo etc. Tombstone also portrayed Wyatt in a more accurate way as a gambler who would use pistol whipping violence to get what he wanted and was only really interested in justice when he had something personal at stake. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t understand why the director would change so many details about the shoot out. When we talked about it in class it seems to me the real thing would have been dramatic enough to make into to a film. There were the two sides, the hatred between the two sides, the love triangle, the event that sparks the need for the fight, and the eventual showdown. Why make up other people and events? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My research project is on The Searchers, another Ford Western, and in many texts Ford is lauded for bringing his sensibilities from the silent film era where he started into the more modern film era. I was curious if anyone picked up any techniques that were rooted in silent era practices? I don&amp;#039;t really have any exposure to silent films so I was curious if anyone was and picked up on anything?- B Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week.  Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?&amp;quot;  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan not as a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne&amp;#039;s westerns don&amp;#039;t lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don&amp;#039;t include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I&amp;#039;m guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it&amp;#039;s just a thought. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I&amp;#039;ve been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone&amp;#039;s style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn&amp;#039;t expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is up with Chihuahua is she Latino? why not get an actually Hispanic actress instead of a white actress? I totally didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino until I looked it up on IMDB then I found out she didn&amp;#039;t even have a last name. That is just sad that a director introduces a character without at least giving it a last name. Seriously, I didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino except by her name, she just looked like a white lady that has never taken a bath.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt, I think she was supposed to. From her name and the fact that at one point, she called out &amp;quot;Mamacita!&amp;quot; (Mexican word for &amp;quot;little mother.&amp;quot; Note that it&amp;#039;s the Mexican Spanish. Spaniards would used &amp;quot;mamita.&amp;quot;) when she threw the bag of gold that Doc threw at her when he rushed off. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being a big fan of Tombstone really makes it hard for me to see this movie in a good way. Although Tombstone get several things wrong as well it portrayed the actual characters and situation far better than My Darling Clementine. Also the Doc Holliday in My Darling Clementine can never compare to Val Kilmers Doc Holliday from Tombstone. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. I have seen parts of old westerns before and so I had some knowledge of the style but I was expecting something more related to what we talked about in class on Tues. By the end of the movie I was very disappointed and couldn&amp;#039;t really understand what was supposed to be the plot, there were so many side plots. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-23T02:10:23Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...The names were right.  And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;d like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target.  I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West.  Also, even though the Clanton family didn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;rustle&amp;quot; the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Problems of the Old West&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 198).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C.  &lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona&amp;#039;s heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West?  Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then.  Were hospitals built?  If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong.  Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of &amp;#039;hero&amp;#039; in class on Tuesday, but that&amp;#039;s how he is portrayed in the film.  Also... I don&amp;#039;t remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier.  Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone?  This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have &amp;#039;heard&amp;#039; of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie.  It was very stereotypical of westerns.  It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn&amp;#039;t even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did the director kill of poor James Earp? as far as i can tell he was one of the only good brothers. I don&amp;#039;t understand why a director changes history in order to make a story work. The director apparently only want to have a classic western then an actually historical story. The Clanton&amp;#039;s are immediately made the villains and the Earp&amp;#039;s are the righteous heroes.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another major problem in this movies historical accuracy is the relationship between Doc Holliday and Wyatt Erp. They were already friends before they even came to Tombstone. They also had their own women and their wasn&amp;#039;t a rivalry between them like the movie portrays. Morgan dosen&amp;#039;t die to after the showdown not before. Wheres Wyatt&amp;#039;s pistol whipping. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt just wanted to play a nice game of honest poker and he basically quit after finding out about Chihuahua helping his rivals was just cute. He totally seemed like such an upstanding guy that he would never put up with that. He easily wins over the prettiest, smartest girl, doesn&amp;#039;t take up with the prostitute, and is only trying to avenge his family. What a vision of the Old West! -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Century of Dishonor&amp;#039;&amp;#039;). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;were&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the &amp;quot;Indian Department&amp;quot; help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage&amp;quot; at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as &amp;quot;naturally warlike&amp;quot; so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edward Gould Buffum&amp;#039;s Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to  a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out.  McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn&amp;#039;t have the skill, he couldn&amp;#039;t control the cattle and they would run away.  It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps&amp;#039; cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere.  Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother&amp;#039;s death.  Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle.  Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading &amp;quot;Major Problems in the American West&amp;quot; does mention vigilante action taken up for cattle rustling, and mentions Roosevelt&amp;#039;s advocacy. We definitely see plenty of vigilante action somewhat connected to rustling. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says &amp;quot;Some day, this country&amp;#039;s gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come.&amp;quot; These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt kicks out the drunk indian reflects stereotypes and racism towards Indians during the time period. As far as history about the times goes this scene seems unusual because as racist as people were towards Indians at that time period it seems more likely that the people would have ganged up and killed the Indian and it seems unusual that there was even an Indian in the town in the first place. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie wasn&amp;#039;t really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn&amp;#039;t about her?! -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson&amp;#039;s character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don&amp;#039;t know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris&amp;#039; character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing.  In this film and in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Tombstone&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (not sure about &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;&amp;#039; though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out.  I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling).  So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I watched this movie I kept thinking back to Tombstone. Tombstone was one of my favorite movies and so I found myself constantly comparing the two movies in my head while watching it. Tombstone really did a much better job at portraying the characters then My Darling Clementine. First off all the important characters were included in Tombstone while many characters were excluded in My Darling Clementine such as Maddie, Mayor Beahan, Johnny Ringo etc. Tombstone also portrayed Wyatt in a more accurate way as a gambler who would use pistol whipping violence to get what he wanted and was only really interested in justice when he had something personal at stake. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t understand why the director would change so many details about the shoot out. When we talked about it in class it seems to me the real thing would have been dramatic enough to make into to a film. There were the two sides, the hatred between the two sides, the love triangle, the event that sparks the need for the fight, and the eventual showdown. Why make up other people and events? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My research project is on The Searchers, another Ford Western, and in many texts Ford is lauded for bringing his sensibilities from the silent film era where he started into the more modern film era. I was curious if anyone picked up any techniques that were rooted in silent era practices? I don&amp;#039;t really have any exposure to silent films so I was curious if anyone was and picked up on anything?- B Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week.  Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?&amp;quot;  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan not as a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne&amp;#039;s westerns don&amp;#039;t lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don&amp;#039;t include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I&amp;#039;m guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it&amp;#039;s just a thought. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I&amp;#039;ve been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone&amp;#039;s style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn&amp;#039;t expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is up with Chihuahua is she Latino? why not get an actually Hispanic actress instead of a white actress? I totally didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino until I looked it up on IMDB then I found out she didn&amp;#039;t even have a last name. That is just sad that a director introduces a character without at least giving it a last name. Seriously, I didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino except by her name, she just looked like a white lady that has never taken a bath.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt, I think she was supposed to. From her name and the fact that at one point, she called out &amp;quot;Mamacita!&amp;quot; (Mexican word for &amp;quot;little mother.&amp;quot; Note that it&amp;#039;s the Mexican Spanish. Spaniards would used &amp;quot;mamita.&amp;quot;) when she threw the bag of gold that Doc threw at her when he rushed off. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being a big fan of Tombstone really makes it hard for me to see this movie in a good way. Although Tombstone get several things wrong as well it portrayed the actual characters and situation far better than My Darling Clementine. Also the Doc Holliday in My Darling Clementine can never compare to Val Kilmers Doc Holliday from Tombstone. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. I have seen parts of old westerns before and so I had some knowledge of the style but I was expecting something more related to what we talked about in class on Tues. By the end of the movie I was very disappointed and couldn&amp;#039;t really understand what was supposed to be the plot, there were so many side plots. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-23T02:00:31Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...The names were right.  And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;d like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target.  I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West.  Also, even though the Clanton family didn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;rustle&amp;quot; the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Problems of the Old West&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 198).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C.  &lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona&amp;#039;s heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West?  Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then.  Were hospitals built?  If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong.  Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of &amp;#039;hero&amp;#039; in class on Tuesday, but that&amp;#039;s how he is portrayed in the film.  Also... I don&amp;#039;t remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier.  Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone?  This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have &amp;#039;heard&amp;#039; of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie.  It was very stereotypical of westerns.  It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn&amp;#039;t even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did the director kill of poor James Earp? as far as i can tell he was one of the only good brothers. I don&amp;#039;t understand why a director changes history in order to make a story work. The director apparently only want to have a classic western then an actually historical story. The Clanton&amp;#039;s are immediately made the villains and the Earp&amp;#039;s are the righteous heroes.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another major problem in this movies historical accuracy is the relationship between Doc Holliday and Wyatt Erp. They were already friends before they even came to Tombstone. They also had their own women and their wasn&amp;#039;t a rivalry between them like the movie portrays. Morgan dosen&amp;#039;t die to after the showdown not before. Wheres Wyatt&amp;#039;s pistol whipping. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt just wanted to play a nice game of honest poker and he basically quit after finding out about Chihuahua helping his rivals was just cute. He totally seemed like such an upstanding guy that he would never put up with that. He easily wins over the prettiest, smartest girl, doesn&amp;#039;t take up with the prostitute, and is only trying to avenge his family. What a vision of the Old West! -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Century of Dishonor&amp;#039;&amp;#039;). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;were&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the &amp;quot;Indian Department&amp;quot; help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage&amp;quot; at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as &amp;quot;naturally warlike&amp;quot; so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edward Gould Buffum&amp;#039;s Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to  a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out.  McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn&amp;#039;t have the skill, he couldn&amp;#039;t control the cattle and they would run away.  It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps&amp;#039; cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere.  Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother&amp;#039;s death.  Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle.  Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says &amp;quot;Some day, this country&amp;#039;s gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come.&amp;quot; These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt kicks out the drunk indian reflects stereotypes and racism towards Indians during the time period. As far as history about the times goes this scene seems unusual because as racist as people were towards Indians at that time period it seems more likely that the people would have ganged up and killed the Indian and it seems unusual that there was even an Indian in the town in the first place. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie wasn&amp;#039;t really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn&amp;#039;t about her?! -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson&amp;#039;s character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don&amp;#039;t know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris&amp;#039; character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing.  In this film and in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Tombstone&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (not sure about &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;&amp;#039; though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out.  I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling).  So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I watched this movie I kept thinking back to Tombstone. Tombstone was one of my favorite movies and so I found myself constantly comparing the two movies in my head while watching it. Tombstone really did a much better job at portraying the characters then My Darling Clementine. First off all the important characters were included in Tombstone while many characters were excluded in My Darling Clementine such as Maddie, Mayor Beahan, Johnny Ringo etc. Tombstone also portrayed Wyatt in a more accurate way as a gambler who would use pistol whipping violence to get what he wanted and was only really interested in justice when he had something personal at stake. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t understand why the director would change so many details about the shoot out. When we talked about it in class it seems to me the real thing would have been dramatic enough to make into to a film. There were the two sides, the hatred between the two sides, the love triangle, the event that sparks the need for the fight, and the eventual showdown. Why make up other people and events? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My research project is on The Searchers, another Ford Western, and in many texts Ford is lauded for bringing his sensibilities from the silent film era where he started into the more modern film era. I was curious if anyone picked up any techniques that were rooted in silent era practices? I don&amp;#039;t really have any exposure to silent films so I was curious if anyone was and picked up on anything?- B Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week.  Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?&amp;quot;  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan not as a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne&amp;#039;s westerns don&amp;#039;t lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don&amp;#039;t include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I&amp;#039;m guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it&amp;#039;s just a thought. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I&amp;#039;ve been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone&amp;#039;s style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn&amp;#039;t expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is up with Chihuahua is she Latino? why not get an actually Hispanic actress instead of a white actress? I totally didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino until I looked it up on IMDB then I found out she didn&amp;#039;t even have a last name. That is just sad that a director introduces a character without at least giving it a last name. Seriously, I didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino except by her name, she just looked like a white lady that has never taken a bath.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt, I think she was supposed to. From her name and the fact that at one point, she called out &amp;quot;Mamacita!&amp;quot; (Mexican word for &amp;quot;little mother.&amp;quot; Note that it&amp;#039;s the Mexican Spanish. Spaniards would used &amp;quot;mamita.&amp;quot;) when she threw the bag of gold that Doc threw at her when he rushed off. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being a big fan of Tombstone really makes it hard for me to see this movie in a good way. Although Tombstone get several things wrong as well it portrayed the actual characters and situation far better than My Darling Clementine. Also the Doc Holliday in My Darling Clementine can never compare to Val Kilmers Doc Holliday from Tombstone. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. I have seen parts of old westerns before and so I had some knowledge of the style but I was expecting something more related to what we talked about in class on Tues. By the end of the movie I was very disappointed and couldn&amp;#039;t really understand what was supposed to be the plot, there were so many side plots. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-09T04:58:38Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Denzel Washington, as Private Trip, pulls off his shirt to receive his punishment after his apparent &amp;quot;desertion&amp;quot; the lash scars already on his back is what most, if not all, slaves had. It was rare that a slave did not feel the tip of a whip nor was it rare that a master or an overseer would use it or threaten to use it. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the movie shows the black soldiers initially as manual laborers, as Dr. M said today in the lecture today, was accurate. The men were hauling logs, I believe, when the white troops passed them. Although the work was not what they wanted, it enabled more white soldiers to the battle front. Related to the black soldiers, the fact that Shaw was shown to work &amp;#039;&amp;#039;hard&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in order to get his men to the battlefield, was exactly what Shaw had to do. Arming black men was not a popular idea with white people on both sides of the war. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To tag onto Lauren&amp;#039;s comment a bit - I felt that the confrontation between white union soldiers and the 54th regiment was realistic, as well as the trouble that Shaw and company encountered in convincing the supplier to give them shoes etc. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although many think that the 54th MA was the first black regiment in the Civil War, as it is more symbolic and is the one Glory is all about, the filmmakers try to prevent that misperception.  When Shaw meets Montgomery, he is asked something like, &amp;quot;you didn&amp;#039;t think yours was the only colored regiment, did you?&amp;quot; and we learn that the 2d SC existed before the 54th MA did. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tagging onto Whitney&amp;#039;s comment - I disagree that the film makers did other black regiments justice - they didn&amp;#039;t acknowledge other blacks actually fighting, and they portrayed them as &amp;quot;chimps in uniform&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;children&amp;quot; in the scene where they ransack the town of the &amp;#039;cessors. The movie seemed to make the 54th regiment the ONE exception to the rule and Shaw a great hero for respecting and believing in his black troops. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That&amp;#039;s a very good point, Elle. It was portrayed very negatively. -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am going to disagree with you two. The film says in the closing subtitles that more troops, 180,000 black men enlisting, were created after the Emancipation Proclamation. Suggesting that there were more Black troops and they certainly could have engaged in battle. The negative portrayal was not only cinematically beneficial, but it also helped tell a well-rounded history, and not simply glorify (pardon the word choice) the whole thing. The undisciplined troop spoke more to the white officers&amp;#039; views who commanded them rather than the quality of the enlisted men themselves. Shaw and the 54th, on the contrary, showed the positive results of black and white cooperation and respect. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that they brought up the fact that the union officers were appointed by social status. Shawl pretty much declares it in his letter when he said they made him captain of man who are older then him.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a great movie and one thing that really stood out to me was how accurately Shaw&amp;#039;s post traumatic stress disorder was portrayed. Towards the beginning of the movie when Shaw returns to Boston and is talking to Thomas at the gathering with his family,  a maid closes the window, which causes a loud BANG similar to a gunshot and Shaw jumps; showing how emotionally disturbed and on edge he is from having been to war. The disorder is also shown during the scene when the regiment first receive their guns and are pretending to fight one another, the look in Shaw&amp;#039;s eyes and on his face it is evident that he is still coping with having been in battle and almost killed. Post traumatic stress was a very common repercussion of war that isn&amp;#039;t always discussed so having it play a part in the film makes the movie, for me personally, more accurate. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also used one quote that we talked about during class.  One of the white Union soldiers made a comment about the 54th MA when they first assembled, and he said something along the lines of how the black soldiers were even more useless than a hog, because you at least eat a hog, you can&amp;#039;t eat a black person. By using an actual quote from the time period shows that the writers really did their research.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how the movie included black culture.  As Shaw is narrating his letters he is saying how he &amp;quot;doesn&amp;#039;t get the black people&amp;quot; and how they behave.  I don&amp;#039;t think this is out of anger but because he feels that in order to successfully lead an army, he needs to understand his troops (this comes into play when he punishes Denzel&amp;#039;s character, as discussed above).  Furthermore, before the final battle scene at Fort Wagner, the movie shows a touching scene as the soldiers are singing in prayer, preparing for battle. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the things the movie does best is show the overall treatment of blacks by the North. In the movie, they are discriminated against by receiving lesser pay and are slow to be provided with supplies. They are not allowed into battle and left to dig trenches and work as manual laborers. They are also mistreated and mocked by some unenthusiastic racist Northerners. As time passes, however, their discipline becomes clear, and they are allowed into battle where they prove their capabilities. The Northerners grow to respect the blacks and see them as actual people. The movie also does a fair job in expressing blacks’ reasons for volunteering. Their desire to prove themselves as equal to whites and fight for their people’s freedom is very clear. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; accurately depicts black regiments and their impact on blacks and Northerners in a larger historical context. At the very least, the larger historical picture is represented better in this movie than in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, which tried to play the trial off as more important than it really was. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing the movie does especially well is the battle scenes. It is quite clear that the tactics used by the Union and Confederate armies don’t match up to the technology they are using, resulting in terrible casualties and horrific injuries. The small glimpse of hospitals is pretty gruesome and accurate, especially the unsanitary conditions and the amputation scene.  Also, in the movie, Shaw seems to suffer from a bit of PTSD, which wasn’t uncommon for Civil War soldiers, though it certainly wasn’t diagnosed as PTSD until Vietnam. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was impressed at the horrific depiction of the hospital scenes. It was essentially an updated version of the one from Gone with the Wind. It was loud, there were shortages of chloroform and nearly everyone in the hospital left without a limb. I was also struck by the subtle play to the lack of understanding of cleanliness when one of the surgeons dropped a knife into a basin full of bloody water. No wonder disease was such a killer! Also, I thought that depiction of the strategies being behind the times was evident both at the beginning and ending of the movie. In the beginning at Antietam Shaw and his men slowly march into established confederate positions only to be mowed down. Also one can not help to take the final scene as being mildly absurd. Not because of poor acting, but because that was the type of thing that really happened in the Civil War. Men were sent straight into the teeth of enemy lines and fortifications with little hope of success (much like Fredericksburg, Pickett&amp;#039;s Charge etc.). This is reinforced in the final text letting you know that half of the regiment was killed and that the attack on the fort was a failure.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, you gotta love the reference to the battle of Fredericksburg. Go Mary Wash!- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elle on the filmmakers not portraying other black troops fighting. It showed that the 54th was the only black group that was capable of fighting the war.  There were other black troops that fought just as well. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Civil War is, understandably, a divisive issue.  Glory portrayed the racism that existed in the Union army.  It is easy to assume that the victorious Union army fought for equality and justice for all, fundamental American values, but it does a disservice to both sides to ignore the racism and prejudice that pervaded American culture at this time.  It is so easy to view the North as completely just and egalitarian and the South as oppressive and racist.  I think that Glory’s greatest strength is that it recognizes the prejudice that existed on both sides of the war.  – Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing that really bothers me in this movie is the cliche characterization of characters. You have the traditional scene of one soldier who dislikes another soldier only to be saved by that soldier in the end. You also have the 1 wise reliable soldier (the non commissioned officer). The movie really focuses on just a few cast members and does not really give you the true composition of the army such as there were several prominent black abolitionists fighting in the 54th when the movie only portrays just one. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anybody else notice how perfect the feet of the dead men on the beach were?  Pretty good healing after nasty feet from not having had boots. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, just like in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039; a different character was used when the historical character would have been perfectly acceptable.  In class, we learned that General Benjamin Butler created the idea of the contraband.  If you can recall from the movie, Colonel James Montgomery conveniently created the idea of the contraband.  I think it&amp;#039;s a tad ridiculous that they changed the actual figure for this one in order to, in my opinion, create a villain.  The contrabands were also then shown in a beyond negative light, acting as Col. Montgomery called them, &amp;quot;little monkey children.&amp;quot;  I&amp;#039;m also seeing a pattern of villains burning down homes for no reason. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to Kelly&amp;#039;s last point: But Union troops did burn down Southern plantation homes and so forth, it was common amongst white troops too. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class we learned that in the North there were many different perspectives that dictated how Lincoln would respond to slavery and the treatment of blacks. I feel as though the movie did not show the balancing act at all. The movie showed tolerant whites and racist whites, it did not discuss Northern Democrats, the zealots of abolition, or President Lincoln’s strategic approach to emancipation. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was no emphasis on restoring the union like we discussed in class. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I don&amp;#039;t really think that was a priority of the movie or necessary with its themes Jason. But, they did allude to the problems in that area when Brodrick and D. Washington have their heart-to-heart. Denzel says nobody&amp;#039;s gonna win. And Matt naively says, someone has to win. And then Denzel goes into the hypothetical future and asks rhetorically if African Americans have any hope of winning in either case. But within this dramatic moment, we see the Northern upper-crust perspective of winning a war and bringing the union back together, North and South under one great nation, but it is obvious this is going to be very hard even if the Union does win. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would the union army ransack and burn a village in the south regardless of political allegiance? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Runaway slaves were not discussed, or at least not properly. Yes, men like trip were runaways, as were many of the other men, but because there was no mention of runaways “not making it” the viewer is led to believe that all slaves who escaped to the North were somehow in a safe haven. Where was the sad reality of the fugitive slave act? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was the fugitive slave act in effect at this point?  After all, runaway slaves could easily say that their masters were confederate conspirators against the union, a statement that would free them in the union&amp;#039;s eyes.  The slaves also had a few laws protecting them from the fugitive slave act, such as one passed in March 1862, Confiscation Acts, and fragmented versions of preliminary emancipation. --James D.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about the Southern perspective? We did not hear from Southern unionists, slave holders, or slaves currently in bondage. Without these perspectives being represented the reality of the immense struggle for union and emancipation is distorted. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was in the beginning of the movie when all the black soldiers have just enlisted and are getting organized was how they were all told to report to the officers according to what it said on their muster sheets. Weren&amp;#039;t most blacks illiterate at this time, and therefore not able to report to their officers? The movie showed this not being a problem for them.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I actually have a question.  In the movie, Shaw has to essentially blackmail the General in order to get the orders to let his men fight in a battle.  Did Shaw really have to pull strings in order to get his men out there?  Or was this all for dramatic effect?  I mean, it definitely emphasized how difficult it was for black soldiers to originally see a battlefield, but I felt like this was a bit extreme. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a series of somewhat small nitpicks that I’ll just group together in one paragraph of whining. Wasn’t the 54th Regiment made up mostly of free black men from Massachusetts? Aside from Thomas, basically all of the men shown seemed to have once been slaves. On Colonel Montgomery, as far as I understand, he was a staunch abolitionist, so I find it unlikely that he would consider the men under his command apelike simpletons. For that matter, would abolitionist Colonel Shaw have supported whipping a “deserter” like a slave driver would? There’s also the small issue of the living situation. According to one of the readings, the men were in barracks, not the tents shown in the movie. In the battle at Fort Wagner, one of the readings states that it was Shaw who actually picked up the flag and charged, only to be shot once in the chest. Assuming this is an accurate account, the movie didn’t quite follow along with that either. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may be wrong but in the first battle scene with the 54th they went from being bayonet-less and firing to then meeting the confederate charge with one of their own, bayonets fixed. I thought it was strange seeing as how otherwise they were pretty good about showing the multi-step process of loading and firing. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Christine’s question; did the white soldiers support the black soldiers by refusing to receive pay if both races didn’t receive the same amount? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the black soldiers were very stereotypical.  While yes there were a variety of characters, they all seemed to follow some kind of stereotype. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot;, we&amp;#039;re told that the 54th was actually made up of free blacks, not former slaves, but I suppose we would have lost a lot of the angry-black-guy storylines and the very emotional whipping scene. He does note that a lot of black soldiers who fought were former slaves.. just not those who manned the 54th. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gooding&amp;#039;s first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; don&amp;#039;t act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving &amp;quot;to make themselves a people.&amp;quot; --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Gooding&amp;#039;s letters of the spring of 1863, he expresses disappointment at the small numbers of &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men volunteering for the 54th MA Regt., from first in March when there were not enough for a company, less than half a regiment in a month, and that that it was not filled until May.  However, Glory gives us the impression that as soon as the call for &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men was put forth, enough enlisted to fill a regiment.  This seems to be for the effect of making the 54th look even more heroic, with all its troops willing to sacrifice for their freedom and country from the very start, rather than gradually recruiting enough over more than two months. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Colors: in Gooding&amp;#039;s June 20 letter, he describes the attack on Ft. Wagner, including that Shaw took up the State colors after the first bearer was killed on the parapet, and that once he was killed a Sgt. Carney saved the colors, and even said the flag never touched the ground.  Yet the movie portrays it very differently!  Not only do we see both the US and the regimental flag on the ground when the 54th is taking cover behind a dune once the battle starts, but then we see Shaw assessing the situation and the US flag on the ground in front of him.  Ironically, once he and the colorer-bearer get up and the latter is shot, Shaw, rather than pick up the colors, surges on, is shot, and dies falling onto the fallen colors!  I don&amp;#039;t know why it wouldn&amp;#039;t have been heroic to show Shaw carrying the colors AND dying on them.  After Denzel unsuccessfully tries to rescue the flag, we see both flags conspicuously in the picture gaining ground until the end, all the while both fully intact.  The filmmakers took license in order to show the character of Private Trip, who has a change of heart and will carry the colors after all.  And what can be more symbolic than for Old Glory to always be seen and to make it as far as the farthest soldier onto the fort? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the readings it mentioned how great the regiment was discipline wise and were great with marching etc... I felt that the movie correctly portrayed how quickly they learned the discipline of military stuffs as was mentioned in the readings --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading “Retaliation in Camp” with Halton and Union troops stated that the colored troops would still fight for the government even though the government didn’t want them. I think the movie portrays this well when Colonel Shaw read the paper stating that if blacks are found on Union lines they could be killed or brought back to their masters and that if the Union leaders were commanding the black troops they also could be tried and killed.  All the colored men stayed and were still risking their lives to fight; even the white majors and colonels stayed such as Shaw and Forbes. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-The letter did seem a little extreme, but keep in mind it was from the Confederate Congress.  How would Union officers be treated if captured while commanding white troops and how would this action play out in the prisoner of war exchange?  Union officers risked their lives commanding black troops, but in the realm of war, were they not already risking their lives in general?  Does it really matter what color troops they were commanding once they entered the battlefield?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-Also, I think the Union government did want the slaves as black troops.  The Union needed laborers, thus the contraband of runaway slaves was a good source put to use beginning with sticking them in the navy, putting them to work on the grounds, and eventually, once they were skilled, placing them into combat.  Eventually viewed as good fighters, the Union began to recruit blacks from the north and south for the war effort, at the same time ultimately weakening the south by removing their labor.  After all, what else would the Union do with about a quarter of the southern black population that carried a hint of hatred against confederates?-James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a bit cheeky, but this movie shows the popular white male actors of the 1980s, Ferris Bueller (Broderick) and Westley (Elwes) of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Princess Bride.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...As well as the popular black male actors of the last 20 years, Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The argument where Morgan verbal owns Denzel is very interesting to the time period and the present. The N-word is discussed and Morgan Freeman says &amp;quot;the only N---- here is you&amp;quot; to Denzel. It is dealing with a perception of black people by whites and blacks themselves that is super relevant today. Morgan calls Denzel out on his anger and hatred and callousness toward everybody, telling him basically that he just hates himself. Using the N-word is debated amongst blacks, some for it, taking it back, others against it, saying it is self-deprecating, like in this case with Denzel&amp;#039;s character. Most of these themey, dramatic, pointed moments in the film are kind of cheesey, but this scene was amazing and very effective.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; seemed to generally be received well by the public.  It has been dubbed as the most &amp;quot;technically realistic and memorable Civil War reenactment.&amp;quot;  Denzel Washington received his first Oscar in the Supporting Actor category.  Glory could be argued for in being the best film of the year (it wasn&amp;#039;t nominated for Best Picture), but if you look at the films it would have to compete against - Born on the Fourth of July, Driving Miss Daisy (the winner), and Field of Dreams - it would be a tough argument.  The other movies mentioned also dealt with the themes of War and Racism (except for Field of Dreams), something Glory needed to combine.  You would think with the star power the film had (Matthew Broderick/Ferris Bueller and Morgan Freeman, who ended up being nominated for Lead Actor for Driving Miss Daisy) that it should have gotten more recognition by the public.  Or, maybe this movie should be one for historians to claim and praise for themselves. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The stutter really got to me - I felt like some of the stereotypes hindered the films purpose of glorifying the dedicated soldiers, and  actually made me think of mammy and sissy from Gone with the Wind. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, there is just no pleasing you, is there? I personally thought the movie was one of the first examples in this class that showed a well-rounded, diverse group of people in one particular place and time period. There was minimal stock character presence or cheap stereotyping. And really, do people have to get uppity every time a minority is portrayed as a villain, or as stupid, or as handicapped, or as ignorant, or as poor...? White dudes get portrayed in these ways too in movies. In fact, some white dudes in this movie fall into one or more of the previously mentioned qualities! --Jackie Reed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Characterization is something that bothers me with this movie. The movie really focuses on just a few characters ignoring pretty much everyone else. The confederates who were the enemies were never really characterized as anything more than fodder. While I suppose this is better than characterizing characters in a stereotypical or false way it really limits the scope of history this movie presents. The movie is show entirely through a few member of the 54th division and ends up giving a really limited scope causing the movie to miss out on presenting a broader picture of what was going on during the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing about the stereotype that amuses me is that once the 54th is in SC, a slave is talking to the Northern, educated, &amp;quot;Snowflake&amp;quot; Thomas, and he needs the wise old Freeman to interpret the dialect for him!  But maybe I just like that because I like linguistics. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I couldn&amp;#039;t help but notice that the music sounded familiar. It sounded very similar to the music in Apollo 13. I did some investigation (thanks to IMDB) and discovered that both movies have the same musical composer. While I do think the composer could have been a little more original in Apollo 13, since this movie came out first, they&amp;#039;re still great songs. This is just something I found pretty interesting. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As it pertains to War Movie Scores, when I was typing one of my posts the Gettysburg Theme by John Williams came on my ipod. I love the music in that movie, and I love that movie. I say this because after this week we leave the Civil War era and I wanted to acknowledge it. I suppose this is a question more directed at Dr. McClurken but open to anyone, how does that movie rank in terms of historical accuracy? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning there was a scene with Union troops playing baseball, would they have played baseball during the war at their camps? Also, later in the film I noticed the golden eagle statue on the top of the flap poles, was the eagle already adopted as the nation&amp;#039;s symbol? If so, was it already being used and displayed on flags as such?--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked this in my blog, but I&amp;#039;m going to ask it here too.  Wasn&amp;#039;t flogging actually illegal in the US Military before the Civil War?  I thought you couldn&amp;#039;t whip in the Army anymore but they obviously punished Trip in that fashion.  I could be wrong though.  --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did blacks really treat each other differently based upon education? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley, baseball as a sport is cited as being played as early as the 1830s.  It&amp;#039;s not unlikely that the Americans would have developed their own version of cricket as early as this point.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As to the stereotypes, I wanted to quote Toplin, since I think he said it pretty well. &amp;quot;Glory... focus[ed] on a group of black soldiers that included a gung-ho intellectual, a surly rebel who learned to be a team player, an older father figure, and a stuttering former slave.&amp;quot; To be fair, I will say that these stereotypes had to have their basis in something.. or perhaps that&amp;#039;s all of the Hollywood movies I&amp;#039;ve seen that have convinced me that these characters could sometimes be real. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
I loved the symbolism at the end with Denzel Washington hugging Matthew Broderick after they&amp;#039;re thrown into the heap of dead bodies. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just have to say, especially since we&amp;#039;re not having class tomorrow, I can&amp;#039;t stand Matthew Broderick&amp;#039;s little goatee-like thing.  I think just the mustache would have sufficed. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before they go into Battle Shaw asks who will bear the colors if they are to fall, Thomas says that he will. When the colors do fall in battle, Thomas and Trip look at one another and Thomas gives Trip a look that says &amp;quot;well, I&amp;#039;m not going to pick them up&amp;quot; so Trip gallantly recovers them. Thomas is portrayed as a coward who would not live up to his word, fight heroically for his country, or avenge the death of Shaw who had treated him with nothing but fairness (even though it is understandable if Thomas felt slighted by that treatment). The fact that Trip takes the colors shows that a former slave who had every reason to resent whites, was so inspired by the promise of winning the war and gaining equality that he would die for the cause. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first time I saw this movie was in middle school. We had to watch this movie and Gettysburg (pending parental permission of course) in our lessons on the Civil War. I find it interesting remembering that much of what I took to know about the war in regards to slavery came from this movie up until high school. For those who haven&amp;#039;t really studied the Civil War, movies like this may be all that they have to go on.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that the other black regiments wore red paints instead of the blue ones is that used to dissern the regiments apart or was that a common thing in the union forces?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember loving this movie in 7th grade when I first saw it. I have to say now, after a more in depth education on the civil war, I don&amp;#039;t really like it as much. It just doesn&amp;#039;t have the same meaning that it used to hold. - Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-09T04:54:50Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Denzel Washington, as Private Trip, pulls off his shirt to receive his punishment after his apparent &amp;quot;desertion&amp;quot; the lash scars already on his back is what most, if not all, slaves had. It was rare that a slave did not feel the tip of a whip nor was it rare that a master or an overseer would use it or threaten to use it. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the movie shows the black soldiers initially as manual laborers, as Dr. M said today in the lecture today, was accurate. The men were hauling logs, I believe, when the white troops passed them. Although the work was not what they wanted, it enabled more white soldiers to the battle front. Related to the black soldiers, the fact that Shaw was shown to work &amp;#039;&amp;#039;hard&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in order to get his men to the battlefield, was exactly what Shaw had to do. Arming black men was not a popular idea with white people on both sides of the war. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To tag onto Lauren&amp;#039;s comment a bit - I felt that the confrontation between white union soldiers and the 54th regiment was realistic, as well as the trouble that Shaw and company encountered in convincing the supplier to give them shoes etc. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although many think that the 54th MA was the first black regiment in the Civil War, as it is more symbolic and is the one Glory is all about, the filmmakers try to prevent that misperception.  When Shaw meets Montgomery, he is asked something like, &amp;quot;you didn&amp;#039;t think yours was the only colored regiment, did you?&amp;quot; and we learn that the 2d SC existed before the 54th MA did. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tagging onto Whitney&amp;#039;s comment - I disagree that the film makers did other black regiments justice - they didn&amp;#039;t acknowledge other blacks actually fighting, and they portrayed them as &amp;quot;chimps in uniform&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;children&amp;quot; in the scene where they ransack the town of the &amp;#039;cessors. The movie seemed to make the 54th regiment the ONE exception to the rule and Shaw a great hero for respecting and believing in his black troops. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That&amp;#039;s a very good point, Elle. It was portrayed very negatively. -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am going to disagree with you two. The film says in the closing subtitles that more troops, 180,000 black men enlisting, were created after the Emancipation Proclamation. Suggesting that there were more Black troops and they certainly could have engaged in battle. The negative portrayal was not only cinematically beneficial, but it also helped tell a well-rounded history, and not simply glorify (pardon the word choice) the whole thing. The undisciplined troop spoke more to the white officers&amp;#039; views who commanded them rather than the quality of the enlisted men themselves. Shaw and the 54th, on the contrary, showed the positive results of black and white cooperation and respect. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that they brought up the fact that the union officers were appointed by social status. Shawl pretty much declares it in his letter when he said they made him captain of man who are older then him.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a great movie and one thing that really stood out to me was how accurately Shaw&amp;#039;s post traumatic stress disorder was portrayed. Towards the beginning of the movie when Shaw returns to Boston and is talking to Thomas at the gathering with his family,  a maid closes the window, which causes a loud BANG similar to a gunshot and Shaw jumps; showing how emotionally disturbed and on edge he is from having been to war. The disorder is also shown during the scene when the regiment first receive their guns and are pretending to fight one another, the look in Shaw&amp;#039;s eyes and on his face it is evident that he is still coping with having been in battle and almost killed. Post traumatic stress was a very common repercussion of war that isn&amp;#039;t always discussed so having it play a part in the film makes the movie, for me personally, more accurate. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also used one quote that we talked about during class.  One of the white Union soldiers made a comment about the 54th MA when they first assembled, and he said something along the lines of how the black soldiers were even more useless than a hog, because you at least eat a hog, you can&amp;#039;t eat a black person. By using an actual quote from the time period shows that the writers really did their research.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how the movie included black culture.  As Shaw is narrating his letters he is saying how he &amp;quot;doesn&amp;#039;t get the black people&amp;quot; and how they behave.  I don&amp;#039;t think this is out of anger but because he feels that in order to successfully lead an army, he needs to understand his troops (this comes into play when he punishes Denzel&amp;#039;s character, as discussed above).  Furthermore, before the final battle scene at Fort Wagner, the movie shows a touching scene as the soldiers are singing in prayer, preparing for battle. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the things the movie does best is show the overall treatment of blacks by the North. In the movie, they are discriminated against by receiving lesser pay and are slow to be provided with supplies. They are not allowed into battle and left to dig trenches and work as manual laborers. They are also mistreated and mocked by some unenthusiastic racist Northerners. As time passes, however, their discipline becomes clear, and they are allowed into battle where they prove their capabilities. The Northerners grow to respect the blacks and see them as actual people. The movie also does a fair job in expressing blacks’ reasons for volunteering. Their desire to prove themselves as equal to whites and fight for their people’s freedom is very clear. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; accurately depicts black regiments and their impact on blacks and Northerners in a larger historical context. At the very least, the larger historical picture is represented better in this movie than in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, which tried to play the trial off as more important than it really was. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing the movie does especially well is the battle scenes. It is quite clear that the tactics used by the Union and Confederate armies don’t match up to the technology they are using, resulting in terrible casualties and horrific injuries. The small glimpse of hospitals is pretty gruesome and accurate, especially the unsanitary conditions and the amputation scene.  Also, in the movie, Shaw seems to suffer from a bit of PTSD, which wasn’t uncommon for Civil War soldiers, though it certainly wasn’t diagnosed as PTSD until Vietnam. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was impressed at the horrific depiction of the hospital scenes. It was essentially an updated version of the one from Gone with the Wind. It was loud, there were shortages of chloroform and nearly everyone in the hospital left without a limb. I was also struck by the subtle play to the lack of understanding of cleanliness when one of the surgeons dropped a knife into a basin full of bloody water. No wonder disease was such a killer! Also, I thought that depiction of the strategies being behind the times was evident both at the beginning and ending of the movie. In the beginning at Antietam Shaw and his men slowly march into established confederate positions only to be mowed down. Also one can not help to take the final scene as being mildly absurd. Not because of poor acting, but because that was the type of thing that really happened in the Civil War. Men were sent straight into the teeth of enemy lines and fortifications with little hope of success (much like Fredericksburg, Pickett&amp;#039;s Charge etc.). This is reinforced in the final text letting you know that half of the regiment was killed and that the attack on the fort was a failure.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, you gotta love the reference to the battle of Fredericksburg. Go Mary Wash!- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elle on the filmmakers not portraying other black troops fighting. It showed that the 54th was the only black group that was capable of fighting the war.  There were other black troops that fought just as well. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Civil War is, understandably, a divisive issue.  Glory portrayed the racism that existed in the Union army.  It is easy to assume that the victorious Union army fought for equality and justice for all, fundamental American values, but it does a disservice to both sides to ignore the racism and prejudice that pervaded American culture at this time.  It is so easy to view the North as completely just and egalitarian and the South as oppressive and racist.  I think that Glory’s greatest strength is that it recognizes the prejudice that existed on both sides of the war.  – Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing that really bothers me in this movie is the cliche characterization of characters. You have the traditional scene of one soldier who dislikes another soldier only to be saved by that soldier in the end. You also have the 1 wise reliable soldier (the non commissioned officer). The movie really focuses on just a few cast members and does not really give you the true composition of the army such as there were several prominent black abolitionists fighting in the 54th when the movie only portrays just one. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anybody else notice how perfect the feet of the dead men on the beach were?  Pretty good healing after nasty feet from not having had boots. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, just like in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039; a different character was used when the historical character would have been perfectly acceptable.  In class, we learned that General Benjamin Butler created the idea of the contraband.  If you can recall from the movie, Colonel James Montgomery conveniently created the idea of the contraband.  I think it&amp;#039;s a tad ridiculous that they changed the actual figure for this one in order to, in my opinion, create a villain.  The contrabands were also then shown in a beyond negative light, acting as Col. Montgomery called them, &amp;quot;little monkey children.&amp;quot;  I&amp;#039;m also seeing a pattern of villains burning down homes for no reason. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to Kelly&amp;#039;s last point: But Union troops did burn down Southern plantation homes and so forth, it was common amongst white troops too. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class we learned that in the North there were many different perspectives that dictated how Lincoln would respond to slavery and the treatment of blacks. I feel as though the movie did not show the balancing act at all. The movie showed tolerant whites and racist whites, it did not discuss Northern Democrats, the zealots of abolition, or President Lincoln’s strategic approach to emancipation. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was no emphasis on restoring the union like we discussed in class. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I don&amp;#039;t really think that was a priority of the movie or necessary with its themes Jason. But, they did allude to the problems in that area when Brodrick and D. Washington have their heart-to-heart. Denzel says nobody&amp;#039;s gonna win. And Matt naively says, someone has to win. And then Denzel goes into the hypothetical future and asks rhetorically if African Americans have any hope of winning in either case. But within this dramatic moment, we see the Northern upper-crust perspective of winning a war and bringing the union back together, North and South under one great nation, but it is obvious this is going to be very hard even if the Union does win. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would the union army ransack and burn a village in the south regardless of political allegiance? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Runaway slaves were not discussed, or at least not properly. Yes, men like trip were runaways, as were many of the other men, but because there was no mention of runaways “not making it” the viewer is led to believe that all slaves who escaped to the North were somehow in a safe haven. Where was the sad reality of the fugitive slave act? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was the fugitive slave act in effect at this point?  After all, runaway slaves could easily say that their masters were confederate conspirators against the union, a statement that would free them in the union&amp;#039;s eyes.  The slaves also had a few laws protecting them from the fugitive slave act, such as one passed in March 1862, Confiscation Acts, and fragmented versions of preliminary emancipation. --James D.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about the Southern perspective? We did not hear from Southern unionists, slave holders, or slaves currently in bondage. Without these perspectives being represented the reality of the immense struggle for union and emancipation is distorted. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was in the beginning of the movie when all the black soldiers have just enlisted and are getting organized was how they were all told to report to the officers according to what it said on their muster sheets. Weren&amp;#039;t most blacks illiterate at this time, and therefore not able to report to their officers? The movie showed this not being a problem for them.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I actually have a question.  In the movie, Shaw has to essentially blackmail the General in order to get the orders to let his men fight in a battle.  Did Shaw really have to pull strings in order to get his men out there?  Or was this all for dramatic effect?  I mean, it definitely emphasized how difficult it was for black soldiers to originally see a battlefield, but I felt like this was a bit extreme. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a series of somewhat small nitpicks that I’ll just group together in one paragraph of whining. Wasn’t the 54th Regiment made up mostly of free black men from Massachusetts? Aside from Thomas, basically all of the men shown seemed to have once been slaves. On Colonel Montgomery, as far as I understand, he was a staunch abolitionist, so I find it unlikely that he would consider the men under his command apelike simpletons. For that matter, would abolitionist Colonel Shaw have supported whipping a “deserter” like a slave driver would? There’s also the small issue of the living situation. According to one of the readings, the men were in barracks, not the tents shown in the movie. In the battle at Fort Wagner, one of the readings states that it was Shaw who actually picked up the flag and charged, only to be shot once in the chest. Assuming this is an accurate account, the movie didn’t quite follow along with that either. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may be wrong but in the first battle scene with the 54th they went from being bayonet-less and firing to then meeting the confederate charge with one of their own, bayonets fixed. I thought it was strange seeing as how otherwise they were pretty good about showing the multi-step process of loading and firing. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Christine’s question; did the white soldiers support the black soldiers by refusing to receive pay if both races didn’t receive the same amount? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the black soldiers were very stereotypical.  While yes there were a variety of characters, they all seemed to follow some kind of stereotype. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot;, we&amp;#039;re told that the 54th was actually made up of free blacks, not former slaves, but I suppose we would have lost a lot of the angry-black-guy storylines and the very emotional whipping scene. He does note that a lot of black soldiers who fought were former slaves.. just not those who manned the 54th. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gooding&amp;#039;s first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; don&amp;#039;t act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving &amp;quot;to make themselves a people.&amp;quot; --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Gooding&amp;#039;s letters of the spring of 1863, he expresses disappointment at the small numbers of &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men volunteering for the 54th MA Regt., from first in March when there were not enough for a company, less than half a regiment in a month, and that that it was not filled until May.  However, Glory gives us the impression that as soon as the call for &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men was put forth, enough enlisted to fill a regiment.  This seems to be for the effect of making the 54th look even more heroic, with all its troops willing to sacrifice for their freedom and country from the very start, rather than gradually recruiting enough over more than two months. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Colors: in Gooding&amp;#039;s June 20 letter, he describes the attack on Ft. Wagner, including that Shaw took up the State colors after the first bearer was killed on the parapet, and that once he was killed a Sgt. Carney saved the colors, and even said the flag never touched the ground.  Yet the movie portrays it very differently!  Not only do we see both the US and the regimental flag on the ground when the 54th is taking cover behind a dune once the battle starts, but then we see Shaw assessing the situation and the US flag on the ground in front of him.  Ironically, once he and the colorer-bearer get up and the latter is shot, Shaw, rather than pick up the colors, surges on, is shot, and dies falling onto the fallen colors!  I don&amp;#039;t know why it wouldn&amp;#039;t have been heroic to show Shaw carrying the colors AND dying on them.  After Denzel unsuccessfully tries to rescue the flag, we see both flags conspicuously in the picture gaining ground until the end, all the while both fully intact.  The filmmakers took license in order to show the character of Private Trip, who has a change of heart and will carry the colors after all.  And what can be more symbolic than for Old Glory to always be seen and to make it as far as the farthest soldier onto the fort? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the readings it mentioned how great the regiment was discipline wise and were great with marching etc... I felt that the movie correctly portrayed how quickly they learned the discipline of military stuffs as was mentioned in the readings --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading “Retaliation in Camp” with Halton and Union troops stated that the colored troops would still fight for the government even though the government didn’t want them. I think the movie portrays this well when Colonel Shaw read the paper stating that if blacks are found on Union lines they could be killed or brought back to their masters and that if the Union leaders were commanding the black troops they also could be tried and killed.  All the colored men stayed and were still risking their lives to fight; even the white majors and colonels stayed such as Shaw and Forbes. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-The letter did seem a little extreme, but keep in mind it was from the Confederate Congress.  How would Union officers be treated if captured while commanding white troops and how would this action play out in the prisoner of war exchange?  Union officers risked their lives commanding black troops, but in the realm of war, were they not already risking their lives in general?  Does it really matter what color troops they were commanding once they entered the battlefield?  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
-Also, I think the Union government did want the slaves as black troops.  The Union needed laborers, thus the contraband of runaway slaves was a good source put to use beginning with sticking them in the navy, putting them to work on the grounds, and eventually, once they were skilled, placing them into combat.  Eventually viewed as good fighters, the Union began to recruit blacks from the north and south for the war effort, at the same time ultimately weakening the south by removing their labor.  After all, what else would the Union do with about a quarter of the southern black population that carried a hint of hatred against confederates?-James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a bit cheeky, but this movie shows the popular white male actors of the 1980s, Ferris Bueller (Broderick) and Westley (Elwes) of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Princess Bride.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...As well as the popular black male actors of the last 20 years, Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The argument where Morgan verbal owns Denzel is very interesting to the time period and the present. The N-word is discussed and Morgan Freeman says &amp;quot;the only N---- here is you&amp;quot; to Denzel. It is dealing with a perception of black people by whites and blacks themselves that is super relevant today. Morgan calls Denzel out on his anger and hatred and callousness toward everybody, telling him basically that he just hates himself. Using the N-word is debated amongst blacks, some for it, taking it back, others against it, saying it is self-deprecating, like in this case with Denzel&amp;#039;s character. Most of these themey, dramatic, pointed moments in the film are kind of cheesey, but this scene was amazing and very effective.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; seemed to generally be received well by the public.  It has been dubbed as the most &amp;quot;technically realistic and memorable Civil War reenactment.&amp;quot;  Denzel Washington received his first Oscar in the Supporting Actor category.  Glory could be argued for in being the best film of the year (it wasn&amp;#039;t nominated for Best Picture), but if you look at the films it would have to compete against - Born on the Fourth of July, Driving Miss Daisy (the winner), and Field of Dreams - it would be a tough argument.  The other movies mentioned also dealt with the themes of War and Racism (except for Field of Dreams), something Glory needed to combine.  You would think with the star power the film had (Matthew Broderick/Ferris Bueller and Morgan Freeman, who ended up being nominated for Lead Actor for Driving Miss Daisy) that it should have gotten more recognition by the public.  Or, maybe this movie should be one for historians to claim and praise for themselves. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The stutter really got to me - I felt like some of the stereotypes hindered the films purpose of glorifying the dedicated soldiers, and  actually made me think of mammy and sissy from Gone with the Wind. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, there is just no pleasing you, is there? I personally thought the movie was one of the first examples in this class that showed a well-rounded, diverse group of people in one particular place and time period. There was minimal stock character presence or cheap stereotyping. And really, do people have to get uppity every time a minority is portrayed as a villain, or as stupid, or as handicapped, or as ignorant, or as poor...? White dudes get portrayed in these ways too in movies. In fact, some white dudes in this movie fall into one or more of the previously mentioned qualities! --Jackie Reed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Characterization is something that bothers me with this movie. The movie really focuses on just a few characters ignoring pretty much everyone else. The confederates who were the enemies were never really characterized as anything more than fodder. While I suppose this is better than characterizing characters in a stereotypical or false way it really limits the scope of history this movie presents. The movie is show entirely through a few member of the 54th division and ends up giving a really limited scope causing the movie to miss out on presenting a broader picture of what was going on during the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing about the stereotype that amuses me is that once the 54th is in SC, a slave is talking to the Northern, educated, &amp;quot;Snowflake&amp;quot; Thomas, and he needs the wise old Freeman to interpret the dialect for him!  But maybe I just like that because I like linguistics. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I couldn&amp;#039;t help but notice that the music sounded familiar. It sounded very similar to the music in Apollo 13. I did some investigation (thanks to IMDB) and discovered that both movies have the same musical composer. While I do think the composer could have been a little more original in Apollo 13, since this movie came out first, they&amp;#039;re still great songs. This is just something I found pretty interesting. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As it pertains to War Movie Scores, when I was typing one of my posts the Gettysburg Theme by John Williams came on my ipod. I love the music in that movie, and I love that movie. I say this because after this week we leave the Civil War era and I wanted to acknowledge it. I suppose this is a question more directed at Dr. McClurken but open to anyone, how does that movie rank in terms of historical accuracy? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning there was a scene with Union troops playing baseball, would they have played baseball during the war at their camps? Also, later in the film I noticed the golden eagle statue on the top of the flap poles, was the eagle already adopted as the nation&amp;#039;s symbol? If so, was it already being used and displayed on flags as such?--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked this in my blog, but I&amp;#039;m going to ask it here too.  Wasn&amp;#039;t flogging actually illegal in the US Military before the Civil War?  I thought you couldn&amp;#039;t whip in the Army anymore but they obviously punished Trip in that fashion.  I could be wrong though.  --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did blacks really treat each other differently based upon education? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley, baseball as a sport is cited as being played as early as the 1830s.  It&amp;#039;s not unlikely that the Americans would have developed their own version of cricket as early as this point.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
I loved the symbolism at the end with Denzel Washington hugging Matthew Broderick after they&amp;#039;re thrown into the heap of dead bodies. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just have to say, especially since we&amp;#039;re not having class tomorrow, I can&amp;#039;t stand Matthew Broderick&amp;#039;s little goatee-like thing.  I think just the mustache would have sufficed. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before they go into Battle Shaw asks who will bear the colors if they are to fall, Thomas says that he will. When the colors do fall in battle, Thomas and Trip look at one another and Thomas gives Trip a look that says &amp;quot;well, I&amp;#039;m not going to pick them up&amp;quot; so Trip gallantly recovers them. Thomas is portrayed as a coward who would not live up to his word, fight heroically for his country, or avenge the death of Shaw who had treated him with nothing but fairness (even though it is understandable if Thomas felt slighted by that treatment). The fact that Trip takes the colors shows that a former slave who had every reason to resent whites, was so inspired by the promise of winning the war and gaining equality that he would die for the cause. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first time I saw this movie was in middle school. We had to watch this movie and Gettysburg (pending parental permission of course) in our lessons on the Civil War. I find it interesting remembering that much of what I took to know about the war in regards to slavery came from this movie up until high school. For those who haven&amp;#039;t really studied the Civil War, movies like this may be all that they have to go on.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that the other black regiments wore red paints instead of the blue ones is that used to dissern the regiments apart or was that a common thing in the union forces?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember loving this movie in 7th grade when I first saw it. I have to say now, after a more in depth education on the civil war, I don&amp;#039;t really like it as much. It just doesn&amp;#039;t have the same meaning that it used to hold. - Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-07T22:37:53Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gooding&amp;#039;s first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; don&amp;#039;t act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving &amp;quot;to make themselves a people.&amp;quot; --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-02T00:34:06Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things had turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat and he believes they have no hope for victory, which was true after Gettysburg. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers and the burning of plantation homes, but that &amp;quot;nearly every home in the county&amp;quot; lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless and without income. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren&amp;#039;t totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now &amp;quot;gone with the wind,&amp;quot; never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jackie said, there were a lot of things that the movie did get right, such as one scene where Rhett tells Scarlett that she has to date him because &amp;quot;there is no one else around older than 16 and younger than 60 to show [her] a good time.&amp;quot;  As we discussed in class, most of the men in the South during the Civil War between those ages were off fighting, and many of them died, posing a problem for the women back at home.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Rhett Butler&amp;#039;s first lines in this film is him explaining how the North was better equipped than the South, a reason why they shouldn&amp;#039;t have gone into war in the first place.  He states that while the North was armed with factories, superior weapons, and coal mines, all the South had were &amp;quot;slaves, cotton, and arrogance.&amp;quot;  This is a nice summary of the South&amp;#039;s economic dependence on the production of cotton, which is of course directly dependent on slave labor.  Furthermore, the &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; can be interpreted as their belief in white supremacy and how that may have driven the South to go to war (which the movie eventually proved to be destructive to them). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the depiction of the civil war &amp;quot;hospitals&amp;quot; to be at least mildly accurate. They gave no sense of cleanliness or sterility, and were at times gruesome as Scarlett couldn&amp;#039;t handle bearing witness to the amputation sans chloroform. Perhaps there were some instances of nurse touching in the movie which was not allowed in real life, but it did portray one lady writing a letter for an incapacitated man as mentioned in the lecture. Also there was some sense that disease played just as important a role in the death toll as the war wounds. Scarlett&amp;#039;s first husband falls to pneumonia, her mother to typhoid, and there were allusions to lice and other diseases in the &amp;quot;hospitals.&amp;quot; -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Post-traumatic stress/depression displayed by the returning Confederate soldiers was at least shown in the movie, though not named. Ashley came back and he was not happy with the destroyed life he came back to. He lost his sense of being a man.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did a great job with portraying the notion of the romanticized southern history and lifestyle. The nation is on the brink of civil war yet in the movie they are having a grand ole time at the bbq and various balls. As the men are discussing the war, they believe it is more important to be gentlemen who know how to use their words as oppose to discussing potential strategies. Rhett Butler is ostracized for explaining that the North has a better chance of winning the war because they have factories, ship yards, coal mines and other necessary supplies. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe the southern gender roles are accurately portrayed, most especially in the beginning/first half of the movie. Concerning the elite class, the women are dainty, southern belles who wear big dresses and flaunt fancy, elaborate hats. Marriage was intended for money and land, which is explained when Mr. O&amp;#039;Hara explains to  Scarlett that it doesn&amp;#039;t matter who you marry just as long as he&amp;#039;s southern and thinks the same way. While the women are upstairs napping, the men are downstairs smoking, drinking and talking man business such as war. The movie is pretty stereotypical of what people believed and how they acted at the time. The movie shows how the South was convinced that it would be victorious because the soldiers were defending slavery, cotton, and southern land. The movie truly turned the North into the villain, which was a prevailing belief in the South. The South was not a fan base for Abraham Lincoln. In her journal, Ella explains her despise for Lincoln and in the movie Scarlett tells Rhett at the fundraiser that on that night she would have even danced with Abraham Lincoln.  --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It really does portray the romanticized version of the south, most people take a good part of this movie to explain what they know about southern history. The movie did a good job portraying the different challenges women faced when the war started.  They were thrown into new and different roles on top of having to do the different tasks they had to before the war. Mallory at that point in the movie when Scarlett tells Rhett that she would have danced with Lincoln she still hates Rhett he is just a way for her to have fun and enjoy herself. She is so miserable not being able to have fun since she is a widow that she will take any opportunity to have a good time. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the scene at the hospital although not completely accurate does do a very good job at depicting how gruesome a Civil War hospital was. Many people got horrible injuries many people had to have limbs amputated. The movie also does a great job showing depression and trauma in people after the events of the war especially in men. Mr. Wilks and Scarlett&amp;#039;s father are both prominent examples of depression in the movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the reconstruction part of the film Ashley says, &amp;quot;There is no place for me.&amp;quot; - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Coming home from the war the men seem emasculated. They are no longer able to care for their dependents and they have lost a war that has left the South devastated. This can be seen in Ashley and Scarlett&amp;#039;s father. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:00, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I&amp;#039;d like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing.  There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Props to alluding to the KKK. But Great and Unbelievable Condemnation to making it seem glorious and righteous! Yeah that&amp;#039;s maybe what the bitter white dudes who created it thought but the movie makes it seem so gentile, defending their women from rape. Never mind that slave women had been sexually abused and taken advantage of for years and years before the war and then too, they were in danger during the war. The only thing the film or the book for that matter worries about is the virtue of white Ladies like Scarlet who goes off into the backwoods where poor criminal men (black and white) live and almost gets raped. The movie portrays her attacker as white and her savior as a former slave who had always been treated with respect and who in turn cared highly for his former mistress. This type of justification and wacky self-righteousness was ever present in the 20th century. The South had recently experienced a resurgence of the KKK- and black men who often lynched under the excuse that they had assaulted a white woman (usually if it had any truth at all it was consensual). The movie treads so lightly on the subject (even less than the book) that what was really going on is practically undetectable. It&amp;#039;s been a while since my sister had seen the film but even, now I had to explain to her that &amp;quot;illegal raid&amp;quot; was the KKK in action and as characters we are made to feel completely fond of or sympathetic for. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- I also noticed the lack of mention about the KKK and after doing some research found this on IMDB, (so veracity may or may not be accurate): Producer David O. Selznick said that he had no desire to remake The Birth of a Nation (1915), telling screenwriter Sidney Howard in 1937, &amp;quot;I do hope you will agree with me on this omission of what might come out as an unintentional advertisement for intolerant societies in these fascist-ridden times...&amp;quot; So maybe this is more telling of the time in which it was made more than anything.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:20, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be nit-picky, but the scenes where Scarlett and Melanie are working as nurses for the wounded soldiers, they are bandaging the soldiers and taking their temperatures.  As we discussed in class, female nurses at this time would not be doing things like that; it would have been considered inappropriate, and they would have been doing tasks such as writing letters home for soldiers.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to women’s roles, it is apparent that Scarlet takes full advantage of the men being away. She keeps her role even when they return, managing the farm, the mill, the store, and her countless husbands. This example is of a truly one of a kind woman, and I don’t think (from my knowledge on gender roles etc.) that many women welcomed that much more responsibility, or were bold enough to take it into their own hands. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to mention Sherman’s march – sure Sherman wasn’t the nicest, but the Yankees are so villain-ized that it proves how much hatred there really was between the confederates and Yankees. Even from what is considered a southern state, Virginia, I was never taught such a one sided account. One thing that was overlooked that we discussed in class was the Confederates’ path of destruction as well – they tried to eliminate food sources that the Yankees could later stumble upon. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie&amp;#039;s romanticizing of the antebellum South, it appeared to me that the movie completely glossed over whites who were not in the planter class elite. There were no representations of the poor whites, or really any whites who owned less than a score of slaves who were not city dwellers. Also, though there was a mention of some of the O&amp;#039;Hara slaves running off, many slaves chose to remain very loyal to the family despite the South&amp;#039;s tenuous hold on slavery. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Melanie supposed to be absolutely ignorant that Scarlett loves Ashley?  She and Scarlett were very close since Charles died and Scarlett moved in with her and her aunt, but part of Scarlett&amp;#039;s friendship is just a facade, because she promised her love that she&amp;#039;d look after Melanie.  You&amp;#039;d think that it wouldn&amp;#039;t take 8 or so years for someone to see Scarlett in Ashley&amp;#039;s arms and pick up on something. - Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whitney, Melanie is not ignorant to that fact that Scarlett love Ashley but she is such a good person that she doesn&amp;#039;t want to believe in bad things.  Melanie chooses to ignore that fact. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the deal with Scarlett&amp;#039;s cleavage?  Every other woman is dressed modestly except for Belle (no coincidence).  Once Scarlett returns to Tara and her father, she takes to wearing her pink dress WAY unbuttoned, and after that it seems like the only time you don&amp;#039;t see bare chest is when she&amp;#039;s in mourning!  But when she gets money and all these nice new clothes she does buy some dresses that cover her up more.  This all seems quite scandalous to be in a movie in 1939.  Someone mentioned &amp;quot;Aviator&amp;quot;--do you remember the cleavage discussion that went on with the board of censors? Yeah.  How easy was it to get that much on screen for GWTW? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as censor issues go for this movie, I mostly think language and content was the issue--not cleavage. When comparing the chest size of Hughe&amp;#039;s muse Jane Russell and Vivien Leigh it doesn&amp;#039;t seem to be as big a deal you know? They weren&amp;#039;t pushing the envelope much more than anyone else was back then. And plus, this was a BIG budget movie that was highly publicized and popular before filming even began so censors would not have even had much power over it. Alos keep in mind, they were probably sending things to the Prod. Code Office for approval throughout production. The two censor issues I know of were the lines &amp;quot;I don&amp;#039;t give a damn&amp;quot; (got away with it cuz the emphasis was on &amp;quot;give&amp;quot; and not &amp;quot;damn&amp;quot;  and the line &amp;quot;maybe you&amp;#039;ll get luck and have an miscarriage&amp;quot; which had to be changed to &amp;quot;have an accident.&amp;quot;--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken mentioned in his lecture that men who returned home after the war stepped back into their patriarchal roles, but Ashley acted so feminine, like he lost all hope of regaining his masculinity. It seemed to me that his wife tried her best to keep both of their spirits afloat as they did their best to survive. Does anyone else think that or do people disagree? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When this movie first came out it was pretty much given a rated of X which then was similar to our now a days R.  I have grown up watching this with my grandmother and I remember her telling me that when it first came out she was forbidden to go see it by her parents.  She would have been around 15 at that time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way slaves and the union were portrayed in this movie was a big problem for accuracy. Even after the war the slaves have not left Scarlett and they are still submissive to her and working for her which is just not accurate at all. The key black characters in the movie are shown as completely devoted to Scarlett even after she treats them like crap and the war is over. The movie is entirely biased in that the union perspective is never shown and in the small scenes it does show union characters these scenes all portray negative stereotypes. When a movie is so clearly biased it loses a lot of historical credibility. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Darkies&amp;quot; seems like more of a &amp;#039;30s thing to me. Was it? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where was Sharecropping in the film? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
George Fitzhugh’s “The Blessings of Slavery” shows how ignorant white southern slave owners can be. The idea that a person is more happy in forced servitude than as a free citizen is ridiculous. Beyond that, it  meshes with stories of other slaveholders that were surprised when their slaves ran away – treating slaves well is better than treating them terribly, but they are still slaves. Gone with the Wind falls into this ignorance. Like most film productions where southern whites are slaveholders, the slaves love their masters like family. Mammy, Sissy, etc. (I can’t help but flashback to the Patriot as Mel helps his free black friends plow the field). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes the portrayal of slaves is extremely absurd in this movie in relation to actual scholarship and history. From the readings it is clear that after the war the slaves were freed and left the plantations. The slaves would not come back to the same families they were enslaved by before and when they did show up again their former owners wanted them gone. The movie takes the ideas of patternalism seriously even though it was just a delusion of Southern Whites. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the primary sources we read dealt with both Whites and Blacks dealing with the after math of Emancipation. Whites unsure of what to do with the free labor society thrust upon them and Blacks surprising Whites by packing their grip and leaving. Gone with the Wind barely even mentions it as if they didn&amp;#039;t even notice that this monumental change had taken place. It was definitely a White-centric view of the fall of aristocratic South.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:04, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Schurz&amp;#039;s text, he discusses the fact that a very small minority of people were able to continue having regular lives and move forward after the war. Scarlett and Rhett seem to represent special cases of people, and can&amp;#039;t be applied to the rest of the reconstructing south. As to the KKK article, we could give the movie credit for not coming out and saying that the men went to kill the African-Americans, but simply all of the men at the outskirt camp, since the article does discuss the murder of white men and women who were friendly to the abolition cause. The movie does fail in showing abolitionist characters and instead gives us disgustingly sympathetic-to-their-husbands-crimes wives and violent men. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
So apparently the Civil War only affected white people....  Mammy and Prissy and the other old slave man all stay with Miss Scarlet and her family throughout the whole movie.  Not once is there mention of slaves being emancipated, and not once do the slaves mention being free (although we do see Old Sam is living away from them now, since he became a trench digger).  Through all that post-war poverty, and being the only blacks left on Tara, they stayed loyal.  But of course!  They&amp;#039;d always been treated and fed well and loved their white family and would never think of anything but staying. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The addressing of racial issues in Gone With The Wind was equally infuriating and heartbreaking. The thought that kept rushing through my head during the scenes with Mammy, Pris and Pork was it&amp;#039;s similarity to 1915&amp;#039;s Birth Of A Nation, which cost $110,000 to make and grossed $3 million in the US and $10 million worldwide. Gone With The Wind, to date, has grossed nearly $200 million dollars, after taking just under $4 million to produce. While BOAN was released 24 years previous to GWTW, it is clear that this racism is still prevalent and, as the above numbers show, commercially viable. In both films, the black characters were satirical caricatures of the southern slave population and were often seen not only as members of an inferior race but sometimes even as nothing more than loyal dogs. Human Beings or Man&amp;#039;s Best Friend? Unfortunately, this was clearly the southern attitude towards the black population. I suppose this racism is a great history lesson for those curious about race relations during the antebellum, in-war and post-war years, but it makes both films vastly uncomfortable viewing. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I found interesting is that none of the slave characters ever talked about their own families (if they had them) or relatives or even other slaves. Is this a matter of people in this period not wanting to hear about real slavery (people who worked outside of the house), or was it just a lack of caring? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was watching TCM a few weeks ago and they did a 15 minute feature on Hattie McDaniel, the actress who played Mamie. Before and after &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; McDaniel was type cast into motherly, domestic roles hundreds of times. McDaniel was respected in Hollywood (for what it was/is worth) and won an academy award for best supporting actress for her role as Mamie. Her roles as a domestic caretaker often caricatured blacks by being boisterous and plainspoken. Those portrayals helped make black characters appear lovable and benign, while simultaneously implying that they were subservient and not to be taken seriously. McDaniel and other black actresses were criticized for taking roles which allegedly validated or at least perpetuated the servile status of blacks. McDaniel said “I’d rather play a maid for $700 a week than be one for $7”. I think this movie is as strong a primary source as it is a secondary source, for it reveals the complexity of race relations in this country in the late 1930s. On one hand, blacks had acting jobs, so that is progress from the era of blackface. On the other hand, those acting roles depicted blacks as servants with no desire to advance. McDaniel’s own comment conveys a certain contentment with being a stock character, which sent the message that she was content with being a second class citizen. What did it say to blacks at the time that one of their most beloved actresses was not willing to rock the boat? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
   &lt;br /&gt;
-Definitely have to agree with Jason here. I was thinking about the movie Hollywood Shuffle (1987) and it deals with the tension   between Blacks actors either playing a stereotyped Black role or making no money at all. It is a sign on what time this film was created in that most actors had no choice and their wasn&amp;#039;t really much room for being morally virtouos in choosing roles.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:13, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t take this movie as a primary source at all. No one apparrently ever does work in the south. Every slave is apparintly seen as a &amp;quot;sambo&amp;quot; never tired, never worrying about punishment. They have absolutly no quarrels with being slaves at any point and seem to love their masters. The things I did notice to be kinda right were the southern mens attitude toward war. GWTW depicts the importance of military school to southern men. but none of the men seem to even go to school and life always comes off as a party down in the south. The problem with the movie is that  its writen with a romatic (Art form not love) veiw on life. This does depicts the movie from the eyes of a sotherner. --Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Jason that this movie is probably one of the best for use as a primary source that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far in class. This is most evident in the scenes involving the slaves. Though as previously mentioned the characters are no longer blackface clad white actors, they are still playing the same character types as before. The men are all dim-witted and lazy. Particularly striking were the scenes of the one male slave chasing the rooster around in the mud as he mumbles to himself and the &amp;quot;quitting time&amp;quot; scene near the beginning of the film. I assume these were meant to be humorous scenes, of course at the expense of the slaves. Then there is Prissy and Mammy. Though both are female, neither character is portrayed in any way which may allude to an attractiveness, nor any other discernible feminine qualities. This was especially evident when the black actresses shared screen time with any of the white actresses. Prissy was relentlessly childlike and helpless, accented by her squeaky voice and cowardly demeanor.  Mammy was the sassy, though obedient, servant with no concerns of her own. Essentially this movie is a time capsule to prevailing racist views in 1939.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The book was a bestseller, the movie was an instant classic, but Why?  Nostalgia. Americans love the way things used to be even if they never were that way. The only positive representation we got of the South was before the war, and the only representation of the antebellum South was the wealthiest 0.2% of it. The middle 90% of the movie depicted a South that had spiraled into decay, poverty, and criminality at the hands of Yankee invaders and carpetbaggers. The end of the movie brings us full circle as Scarlett says “Tara, I’ll go home and think of someway to get him [Rhett] back, after all, tomorrow is another day!”. To me, Rhett is obviously a metaphor for the antebellum South (of course, he was too benevolent and objective to represent the old South truthfully, but nonetheless that was the intent of his character).  What this closing line insinuates is that the way to fix all of these problems caused by the damn Yankees is to just go back to the way things were. The public sees this film and says “Oh wow, before the Civil War the South was fun and pretty and awesome, even the slaves decided when it was quittin’ time! But how depressing was the rest of the movie, too much heartbreak! Scarlett is going back to Tara, can we come?!?!?!”. The problem was “Tara” only existed to a few hundred thousand people, and actually didn’t even exist like the movie would have us believe. There are MANY other examples throughout the film that regard the South sympathetically…- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How this movie enables the public to sympathize with the South:&lt;br /&gt;
* The raid on the carpetbagger settlement, and the subsequent duping of the Yankee officers. By doing this the film maker’s show the Southerner’s as patriots defending their homeland, while also fooling the dumb Northerners. &lt;br /&gt;
* The film gives the South a complete pass on slavery. Yes, slavery was depicted in the film for 30 seconds, but shows NO cruelty towards blacks. Even in the integrated street scene during the reconstruction segment of the film there was no hostility/ resentment towards blacks. &lt;br /&gt;
* The movie perpetuates the warped belief of paternalism buy having all the blacks who had worked on Tara before the war, stay with the O’ Hara’s throughout the film. Big Sam even came to Scarlett’s rescue. Former slaves would not have done any of this. &lt;br /&gt;
* Mamie seems to be well respected by the family, and interacts with them on equal footing. Furthermore, Rhett gives Mamie a red dress. This tells the audience that domestic slaves were treated well, even lavishly. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Civil War was portrayed as The War of Northern Aggression. This helps the audience see the evils done by the Union Army, while the South plays the role of victim. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rhett is the consummate distinguished Southern gentleman without a bad bone in his body. He was pragmatic and diplomatic in is speeches towards the North. Rhett was so moralistic and level- headed that any cause or ideology could be justified and defended by such an upstanding character. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Gone With the Wind&amp;quot; is beautifully filmed and edited.  The use of color, music and other forms of mise en scene are spectacular, which a whole other class period could be devoted to for discussion.  One of  the scenes that stood out to me was when one of the soldiers comes back from battle and exclaims &amp;quot;It&amp;#039;s over, the war is over, we surrendered!&amp;quot;  Immediately after this, the spectrum of reactions from the south is expressed in only a matter of seconds through a couple of lines (these lines are of course paraphrased to the best of my memory):  &amp;quot;Why did we ever go to war?&amp;quot; (feeling of reluctance and regret), &amp;quot;Oh (insert name of husband) is coming home!&amp;quot; (relief that a loved one made it alive), &amp;quot;We surrendered?!?!&amp;quot; (shock of losing the war). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say - the first half.... LONG and BORING. The second half - on the edge of my seat at times. I had to leave for a club meeting (for literally 5 minutes) and it was hard to pry myself away. I must say NOT what I expected. Also, I totally called the deaths of Bonnie (foreshadowing) and Melanie (classic Little Women-like Beth character). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more thing - symbolism... I felt that Scarlet&amp;#039;s love for Ashley (which tragically ended at the end at his wife&amp;#039;s death, when Scarlet finally really gets a clue and realizes Ashley has loved his wife all along) was symbolic for the death of the south. Not a very uplifting ending. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very nice insights, Elle.  I was just wondering the likelihood of someone like Scarlett&amp;#039;s character truly existing during the Civil War.  Her extremely demanding personality gave me no choice but to stereotype all white women in the south during that time; but, I still feel that nobody that hysterical could really be based off a real person(s).  I know a lot of it probably has to do with dramatic effect, but generalizing off of Elle&amp;#039;s interpretation of Scarlett&amp;#039;s love for Ashley symbolizing the death of the south, is Scarlett&amp;#039;s personality representative of the arrogance of the South and how that lead to severe psychological repercussions?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What a demeaning image of a southern white lady, and how awful to have to play that role and reinforce this stereotype!  Scarlett is purely selfish, immature, whiny, vain, stubborn, hysterical, greedy...the list goes on.  Uggh!  And how she is in the beginning turning from one guy to another, entirely insincere and loving attention.  She marries to help herself and spite other men, and it takes until the loving, perfect Melanie dies for her to realize that Ashley was right when he said that he loved his wife and not her, and to realize that Rhett also loved her, like he always said he did.  And I don&amp;#039;t even need to go into her spending habits.  Frankly, I couldn&amp;#039;t give a damn what she did without Rhett, either.  To sum it up, as Elle said, &amp;quot;God, she&amp;#039;s pathetic.&amp;quot; -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is Rhett supposed to have become and stayed a millionaire? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I beg to differ on several of the above comments. First off, I LOVE AND WILL FOREVER LOVE THIS STORY!!!!!! The film is amazing in so many ways in its own right but the story Margaret Mitchell invented is beautiful. The characters are each tragically flawed in just the perfect way to make you love them, but mostly hate them and yet keeps you wanting to read it. I went as Scarlet in the red &amp;quot;look your part&amp;quot; dress in 2nd grade, so yeah, I am an undying fan. Scarlet is all of those horrible things but Rhett is a lot of them too. He just admits to them instead of trying to adhere to the hypocrisy of that society until Bonnie comes along. And the movie is ridiculously sad at the end, giving you zero time to breath in between Rhett&amp;#039;s devastation over Scarlet&amp;#039;s miscarriage (a word that they were not allowed to say in 1939 Code Hollywood), to Bonnie&amp;#039;s death and then Melanie&amp;#039;s death and then the final blow of Rhett leaving Scarlet at the precise moment she has her freakin&amp;#039; epiphany. But I love all these characters, even Scarlet- because Melanie (even though she deludes herself into thinking that Scarlet is not in love with Ashley) does see the good qualities of Scarlet, her sense of loyalty and the constant protection she provides to her family. It all seems selfish and she whines to some about having to do it, but in the end she goes back to Tara, the place that gives her strength because it is apart of her identity as the daughter of an Irish man, as a Southerner, as passionate person who demands control over her own life and destiny and will prevail &amp;quot;as God as her witness&amp;quot; even under all the tragedies of the world. It is actually an inspiring character, because she does change in the end (though you can debate that point) for the better. She gains a bit of insight and learns to love those she has taken for granted, and let go of others she had no right to love in the first place (got over her silly girlhood crush basically). I could quote this TIMELESS FILM all night long so I&amp;#039;ll stop before I do.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Rhett gets drunk and sweeps Scarlett off her feet to presumably have &amp;quot;marital relations&amp;quot; with her, when we see her the next morning in her bed, was she smiling because she received multiple orgasms or was she happy for some other reasons? Can it be assume that since Rhett likes to hang around harlots and &amp;quot;bad women&amp;quot; like Belle, that he knows how to be an impeccable lover?-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Hah Lauren, me and my roommate laughed at this scene, I came to the same conclusion you did. I hope Dr. M highlights this one, just for the sheer awkwardness of it all. -Shannon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it really that common of a practice to take group naps in other people&amp;#039;s homes? In the movie it seemed like a common occurrence during parties. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck by the symbolism of the cut away shot at the end. Scarlett standing like the statue of liberty/ lady justice against a blood red sky while the voice over narration says, &amp;quot;After all, tomorrow is another day&amp;quot;. To me this is the South saying, &amp;quot;We stand here full of pride, having spilled our blood, and we will rise again&amp;quot;...or a less threatening interpretation- &amp;quot;You may have spilled our blood and destroyed our land, but you have not broken our spirit&amp;quot;. Either way the viewer is left with the image that the South is triumphant. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I must say I was curious about whether the slaves in this movie were actually played by African Americans and from what I read they were. This surprised me because some of the slaves have pretty big roles and at this time African Americans were still very much segregated against. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving?  We&amp;#039;re they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes?  If so, would there had been any radishes left?  I&amp;#039;ve only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing is explained, but somehow they do manage enough food to even feed returning soldiers too, though much to selfish Scarlet&amp;#039;s dismay.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remember this is fiction it was not meant to be looked at critically. Do we judge other works of fiction with the same characteristics?  -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, we ought to judge anything and everything critically. Secondly, we ought to judge any movie that has had as profound an impact on the understanding of our history as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; has. Entire generations think that this is what the South was like. Heritage is one of the most important characteristics of a Southerner, this movie is such a part of Americana that not only has the film shaped Southerners&amp;#039; understandings of their heritage, the film itself has become part of their heritage. -Jason Ward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would the House maid of Scarlet really be able to talk to her the way that she does? I feel like there would be some consiquences for talking back and being pretty sassy.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a lot of war movies, before the war breaks out, the would- be participants are giddy about going to war. I can see how the convictions of most Southerners gave them the resolve to fight, but were they itching to fight? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was John Wilkes a Character&amp;#039;s name in this film? It is an overt reference to John Wilkes Booth, was this not taboo in the 1930s? Lincoln has become an American God, and if a movie had a character by the name of John Wilkes today he would most assuredly be a villain, but not in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. What has been the historiography of John Wilkes Booth? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Clark Gable would have made a great Tom Dewey. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the film, while fairly historically accurate, is heavily viewed through the lens of the fall of southern aristocracy. It is about the struggles of the rich southerner more so than the south in its entirety. This film and book were probably a form of escapism for people during the Great Depression. What better way to forget your woes than to see the romanticized south with a beautiful, feisty leading lady and a dashing, swoon-worthy leading man?--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:28, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is beautifully shot and really has stood the test of time in that regard. However, watching Scarlett be annoying and conniving and bratty in nearly every way for most of the film really takes away from it. I think that she could be made into a &amp;quot;Gossip Girl&amp;quot; character and fit in just fine. The movie is still great and beautiful, but I definitely don&amp;#039;t have the patience for a delicate, pampered southern belle. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Amanda I really couldn&amp;#039;t stand Scarlett either. I found her character really unbelievable even for a &amp;quot;Southern belle&amp;quot; and I had a hard time believing the other characters interactions with her. It all just seemed really fake. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, the little bit of history in this movie is fairly accurate. I find it a hard movie to critic because there is so little in the storyline that comes from history. This movie was clearly meant to be entertaining. - Christine W.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-02T00:13:44Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 6 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things had turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat and he believes they have no hope for victory, which was true after Gettysburg. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers and the burning of plantation homes, but that &amp;quot;nearly every home in the county&amp;quot; lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless and without income. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren&amp;#039;t totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now &amp;quot;gone with the wind,&amp;quot; never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jackie said, there were a lot of things that the movie did get right, such as one scene where Rhett tells Scarlett that she has to date him because &amp;quot;there is no one else around older than 16 and younger than 60 to show [her] a good time.&amp;quot;  As we discussed in class, most of the men in the South during the Civil War between those ages were off fighting, and many of them died, posing a problem for the women back at home.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Rhett Butler&amp;#039;s first lines in this film is him explaining how the North was better equipped than the South, a reason why they shouldn&amp;#039;t have gone into war in the first place.  He states that while the North was armed with factories, superior weapons, and coal mines, all the South had were &amp;quot;slaves, cotton, and arrogance.&amp;quot;  This is a nice summary of the South&amp;#039;s economic dependence on the production of cotton, which is of course directly dependent on slave labor.  Furthermore, the &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; can be interpreted as their belief in white supremacy and how that may have driven the South to go to war (which the movie eventually proved to be destructive to them). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the depiction of the civil war &amp;quot;hospitals&amp;quot; to be at least mildly accurate. They gave no sense of cleanliness or sterility, and were at times gruesome as Scarlett couldn&amp;#039;t handle bearing witness to the amputation sans chloroform. Perhaps there were some instances of nurse touching in the movie which was not allowed in real life, but it did portray one lady writing a letter for an incapacitated man as mentioned in the lecture. Also there was some sense that disease played just as important a role in the death toll as the war wounds. Scarlett&amp;#039;s first husband falls to pneumonia, her mother to typhoid, and there were allusions to lice and other diseases in the &amp;quot;hospitals.&amp;quot; -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Post-traumatic stress/depression displayed by the returning Confederate soldiers was at least shown in the movie, though not named. Ashley came back and he was not happy with the destroyed life he came back to. He lost his sense of being a man.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did a great job with portraying the notion of the romanticized southern history and lifestyle. The nation is on the brink of civil war yet in the movie they are having a grand ole time at the bbq and various balls. As the men are discussing the war, they believe it is more important to be gentlemen who know how to use their words as oppose to discussing potential strategies. Rhett Butler is ostracized for explaining that the North has a better chance of winning the war because they have factories, ship yards, coal mines and other necessary supplies. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe the southern gender roles are accurately portrayed, most especially in the beginning/first half of the movie. Concerning the elite class, the women are dainty, southern belles who wear big dresses and flaunt fancy, elaborate hats. Marriage was intended for money and land, which is explained when Mr. O&amp;#039;Hara explains to  Scarlett that it doesn&amp;#039;t matter who you marry just as long as he&amp;#039;s southern and thinks the same way. While the women are upstairs napping, the men are downstairs smoking, drinking and talking man business such as war. The movie is pretty stereotypical of what people believed and how they acted at the time. The movie shows how the South was convinced that it would be victorious because the soldiers were defending slavery, cotton, and southern land. The movie truly turned the North into the villain, which was a prevailing belief in the South. The South was not a fan base for Abraham Lincoln. In her journal, Ella explains her despise for Lincoln and in the movie Scarlett tells Rhett at the fundraiser that on that night she would have even danced with Abraham Lincoln.  --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It really does portray the romanticized version of the south, most people take a good part of this movie to explain what they know about southern history. The movie did a good job portraying the different challenges women faced when the war started.  They were thrown into new and different roles on top of having to do the different tasks they had to before the war. Mallory at that point in the movie when Scarlett tells Rhett that she would have danced with Lincoln she still hates Rhett he is just a way for her to have fun and enjoy herself. She is so miserable not being able to have fun since she is a widow that she will take any opportunity to have a good time. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the scene at the hospital although not completely accurate does do a very good job at depicting how gruesome a Civil War hospital was. Many people got horrible injuries many people had to have limbs amputated. The movie also does a great job showing depression and trauma in people after the events of the war especially in men. Mr. Wilks and Scarlett&amp;#039;s father are both prominent examples of depression in the movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
During the reconstruction part of the film Ashley says, &amp;quot;There is no place for me.&amp;quot; - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Coming home from the war the men seem emasculated. They are no longer able to care for their dependents and they have lost a war that has left the South devastated. This can be seen in Ashley and Scarlett&amp;#039;s father. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:00, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I&amp;#039;d like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing.  There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Props to alluding to the KKK. But Great and Unbelievable Condemnation to making it seem glorious and righteous! Yeah that&amp;#039;s maybe what the bitter white dudes who created it thought but the movie makes it seem so gentile, defending their women from rape. Never mind that slave women had been sexually abused and taken advantage of for years and years before the war and then too, they were in danger during the war. The only thing the film or the book for that matter worries about is the virtue of white Ladies like Scarlet who goes off into the backwoods where poor criminal men (black and white) live and almost gets raped. The movie portrays her attacker as white and her savior as a former slave who had always been treated with respect and who in turn cared highly for his former mistress. This type of justification and wacky self-righteousness was ever present in the 20th century. The South had recently experienced a resurgence of the KKK- and black men who often lynched under the excuse that they had assaulted a white woman (usually if it had any truth at all it was consensual). The movie treads so lightly on the subject (even less than the book) that what was really going on is practically undetectable. It&amp;#039;s been a while since my sister had seen the film but even, now I had to explain to her that &amp;quot;illegal raid&amp;quot; was the KKK in action and as characters we are made to feel completely fond of or sympathetic for. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- I also noticed the lack of mention about the KKK and after doing some research found this on IMDB, (so veracity may or may not be accurate): Producer David O. Selznick said that he had no desire to remake The Birth of a Nation (1915), telling screenwriter Sidney Howard in 1937, &amp;quot;I do hope you will agree with me on this omission of what might come out as an unintentional advertisement for intolerant societies in these fascist-ridden times...&amp;quot; So maybe this is more telling of the time in which it was made more than anything.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:20, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be nit-picky, but the scenes where Scarlett and Melanie are working as nurses for the wounded soldiers, they are bandaging the soldiers and taking their temperatures.  As we discussed in class, female nurses at this time would not be doing things like that; it would have been considered inappropriate, and they would have been doing tasks such as writing letters home for soldiers.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to women’s roles, it is apparent that Scarlet takes full advantage of the men being away. She keeps her role even when they return, managing the farm, the mill, the store, and her countless husbands. This example is of a truly one of a kind woman, and I don’t think (from my knowledge on gender roles etc.) that many women welcomed that much more responsibility, or were bold enough to take it into their own hands. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to mention Sherman’s march – sure Sherman wasn’t the nicest, but the Yankees are so villain-ized that it proves how much hatred there really was between the confederates and Yankees. Even from what is considered a southern state, Virginia, I was never taught such a one sided account. One thing that was overlooked that we discussed in class was the Confederates’ path of destruction as well – they tried to eliminate food sources that the Yankees could later stumble upon. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie&amp;#039;s romanticizing of the antebellum South, it appeared to me that the movie completely glossed over whites who were not in the planter class elite. There were no representations of the poor whites, or really any whites who owned less than a score of slaves who were not city dwellers. Also, though there was a mention of some of the O&amp;#039;Hara slaves running off, many slaves chose to remain very loyal to the family despite the South&amp;#039;s tenuous hold on slavery. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Melanie supposed to be absolutely ignorant that Scarlett loves Ashley?  She and Scarlett were very close since Charles died and Scarlett moved in with her and her aunt, but part of Scarlett&amp;#039;s friendship is just a facade, because she promised her love that she&amp;#039;d look after Melanie.  You&amp;#039;d think that it wouldn&amp;#039;t take 8 or so years for someone to see Scarlett in Ashley&amp;#039;s arms and pick up on something. - Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whitney, Melanie is not ignorant to that fact that Scarlett love Ashley but she is such a good person that she doesn&amp;#039;t want to believe in bad things.  Melanie chooses to ignore that fact. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the deal with Scarlett&amp;#039;s cleavage?  Every other woman is dressed modestly except for Belle (no coincidence).  Once Scarlett returns to Tara and her father, she takes to wearing her pink dress WAY unbuttoned, and after that it seems like the only time you don&amp;#039;t see bare chest is when she&amp;#039;s in mourning!  But when she gets money and all these nice new clothes she does buy some dresses that cover her up more.  This all seems quite scandalous to be in a movie in 1939.  Someone mentioned &amp;quot;Aviator&amp;quot;--do you remember the cleavage discussion that went on with the board of censors? Yeah.  How easy was it to get that much on screen for GWTW? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as censor issues go for this movie, I mostly think language and content was the issue--not cleavage. When comparing the chest size of Hughe&amp;#039;s muse Jane Russell and Vivien Leigh it doesn&amp;#039;t seem to be as big a deal you know? They weren&amp;#039;t pushing the envelope much more than anyone else was back then. And plus, this was a BIG budget movie that was highly publicized and popular before filming even began so censors would not have even had much power over it. Alos keep in mind, they were probably sending things to the Prod. Code Office for approval throughout production. The two censor issues I know of were the lines &amp;quot;I don&amp;#039;t give a damn&amp;quot; (got away with it cuz the emphasis was on &amp;quot;give&amp;quot; and not &amp;quot;damn&amp;quot;  and the line &amp;quot;maybe you&amp;#039;ll get luck and have an miscarriage&amp;quot; which had to be changed to &amp;quot;have an accident.&amp;quot;--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken mentioned in his lecture that men who returned home after the war stepped back into their patriarchal roles, but Ashley acted so feminine, like he lost all hope of regaining his masculinity. It seemed to me that his wife tried her best to keep both of their spirits afloat as they did their best to survive. Does anyone else think that or do people disagree? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When this movie first came out it was pretty much given a rated of X which then was similar to our now a days R.  I have grown up watching this with my grandmother and I remember her telling me that when it first came out she was forbidden to go see it by her parents.  She would have been around 15 at that time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way slaves and the union were portrayed in this movie was a big problem for accuracy. Even after the war the slaves have not left Scarlett and they are still submissive to her and working for her which is just not accurate at all. The key black characters in the movie are shown as completely devoted to Scarlett even after she treats them like crap and the war is over. The movie is entirely biased in that the union perspective is never shown and in the small scenes it does show union characters these scenes all portray negative stereotypes. When a movie is so clearly biased it loses a lot of historical credibility. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Darkies&amp;quot; seems like more of a &amp;#039;30s thing to me. Was it? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Where was Sharecropping in the film? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
George Fitzhugh’s “The Blessings of Slavery” shows how ignorant white southern slave owners can be. The idea that a person is more happy in forced servitude than as a free citizen is ridiculous. Beyond that, it  meshes with stories of other slaveholders that were surprised when their slaves ran away – treating slaves well is better than treating them terribly, but they are still slaves. Gone with the Wind falls into this ignorance. Like most film productions where southern whites are slaveholders, the slaves love their masters like family. Mammy, Sissy, etc. (I can’t help but flashback to the Patriot as Mel helps his free black friends plow the field). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yes the portrayal of slaves is extremely absurd in this movie in relation to actual scholarship and history. From the readings it is clear that after the war the slaves were freed and left the plantations. The slaves would not come back to the same families they were enslaved by before and when they did show up again their former owners wanted them gone. The movie takes the ideas of patternalism seriously even though it was just a delusion of Southern Whites. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the primary sources we read dealt with both Whites and Blacks dealing with the after math of Emancipation. Whites unsure of what to do with the free labor society thrust upon them and Blacks surprising Whites by packing their grip and leaving. Gone with the Wind barely even mentions it as if they didn&amp;#039;t even notice that this monumental change had taken place. It was definitely a White-centric view of the fall of aristocratic South.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:04, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
So apparently the Civil War only affected white people....  Mammy and Prissy and the other old slave man all stay with Miss Scarlet and her family throughout the whole movie.  Not once is there mention of slaves being emancipated, and not once do the slaves mention being free (although we do see Old Sam is living away from them now, since he became a trench digger).  Through all that post-war poverty, and being the only blacks left on Tara, they stayed loyal.  But of course!  They&amp;#039;d always been treated and fed well and loved their white family and would never think of anything but staying. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The addressing of racial issues in Gone With The Wind was equally infuriating and heartbreaking. The thought that kept rushing through my head during the scenes with Mammy, Pris and Pork was it&amp;#039;s similarity to 1915&amp;#039;s Birth Of A Nation, which cost $110,000 to make and grossed $3 million in the US and $10 million worldwide. Gone With The Wind, to date, has grossed nearly $200 million dollars, after taking just under $4 million to produce. While BOAN was released 24 years previous to GWTW, it is clear that this racism is still prevalent and, as the above numbers show, commercially viable. In both films, the black characters were satirical caricatures of the southern slave population and were often seen not only as members of an inferior race but sometimes even as nothing more than loyal dogs. Human Beings or Man&amp;#039;s Best Friend? Unfortunately, this was clearly the southern attitude towards the black population. I suppose this racism is a great history lesson for those curious about race relations during the antebellum, in-war and post-war years, but it makes both films vastly uncomfortable viewing. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I found interesting is that none of the slave characters ever talked about their own families (if they had them) or relatives or even other slaves. Is this a matter of people in this period not wanting to hear about real slavery (people who worked outside of the house), or was it just a lack of caring? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was watching TCM a few weeks ago and they did a 15 minute feature on Hattie McDaniel, the actress who played Mamie. Before and after &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; McDaniel was type cast into motherly, domestic roles hundreds of times. McDaniel was respected in Hollywood (for what it was/is worth) and won an academy award for best supporting actress for her role as Mamie. Her roles as a domestic caretaker often caricatured blacks by being boisterous and plainspoken. Those portrayals helped make black characters appear lovable and benign, while simultaneously implying that they were subservient and not to be taken seriously. McDaniel and other black actresses were criticized for taking roles which allegedly validated or at least perpetuated the servile status of blacks. McDaniel said “I’d rather play a maid for $700 a week than be one for $7”. I think this movie is as strong a primary source as it is a secondary source, for it reveals the complexity of race relations in this country in the late 1930s. On one hand, blacks had acting jobs, so that is progress from the era of blackface. On the other hand, those acting roles depicted blacks as servants with no desire to advance. McDaniel’s own comment conveys a certain contentment with being a stock character, which sent the message that she was content with being a second class citizen. What did it say to blacks at the time that one of their most beloved actresses was not willing to rock the boat? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
   &lt;br /&gt;
-Definitely have to agree with Jason here. I was thinking about the movie Hollywood Shuffle (1987) and it deals with the tension   between Blacks actors either playing a stereotyped Black role or making no money at all. It is a sign on what time this film was created in that most actors had no choice and their wasn&amp;#039;t really much room for being morally virtouos in choosing roles.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:13, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t take this movie as a primary source at all. No one apparrently ever does work in the south. Every slave is apparintly seen as a &amp;quot;sambo&amp;quot; never tired, never worrying about punishment. They have absolutly no quarrels with being slaves at any point and seem to love their masters. The things I did notice to be kinda right were the southern mens attitude toward war. GWTW depicts the importance of military school to southern men. but none of the men seem to even go to school and life always comes off as a party down in the south. The problem with the movie is that  its writen with a romatic (Art form not love) veiw on life. This does depicts the movie from the eyes of a sotherner. --Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Jason that this movie is probably one of the best for use as a primary source that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far in class. This is most evident in the scenes involving the slaves. Though as previously mentioned the characters are no longer blackface clad white actors, they are still playing the same character types as before. The men are all dim-witted and lazy. Particularly striking were the scenes of the one male slave chasing the rooster around in the mud as he mumbles to himself and the &amp;quot;quitting time&amp;quot; scene near the beginning of the film. I assume these were meant to be humorous scenes, of course at the expense of the slaves. Then there is Prissy and Mammy. Though both are female, neither character is portrayed in any way which may allude to an attractiveness, nor any other discernible feminine qualities. This was especially evident when the black actresses shared screen time with any of the white actresses. Prissy was relentlessly childlike and helpless, accented by her squeaky voice and cowardly demeanor.  Mammy was the sassy, though obedient, servant with no concerns of her own. Essentially this movie is a time capsule to prevailing racist views in 1939.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The book was a bestseller, the movie was an instant classic, but Why?  Nostalgia. Americans love the way things used to be even if they never were that way. The only positive representation we got of the South was before the war, and the only representation of the antebellum South was the wealthiest 0.2% of it. The middle 90% of the movie depicted a South that had spiraled into decay, poverty, and criminality at the hands of Yankee invaders and carpetbaggers. The end of the movie brings us full circle as Scarlett says “Tara, I’ll go home and think of someway to get him [Rhett] back, after all, tomorrow is another day!”. To me, Rhett is obviously a metaphor for the antebellum South (of course, he was too benevolent and objective to represent the old South truthfully, but nonetheless that was the intent of his character).  What this closing line insinuates is that the way to fix all of these problems caused by the damn Yankees is to just go back to the way things were. The public sees this film and says “Oh wow, before the Civil War the South was fun and pretty and awesome, even the slaves decided when it was quittin’ time! But how depressing was the rest of the movie, too much heartbreak! Scarlett is going back to Tara, can we come?!?!?!”. The problem was “Tara” only existed to a few hundred thousand people, and actually didn’t even exist like the movie would have us believe. There are MANY other examples throughout the film that regard the South sympathetically…- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How this movie enables the public to sympathize with the South:&lt;br /&gt;
* The raid on the carpetbagger settlement, and the subsequent duping of the Yankee officers. By doing this the film maker’s show the Southerner’s as patriots defending their homeland, while also fooling the dumb Northerners. &lt;br /&gt;
* The film gives the South a complete pass on slavery. Yes, slavery was depicted in the film for 30 seconds, but shows NO cruelty towards blacks. Even in the integrated street scene during the reconstruction segment of the film there was no hostility/ resentment towards blacks. &lt;br /&gt;
* The movie perpetuates the warped belief of paternalism buy having all the blacks who had worked on Tara before the war, stay with the O’ Hara’s throughout the film. Big Sam even came to Scarlett’s rescue. Former slaves would not have done any of this. &lt;br /&gt;
* Mamie seems to be well respected by the family, and interacts with them on equal footing. Furthermore, Rhett gives Mamie a red dress. This tells the audience that domestic slaves were treated well, even lavishly. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Civil War was portrayed as The War of Northern Aggression. This helps the audience see the evils done by the Union Army, while the South plays the role of victim. &lt;br /&gt;
* Rhett is the consummate distinguished Southern gentleman without a bad bone in his body. He was pragmatic and diplomatic in is speeches towards the North. Rhett was so moralistic and level- headed that any cause or ideology could be justified and defended by such an upstanding character. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Gone With the Wind&amp;quot; is beautifully filmed and edited.  The use of color, music and other forms of mise en scene are spectacular, which a whole other class period could be devoted to for discussion.  One of  the scenes that stood out to me was when one of the soldiers comes back from battle and exclaims &amp;quot;It&amp;#039;s over, the war is over, we surrendered!&amp;quot;  Immediately after this, the spectrum of reactions from the south is expressed in only a matter of seconds through a couple of lines (these lines are of course paraphrased to the best of my memory):  &amp;quot;Why did we ever go to war?&amp;quot; (feeling of reluctance and regret), &amp;quot;Oh (insert name of husband) is coming home!&amp;quot; (relief that a loved one made it alive), &amp;quot;We surrendered?!?!&amp;quot; (shock of losing the war). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say - the first half.... LONG and BORING. The second half - on the edge of my seat at times. I had to leave for a club meeting (for literally 5 minutes) and it was hard to pry myself away. I must say NOT what I expected. Also, I totally called the deaths of Bonnie (foreshadowing) and Melanie (classic Little Women-like Beth character). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more thing - symbolism... I felt that Scarlet&amp;#039;s love for Ashley (which tragically ended at the end at his wife&amp;#039;s death, when Scarlet finally really gets a clue and realizes Ashley has loved his wife all along) was symbolic for the death of the south. Not a very uplifting ending. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very nice insights, Elle.  I was just wondering the likelihood of someone like Scarlett&amp;#039;s character truly existing during the Civil War.  Her extremely demanding personality gave me no choice but to stereotype all white women in the south during that time; but, I still feel that nobody that hysterical could really be based off a real person(s).  I know a lot of it probably has to do with dramatic effect, but generalizing off of Elle&amp;#039;s interpretation of Scarlett&amp;#039;s love for Ashley symbolizing the death of the south, is Scarlett&amp;#039;s personality representative of the arrogance of the South and how that lead to severe psychological repercussions?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What a demeaning image of a southern white lady, and how awful to have to play that role and reinforce this stereotype!  Scarlett is purely selfish, immature, whiny, vain, stubborn, hysterical, greedy...the list goes on.  Uggh!  And how she is in the beginning turning from one guy to another, entirely insincere and loving attention.  She marries to help herself and spite other men, and it takes until the loving, perfect Melanie dies for her to realize that Ashley was right when he said that he loved his wife and not her, and to realize that Rhett also loved her, like he always said he did.  And I don&amp;#039;t even need to go into her spending habits.  Frankly, I couldn&amp;#039;t give a damn what she did without Rhett, either.  To sum it up, as Elle said, &amp;quot;God, she&amp;#039;s pathetic.&amp;quot; -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is Rhett supposed to have become and stayed a millionaire? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I beg to differ on several of the above comments. First off, I LOVE AND WILL FOREVER LOVE THIS STORY!!!!!! The film is amazing in so many ways in its own right but the story Margaret Mitchell invented is beautiful. The characters are each tragically flawed in just the perfect way to make you love them, but mostly hate them and yet keeps you wanting to read it. I went as Scarlet in the red &amp;quot;look your part&amp;quot; dress in 2nd grade, so yeah, I am an undying fan. Scarlet is all of those horrible things but Rhett is a lot of them too. He just admits to them instead of trying to adhere to the hypocrisy of that society until Bonnie comes along. And the movie is ridiculously sad at the end, giving you zero time to breath in between Rhett&amp;#039;s devastation over Scarlet&amp;#039;s miscarriage (a word that they were not allowed to say in 1939 Code Hollywood), to Bonnie&amp;#039;s death and then Melanie&amp;#039;s death and then the final blow of Rhett leaving Scarlet at the precise moment she has her freakin&amp;#039; epiphany. But I love all these characters, even Scarlet- because Melanie (even though she deludes herself into thinking that Scarlet is not in love with Ashley) does see the good qualities of Scarlet, her sense of loyalty and the constant protection she provides to her family. It all seems selfish and she whines to some about having to do it, but in the end she goes back to Tara, the place that gives her strength because it is apart of her identity as the daughter of an Irish man, as a Southerner, as passionate person who demands control over her own life and destiny and will prevail &amp;quot;as God as her witness&amp;quot; even under all the tragedies of the world. It is actually an inspiring character, because she does change in the end (though you can debate that point) for the better. She gains a bit of insight and learns to love those she has taken for granted, and let go of others she had no right to love in the first place (got over her silly girlhood crush basically). I could quote this TIMELESS FILM all night long so I&amp;#039;ll stop before I do.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Rhett gets drunk and sweeps Scarlett off her feet to presumably have &amp;quot;marital relations&amp;quot; with her, when we see her the next morning in her bed, was she smiling because she received multiple orgasms or was she happy for some other reasons? Can it be assume that since Rhett likes to hang around harlots and &amp;quot;bad women&amp;quot; like Belle, that he knows how to be an impeccable lover?-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
- Hah Lauren, me and my roommate laughed at this scene, I came to the same conclusion you did. I hope Dr. M highlights this one, just for the sheer awkwardness of it all. -Shannon&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it really that common of a practice to take group naps in other people&amp;#039;s homes? In the movie it seemed like a common occurrence during parties. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck by the symbolism of the cut away shot at the end. Scarlett standing like the statue of liberty/ lady justice against a blood red sky while the voice over narration says, &amp;quot;After all, tomorrow is another day&amp;quot;. To me this is the South saying, &amp;quot;We stand here full of pride, having spilled our blood, and we will rise again&amp;quot;...or a less threatening interpretation- &amp;quot;You may have spilled our blood and destroyed our land, but you have not broken our spirit&amp;quot;. Either way the viewer is left with the image that the South is triumphant. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving?  We&amp;#039;re they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes?  If so, would there had been any radishes left?  I&amp;#039;ve only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing is explained, but somehow they do manage enough food to even feed returning soldiers too, though much to selfish Scarlet&amp;#039;s dismay.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remember this is fiction it was not meant to be looked at critically. Do we judge other works of fiction with the same characteristics?  -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Firstly, we ought to judge anything and everything critically. Secondly, we ought to judge any movie that has had as profound an impact on the understanding of our history as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039; has. Entire generations think that this is what the South was like. Heritage is one of the most important characteristics of a Southerner, this movie is such a part of Americana that not only has the film shaped Southerners&amp;#039; understandings of their heritage, the film itself has become part of their heritage. -Jason Ward.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would the House maid of Scarlet really be able to talk to her the way that she does? I feel like there would be some consiquences for talking back and being pretty sassy.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a lot of war movies, before the war breaks out, the would- be participants are giddy about going to war. I can see how the convictions of most Southerners gave them the resolve to fight, but were they itching to fight? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was John Wilkes a Character&amp;#039;s name in this film? It is an overt reference to John Wilkes Booth, was this not taboo in the 1930s? Lincoln has become an American God, and if a movie had a character by the name of John Wilkes today he would most assuredly be a villain, but not in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With The Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. What has been the historiography of John Wilkes Booth? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think Clark Gable would have made a great Tom Dewey. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the film, while fairly historically accurate, is heavily viewed through the lens of the fall of southern aristocracy. It is about the struggles of the rich southerner more so than the south in its entirety. This film and book were probably a form of escapism for people during the Great Depression. What better way to forget your woes than to see the romanticized south with a beautiful, feisty leading lady and a dashing, swoon-worthy leading man?--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:28, 1 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is beautifully shot and really has stood the test of time in that regard. However, watching Scarlett be annoying and conniving and bratty in nearly every way for most of the film really takes away from it. I think that she could be made into a &amp;quot;Gossip Girl&amp;quot; character and fit in just fine. The movie is still great and beautiful, but I definitely don&amp;#039;t have the patience for a delicate, pampered southern belle. -- Amanda Russell&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-01T16:14:54Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things had turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat and he believes they have no hope for victory, which was true after Gettysburg. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers and the burning of plantation homes, but that &amp;quot;nearly every home in the county&amp;quot; lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless and without income. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren&amp;#039;t totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now &amp;quot;gone with the wind,&amp;quot; never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jackie said, there were a lot of things that the movie did get right, such as one scene where Rhett tells Scarlett that she has to date him because &amp;quot;there is no one else around older than 16 and younger than 60 to show [her] a good time.&amp;quot;  As we discussed in class, most of the men in the South during the Civil War between those ages were off fighting, and many of them died, posing a problem for the women back at home.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Rhett Butler&amp;#039;s first lines in this film is him explaining how the North was better equipped than the South, a reason why they shouldn&amp;#039;t have gone into war in the first place.  He states that while the North was armed with factories, superior weapons, and coal mines, all the South had were &amp;quot;slaves, cotton, and arrogance.&amp;quot;  This is a nice summary of the South&amp;#039;s economic dependence on the production of cotton, which is of course directly dependent on slave labor.  Furthermore, the &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; can be interpreted as their belief in white supremacy and how that may have driven the South to go to war (which the movie eventually proved to be destructive to them). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the depiction of the civil war &amp;quot;hospitals&amp;quot; to be at least mildly accurate. They gave no sense of cleanliness or sterility, and were at times gruesome as Scarlett couldn&amp;#039;t handle bearing witness to the amputation sans chloroform. Perhaps there were some instances of nurse touching in the movie which was not allowed in real life, but it did portray one lady writing a letter for an incapacitated man as mentioned in the lecture. Also there was some sense that disease played just as important a role in the death toll as the war wounds. Scarlett&amp;#039;s first husband falls to pneumonia, her mother to typhoid, and there were allusions to lice and other diseases in the &amp;quot;hospitals.&amp;quot; -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Post-traumatic stress/depression displayed by the returning Confederate soldiers was at least shown in the movie, though not named. Ashley came back and he was not happy with the destroyed life he came back to. He lost his sense of being a man.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I&amp;#039;d like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing.  There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Props to alluding to the KKK. But Great and Unbelievable Condemnation to making it seem glorious and righteous! Yeah that&amp;#039;s maybe what the bitter white dudes who created it thought but the movie makes it seem so gentile, defending their women from rape. Never mind that slave women had been sexually abused and taken advantage of for years and years before the war and then too, they were in danger during the war. The only thing the film or the book for that matter worries about is the virtue of white Ladies like Scarlet who goes off into the backwoods where poor criminal men (black and white) live and almost gets raped. The movie portrays her attacker as white and her savior as a former slave who had always been treated with respect and who in turn cared highly for his former mistress. This type of justification and wacky self-righteousness was ever present in the 20th century. The South had recently experienced a resurgence of the KKK- and black men who often lynched under the excuse that they had assaulted a white woman (usually if it had any truth at all it was consensual). The movie treads so lightly on the subject (even less than the book) that what was really going on is practically undetectable. It&amp;#039;s been a while since my sister had seen the film but even, now I had to explain to her that &amp;quot;illegal raid&amp;quot; was the KKK in action and as characters we are made to feel completely fond of or sympathetic for. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be nit-picky, but the scenes where Scarlett and Melanie are working as nurses for the wounded soldiers, they are bandaging the soldiers and taking their temperatures.  As we discussed in class, female nurses at this time would not be doing things like that; it would have been considered inappropriate, and they would have been doing tasks such as writing letters home for soldiers.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to women’s roles, it is apparent that Scarlet takes full advantage of the men being away. She keeps her role even when they return, managing the farm, the mill, the store, and her countless husbands. This example is of a truly one of a kind woman, and I don’t think (from my knowledge on gender roles etc.) that many women welcomed that much more responsibility, or were bold enough to take it into their own hands. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to mention Sherman’s march – sure Sherman wasn’t the nicest, but the Yankees are so villain-ized that it proves how much hatred there really was between the confederates and Yankees. Even from what is considered a southern state, Virginia, I was never taught such a one sided account. One thing that was overlooked that we discussed in class was the Confederates’ path of destruction as well – they tried to eliminate food sources that the Yankees could later stumble upon. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie&amp;#039;s romanticizing of the antebellum South, it appeared to me that the movie completely glossed over whites who were not in the planter class elite. There were no representations of the poor whites, or really any whites who owned less than a score of slaves who were not city dwellers. Also, though there was a mention of some of the O&amp;#039;Hara slaves running off, many slaves chose to remain very loyal to the family despite the South&amp;#039;s tenuous hold on slavery. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Melanie supposed to be absolutely ignorant that Scarlett loves Ashley?  She and Scarlett were very close since Charles died and Scarlett moved in with her and her aunt, but part of Scarlett&amp;#039;s friendship is just a facade, because she promised her love that she&amp;#039;d look after Melanie.  You&amp;#039;d think that it wouldn&amp;#039;t take 8 or so years for someone to see Scarlett in Ashley&amp;#039;s arms and pick up on something. - Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the deal with Scarlett&amp;#039;s cleavage?  Every other woman is dressed modestly except for Belle (no coincidence).  Once Scarlett returns to Tara and her father, she takes to wearing her pink dress WAY unbuttoned, and after that it seems like the only time you don&amp;#039;t see bare chest is when she&amp;#039;s in mourning!  But when she gets money and all these nice new clothes she does buy some dresses that cover her up more.  This all seems quite scandalous to be in a movie in 1939.  Someone mentioned &amp;quot;Aviator&amp;quot;--do you remember the cleavage discussion that went on with the board of censors? Yeah.  How easy was it to get that much on screen for GWTW? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as censor issues go for this movie, I mostly think language and content was the issue--not cleavage. When comparing the chest size of Hughe&amp;#039;s muse Jane Russell and Vivien Leigh it doesn&amp;#039;t seem to be as big a deal you know? They weren&amp;#039;t pushing the envelope much more than anyone else was back then. And plus, this was a BIG budget movie that was highly publicized and popular before filming even began so censors would not have even had much power over it. Alos keep in mind, they were probably sending things to the Prod. Code Office for approval throughout production. The two censor issues I know of were the lines &amp;quot;I don&amp;#039;t give a damn&amp;quot; (got away with it cuz the emphasis was on &amp;quot;give&amp;quot; and not &amp;quot;damn&amp;quot;  and the line &amp;quot;maybe you&amp;#039;ll get luck and have an miscarriage&amp;quot; which had to be changed to &amp;quot;have an accident.&amp;quot;--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dr. McClurken mentioned in his lecture that men who returned home after the war stepped back into their patriarchal roles, but Ashley acted so feminine, like he lost all hope of regaining his masculinity. It seemed to me that his wife tried her best to keep both of their spirits afloat as they did their best to survive. Does anyone else think that or do people disagree? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
George Fitzhugh’s “The Blessings of Slavery” shows how ignorant white southern slave owners can be. The idea that a person is more happy in forced servitude than as a free citizen is ridiculous. Beyond that, it  meshes with stories of other slaveholders that were surprised when their slaves ran away – treating slaves well is better than treating them terribly, but they are still slaves. Gone with the Wind falls into this ignorance. Like most film productions where southern whites are slaveholders, the slaves love their masters like family. Mammy, Sissy, etc. (I can’t help but flashback to the Patriot as Mel helps his free black friends plow the field). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
So apparently the Civil War only affected white people....  Mammy and Prissy and the other old slave man all stay with Miss Scarlet and her family throughout the whole movie.  Not once is there mention of slaves being emancipated, and not once do the slaves mention being free (although we do see Old Sam is living away from them now, since he became a trench digger).  Through all that post-war poverty, and being the only blacks left on Tara, they stayed loyal.  But of course!  They&amp;#039;d always been treated and fed well and loved their white family and would never think of anything but staying. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The addressing of racial issues in Gone With The Wind was equally infuriating and heartbreaking. The thought that kept rushing through my head during the scenes with Mammy, Pris and Pork was it&amp;#039;s similarity to 1915&amp;#039;s Birth Of A Nation, which cost $110,000 to make and grossed $3 million in the US and $10 million worldwide. Gone With The Wind, to date, has grossed nearly $200 million dollars, after taking just under $4 million to produce. While BOAN was released 24 years previous to GWTW, it is clear that this racism is still prevalent and, as the above numbers show, commercially viable. In both films, the black characters were satirical caricatures of the southern slave population and were often seen not only as members of an inferior race but sometimes even as nothing more than loyal dogs. Human Beings or Man&amp;#039;s Best Friend? Unfortunately, this was clearly the southern attitude towards the black population. I suppose this racism is a great history lesson for those curious about race relations during the antebellum, in-war and post-war years, but it makes both films vastly uncomfortable viewing. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I found interesting is that none of the slave characters ever talked about their own families (if they had them) or relatives or even other slaves. Is this a matter of people in this period not wanting to hear about real slavery (people who worked outside of the house), or was it just a lack of caring? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Gone With the Wind&amp;quot; is beautifully filmed and edited.  The use of color, music and other forms of mise en scene are spectacular, which a whole other class period could be devoted to for discussion.  One of  the scenes that stood out to me was when one of the soldiers comes back from battle and exclaims &amp;quot;It&amp;#039;s over, the war is over, we surrendered!&amp;quot;  Immediately after this, the spectrum of reactions from the south is expressed in only a matter of seconds through a couple of lines (these lines are of course paraphrased to the best of my memory):  &amp;quot;Why did we ever go to war?&amp;quot; (feeling of reluctance and regret), &amp;quot;Oh (insert name of husband) is coming home!&amp;quot; (relief that a loved one made it alive), &amp;quot;We surrendered?!?!&amp;quot; (shock of losing the war). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say - the first half.... LONG and BORING. The second half - on the edge of my seat at times. I had to leave for a club meeting (for literally 5 minutes) and it was hard to pry myself away. I must say NOT what I expected. Also, I totally called the deaths of Bonnie (foreshadowing) and Melanie (classic Little Women-like Beth character). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more thing - symbolism... I felt that Scarlet&amp;#039;s love for Ashley (which tragically ended at the end at his wife&amp;#039;s death, when Scarlet finally really gets a clue and realizes Ashley has loved his wife all along) was symbolic for the death of the south. Not a very uplifting ending. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very nice insights, Elle.  I was just wondering the likelihood of someone like Scarlett&amp;#039;s character truly existing during the Civil War.  Her extremely demanding personality gave me no choice but to stereotype all white women in the south during that time; but, I still feel that nobody that hysterical could really be based off a real person(s).  I know a lot of it probably has to do with dramatic effect, but generalizing off of Elle&amp;#039;s interpretation of Scarlett&amp;#039;s love for Ashley symbolizing the death of the south, is Scarlett&amp;#039;s personality representative of the arrogance of the South and how that lead to severe psychological repercussions?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What a demeaning image of a southern white lady, and how awful to have to play that role and reinforce this stereotype!  Scarlett is purely selfish, immature, whiny, vain, stubborn, hysterical, greedy...the list goes on.  Uggh!  And how she is in the beginning turning from one guy to another, entirely insincere and loving attention.  She marries to help herself and spite other men, and it takes until the loving, perfect Melanie dies for her to realize that Ashley was right when he said that he loved his wife and not her, and to realize that Rhett also loved her, like he always said he did.  And I don&amp;#039;t even need to go into her spending habits.  Frankly, I couldn&amp;#039;t give a damn what she did without Rhett, either.  To sum it up, as Elle said, &amp;quot;God, she&amp;#039;s pathetic.&amp;quot; -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is Rhett supposed to have become and stayed a millionaire? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I beg to differ on several of the above comments. First off, I LOVE AND WILL FOREVER LOVE THIS STORY!!!!!! The film is amazing in so many ways in its own right but the story Margaret Mitchell invented is beautiful. The characters are each tragically flawed in just the perfect way to make you love them, but mostly hate them and yet keeps you wanting to read it. I went as Scarlet in the red &amp;quot;look your part&amp;quot; dress in 2nd grade, so yeah, I am an undying fan. Scarlet is all of those horrible things but Rhett is a lot of them too. He just admits to them instead of trying to adhere to the hypocrisy of that society until Bonnie comes along. And the movie is ridiculously sad at the end, giving you zero time to breath in between Rhett&amp;#039;s devastation over Scarlet&amp;#039;s miscarriage (a word that they were not allowed to say in 1939 Code Hollywood), to Bonnie&amp;#039;s death and then Melanie&amp;#039;s death and then the final blow of Rhett leaving Scarlet at the precise moment she has her freakin&amp;#039; epiphany. But I love all these characters, even Scarlet- because Melanie (even though she deludes herself into thinking that Scarlet is not in love with Ashley) does see the good qualities of Scarlet, her sense of loyalty and the constant protection she provides to her family. It all seems selfish and she whines to some about having to do it, but in the end she goes back to Tara, the place that gives her strength because it is apart of her identity as the daughter of an Irish man, as a Southerner, as passionate person who demands control over her own life and destiny and will prevail &amp;quot;as God as her witness&amp;quot; even under all the tragedies of the world. It is actually an inspiring character, because she does change in the end (though you can debate that point) for the better. She gains a bit of insight and learns to love those she has taken for granted, and let go of others she had no right to love in the first place (got over her silly girlhood crush basically). I could quote this TIMELESS FILM all night long so I&amp;#039;ll stop before I do.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After Rhett gets drunk and sweeps Scarlett off her feet to presumably have &amp;quot;marital relations&amp;quot; with her, when we see her the next morning in her bed, was she smiling because she received multiple orgasms or was she happy for some other reasons? Can it be assume that since Rhett likes to hang around harlots and &amp;quot;bad women&amp;quot; like Belle, that he knows how to be an impeccable lover?-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving?  We&amp;#039;re they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes?  If so, would there had been any radishes left?  I&amp;#039;ve only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing is explained, but somehow they do manage enough food to even feed returning soldiers too, though much to selfish Scarlet&amp;#039;s dismay.--Jackie Reed&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-25T04:15:29Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 4 Public reaction/impact */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve discussed in class the importance of the language barrier between two cultures and how well have movies portrayed this (or not portrayed it at well).  Past movies we&amp;#039;ve watched such as Pocahontas brought up questions such as how does everyone, including the Native Americans, know English even before the British arrived in the New World.  Having the Mendes speak in their native tongue provides an authentic feel to the movie, but also conveys an important factor during these trials.  The fact that the Mendes neither spoke English nor Spanish made it difficult for communication between Baldwin and Cinque and in court, which the movie gets right...even adding a touch of humor to this aspect.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aagh! You totally stole my comment! I agree, Amistad was an amazing way to show how addressing language barrier can actually strengthen a movie&amp;#039;s plot and themes. Not only do we see how Baldwin and Cinque struggle to understand one another (sometimes comedically, sometimes seriously) but we see how it helps the grow as people through understanding each other&amp;#039;s cultures, and it also is used as evidence that the Mendi are born Africans. This leads to themes- like a people who can&amp;#039;t speak for themselves, but overcome the impossible injustices they face as free people. I thought it was a fascinating directorial choice to not use subtitles for the Mendi until about 20-30 min. into the film. The Spanish get subtitles but audience is purposely put in the dark about what the Mendi are saying until people start to really try to talk to them. It makes it take longer for the viewer to understand and get to know the Mendi. It makes them seem foreign, and bewildering, and a bit nonsensical too, like we are looking from the point of view of the Americans who are either ignoring them as intelligent people of another culture or as the Americans who are trying to help them but can&amp;#039;t communicate with them. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right - still going off the same thing... I am a little more skeptical - the humor that D-Flo refers to sticks out in my mind. When Baldwin and Cinque are both saying &amp;quot;how do I find out where you&amp;#039;re from&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;how can I tell you where I&amp;#039;m from&amp;quot; I am just a little skeptical. I like to think that through language barriers we all can think similarly and problem solve though. Another instance is when Cinque is asking all the questions via the translator to JQA. I thought it was interesting to note that JQA&amp;#039;s argument did end up being  in essence Cinque&amp;#039;s words. To summarize - I felt that Amistad did a good job of portraying the language barrier, but did have a few inconsistencies in this area (which were most likely purposeful for entertainment value). -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the point where Holabird is questioning Cinque about slavery within Africa, there is trouble in translation because &amp;#039;slave&amp;#039; can only be translated as &amp;#039;worker.&amp;#039;  We see an example of this when Olaudah Equiano writes of slavery in Africa as an entirely different concept--workers or servants, and he was well-treated and included--than what started happening once he got to the coast. However, with Holabird&amp;#039;s argument that whether it&amp;#039;s slavery or indentured servitude, the concept is the same, the film gives little indication to the viewer that the concept truly is different. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s good to have the British captain confirm to Holabird in testimony that Cinque&amp;#039;s account of the captives&amp;#039; treatment was a common occurrence, so the viewer understands that as well. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that regarding the initial court proceedings, the movie portrayed the varied interests well. That there were many groups: the abolitionists, the state, Ruis and Mendez, and the two guys from LI helped show how this trial was at times confusing for everyone involved. Also I believe the movie did well to show how the case became a symbol greater than the fate of the Amistad slaves. The abolitionists wanted them to be the first major blow against slavery while MVB wanted the case to fall in his favor to appease southern pressure. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie portrayed the middle passage with ample brutality and accuracy. Since I cannot believe that conditions would have been any better, were they any worse? As far as middle passage portrayals go, where does this one rank? Have there been many other portrayals? In other words, was this the fist exposure the American public had to the reality of &amp;quot;The Middle Passage&amp;quot;? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As with many others, I felt the movie portrayed the language barrier fairly well.  I like the humor that comes out in the movie here and there.  I also felt that the directors did well with portraying the conditions of captured Africans and slaves on the ships as well. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One other event the movie got right was the part where Baldwin is shouting out numbers in Mende to see if anyone would understand him.  Fortunately, someone understood him! ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The part I felt that was portrayed best historically was the slave ship scenes. They do a very good job at showing the terrible conditions shown towards slaves similar to the account given from the readings. The ships clearly showed the crowded conditions punishments and the situations where the sick are tossed overboard. The only problem I had with these parts is that there was a significant amount of women and children on board the ships. This does not seem likely because the preferred slaves of Europeans would be males. Women and children slaves aboard ships would also be the first ones likely to be thrown overboard.- Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s clear that Spielberg and the other filmmakers did substantial research before making this film.  From the depiction of the men counting to ten in Mende in the New York harbor to the problems caused by the language barrier, they did a good job of presenting this as an &amp;quot;authentic&amp;quot; historical film.  The flashback scenes on the Tocura are particularly harrowing and really drive the point home.  I think we can all agree that slavery is one of, if not THE, darkest chapters in our nation&amp;#039;s history.  The horrors depicted in Spielberg&amp;#039;s film should provide an interesting contrast to the slavery depicted in next week&amp;#039;s film, Gone With the Wind.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with everyone else, I think the film director did a good job with the language barriers.  They made it seem very real and how long it took them to understand the Mendes by finding a translator in the harbor who spoke Mendes. This all seemed very accurate to our notes from Tuesday’s class. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed about Dr. M&amp;#039;s lecture was the overwhelming amount of historical figures involved with the trial surrounding the Amistad slaves.  So a question I asked myself before watching the movie was which historical characters would the movie focus on.  The most obvious is Joseph Cinque (but I probably would not have known this if I haven&amp;#039;t heard of this film before), but I think you could argue that every other name Dr. M mentioned in class deserved much focus in order to understand the history of the Amistad trial.  Roger Baldwin and JQA are the other two figures the movie gives more screen time to, but I feel like much more important figures deserve greater insight and character development.  For example, President Van Buren would have had much to say about the trial since he was up for re-election during this time period.  Also, I initially thought Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character was a reflection of James Pennington, but after reading &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; I discovered that Theodore was fictitious and that the movie was actually criticized for not including those prominent blacks involved with the abolition movement (71).  Additionally, other important historical figures such as Queen Isabella of Spain (at least I think she was a Queen in the movie) and the Grimke sisters needed more emphasis to understand this historical event.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David sort of touches on my question about who WAS Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character?  I don&amp;#039;t quite understand why the entire movie would build itself upon actual people and then when it comes to the black abolitionist, they create a new character.  We knew that there was a Reverend Pennington, so why not actually base Freeman&amp;#039;s character on him? --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a few things to say about the characters. Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s character of Roger Baldwin was full humor, but I thought that depiction was inaccurate. Dr. M said the real Baldwin was in his 40&amp;#039;s, whereas in the movie, he was depicted as a young, fresh, and inexperienced lawyer. It can be argued that he was this movie&amp;#039;s eye candy, as Jackie might say. His important role in the trials was right, but it was he who talked to John Quincy Adams in the movie to get involved in the trials, not Lewis Tappan, as it was in reality. As for Queen Isabella, was she really eleven or was she younger? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually I would say the eye candy of this movie was either Cinque, who was constantly shirtless, or Covey, who was just so damn pretty- but my silliness aside, I thought this was one of Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s finer roles. And between his costume (shabby dress and sideburns) and his convincing performance as a compelling lawyer (though inexperienced in the courtroom) I think his usual stereotype as a leading man hottie is irrelevant here as is his age, since he still came across as serious as and as strong as Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins. But, I was also peeved by the Morgan Freeman character fabrication issue. &amp;quot;Of course it&amp;#039;s him!&amp;quot; I said to myself as soon as I heard the voice. If there is going to be a wise, cunning, and quietly righteous black man in a period film, it is going to be played by Freeman! But when you&amp;#039;ve got such a fail-safe stock character like that, why bother trying portray the connections to the real freed black abolitionist, James Pennington? And how about those female speaking roles... or should I say role! I can understand when a movie is made about a time when women weren&amp;#039;t put in the history books, but there WERE the Grimke sisters, who were certainly more prominent in the publicity around the case than a man who never existed (Freeman)! The only individual female character we see is the self-centered, pre-teen Queen Isabela II. Way to make women look good Hollywood! But hey, at least they didn&amp;#039;t invent or fabricate a love story for once!--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How involved was Queen Isabella?  I remember learning that the Spanish Ambassador to the US got his panties in a twist over this whole issue, but I don&amp;#039;t recall hearing how involved and aware Isabella was in the incident.  It makes sense for her to be aware of the event and to care about it, but how much of an active part did she play? Also, how much of a complete nutbag was John Quincey Adams?  The movie, to me, made him seem like he was a bit, well, off mentally.  Was it just old age? --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Lewis Tappan Document describes the jail arrangements of the Amistad captives. In this source Cinque is jailed with other criminals separate from his people. He is also not allowed to be removed from said cell because he was not trusted. This is VERY different in the film, in which Cinque leaves the cell on many occasions and is even unchained in the presence of John Quincy Adams in his study. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question - How many women and children were aboard the Amistad and made it out alive? It struck me as odd that there would be young and female survivors of this entire ordeal - given Cinque&amp;#039;s account of killing off/starving/drowning the weak and less profitable slaves on the original journey, tacked onto the fact that the majority of slaves in the trade were men in the first place. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Answer: I thought there were a few women and children survivors that made it onto the Amistad. As for why they would be there in the first place, I imagine, is because (with a mix of men and women) slaveowners would hope that they would procreate and then their children would become the property of the slave-owners who bought them (free slaves basically).--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So we know that they really appealed to the District Court, and didn&amp;#039;t replace the judge, and that they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, too.  But what&amp;#039;s the deal with the trial?  It looks like Adams gives a little, powerful speech based on Cinque&amp;#039;s words...nothing close to an 8.5-hour oratory.  Are we supposed to assume that the arguments made in lesser courts are also made before the Supreme Court before what we see, or that Adams&amp;#039;s little bit was all it took for the court to hear the case and rule on it? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wait. Whitney. Did you really want the movie to go on for another 8.5 hrs? Baldwin gave a speech and testimony (repeating mostly what he had already argued in lower courts) over a period of two days, but ALL of that happened off camera. I think we should cut the filmmakers some slack on summary of Adams&amp;#039; real speech. --Jackie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, the movie was long enough as it was.  I would have never wanted it to go on longer so that it could include a longer speech made by Adams. You get the basic understanding of what was happening without going into more detail in the court arguments. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A number of people have already made comments on this but I, too, have something to say about Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s Baldwin. As we learned in class yesterday, Baldwin was a Yale educated lawyer &amp;#039;&amp;#039;known&amp;#039;&amp;#039; for defending the unfortunate. If his name was already well known in society then he had to have been around for a few years. As we learn every week, it is up to the discretion of the film makers as to how a certain character should look/talk/act etc. but I just found this typical, romanticized Hollywood to have an up and coming actor play an up and coming lawyer. -- Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it accurate to have Evangelicals wearing crosses? I was under the impression that wearing a cross was much more prevalent in Catholicism and that it was more common for Evangelicals to carry around Bibles. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I remember, Dr. M said that there were only 4 crew and the 2 guys who from Cuba or whatever.  There looked to be a lot more than that at the beginning of the movie.  I guess most Americans would find 4 crewman as unbelievable or something like that... --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How did all of a sudden Cinque seem to know so much about American law? I know that his questions were being translated but still, I would never expect that he would have any understanding of the concepts behind why certain things were being done. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that they gave the cargo hold waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much height and space, because from lecture on Tuesday it was like the area was usually barely tall enough for the Africans to sit up, much less fully stand with room still between their heads and the ceiling. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too wondered about whether the Middle Passage scenes should have been even harsher, though they were effective in showing the inhumanity of the situation. I did wonder whether a woman that was super pregnant would be selected to make the journey knowing full well the conditions were less than optimal for childbirth? Also, I guess this is nitpicking but I believe that only 5 of the 9 Justices were slave owners but in the film it was reported that 7 held slaves. Lastly, I have always read that JQA was one of, if not the smartest of the presidents, so was it accurate to have him be such a bumbling eccentric?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought Morgan Freeman’s character might be a fabrication at first because he didn’t seems to fit with the Pennington discussed in class. It turns out he was indeed made up for the movie. What was the purpose of Joadson at all? And, of course, I was expecting a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Big Damn Heroes&amp;#039;&amp;#039; moment from John Quincy Adams considering how much they were building it up. And that’s what we get. Now, the speech had pretty much nothing to do with the trial, and it was all about anti-slavery which would have turned off the Southern judges, and, hey, it only &amp;#039;&amp;#039;felt&amp;#039;&amp;#039; like it was hours long instead of being the actual eight hours of JQA’s real speech, but it was awesome. Still, I would have loved to see the judges dismiss everything he said like they did in real life, but then again, the movie isn’t a comedy. And it &amp;#039;&amp;#039;would&amp;#039;&amp;#039; have been funny to see, since he was set up as the final hope since the start of the movie. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would they really have had to work that hard to convince JQA to take the case becuase in the movie it seemed like JQA was really not interested and it took asking by several people before he agreed to come hear Cinque&amp;#039;s story. It was only after he had talked to Cinque that he agreed to take the case.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised to see how quickly Cinque picked up on American law when he was questioning JQA via the translator. What is the likelihood that thru a translator he would have been able to understand American law that quickly and understand it enough to be able to question it. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing particularly bothered me about this movie is the constant references of the Civil War. It is unlikely at the time that many people would really feel that a Civil war was a serious possibility. It seems to be more a tool of foreshadowing and feels historically out of place. The figures in this movie other than Africans and African Americans all seem to have a bit of silliness or weirdness about them. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What happened to the women and children from La Amistad that we see at the beginning of the film?  They just disappear.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I could be wrong about this, but I believe the linguist in the film would have actually been called a philologist.  Nitpicky, I know. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film portrayed the British in an exceedingly good light.  While they had of course outlawed slavery at this point, racism was not absent from there culture, nor is it now.  The film portrays them as completely anti racism simply because of their ban on slavery. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually I am not good at catching bloopers but I am pretty sure there was a modern day US flag on the Tecora, which was a Portuguese ship, just a minor detail. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:33, 24 September 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A question I had was did they really appoint a new and younger judge because they didn’t like the results from the elder judge? I could not remember if we spoke about this in class. Also was Queen Isabella II really perceived as a young childish queen, who was not mature enough to take on her role as queen? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the movie seemed accurate in its small details, the general theme of Civil War consequences does seem a little overblown, as discussed by others.  I&amp;#039;m sure the tension of the issue was present throughout the case, but could not have been as close to the focus as Amistad makes it.  I wonder if Spielberg was at least in part latching on to the Civil War as something a broader audience would understand or at least recognize.  Dwelling on the coming war helps the movie bridge a gap between the political drama movie genre into the Civil War genre, complete with ten second token battle scene. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal of Cinque fit the description of him by Lewis Tappan. Tappan described Cinque as having &amp;quot;a good deal of gracefulness and native diginity (Tappan, p. 351).&amp;quot; In the movie, Djimon Hounsou who played Cinque was able to get that description across great. His presence was so strong and that of a leader. He looked like he was born to the position that he achieved as his character. He was dignified as he walked about and testified in the courts, even in shackles. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hounsou&amp;#039;s Cinque has grace and dignity sometimes, particularly in court, with Adams, and telling his lion story, but a good deal of the time he is shouting with eyes wide and nostrils flared-whether on the Amistad or riled up in jail. In combination with certain postures and grunts at various points, that&amp;#039;s more like raw African savage than the graceful and dignified native we see later. However, when Baldwin is trying to tell him that the other Mende captives look up to him, he is very modest, saying he cannot speak for them and telling his lion story. It is made clear that he hasn&amp;#039;t always been their leader, when he&amp;#039;s first arguing with Fala after the mutiny, who he continues to have tension with in the jail. However, at one point in the trial, Cinque notices all the fidgeting in the court and looks like he&amp;#039;s about to lose it, but then stands up and starts saying &amp;quot;Give us, us free!&amp;quot;  He is really made noble here, because not only is he holding out his manacled hands in front of him, but the sunlight is streaming through the window onto the Mendi just so, accompanied by angelic singing. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There seems to be a lack of consistency when it comes to the description of the Mendi/ Mandingos in Tappan’s account and their representation in the film. Tappan describes Cinquez as “…about 5 feet 8 inches high, of fine proportions, with a noble air. Indeed, the whole company, although thin in flesh, and generally of slight forms, and limbs…The Mandingoes are described in books as being a very gentle race, cheerful in their dispositions, inquisitive, credulous, simple hearted and much given to trading propensities” (Tappan 350). In the movie none of the Mendi were 5’8, none of them were cheerful in disposition, and none of them had slight builds (true to one aspect of this description, Cinquez was inquisitive towards John Quincy Adams). So, who are we to believe? Tappan, who could have very well been sugar coating facts for sympathy in the case? Or Spielberg who could have used stereotypically strong and angry slave stock characters for dramatic appeal? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are a few things from Tappan&amp;#039;s account that the movie did not exactly follow. For one, rather than being in &amp;quot;comfortable&amp;quot; rooms, they seemed to basically live in a pen. They are not quiet or orderly for the most part, but always singing or speaking or yelling. They are also portayed very animal-like in the movie, at least in the beginning and in their pen. However, I think the movie did do a good job of not lumping all black people, or slaves, into being of one nationality or homeland, which Tappan makes note of in his letter. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maritime History was a popular subject for films of 1997... Titanic anyone. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going along Jackie&amp;#039;s comment, it seems like Steven Spielberg was trying to do his own maritime history film in order to outdo James Cameron&amp;#039;s Titanic and have a blockbuster hit. Spielberg has actors like Matthew McConaughey who was then a new face back in 1997. What do people think? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So we started the 90s with Native American films and moved on to Maritime films... Don&amp;#039;t forget that Waterworld was made in 1995. :-p  I liked it, but I await the &amp;#039;cringes&amp;#039; --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How much of The Civil War talk in the film was accurate? This event, and subsequent trials took place 20 years before the outbreak of The Civil War. Did the nation really feel like it was on the brink of civil war for this long? Or is this just another case of hindsight as we saw with the treatment of the Revolutionary War in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039;? It is my opinion that the characters in the movie referenced an inevitable civil war exorbitantly. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
In a way, it kind of amazes me that this movie is not more well known.  In my opinion, it is a good, solid movie.  As a result, it makes me question why more people don&amp;#039;t know if its existence.  It has such a star-studded cast that you would think that over half of us in class would have known about it.  This leads me to the question of subject matter -- do we think that because of the basic storyline, most people were turned off from the movie?  Or was it just not publicized well enough?  It&amp;#039;s a shame because I think it&amp;#039;s a movie that people would enjoy (and I didn&amp;#039;t even mind the gore so much! Mostly because it was dark when they had the gross scenes.) --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie does a GREAT job of articulating the abolitionist viewpoint, and telling a compelling story of slaves throwing off the shackles of their oppressors. For those reasons this movie makes a powerful and effective emotional impact. However, I feel that an accurate movie, made about a slave story from the south, would better challenge our understanding of that time in our history. I think the overall impact of this movie was diminished because it did not directly challenge American slavery on the ultimate battleground- the plantation. The story of the Amistad slaves was a court case largely decided by the letter of the law, and it set a narrow and particular precedent. A more effective movie would not only present the abolitionist cause, it would tell a story that served as an immediate catalyst for emancipation.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don’t get choked up at movies very often, but the scenes on the Tecora… not only did I get a little choked up, I felt a little sick to my stomach. The crowded quarters, the lack of food, the beatings, the suicides, the sexual assaults, the complete disregard for life. I’d say it was pretty accurate. And even when it wasn’t (for instance, why would slave traders expect anyone to buy a baby?), I’m not sure if it necessarily matters that much. It was effective and intense. I think it needs to be as terrible and gruesome as possible because we’re &amp;#039;&amp;#039;supposed&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to find it repulsive. Slavery is repulsive. I don&amp;#039;t believe we can really comprehend that unless we&amp;#039;ve seen it ourselves, and films can bring us a little closer to understanding. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The abolitionist movement is underrepresented in this movie and several people have noted that people have been placed in improper roles or have been exaggerated. This movie does succeed in showing many of the hardships faced by African&amp;#039;s in slave ships and presents a strong anti slavery message. This message, however is presented in a way that associates more with the time it was made rather than the past. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kelly that I&amp;#039;m surprised this movie is not very well known. It is very well shot, and the graphic parts do us a real service (even if they are very hard to watch, which they were). I don&amp;#039;t know if it was 100% accurate in its portrayal of the slave ships, but even if they made that part up, I think they did it based on what we do know and that it works well. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I take issue with the storyline that centers around the replacement of the judge. This did not happen, the case was appealed to another court. The film makes it look like Van Buren intervened in the proceedings and placed a judge on the bench that would rule against the Mende. The new judge is described as young, Catholic, and without anything to prove- a pawn of the Van Buren/ Calhoun contingency. Why would the film makers fabricate this part of the storyline?  If the film makers wanted to demonize the governmental leaders of the time for their racist attitudes and policies, couldn’t they have just used the actual words of the men who held those beliefs? I’m sure we would find them offensive enough.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As was mentioned in class this morning, I wonder why the story of Amistad and the film are not more well known. With the extraordinary cast, director, and overall impact of the film, it&amp;#039;s strange that it did not receive more recognition. Also, given that politicians were looking at this case as a monumental turning point to begin the civil war, how is it not more integral in our nation&amp;#039;s history?  Something that stuck with me was a line of JQA, something along the lines of - &amp;quot;I want the next generation to know the name Cinque as well as Patrick Henry.&amp;quot; Why don&amp;#039;t we? -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excellent points Elle! I am recommending this 10 year old movie to everyone I know cuz I only just found out how great it is! I think the history books gloss over the Amistad case in high schools because there wasn&amp;#039;t just one action or event that sparked the Civil War. So many little things (though usually monument, like this, when looked at individually) lead to the impossible tension that caused the war to be arguably inevitable. But, I think what the movie is trying to show, is that nobody wanted that inevitable clash of the south and north to be on their head (as Calhoun says to van Buren in the film). As for the Patrick Henry thing, I think its hilarious that while we remember a man who famously spoke words that were not his own, we forget the man who had to have his own important words spoken by a translator (if that makes any sense)- what I mean to say is, that I believe the Cinque&amp;#039;s sentiments on rights to freedom, heard second-hand, are better worth remembering than Patrick Henry&amp;#039;s plagiarized speech, but only Antebellum African Americans they ever bother to teach are Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tudman --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the reason this particular story never made it into the popular folklore of our national history until 1997 (and it can be argued that it still has not) is because the court decision did not indict or attempt to dismantle the American institution of slavery. The story of the Amistad slaves was a custodial issue. The case boiled down to the fact that these Mende were illegally entered into the slave trade, and by happenstance ended up in America. No one in America had legitimate claim to them, so the Mende were allowed to be free. These Mende never participated in slave labor, and for that reason it could be said that the decision to keep these Africans out of slavery would not necessarily serve as a precedent for those African- Americans already enslaved. These slaves got justice, but due to the narrowly defined court decision the judgment did not translate into justice for other slaves. N.B. That is not to say the the arguments made in the various trials did not lend support to the abolitionist cause.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read in an article that there was a historian on set, overseeing the filming of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;; showing that it was Spielberg&amp;#039;s intention to have the majority of the facts historically accurate. This is a great film and regardless of the historical inaccuracies in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, in my opinion, Spielberg and the other film makers were courageous in creating a film that broke the mold. Slavery as told by the perspective of the victims is rarely if ever portrayed on the big screen.  It does a good job of showing the American public that the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln were amongst a number of key events on the road to the emancipation of slaves. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Touching on Jackie&amp;#039;s point, to be honest I never learned about the Amistad case until class on Tuesday.  I don&amp;#039;t recall my history books ever mentioning it which is a pity because it is a truly remarkable event in history and it should be taught to history classes.  Also, I absolutely loved Yamba.  I thought his character was amazing.  Whether he was based off of a real figure or not, I don&amp;#039;t really care.  He was simply wonderful.  --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why were there not more captions? It seemed like most of the time what was being said by the Mende was not important enough to caption.  I felt like if they were going to have them talk it would have been better to caption it all, that way maybe they coculd show some insight to what they were thinking. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though we touched on this movie in high school (mostly to show the horrors of the Middle Passage) I agree with Jason as to why this movie has in some ways failed to capture the public&amp;#039;s imagination. As inspiring as JQA&amp;#039;s final speech was (loved the portrait of JA slightly blurred over his shoulder), as in real life this wasn&amp;#039;t an anti-slavery ruling. This was a matter of property. Perhaps this is why when asked most people probably wouldn&amp;#039;t come up with this film before other examples of Spielberg historic films. I know I would have referenced Saving Private Ryan, Schindler&amp;#039;s List, and Munich before Amistad, which in some ways is a shame. Ultimately I feel that this movie is most valuable in its depiction of the Middle Passage which struck me as the most realistic that filmmakers could likely get away with.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is my favorite of the movies we’ve watched so far, and it&amp;#039;s probably the strongest in its impact on the viewer. With Steven Spielberg, John Williams, and talented actors, it better be good. Though Morgan Freeman always seems to play the same character (whatever works), I could barely recognize Anthony Hopkins and Matthew McConaughey. I also want to say it’s the most historically accurate film that we’ve watched so far, but I’m not sure if I’m confident enough to say that. It’s not without its problems. I think one of the biggest issues is that the Amistad case was made out to be some kind of turning point in antislavery, but the case was more about illegal slavery than slavery itself. Also, the characters kept mentioning a civil war between the North and South, as though everyone knew it was definitely going to happen. The movie even seemed to make it look like the Amistad case was one of the causes! --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I thought the movie was really well done. It seems to be the most historically accurate movie we have watched which may have somethng to do with why it is not very well known. I think another thing to consider is how well did this movie do when it came out, did it come out the same time as some other bigger movie? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing to consider is this movie is about slavery and tries to accuratly represent what happened to slaves atleast on the passage over. How many people are going to be willing to see a movie about a subject in our nations&amp;#039;s history that we don&amp;#039;t like to talk about to begin with especially if it portrays us in a bad light and is graphic. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may have heard J.Q. Adams wrong but it sounded like he suggested tearing up the word of Jefferson in the court oom. I am pretty sure that would not go over very well with anyone in the court.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing that stood out to me was why would any of the prisoners be let out of their cells? espesiecly a possible slave in a property dispute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amistad is ultimately about good and evil.  We see the atrocities of the Middle Passage and of the illegal slave trade, but we also witness incredible goodness in the actions of those defending the Mende.  Most of the film&amp;#039;s characters are rather flat: either entirely good or entirely bad.  It&amp;#039;s an effective strategy.  We don&amp;#039;t have to worry about the moral complexity of the heroes of the film if they are portrayed as virtually without vice.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe this film is the most historically accurate of all the ones we have watched so far. The one major flaw, that doesn&amp;#039;t really show up to the end, the idea that the Amistad case was an abolitionist cause (even though abolitionist did fight for it). As we know   it had more to do with illegal international slave trading. Of course the film would not be as feel good if it focused more on the latter point instead of the former point and as we know the 90s loves this kind of feel good ending.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 21:46, 24 September 2008 (MDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-25T04:12:18Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve discussed in class the importance of the language barrier between two cultures and how well have movies portrayed this (or not portrayed it at well).  Past movies we&amp;#039;ve watched such as Pocahontas brought up questions such as how does everyone, including the Native Americans, know English even before the British arrived in the New World.  Having the Mendes speak in their native tongue provides an authentic feel to the movie, but also conveys an important factor during these trials.  The fact that the Mendes neither spoke English nor Spanish made it difficult for communication between Baldwin and Cinque and in court, which the movie gets right...even adding a touch of humor to this aspect.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aagh! You totally stole my comment! I agree, Amistad was an amazing way to show how addressing language barrier can actually strengthen a movie&amp;#039;s plot and themes. Not only do we see how Baldwin and Cinque struggle to understand one another (sometimes comedically, sometimes seriously) but we see how it helps the grow as people through understanding each other&amp;#039;s cultures, and it also is used as evidence that the Mendi are born Africans. This leads to themes- like a people who can&amp;#039;t speak for themselves, but overcome the impossible injustices they face as free people. I thought it was a fascinating directorial choice to not use subtitles for the Mendi until about 20-30 min. into the film. The Spanish get subtitles but audience is purposely put in the dark about what the Mendi are saying until people start to really try to talk to them. It makes it take longer for the viewer to understand and get to know the Mendi. It makes them seem foreign, and bewildering, and a bit nonsensical too, like we are looking from the point of view of the Americans who are either ignoring them as intelligent people of another culture or as the Americans who are trying to help them but can&amp;#039;t communicate with them. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right - still going off the same thing... I am a little more skeptical - the humor that D-Flo refers to sticks out in my mind. When Baldwin and Cinque are both saying &amp;quot;how do I find out where you&amp;#039;re from&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;how can I tell you where I&amp;#039;m from&amp;quot; I am just a little skeptical. I like to think that through language barriers we all can think similarly and problem solve though. Another instance is when Cinque is asking all the questions via the translator to JQA. I thought it was interesting to note that JQA&amp;#039;s argument did end up being  in essence Cinque&amp;#039;s words. To summarize - I felt that Amistad did a good job of portraying the language barrier, but did have a few inconsistencies in this area (which were most likely purposeful for entertainment value). -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the point where Holabird is questioning Cinque about slavery within Africa, there is trouble in translation because &amp;#039;slave&amp;#039; can only be translated as &amp;#039;worker.&amp;#039;  We see an example of this when Olaudah Equiano writes of slavery in Africa as an entirely different concept--workers or servants, and he was well-treated and included--than what started happening once he got to the coast. However, with Holabird&amp;#039;s argument that whether it&amp;#039;s slavery or indentured servitude, the concept is the same, the film gives little indication to the viewer that the concept truly is different. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s good to have the British captain confirm to Holabird in testimony that Cinque&amp;#039;s account of the captives&amp;#039; treatment was a common occurrence, so the viewer understands that as well. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that regarding the initial court proceedings, the movie portrayed the varied interests well. That there were many groups: the abolitionists, the state, Ruis and Mendez, and the two guys from LI helped show how this trial was at times confusing for everyone involved. Also I believe the movie did well to show how the case became a symbol greater than the fate of the Amistad slaves. The abolitionists wanted them to be the first major blow against slavery while MVB wanted the case to fall in his favor to appease southern pressure. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie portrayed the middle passage with ample brutality and accuracy. Since I cannot believe that conditions would have been any better, were they any worse? As far as middle passage portrayals go, where does this one rank? Have there been many other portrayals? In other words, was this the fist exposure the American public had to the reality of &amp;quot;The Middle Passage&amp;quot;? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As with many others, I felt the movie portrayed the language barrier fairly well.  I like the humor that comes out in the movie here and there.  I also felt that the directors did well with portraying the conditions of captured Africans and slaves on the ships as well. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One other event the movie got right was the part where Baldwin is shouting out numbers in Mende to see if anyone would understand him.  Fortunately, someone understood him! ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The part I felt that was portrayed best historically was the slave ship scenes. They do a very good job at showing the terrible conditions shown towards slaves similar to the account given from the readings. The ships clearly showed the crowded conditions punishments and the situations where the sick are tossed overboard. The only problem I had with these parts is that there was a significant amount of women and children on board the ships. This does not seem likely because the preferred slaves of Europeans would be males. Women and children slaves aboard ships would also be the first ones likely to be thrown overboard.- Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s clear that Spielberg and the other filmmakers did substantial research before making this film.  From the depiction of the men counting to ten in Mende in the New York harbor to the problems caused by the language barrier, they did a good job of presenting this as an &amp;quot;authentic&amp;quot; historical film.  The flashback scenes on the Tocura are particularly harrowing and really drive the point home.  I think we can all agree that slavery is one of, if not THE, darkest chapters in our nation&amp;#039;s history.  The horrors depicted in Spielberg&amp;#039;s film should provide an interesting contrast to the slavery depicted in next week&amp;#039;s film, Gone With the Wind.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with everyone else, I think the film director did a good job with the language barriers.  They made it seem very real and how long it took them to understand the Mendes by finding a translator in the harbor who spoke Mendes. This all seemed very accurate to our notes from Tuesday’s class. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed about Dr. M&amp;#039;s lecture was the overwhelming amount of historical figures involved with the trial surrounding the Amistad slaves.  So a question I asked myself before watching the movie was which historical characters would the movie focus on.  The most obvious is Joseph Cinque (but I probably would not have known this if I haven&amp;#039;t heard of this film before), but I think you could argue that every other name Dr. M mentioned in class deserved much focus in order to understand the history of the Amistad trial.  Roger Baldwin and JQA are the other two figures the movie gives more screen time to, but I feel like much more important figures deserve greater insight and character development.  For example, President Van Buren would have had much to say about the trial since he was up for re-election during this time period.  Also, I initially thought Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character was a reflection of James Pennington, but after reading &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; I discovered that Theodore was fictitious and that the movie was actually criticized for not including those prominent blacks involved with the abolition movement (71).  Additionally, other important historical figures such as Queen Isabella of Spain (at least I think she was a Queen in the movie) and the Grimke sisters needed more emphasis to understand this historical event.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David sort of touches on my question about who WAS Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character?  I don&amp;#039;t quite understand why the entire movie would build itself upon actual people and then when it comes to the black abolitionist, they create a new character.  We knew that there was a Reverend Pennington, so why not actually base Freeman&amp;#039;s character on him? --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a few things to say about the characters. Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s character of Roger Baldwin was full humor, but I thought that depiction was inaccurate. Dr. M said the real Baldwin was in his 40&amp;#039;s, whereas in the movie, he was depicted as a young, fresh, and inexperienced lawyer. It can be argued that he was this movie&amp;#039;s eye candy, as Jackie might say. His important role in the trials was right, but it was he who talked to John Quincy Adams in the movie to get involved in the trials, not Lewis Tappan, as it was in reality. As for Queen Isabella, was she really eleven or was she younger? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually I would say the eye candy of this movie was either Cinque, who was constantly shirtless, or Covey, who was just so damn pretty- but my silliness aside, I thought this was one of Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s finer roles. And between his costume (shabby dress and sideburns) and his convincing performance as a compelling lawyer (though inexperienced in the courtroom) I think his usual stereotype as a leading man hottie is irrelevant here as is his age, since he still came across as serious as and as strong as Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins. But, I was also peeved by the Morgan Freeman character fabrication issue. &amp;quot;Of course it&amp;#039;s him!&amp;quot; I said to myself as soon as I heard the voice. If there is going to be a wise, cunning, and quietly righteous black man in a period film, it is going to be played by Freeman! But when you&amp;#039;ve got such a fail-safe stock character like that, why bother trying portray the connections to the real freed black abolitionist, James Pennington? And how about those female speaking roles... or should I say role! I can understand when a movie is made about a time when women weren&amp;#039;t put in the history books, but there WERE the Grimke sisters, who were certainly more prominent in the publicity around the case than a man who never existed (Freeman)! The only individual female character we see is the self-centered, pre-teen Queen Isabela II. Way to make women look good Hollywood! But hey, at least they didn&amp;#039;t invent or fabricate a love story for once!--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How involved was Queen Isabella?  I remember learning that the Spanish Ambassador to the US got his panties in a twist over this whole issue, but I don&amp;#039;t recall hearing how involved and aware Isabella was in the incident.  It makes sense for her to be aware of the event and to care about it, but how much of an active part did she play? Also, how much of a complete nutbag was John Quincey Adams?  The movie, to me, made him seem like he was a bit, well, off mentally.  Was it just old age? --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Lewis Tappan Document describes the jail arrangements of the Amistad captives. In this source Cinque is jailed with other criminals separate from his people. He is also not allowed to be removed from said cell because he was not trusted. This is VERY different in the film, in which Cinque leaves the cell on many occasions and is even unchained in the presence of John Quincy Adams in his study. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question - How many women and children were aboard the Amistad and made it out alive? It struck me as odd that there would be young and female survivors of this entire ordeal - given Cinque&amp;#039;s account of killing off/starving/drowning the weak and less profitable slaves on the original journey, tacked onto the fact that the majority of slaves in the trade were men in the first place. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Answer: I thought there were a few women and children survivors that made it onto the Amistad. As for why they would be there in the first place, I imagine, is because (with a mix of men and women) slaveowners would hope that they would procreate and then their children would become the property of the slave-owners who bought them (free slaves basically).--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So we know that they really appealed to the District Court, and didn&amp;#039;t replace the judge, and that they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, too.  But what&amp;#039;s the deal with the trial?  It looks like Adams gives a little, powerful speech based on Cinque&amp;#039;s words...nothing close to an 8.5-hour oratory.  Are we supposed to assume that the arguments made in lesser courts are also made before the Supreme Court before what we see, or that Adams&amp;#039;s little bit was all it took for the court to hear the case and rule on it? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wait. Whitney. Did you really want the movie to go on for another 8.5 hrs? Baldwin gave a speech and testimony (repeating mostly what he had already argued in lower courts) over a period of two days, but ALL of that happened off camera. I think we should cut the filmmakers some slack on summary of Adams&amp;#039; real speech. --Jackie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, the movie was long enough as it was.  I would have never wanted it to go on longer so that it could include a longer speech made by Adams. You get the basic understanding of what was happening without going into more detail in the court arguments. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A number of people have already made comments on this but I, too, have something to say about Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s Baldwin. As we learned in class yesterday, Baldwin was a Yale educated lawyer &amp;#039;&amp;#039;known&amp;#039;&amp;#039; for defending the unfortunate. If his name was already well known in society then he had to have been around for a few years. As we learn every week, it is up to the discretion of the film makers as to how a certain character should look/talk/act etc. but I just found this typical, romanticized Hollywood to have an up and coming actor play an up and coming lawyer. -- Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it accurate to have Evangelicals wearing crosses? I was under the impression that wearing a cross was much more prevalent in Catholicism and that it was more common for Evangelicals to carry around Bibles. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I remember, Dr. M said that there were only 4 crew and the 2 guys who from Cuba or whatever.  There looked to be a lot more than that at the beginning of the movie.  I guess most Americans would find 4 crewman as unbelievable or something like that... --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How did all of a sudden Cinque seem to know so much about American law? I know that his questions were being translated but still, I would never expect that he would have any understanding of the concepts behind why certain things were being done. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that they gave the cargo hold waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much height and space, because from lecture on Tuesday it was like the area was usually barely tall enough for the Africans to sit up, much less fully stand with room still between their heads and the ceiling. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too wondered about whether the Middle Passage scenes should have been even harsher, though they were effective in showing the inhumanity of the situation. I did wonder whether a woman that was super pregnant would be selected to make the journey knowing full well the conditions were less than optimal for childbirth? Also, I guess this is nitpicking but I believe that only 5 of the 9 Justices were slave owners but in the film it was reported that 7 held slaves. Lastly, I have always read that JQA was one of, if not the smartest of the presidents, so was it accurate to have him be such a bumbling eccentric?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought Morgan Freeman’s character might be a fabrication at first because he didn’t seems to fit with the Pennington discussed in class. It turns out he was indeed made up for the movie. What was the purpose of Joadson at all? And, of course, I was expecting a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Big Damn Heroes&amp;#039;&amp;#039; moment from John Quincy Adams considering how much they were building it up. And that’s what we get. Now, the speech had pretty much nothing to do with the trial, and it was all about anti-slavery which would have turned off the Southern judges, and, hey, it only &amp;#039;&amp;#039;felt&amp;#039;&amp;#039; like it was hours long instead of being the actual eight hours of JQA’s real speech, but it was awesome. Still, I would have loved to see the judges dismiss everything he said like they did in real life, but then again, the movie isn’t a comedy. And it &amp;#039;&amp;#039;would&amp;#039;&amp;#039; have been funny to see, since he was set up as the final hope since the start of the movie. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would they really have had to work that hard to convince JQA to take the case becuase in the movie it seemed like JQA was really not interested and it took asking by several people before he agreed to come hear Cinque&amp;#039;s story. It was only after he had talked to Cinque that he agreed to take the case.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised to see how quickly Cinque picked up on American law when he was questioning JQA via the translator. What is the likelihood that thru a translator he would have been able to understand American law that quickly and understand it enough to be able to question it. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing particularly bothered me about this movie is the constant references of the Civil War. It is unlikely at the time that many people would really feel that a Civil war was a serious possibility. It seems to be more a tool of foreshadowing and feels historically out of place. The figures in this movie other than Africans and African Americans all seem to have a bit of silliness or weirdness about them. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What happened to the women and children from La Amistad that we see at the beginning of the film?  They just disappear.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I could be wrong about this, but I believe the linguist in the film would have actually been called a philologist.  Nitpicky, I know. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film portrayed the British in an exceedingly good light.  While they had of course outlawed slavery at this point, racism was not absent from there culture, nor is it now.  The film portrays them as completely anti racism simply because of their ban on slavery. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually I am not good at catching bloopers but I am pretty sure there was a modern day US flag on the Tecora, which was a Portuguese ship, just a minor detail. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:33, 24 September 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A question I had was did they really appoint a new and younger judge because they didn’t like the results from the elder judge? I could not remember if we spoke about this in class. Also was Queen Isabella II really perceived as a young childish queen, who was not mature enough to take on her role as queen? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While the movie seemed accurate in its small details, the general theme of Civil War consequences does seem a little overblown, as discussed by others.  I&amp;#039;m sure the tension of the issue was present throughout the case, but could not have been as close to the focus as Amistad makes it.  I wonder if Spielberg was at least in part latching on to the Civil War as something a broader audience would understand or at least recognize.  Dwelling on the coming war helps the movie bridge a gap between the political drama movie genre into the Civil War genre, complete with ten second token battle scene. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal of Cinque fit the description of him by Lewis Tappan. Tappan described Cinque as having &amp;quot;a good deal of gracefulness and native diginity (Tappan, p. 351).&amp;quot; In the movie, Djimon Hounsou who played Cinque was able to get that description across great. His presence was so strong and that of a leader. He looked like he was born to the position that he achieved as his character. He was dignified as he walked about and testified in the courts, even in shackles. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hounsou&amp;#039;s Cinque has grace and dignity sometimes, particularly in court, with Adams, and telling his lion story, but a good deal of the time he is shouting with eyes wide and nostrils flared-whether on the Amistad or riled up in jail. In combination with certain postures and grunts at various points, that&amp;#039;s more like raw African savage than the graceful and dignified native we see later. However, when Baldwin is trying to tell him that the other Mende captives look up to him, he is very modest, saying he cannot speak for them and telling his lion story. It is made clear that he hasn&amp;#039;t always been their leader, when he&amp;#039;s first arguing with Fala after the mutiny, who he continues to have tension with in the jail. However, at one point in the trial, Cinque notices all the fidgeting in the court and looks like he&amp;#039;s about to lose it, but then stands up and starts saying &amp;quot;Give us, us free!&amp;quot;  He is really made noble here, because not only is he holding out his manacled hands in front of him, but the sunlight is streaming through the window onto the Mendi just so, accompanied by angelic singing. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There seems to be a lack of consistency when it comes to the description of the Mendi/ Mandingos in Tappan’s account and their representation in the film. Tappan describes Cinquez as “…about 5 feet 8 inches high, of fine proportions, with a noble air. Indeed, the whole company, although thin in flesh, and generally of slight forms, and limbs…The Mandingoes are described in books as being a very gentle race, cheerful in their dispositions, inquisitive, credulous, simple hearted and much given to trading propensities” (Tappan 350). In the movie none of the Mendi were 5’8, none of them were cheerful in disposition, and none of them had slight builds (true to one aspect of this description, Cinquez was inquisitive towards John Quincy Adams). So, who are we to believe? Tappan, who could have very well been sugar coating facts for sympathy in the case? Or Spielberg who could have used stereotypically strong and angry slave stock characters for dramatic appeal? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are a few things from Tappan&amp;#039;s account that the movie did not exactly follow. For one, rather than being in &amp;quot;comfortable&amp;quot; rooms, they seemed to basically live in a pen. They are not quiet or orderly for the most part, but always singing or speaking or yelling. They are also portayed very animal-like in the movie, at least in the beginning and in their pen. However, I think the movie did do a good job of not lumping all black people, or slaves, into being of one nationality or homeland, which Tappan makes note of in his letter. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maritime History was a popular subject for films of 1997... Titanic anyone. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going along Jackie&amp;#039;s comment, it seems like Steven Spielberg was trying to do his own maritime history film in order to outdo James Cameron&amp;#039;s Titanic and have a blockbuster hit. Spielberg has actors like Matthew McConaughey who was then a new face back in 1997. What do people think? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So we started the 90s with Native American films and moved on to Maritime films... Don&amp;#039;t forget that Waterworld was made in 1995. :-p  I liked it, but I await the &amp;#039;cringes&amp;#039; --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How much of The Civil War talk in the film was accurate? This event, and subsequent trials took place 20 years before the outbreak of The Civil War. Did the nation really feel like it was on the brink of civil war for this long? Or is this just another case of hindsight as we saw with the treatment of the Revolutionary War in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039;? It is my opinion that the characters in the movie referenced an inevitable civil war exorbitantly. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
In a way, it kind of amazes me that this movie is not more well known.  In my opinion, it is a good, solid movie.  As a result, it makes me question why more people don&amp;#039;t know if its existence.  It has such a star-studded cast that you would think that over half of us in class would have known about it.  This leads me to the question of subject matter -- do we think that because of the basic storyline, most people were turned off from the movie?  Or was it just not publicized well enough?  It&amp;#039;s a shame because I think it&amp;#039;s a movie that people would enjoy (and I didn&amp;#039;t even mind the gore so much! Mostly because it was dark when they had the gross scenes.) --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie does a GREAT job of articulating the abolitionist viewpoint, and telling a compelling story of slaves throwing off the shackles of their oppressors. For those reasons this movie makes a powerful and effective emotional impact. However, I feel that an accurate movie, made about a slave story from the south, would better challenge our understanding of that time in our history. I think the overall impact of this movie was diminished because it did not directly challenge American slavery on the ultimate battleground- the plantation. The story of the Amistad slaves was a court case largely decided by the letter of the law, and it set a narrow and particular precedent. A more effective movie would not only present the abolitionist cause, it would tell a story that served as an immediate catalyst for emancipation.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don’t get choked up at movies very often, but the scenes on the Tecora… not only did I get a little choked up, I felt a little sick to my stomach. The crowded quarters, the lack of food, the beatings, the suicides, the sexual assaults, the complete disregard for life. I’d say it was pretty accurate. And even when it wasn’t (for instance, why would slave traders expect anyone to buy a baby?), I’m not sure if it necessarily matters that much. It was effective and intense. I think it needs to be as terrible and gruesome as possible because we’re &amp;#039;&amp;#039;supposed&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to find it repulsive. Slavery is repulsive. I don&amp;#039;t believe we can really comprehend that unless we&amp;#039;ve seen it ourselves, and films can bring us a little closer to understanding. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The abolitionist movement is underrepresented in this movie and several people have noted that people have been placed in improper roles or have been exaggerated. This movie does succeed in showing many of the hardships faced by African&amp;#039;s in slave ships and presents a strong anti slavery message. This message, however is presented in a way that associates more with the time it was made rather than the past. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I take issue with the storyline that centers around the replacement of the judge. This did not happen, the case was appealed to another court. The film makes it look like Van Buren intervened in the proceedings and placed a judge on the bench that would rule against the Mende. The new judge is described as young, Catholic, and without anything to prove- a pawn of the Van Buren/ Calhoun contingency. Why would the film makers fabricate this part of the storyline?  If the film makers wanted to demonize the governmental leaders of the time for their racist attitudes and policies, couldn’t they have just used the actual words of the men who held those beliefs? I’m sure we would find them offensive enough.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As was mentioned in class this morning, I wonder why the story of Amistad and the film are not more well known. With the extraordinary cast, director, and overall impact of the film, it&amp;#039;s strange that it did not receive more recognition. Also, given that politicians were looking at this case as a monumental turning point to begin the civil war, how is it not more integral in our nation&amp;#039;s history?  Something that stuck with me was a line of JQA, something along the lines of - &amp;quot;I want the next generation to know the name Cinque as well as Patrick Henry.&amp;quot; Why don&amp;#039;t we? -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excellent points Elle! I am recommending this 10 year old movie to everyone I know cuz I only just found out how great it is! I think the history books gloss over the Amistad case in high schools because there wasn&amp;#039;t just one action or event that sparked the Civil War. So many little things (though usually monument, like this, when looked at individually) lead to the impossible tension that caused the war to be arguably inevitable. But, I think what the movie is trying to show, is that nobody wanted that inevitable clash of the south and north to be on their head (as Calhoun says to van Buren in the film). As for the Patrick Henry thing, I think its hilarious that while we remember a man who famously spoke words that were not his own, we forget the man who had to have his own important words spoken by a translator (if that makes any sense)- what I mean to say is, that I believe the Cinque&amp;#039;s sentiments on rights to freedom, heard second-hand, are better worth remembering than Patrick Henry&amp;#039;s plagiarized speech, but only Antebellum African Americans they ever bother to teach are Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tudman --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the reason this particular story never made it into the popular folklore of our national history until 1997 (and it can be argued that it still has not) is because the court decision did not indict or attempt to dismantle the American institution of slavery. The story of the Amistad slaves was a custodial issue. The case boiled down to the fact that these Mende were illegally entered into the slave trade, and by happenstance ended up in America. No one in America had legitimate claim to them, so the Mende were allowed to be free. These Mende never participated in slave labor, and for that reason it could be said that the decision to keep these Africans out of slavery would not necessarily serve as a precedent for those African- Americans already enslaved. These slaves got justice, but due to the narrowly defined court decision the judgment did not translate into justice for other slaves. N.B. That is not to say the the arguments made in the various trials did not lend support to the abolitionist cause.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read in an article that there was a historian on set, overseeing the filming of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;; showing that it was Spielberg&amp;#039;s intention to have the majority of the facts historically accurate. This is a great film and regardless of the historical inaccuracies in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, in my opinion, Spielberg and the other film makers were courageous in creating a film that broke the mold. Slavery as told by the perspective of the victims is rarely if ever portrayed on the big screen.  It does a good job of showing the American public that the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln were amongst a number of key events on the road to the emancipation of slaves. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Touching on Jackie&amp;#039;s point, to be honest I never learned about the Amistad case until class on Tuesday.  I don&amp;#039;t recall my history books ever mentioning it which is a pity because it is a truly remarkable event in history and it should be taught to history classes.  Also, I absolutely loved Yamba.  I thought his character was amazing.  Whether he was based off of a real figure or not, I don&amp;#039;t really care.  He was simply wonderful.  --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why were there not more captions? It seemed like most of the time what was being said by the Mende was not important enough to caption.  I felt like if they were going to have them talk it would have been better to caption it all, that way maybe they coculd show some insight to what they were thinking. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though we touched on this movie in high school (mostly to show the horrors of the Middle Passage) I agree with Jason as to why this movie has in some ways failed to capture the public&amp;#039;s imagination. As inspiring as JQA&amp;#039;s final speech was (loved the portrait of JA slightly blurred over his shoulder), as in real life this wasn&amp;#039;t an anti-slavery ruling. This was a matter of property. Perhaps this is why when asked most people probably wouldn&amp;#039;t come up with this film before other examples of Spielberg historic films. I know I would have referenced Saving Private Ryan, Schindler&amp;#039;s List, and Munich before Amistad, which in some ways is a shame. Ultimately I feel that this movie is most valuable in its depiction of the Middle Passage which struck me as the most realistic that filmmakers could likely get away with.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is my favorite of the movies we’ve watched so far, and it&amp;#039;s probably the strongest in its impact on the viewer. With Steven Spielberg, John Williams, and talented actors, it better be good. Though Morgan Freeman always seems to play the same character (whatever works), I could barely recognize Anthony Hopkins and Matthew McConaughey. I also want to say it’s the most historically accurate film that we’ve watched so far, but I’m not sure if I’m confident enough to say that. It’s not without its problems. I think one of the biggest issues is that the Amistad case was made out to be some kind of turning point in antislavery, but the case was more about illegal slavery than slavery itself. Also, the characters kept mentioning a civil war between the North and South, as though everyone knew it was definitely going to happen. The movie even seemed to make it look like the Amistad case was one of the causes! --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I thought the movie was really well done. It seems to be the most historically accurate movie we have watched which may have somethng to do with why it is not very well known. I think another thing to consider is how well did this movie do when it came out, did it come out the same time as some other bigger movie? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing to consider is this movie is about slavery and tries to accuratly represent what happened to slaves atleast on the passage over. How many people are going to be willing to see a movie about a subject in our nations&amp;#039;s history that we don&amp;#039;t like to talk about to begin with especially if it portrays us in a bad light and is graphic. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may have heard J.Q. Adams wrong but it sounded like he suggested tearing up the word of Jefferson in the court oom. I am pretty sure that would not go over very well with anyone in the court.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing that stood out to me was why would any of the prisoners be let out of their cells? espesiecly a possible slave in a property dispute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amistad is ultimately about good and evil.  We see the atrocities of the Middle Passage and of the illegal slave trade, but we also witness incredible goodness in the actions of those defending the Mende.  Most of the film&amp;#039;s characters are rather flat: either entirely good or entirely bad.  It&amp;#039;s an effective strategy.  We don&amp;#039;t have to worry about the moral complexity of the heroes of the film if they are portrayed as virtually without vice.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I believe this film is the most historically accurate of all the ones we have watched so far. The one major flaw, that doesn&amp;#039;t really show up to the end, the idea that the Amistad case was an abolitionist cause (even though abolitionist did fight for it). As we know   it had more to do with illegal international slave trading. Of course the film would not be as feel good if it focused more on the latter point instead of the former point and as we know the 90s loves this kind of feel good ending.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 21:46, 24 September 2008 (MDT)&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-16T23:05:37Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I know this is going to be discussed quite a bit, but it really does bear mentioning: Mel Gibson must have been the first real American hero. It&amp;#039;s the only possible reason for that godawful accent (he could have at least kept the Australian and been &amp;#039;&amp;#039;something&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that existed at the time!) --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot;, Toplin discusses how some historical movies have done poorly due to the fact that they have not had a clear-cut villain. However, in my opinion, this movie suffers from an almost Disney-like black and white villain portayal. We can obviously never know if the real Tarleton was as cold blooded or murderous, but it is not a stretch to assume that it was more for the benefit of the audience&amp;#039;s entertainment rather than historical accuracy. --Amanda Russell&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-16T22:36:44Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: New page: I know this is going to be discussed quite a bit, but it really does bear mentioning: Mel Gibson must have been the first real American hero. It&amp;#039;s the only possible reason for that godawfu...&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;I know this is going to be discussed quite a bit, but it really does bear mentioning: Mel Gibson must have been the first real American hero. It&amp;#039;s the only possible reason for that godawful accent (he could have at least kept the Australian and been &amp;#039;&amp;#039;something&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that existed at the time!) -- Amanda Russell&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-10T20:03:30Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A common theme that is definitely true in real history (mentioned in lecture as well as World Turned Upside Down/Calloway article) as well as its portrayal in Last of the Mohicans, is that Native Americans gained little from interactions with Europeans, and they lost everything (their land, their race, their culture, their lives). Hence, the last of the Mohicans. In that respect this film did a good job of demonstrating (if even to the slightest degree) the plight of the Indian race due to European involvement. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cora had to ask Nathaniel why the murdered family was isolated, to which he responded that after 7 years of indentured servitude in VA, these people needed to go somewhere farther away to get any land.  That seems right that she, the daughter of a general, raised in London, would not be fully aware of the causes for some threats the settlers faced, of some of the less obvious issues that helped  make the war what it was. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can see why the Mohicans didn&amp;#039;t want to bury the family that they came across while they were running.  It makes sense that if they were to move them others would know that someone had been there. Was it common for the Native Americans to try to cover their tracks? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was also obvious in the movie how easily the Native Americans could play the settlers off of each other.  It was effortless, or so it seemed to us, for Magua to act as a scout for the British, but secretly support the French because of what he would get out of that relationship.  That was something we definitely studied and I thought the movie did a decent job representing that. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the backdrop of the movie was actually fairly historically accurate. It captured British superiority towards the colonists and the beginnings of the tensions that would lead to the Revolution. Also, the British did surrender to the French at Fort William Henry and they were attacked by the Indians as they left the area. Of course, the attack had more to do with the Natives wanting their promised war spoils rather than one vengeful leader, but the movie did show that the Indians started retracting their alliances with the French following the fort’s surrender. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;Right&amp;#039; in this case is totally different in regard to the original book or to history. While looking through some of the chapters of the book, I was actually shocked to know that they called Hawkeye &amp;#039;The Long Rifle.&amp;#039; I can&amp;#039;t lie, I thought that was totally 1990s Native American sexual innuendo. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Minavavan reading focused on how the Algonkians had not accepted the English as the replacements for the French. Minavavan makes the distinction that just because the French and English might have made a seperate peace, there was nbo carry over to the English.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The English and French egotistical mindset that they controlled the country and held the divine right to live on and dominate the land as they saw fit seemed pretty accurate to me. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- I know it was not all that uncommon for a Native American tribe to adopt “white sons” like Hawkeye or Nathaniel, but how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially. In this case the Mohicans had no women left and therefore had no other option, but I wondered if it was likely that Native Americans and white women would really get together. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- How rebellious were the settlers at this point toward the British crown rule? I felt that in the struggle between the British crown and the settlers, the mention of tyranny may have been a bit premature (at least to my knowledge on the topic), but I did like that there was a pre-revolution sense of injustice among the settlers. Was this premature or accurate for the time? - Elle Weaver &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remember that the British officers were condescending toward the colonial militia.  It&amp;#039;s not just the militiamen talking about the British tyranny that indicates the struggle.  First, when Duncan (Phelps?)tells Munro that the militiamen negotiated terms of service in the war, Munro responds something to the effect that that was just like them--the colonials think they can set their own terms.   And then, when Nathaniel is trying to tell Munro that  the militiamen&amp;#039;s families are either threatened or being killed, and they should be allowed to go back to defend, Munro says that they can&amp;#039;t go (they&amp;#039;d be shot if they did), because, essentially, that the threatened families are trivial in comparison to the army&amp;#039;s objectives.  He obviously sees himself/the army/the British in general as superior to them, and couldn&amp;#039;t care less about these men&amp;#039;s families.  This attitude is easy to recognize, and caps off the injustice.  But I think at that point the settlers wanted fair treatment and mainly hoped or believed that relations could still be mended with the mother country.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question:  is it at all a stretch that an angry Huron (Magwa) who wants revenge would want to cut out the heart of his enemy and burn his seed alive? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was wondering the same thing that Elle was about adopting white sons.  From what I remember learning in the past I don&amp;#039;t remember this.  What would make a tribe adopt members of the white race? What would make a white settler want to leave other colonists and join the Native Americans? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One issue I have with the movie is the accents.  I mean, what was going on with the different accents scattered throughout? Because based on Munro&amp;#039;s accent, he definitely did not raise his daughters and the colonists just seemed to be a bit off as well.  Was the &amp;quot;American accent&amp;quot; emerging this early? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- This may come across, unintentionally, as ignorant but were the Huron unusually violent? The reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;First Peoples&amp;#039;&amp;#039; explains that war parties came prepared with clothing and moccasins when abducting their captives which seems somewhat thoughtful. I know this doesn&amp;#039;t describe every war party, especially Magua&amp;#039;s tribe because we learn that he is going after Col. Munro in order to avenge his family&amp;#039;s death, but it was just something I kept in mind while watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039; since in the movie the Huron kill the settlers and pillage their homes. However, I chalked this up to being an example of the film&amp;#039;s historical inaccuracy. Again, this doesn&amp;#039;t pertain to all tribes but in the movie the women are called &amp;quot;dogs&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;slaves&amp;quot; were as in the reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;First Peoples&amp;#039;&amp;#039; it is said that women and children were treated well because they were being adopted into the  community. These two examples prove that the director&amp;#039;s main objective was to create an intriguing story. In my opinon, the movie was a little too concerned with the romantic aspect of history (i.e. good vs. evil), similar to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, rather than being a sound example of historical facts. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Last of the Mohicans there is a definite good vs. evil battle going on. There are good and bad Indians, the good being the 3 Mohicans who save everyone on countless occasions (who are also conveniently more civilized seeming and dressing) and the bad being the Hurons – especially Magwa. There are also clearly defined lines between colonial settlers and the British military. The military breaks its promises and uses the colonists for its own purposes, neglecting their rights to defend their families etc. They are of course not as bad as the French who work with the bad Indians who ambush the British. In short, there are any levels of good and evil but they are clearly defined. This could be an appropriate source to describe how settlers would feel about this conflict. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going off of Elle&amp;#039;s comment about &amp;quot;Good vs. Bad,&amp;quot; you could definitely see a bit of bias throughout the movie.  Magwa and the Huron&amp;#039;s were the &amp;quot;bad guys&amp;quot; in the film definitely indicating strong anti-French sentiments throughout.  It&amp;#039;s clear that, if this were based explicitly on Cooper&amp;#039;s novel, that it is definitely from the point of view of the British.  It just emphasizes that this war was fought on multiple levels and it shows how often the Native Americans were &amp;quot;trapped&amp;quot; into picking sides.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie had good insight as to how the settlers felt about fighting a British/French war. Where it was obvious that some showed a loyalty to Great Britain it was clear that most truly didn&amp;#039;t think of themselves as under British rule.  Many clearly didn&amp;#039;t want to fight but preferred to be with those on the frontier. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is more of a question about the Onandogas and Cayugas reading, but I noticed that they used the word &amp;quot;Sachem&amp;quot; frequently and even to describe some of the colonists.  I know sachems were like chieftans, so was this a term of respect in regards to the colonists as well? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know Hawkeye’s past isn’t completely far-fetched, one of the readings even mentioned a fellow who had been captured by Indians as a boy and spent several years with them, but I wonder how common it was. How often did Natives accept white kids as their own? --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Captivity Narrative is a really great source to contrast with not just this movie, but any movie about Native American/white interactions at the time. The Natives sound to be about as nice as they could be, given the situation. While Susanna Johnson is quite whiny and put-upon, I don&amp;#039;t think the Natives were attempting to torture her. It was just a cultural difference, since English women were too dainty for forest travel (though giving birth in the woods is impressive). Interestingly, the main woman in the movie was quite a trooper (too much so?), especially when contrasted with this source. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie definitely represents the time in which it was made. First of all, the early to mid 1990s seemed to be a good time to make movies about Native Americans (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Geronimo, and probably more). One reason could be that, in 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was passed, as was the Native American Languages Act. While these weren&amp;#039;t really spectacularly progressive, our gov&amp;#039;t was at least showing a recognition of their rights. It seemed to be something of a turning point in the way we looked at Native Americans (or perhaps it made us look at them in the first place). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to point this out - near the end please notice that there is an extremely fake rock that Nathaniel (AKA DDL) pushes off of in his hurry to stop his brother from attacking Magwa and company. It shakes but Daniel Day Lewis pays no mind - he can make rocks shake like that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, now I&amp;#039;m not sure if this is applicable to the discussion or not, but in my opinion this is the type of movie that causes people to stop watching historical films.  Yes, there were a lot of good things about it when it came to accuracy, but it was just so dull throughout.  Now, &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; may have been one of the least accurate movies ever created, but it had a more interesting (and I use that word loosely) storyline.  Do we think that there is a way to balance the two out?  Is it possible to have a historical movie that is both relatively accurate and entertaining? I understand that it may also be too early in the semester to judge since we&amp;#039;re only on our second movie, but I suppose it is something to think about. (Now, I could be alone in my critique of the movie because I had heard excellent reviews about it but I&amp;#039;m sorry, I don&amp;#039;t think you could get me to sit and watch it again.)  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to begin by saying that I love the music in this movie. However, it does not cancel out the way I feel about the rest of the movie. I agree with Kelly in that I don&amp;#039;t think I could watch it another time. Clips and pieces of the movie were interesting but overall I found it somewhat dry and boring. I wish the fight scene at the end was a little more dramatic and detailed but instead it just went by quickly. I guess that is up to the discretion of the director. The movie has it&amp;#039;s moments but at times I found myself wanting the movie to hurry up to the next scene. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with everyone so far. This movie was boring as sin, completely not what I expected. I had always heard people talk about it so well, like a classic! While it was pretty and the music was nice, it was dull (even the battles), graphic, and once again, almost everyone in the movie is fluent in at least 2-3 languages. The &amp;quot;love story&amp;quot; is ridiculously bad, much like John Smith/Pocahontas. Perhaps people did have lower standards back then, and didn&amp;#039;t take as much time to get to know each other, but this true love in only 24 hours phenom just makes movies seem more unrealistic. Besides, the good Indian v. bad Indian seemed a little heavy-handed. If we were to have a movie where a &amp;quot;savage&amp;quot; had killed the English governor&amp;#039;s daughter and wife and entire town, it would be a portrayal of a white guy seeking justice, NOT being an evil murderer. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually, there has to be a willing suspension of disbelief for movies, but I still couldn’t help but wonder what the chances were that the main characters would be the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;only&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ones to escape in both attacks. In this case, the expendable red shirts were literally wearing red shirts! Seriously though, what happened to the men in the canoe with Duncan during the massacre? I didn’t see them hiding out below the waterfall later on… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All in all, it could have been a good movie, but for one thing-- the contrived romance. It sorta of ruined the viewing pleasure for me, though it was pretty funny sometimes. After all, we had such gems as this exchange:&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora: What are you looking at?&lt;br /&gt;
        *long pause*&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye: I’m looking at you.&lt;br /&gt;
        *even longer pause*&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora stares at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora stares at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora smiles at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye smiles at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, that’s some great writing there. Really. --Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-10T19:48:47Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 1a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A common theme that is definitely true in real history (mentioned in lecture as well as World Turned Upside Down/Calloway article) as well as its portrayal in Last of the Mohicans, is that Native Americans gained little from interactions with Europeans, and they lost everything (their land, their race, their culture, their lives). Hence, the last of the Mohicans. In that respect this film did a good job of demonstrating (if even to the slightest degree) the plight of the Indian race due to European involvement. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cora had to ask Nathaniel why the murdered family was isolated, to which he responded that after 7 years of indentured servitude in VA, these people needed to go somewhere farther away to get any land.  That seems right that she, the daughter of a general, raised in London, would not be fully aware of the causes for some threats the settlers faced, of some of the less obvious issues that helped  make the war what it was. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can see why the Mohicans didn&amp;#039;t want to bury the family that they came across while they were running.  It makes sense that if they were to move them others would know that someone had been there. Was it common for the Native Americans to try to cover their tracks? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was also obvious in the movie how easily the Native Americans could play the settlers off of each other.  It was effortless, or so it seemed to us, for Magua to act as a scout for the British, but secretly support the French because of what he would get out of that relationship.  That was something we definitely studied and I thought the movie did a decent job representing that. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the backdrop of the movie was actually fairly historically accurate. It captured British superiority towards the colonists and the beginnings of the tensions that would lead to the Revolution. Also, the British did surrender to the French at Fort William Henry and they were attacked by the Indians as they left the area. Of course, the attack had more to do with the Natives wanting their promised war spoils rather than one vengeful leader, but the movie did show that the Indians started retracting their alliances with the French following the fort’s surrender. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;Right&amp;#039; in this case is totally different in regard to the original book or to history. While looking through some of the chapters of the book, I was actually shocked to know that they called Hawkeye &amp;#039;The Long Rifle.&amp;#039; I can&amp;#039;t lie, I thought that was totally 1990s Native American sexual innuendo. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- I know it was not all that uncommon for a Native American tribe to adopt “white sons” like Hawkeye or Nathaniel, but how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially. In this case the Mohicans had no women left and therefore had no other option, but I wondered if it was likely that Native Americans and white women would really get together. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- How rebellious were the settlers at this point toward the British crown rule? I felt that in the struggle between the British crown and the settlers, the mention of tyranny may have been a bit premature (at least to my knowledge on the topic), but I did like that there was a pre-revolution sense of injustice among the settlers. Was this premature or accurate for the time? - Elle Weaver &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remember that the British officers were condescending toward the colonial militia.  It&amp;#039;s not just the militiamen talking about the British tyranny that indicates the struggle.  First, when Duncan (Phelps?)tells Munro that the militiamen negotiated terms of service in the war, Munro responds something to the effect that that was just like them--the colonials think they can set their own terms.   And then, when Nathaniel is trying to tell Munro that  the militiamen&amp;#039;s families are either threatened or being killed, and they should be allowed to go back to defend, Munro says that they can&amp;#039;t go (they&amp;#039;d be shot if they did), because, essentially, that the threatened families are trivial in comparison to the army&amp;#039;s objectives.  He obviously sees himself/the army/the British in general as superior to them, and couldn&amp;#039;t care less about these men&amp;#039;s families.  This attitude is easy to recognize, and caps off the injustice.  But I think at that point the settlers wanted fair treatment and mainly hoped or believed that relations could still be mended with the mother country.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question:  is it at all a stretch that an angry Huron (Magwa) who wants revenge would want to cut out the heart of his enemy and burn his seed alive? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was wondering the same thing that Elle was about adopting white sons.  From what I remember learning in the past I don&amp;#039;t remember this.  What would make a tribe adopt members of the white race? What would make a white settler want to leave other colonists and join the Native Americans? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One issue I have with the movie is the accents.  I mean, what was going on with the different accents scattered throughout? Because based on Munro&amp;#039;s accent, he definitely did not raise his daughters and the colonists just seemed to be a bit off as well.  Was the &amp;quot;American accent&amp;quot; emerging this early? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Last of the Mohicans there is a definite good vs. evil battle going on. There are good and bad Indians, the good being the 3 Mohicans who save everyone on countless occasions (who are also conveniently more civilized seeming and dressing) and the bad being the Hurons – especially Magwa. There are also clearly defined lines between colonial settlers and the British military. The military breaks its promises and uses the colonists for its own purposes, neglecting their rights to defend their families etc. They are of course not as bad as the French who work with the bad Indians who ambush the British. In short, there are any levels of good and evil but they are clearly defined. This could be an appropriate source to describe how settlers would feel about this conflict. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going off of Elle&amp;#039;s comment about &amp;quot;Good vs. Bad,&amp;quot; you could definitely see a bit of bias throughout the movie.  Magwa and the Huron&amp;#039;s were the &amp;quot;bad guys&amp;quot; in the film definitely indicating strong anti-French sentiments throughout.  It&amp;#039;s clear that, if this were based explicitly on Cooper&amp;#039;s novel, that it is definitely from the point of view of the British.  It just emphasizes that this war was fought on multiple levels and it shows how often the Native Americans were &amp;quot;trapped&amp;quot; into picking sides.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie had good insight as to how the settlers felt about fighting a British/French war. Where it was obvious that some showed a loyalty to Great Britain it was clear that most truly didn&amp;#039;t think of themselves as under British rule.  Many clearly didn&amp;#039;t want to fight but preferred to be with those on the frontier. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is more of a question about the Onandogas and Cayugas reading, but I noticed that they used the word &amp;quot;Sachem&amp;quot; frequently and even to describe some of the colonists.  I know sachems were like chieftans, so was this a term of respect in regards to the colonists as well? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know Hawkeye’s past isn’t completely far-fetched, one of the readings even mentioned a fellow who had been captured by Indians as a boy and spent several years with them, but I wonder how common it was. How often did Natives accept white kids as their own? --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie definitely represents the time in which it was made. First of all, the early to mid 1990s seemed to be a good time to make movies about Native Americans (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Geronimo, and probably more). One reason could be that, in 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was passed, as was the Native American Languages Act. While these weren&amp;#039;t really spectacularly progressive, our gov&amp;#039;t was at least showing a recognition of their rights. It seemed to be something of a turning point in the way we looked at Native Americans (or perhaps it made us look at them in the first place). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to point this out - near the end please notice that there is an extremely fake rock that Nathaniel (AKA DDL) pushes off of in his hurry to stop his brother from attacking Magwa and company. It shakes but Daniel Day Lewis pays no mind - he can make rocks shake like that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, now I&amp;#039;m not sure if this is applicable to the discussion or not, but in my opinion this is the type of movie that causes people to stop watching historical films.  Yes, there were a lot of good things about it when it came to accuracy, but it was just so dull throughout.  Now, &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; may have been one of the least accurate movies ever created, but it had a more interesting (and I use that word loosely) storyline.  Do we think that there is a way to balance the two out?  Is it possible to have a historical movie that is both relatively accurate and entertaining? I understand that it may also be too early in the semester to judge since we&amp;#039;re only on our second movie, but I suppose it is something to think about. (Now, I could be alone in my critique of the movie because I had heard excellent reviews about it but I&amp;#039;m sorry, I don&amp;#039;t think you could get me to sit and watch it again.)  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to begin by saying that I love the music in this movie. However, it does not cancel out the way I feel about the rest of the movie. I agree with Kelly in that I don&amp;#039;t think I could watch it another time. Clips and pieces of the movie were interesting but overall I found it somewhat dry and boring. I wish the fight scene at the end was a little more dramatic and detailed but instead it just went by quickly. I guess that is up to the discretion of the director. The movie has it&amp;#039;s moments but at times I found myself wanting the movie to hurry up to the next scene. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with everyone so far. This movie was boring as sin, completely not what I expected. I had always heard people talk about it so well, like a classic! While it was pretty and the music was nice, it was dull (even the battles), graphic, and once again, almost everyone in the movie is fluent in at least 2-3 languages. The &amp;quot;love story&amp;quot; is ridiculously bad, much like John Smith/Pocahontas. Perhaps people did have lower standards back then, and didn&amp;#039;t take as much time to get to know each other, but this true love in only 24 hours phenom just makes movies seem more unrealistic. Besides, the good Indian v. bad Indian seemed a little heavy-handed. If we were to have a movie where a &amp;quot;savage&amp;quot; had killed the English governor&amp;#039;s daughter and wife and entire town, it would be a portrayal of a white guy seeking justice, NOT being an evil murderer. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually, there has to be a willing suspension of disbelief for movies, but I still couldn’t help but wonder what the chances were that the main characters would be the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;only&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ones to escape in both attacks. In this case, the expendable red shirts were literally wearing red shirts! Seriously though, what happened to the men in the canoe with Duncan during the massacre? I didn’t see them hiding out below the waterfall later on… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All in all, it could have been a good movie, but for one thing-- the contrived romance. It sorta of ruined the viewing pleasure for me, though it was pretty funny sometimes. After all, we had such gems as this exchange:&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora: What are you looking at?&lt;br /&gt;
        *long pause*&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye: I’m looking at you.&lt;br /&gt;
        *even longer pause*&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora stares at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora stares at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora smiles at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye smiles at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, that’s some great writing there. Really. --Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-10T19:37:19Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 5 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A common theme that is definitely true in real history (mentioned in lecture as well as World Turned Upside Down/Calloway article) as well as its portrayal in Last of the Mohicans, is that Native Americans gained little from interactions with Europeans, and they lost everything (their land, their race, their culture, their lives). Hence, the last of the Mohicans. In that respect this film did a good job of demonstrating (if even to the slightest degree) the plight of the Indian race due to European involvement. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cora had to ask Nathaniel why the murdered family was isolated, to which he responded that after 7 years of indentured servitude in VA, these people needed to go somewhere farther away to get any land.  That seems right that she, the daughter of a general, raised in London, would not be fully aware of the causes for some threats the settlers faced, of some of the less obvious issues that helped  make the war what it was. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can see why the Mohicans didn&amp;#039;t want to bury the family that they came across while they were running.  It makes sense that if they were to move them others would know that someone had been there. Was it common for the Native Americans to try to cover their tracks? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was also obvious in the movie how easily the Native Americans could play the settlers off of each other.  It was effortless, or so it seemed to us, for Magua to act as a scout for the British, but secretly support the French because of what he would get out of that relationship.  That was something we definitely studied and I thought the movie did a decent job representing that. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- I know it was not all that uncommon for a Native American tribe to adopt “white sons” like Hawkeye or Nathaniel, but how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially. In this case the Mohicans had no women left and therefore had no other option, but I wondered if it was likely that Native Americans and white women would really get together. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- How rebellious were the settlers at this point toward the British crown rule? I felt that in the struggle between the British crown and the settlers, the mention of tyranny may have been a bit premature (at least to my knowledge on the topic), but I did like that there was a pre-revolution sense of injustice among the settlers. Was this premature or accurate for the time? - Elle Weaver &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remember that the British officers were condescending toward the colonial militia.  It&amp;#039;s not just the militiamen talking about the British tyranny that indicates the struggle.  First, when Duncan (Phelps?)tells Munro that the militiamen negotiated terms of service in the war, Munro responds something to the effect that that was just like them--the colonials think they can set their own terms.   And then, when Nathaniel is trying to tell Munro that  the militiamen&amp;#039;s families are either threatened or being killed, and they should be allowed to go back to defend, Munro says that they can&amp;#039;t go (they&amp;#039;d be shot if they did), because, essentially, that the threatened families are trivial in comparison to the army&amp;#039;s objectives.  He obviously sees himself/the army/the British in general as superior to them, and couldn&amp;#039;t care less about these men&amp;#039;s families.  This attitude is easy to recognize, and caps off the injustice.  But I think at that point the settlers wanted fair treatment and mainly hoped or believed that relations could still be mended with the mother country.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question:  is it at all a stretch that an angry Huron (Magwa) who wants revenge would want to cut out the heart of his enemy and burn his seed alive? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was wondering the same thing that Elle was about adopting white sons.  From what I remember learning in the past I don&amp;#039;t remember this.  What would make a tribe adopt members of the white race? What would make a white settler want to leave other colonists and join the Native Americans? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One issue I have with the movie is the accents.  I mean, what was going on with the different accents scattered throughout? Because based on Munro&amp;#039;s accent, he definitely did not raise his daughters and the colonists just seemed to be a bit off as well.  Was the &amp;quot;American accent&amp;quot; emerging this early? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Last of the Mohicans there is a definite good vs. evil battle going on. There are good and bad Indians, the good being the 3 Mohicans who save everyone on countless occasions (who are also conveniently more civilized seeming and dressing) and the bad being the Hurons – especially Magwa. There are also clearly defined lines between colonial settlers and the British military. The military breaks its promises and uses the colonists for its own purposes, neglecting their rights to defend their families etc. They are of course not as bad as the French who work with the bad Indians who ambush the British. In short, there are any levels of good and evil but they are clearly defined. This could be an appropriate source to describe how settlers would feel about this conflict. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going off of Elle&amp;#039;s comment about &amp;quot;Good vs. Bad,&amp;quot; you could definitely see a bit of bias throughout the movie.  Magwa and the Huron&amp;#039;s were the &amp;quot;bad guys&amp;quot; in the film definitely indicating strong anti-French sentiments throughout.  It&amp;#039;s clear that, if this were based explicitly on Cooper&amp;#039;s novel, that it is definitely from the point of view of the British.  It just emphasizes that this war was fought on multiple levels and it shows how often the Native Americans were &amp;quot;trapped&amp;quot; into picking sides.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie had good insight as to how the settlers felt about fighting a British/French war. Where it was obvious that some showed a loyalty to Great Britain it was clear that most truly didn&amp;#039;t think of themselves as under British rule.  Many clearly didn&amp;#039;t want to fight but preferred to be with those on the frontier. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is more of a question about the Onandogas and Cayugas reading, but I noticed that they used the word &amp;quot;Sachem&amp;quot; frequently and even to describe some of the colonists.  I know sachems were like chieftans, so was this a term of respect in regards to the colonists as well? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie definitely represents the time in which it was made. First of all, the early to mid 1990s seemed to be a good time to make movies about Native Americans (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Geronimo, and probably more). One reason could be that, in 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was passed, as was the Native American Languages Act. While these weren&amp;#039;t really spectacularly progressive, our gov&amp;#039;t was at least showing a recognition of their rights. It seemed to be something of a turning point in the way we looked at Native Americans (or perhaps it made us look at them in the first place). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to point this out - near the end please notice that there is an extremely fake rock that Nathaniel (AKA DDL) pushes off of in his hurry to stop his brother from attacking Magwa and company. It shakes but Daniel Day Lewis pays no mind - he can make rocks shake like that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, now I&amp;#039;m not sure if this is applicable to the discussion or not, but in my opinion this is the type of movie that causes people to stop watching historical films.  Yes, there were a lot of good things about it when it came to accuracy, but it was just so dull throughout.  Now, &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; may have been one of the least accurate movies ever created, but it had a more interesting (and I use that word loosely) storyline.  Do we think that there is a way to balance the two out?  Is it possible to have a historical movie that is both relatively accurate and entertaining? I understand that it may also be too early in the semester to judge since we&amp;#039;re only on our second movie, but I suppose it is something to think about. (Now, I could be alone in my critique of the movie because I had heard excellent reviews about it but I&amp;#039;m sorry, I don&amp;#039;t think you could get me to sit and watch it again.)  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to begin by saying that I love the music in this movie. However, it does not cancel out the way I feel about the rest of the movie. I agree with Kelly in that I don&amp;#039;t think I could watch it another time. Clips and pieces of the movie were interesting but overall I found it somewhat dry and boring. I wish the fight scene at the end was a little more dramatic and detailed but instead it just went by quickly. I guess that is up to the discretion of the director. The movie has it&amp;#039;s moments but at times I found myself wanting the movie to hurry up to the next scene. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with everyone so far. This movie was boring as sin, completely not what I expected. I had always heard people talk about it so well, like a classic! While it was pretty and the music was nice, it was dull (even the battles), graphic, and once again, almost everyone in the movie is fluent in at least 2-3 languages. The &amp;quot;love story&amp;quot; is ridiculously bad, much like John Smith/Pocahontas. Perhaps people did have lower standards back then, and didn&amp;#039;t take as much time to get to know each other, but this true love in only 24 hours phenom just makes movies seem more unrealistic. Besides, the good Indian v. bad Indian seemed a little heavy-handed. If we were to have a movie where a &amp;quot;savage&amp;quot; had killed the English governor&amp;#039;s daughter and wife and entire town, it would be a portrayal of a white guy seeking justice, NOT being an evil murderer. -- Amanda Russell&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-10T19:31:48Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: /* 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A common theme that is definitely true in real history (mentioned in lecture as well as World Turned Upside Down/Calloway article) as well as its portrayal in Last of the Mohicans, is that Native Americans gained little from interactions with Europeans, and they lost everything (their land, their race, their culture, their lives). Hence, the last of the Mohicans. In that respect this film did a good job of demonstrating (if even to the slightest degree) the plight of the Indian race due to European involvement. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cora had to ask Nathaniel why the murdered family was isolated, to which he responded that after 7 years of indentured servitude in VA, these people needed to go somewhere farther away to get any land.  That seems right that she, the daughter of a general, raised in London, would not be fully aware of the causes for some threats the settlers faced, of some of the less obvious issues that helped  make the war what it was. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can see why the Mohicans didn&amp;#039;t want to bury the family that they came across while they were running.  It makes sense that if they were to move them others would know that someone had been there. Was it common for the Native Americans to try to cover their tracks? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was also obvious in the movie how easily the Native Americans could play the settlers off of each other.  It was effortless, or so it seemed to us, for Magua to act as a scout for the British, but secretly support the French because of what he would get out of that relationship.  That was something we definitely studied and I thought the movie did a decent job representing that. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- I know it was not all that uncommon for a Native American tribe to adopt “white sons” like Hawkeye or Nathaniel, but how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially. In this case the Mohicans had no women left and therefore had no other option, but I wondered if it was likely that Native Americans and white women would really get together. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- How rebellious were the settlers at this point toward the British crown rule? I felt that in the struggle between the British crown and the settlers, the mention of tyranny may have been a bit premature (at least to my knowledge on the topic), but I did like that there was a pre-revolution sense of injustice among the settlers. Was this premature or accurate for the time? - Elle Weaver &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remember that the British officers were condescending toward the colonial militia.  It&amp;#039;s not just the militiamen talking about the British tyranny that indicates the struggle.  First, when Duncan (Phelps?)tells Munro that the militiamen negotiated terms of service in the war, Munro responds something to the effect that that was just like them--the colonials think they can set their own terms.   And then, when Nathaniel is trying to tell Munro that  the militiamen&amp;#039;s families are either threatened or being killed, and they should be allowed to go back to defend, Munro says that they can&amp;#039;t go (they&amp;#039;d be shot if they did), because, essentially, that the threatened families are trivial in comparison to the army&amp;#039;s objectives.  He obviously sees himself/the army/the British in general as superior to them, and couldn&amp;#039;t care less about these men&amp;#039;s families.  This attitude is easy to recognize, and caps off the injustice.  But I think at that point the settlers wanted fair treatment and mainly hoped or believed that relations could still be mended with the mother country.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question:  is it at all a stretch that an angry Huron (Magwa) who wants revenge would want to cut out the heart of his enemy and burn his seed alive? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was wondering the same thing that Elle was about adopting white sons.  From what I remember learning in the past I don&amp;#039;t remember this.  What would make a tribe adopt members of the white race? What would make a white settler want to leave other colonists and join the Native Americans? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One issue I have with the movie is the accents.  I mean, what was going on with the different accents scattered throughout? Because based on Munro&amp;#039;s accent, he definitely did not raise his daughters and the colonists just seemed to be a bit off as well.  Was the &amp;quot;American accent&amp;quot; emerging this early? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Last of the Mohicans there is a definite good vs. evil battle going on. There are good and bad Indians, the good being the 3 Mohicans who save everyone on countless occasions (who are also conveniently more civilized seeming and dressing) and the bad being the Hurons – especially Magwa. There are also clearly defined lines between colonial settlers and the British military. The military breaks its promises and uses the colonists for its own purposes, neglecting their rights to defend their families etc. They are of course not as bad as the French who work with the bad Indians who ambush the British. In short, there are any levels of good and evil but they are clearly defined. This could be an appropriate source to describe how settlers would feel about this conflict. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going off of Elle&amp;#039;s comment about &amp;quot;Good vs. Bad,&amp;quot; you could definitely see a bit of bias throughout the movie.  Magwa and the Huron&amp;#039;s were the &amp;quot;bad guys&amp;quot; in the film definitely indicating strong anti-French sentiments throughout.  It&amp;#039;s clear that, if this were based explicitly on Cooper&amp;#039;s novel, that it is definitely from the point of view of the British.  It just emphasizes that this war was fought on multiple levels and it shows how often the Native Americans were &amp;quot;trapped&amp;quot; into picking sides.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie had good insight as to how the settlers felt about fighting a British/French war. Where it was obvious that some showed a loyalty to Great Britain it was clear that most truly didn&amp;#039;t think of themselves as under British rule.  Many clearly didn&amp;#039;t want to fight but preferred to be with those on the frontier. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is more of a question about the Onandogas and Cayugas reading, but I noticed that they used the word &amp;quot;Sachem&amp;quot; frequently and even to describe some of the colonists.  I know sachems were like chieftans, so was this a term of respect in regards to the colonists as well? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie definitely represents the time in which it was made. First of all, the early to mid 1990s seemed to be a good time to make movies about Native Americans (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Geronimo, and probably more). One reason could be that, in 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was passed, as was the Native American Languages Act. While these weren&amp;#039;t really spectacularly progressive, our gov&amp;#039;t was at least showing a recognition of their rights. It seemed to be something of a turning point in the way we looked at Native Americans (or perhaps it made us look at them in the first place). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to point this out - near the end please notice that there is an extremely fake rock that Nathaniel (AKA DDL) pushes off of in his hurry to stop his brother from attacking Magwa and company. It shakes but Daniel Day Lewis pays no mind - he can make rocks shake like that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, now I&amp;#039;m not sure if this is applicable to the discussion or not, but in my opinion this is the type of movie that causes people to stop watching historical films.  Yes, there were a lot of good things about it when it came to accuracy, but it was just so dull throughout.  Now, &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; may have been one of the least accurate movies ever created, but it had a more interesting (and I use that word loosely) storyline.  Do we think that there is a way to balance the two out?  Is it possible to have a historical movie that is both relatively accurate and entertaining? I understand that it may also be too early in the semester to judge since we&amp;#039;re only on our second movie, but I suppose it is something to think about. (Now, I could be alone in my critique of the movie because I had heard excellent reviews about it but I&amp;#039;m sorry, I don&amp;#039;t think you could get me to sit and watch it again.)  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to begin by saying that I love the music in this movie. However, it does not cancel out the way I feel about the rest of the movie. I agree with Kelly in that I don&amp;#039;t think I could watch it another time. Clips and pieces of the movie were interesting but overall I found it somewhat dry and boring. I wish the fight scene at the end was a little more dramatic and detailed but instead it just went by quickly. I guess that is up to the discretion of the director. The movie has it&amp;#039;s moments but at times I found myself wanting the movie to hurry up to the next scene. -- Mallory C.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_2_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 2 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_2_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-02T03:46:21Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;It really is amazing just how different the portrayal of a character in history to film differs, or at least things that they did.  Disney portrays attacking Natives and fighting Englishmen, who have no problems with food or staying alive.  John Smith meets a grown up Pocahontas, not a 10 year old.  I guess they thought it would make for a better story.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This reading felt more like a trading journal, which I suppose is mostly what they did at the time. Pocahontas is such a minor character that she is only mentioned twice by name. She doesn&amp;#039;t seem to have made a large impact on him, if any at all, actually. It doesn&amp;#039;t even appear that they can speak to each other, begging the question.. where did Disney come up with this storyline? --Amanda Russell&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_1_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 1 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_1_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-08-28T04:32:44Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week&amp;#039;s film here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This class is awesome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have Lady Rebecca Rolfe watching over our every word...beware.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If we pick a movie that was originally a book, should we read the book, too?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Lauren Hicks==&lt;br /&gt;
In the words of Senator Arlen Specter, &amp;quot;When Hollywood speaks, the world listens...when Washington speaks, the world snoozes (Why Movies Matter, pp. 1-2).&amp;quot; The words by Senator Specter are funny, yet relevant. Hollywood arouses the general audience more than politicians in Washington D.C. Do people need entertainment to push them into political involvement and awareness?-Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Katherine Stinson==&lt;br /&gt;
On Lauren&amp;#039;s comments on if we need Hollywood to make us interested in politics, I would say yes and no.  When some people see their favorite celebrity endorsing a certain candidate, they too get interested in politics, even if they never were interested in politics before. For example, during the Presidential election years, MTV does a campaign with celebrities to encourage the young people to vote, and has shown in the past to be successful. Other people are just interested in politics in general, and don&amp;#039;t need celebrities to encourage them to get involved.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Lauren Hicks==&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Hollywood&amp;#039;s America,&amp;quot; the author mentioned that the movie &amp;quot;Across the Pacific&amp;quot; was hastily rewritten after Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese. Instead, the setting was changed to the Panama Canal. It reminded me of movies about the Twin Towers and how movies about them were reportedly halted because of 9/11. - Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ashley Wilkins==&lt;br /&gt;
After reading &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; I admit that I was put in a sense of contemplation.  I had never really thought about poetry in the sense of fictional and nonfictional.  It made me wonder more about movies, about movies I don&amp;#039;t think are all that historically based, and just how much history from the time it was made is it the movie.  For example, the gender roles played by women and men in the movie, are the roles based on what society expects at the time or is the director taking his or her own twist on what he or she believes the gender roles should be.  Is the director taking a more radical or traditional approach to those roles.  -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ashley Wilkins==&lt;br /&gt;
In the second paragraph of &amp;quot;Movies and American Society&amp;quot; it mentions that movies show us &amp;quot;how to dress, how to look, or what to buy.&amp;quot;  Movies also tend to say how a person&amp;#039;s body should be shaped, that women should wear makeup to be pretty, etc... Movies penetrate society on many levels of how we think about ourselves and other people, some times I wonder if its safe to watch them, but then I think of how much fun I have watching them and communicating with others about the movie which is also mentioned in &amp;quot;Movies and American Society.&amp;quot;  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Taylor Brann==&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps it can be unsafe to watch movies in some cases. For instance, the women on screen are often ideals and it sometimes leads to ordinary women doing dangerous things in attempts to become those ideals. And then there are the various uses of movies as propaganda and tools of manipulation. But, as the article mentions, movies have also been forces of good. They can bring awareness to the suffering in the world and make viewers want to take action against it. Also, more personally, they can just make us feel better after a bad day. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ashley Wilkins==&lt;br /&gt;
I had just a quick question about &amp;quot;Hollywood&amp;#039;s America....&amp;quot;  It mentions that some theaters were called nickelodeons at one point in time (page 10) because it cost a nickel to view the production.  I was curious if the children&amp;#039;s channel Nickelodeon was somehow a spinoff of those theaters, or just something completely unrelated.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Whitney Holcomb==&lt;br /&gt;
Yep, that&amp;#039;s where the name comes from! -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Kellye Sorber==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; said that movies are just starting to be a source of history. There are many older movies, like Gone With the Wind, that have been around for decades.  So what does starting to be a source really mean. Are they talking about that it is just starting to be credited as a valuable source? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Taylor Brann==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the bigger point was that historical writers have had a few thousands years to develop ways of interpreting and presenting history, while filmmakers have had just over a century to develop their presentation techniques, which is probably part of the reason historians have largely ignored films as credible historical sources. Filmmakers are still the new kids on the block. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Kellye Sorber==&lt;br /&gt;
What movies today would be considered to be the most accurate cultural artifacts of our time? Are they portraying what we want future generations to remember when they think of us? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Lauren Hicks==&lt;br /&gt;
To attempt to answer Kellye&amp;#039;s first question, I believe no movie has portrayed history, now or in the past, accurately.  To see what I mean, look at the movie &amp;quot;Vantage Point.&amp;quot; There are several people who witnessed the attempted assassination, but they all have different views of the event. Therefore, no matter the movie, each film will have its own bias and viewpoint, never the whole, objective story. As for Kellye&amp;#039;s second question, future generations who have not experienced events that we all have, such as 9/11, won&amp;#039;t see them as we experienced them and familiar references that we know will get misinterpreted by future generations and history will get blurred from its original context like a game of Telephone. -Lauren Hicks     &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Kellye Sorber==&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe the reason so many historians are unwilling to really analyze and comment on &amp;quot;history-oriented&amp;quot; movies is because they are not fully comfortable with the changing technology.  As we become a more technology centered society historians and other individuals will have to look to new and different methods for unlocking history. I agree with the reading in Reel History, that &amp;quot;history-oriented&amp;quot; movies can be look at like any historical text, they are simply perspectives of an event or time. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Amanda Russell==&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; reading, though I felt it jumped around quite a bit. I was appalled by Zanuck&amp;#039;s comment on &amp;quot;Rothschild.&amp;quot; While it is just egregious to history buffs on its own, it also offends by implying (at least to me) that what actually happened in history is not interesting enough to make a movie about. There is a fine line between creative license and fiction, and perhaps Zanuck fancies himself more of a poet than a historian. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Amanda Russell==&lt;br /&gt;
One problem with history-oriented movies is that it gives historians another level to analyze. This can be beneficial to some studies, but not if you were simply studying what actually happened (not the inevitable analyses). Kind of like the difference between reading the diary of Anne Frank and a 1980s analysis of the diary of Anne Frank. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Amanda Russell==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting in &amp;quot;Why Movies Matter&amp;quot; that filmmaking today and in the 1910s sound familiar: anyone with a camera and some kind of budget can make a movie today, there are just infinitely more outlets and audiences available than there were then. Is this circular motion or was the period in between the one we will not see again? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Elle W.==&lt;br /&gt;
Slaves on Screen suggests that history itself must be carefully constructed, qualified and must admit the patchy areas of assumption or inference, whereas film is a story which is primarily entertainment which has less assumed qualifications. The films based on real life events are then questioned by the viewer, which really is a positive step towards getting more persons interested in history (in my humble opinion). –Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Elle W.==&lt;br /&gt;
Why Movies Matter describes the overall social impact of movies that I had never really thought about. A quote that particularly demonstrated the importance and dominance of movies as a mode of mass communication was on page 4 – “Far more people are today reached by the moving picture than by the daily press, [and] while we read the newspaper only in parts, the moving picture we see complete.” And this was in 1908! A few pages later… I also liked the idea of censorship being another testimony to how influential films can be on the American public. If movies didn’t really matter or mean something to America, why would censorship be necessary? – Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Elle W.==&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the introduction of the book. It clearly lays out the direction of which the book is headed and I am already convinced that historic films deserve more credit than they are given. Getting the story out there allows more people to think, question, and investigate further in more traditional ways. This argument meshes well with the Slaves on Screen idea. –Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Kelly Wuyscik==&lt;br /&gt;
Like Elle, I saw a correlation between the intro to the &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; book and the &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; article.  Film is so easily brushed off by critics and historians as a credible source of information, but I believe that using films and movies makes history interesting for more people.  True, some filmmakers take &amp;quot;artistic license&amp;quot; a bit too far and the historical content is a bit stretched, but having someone sit down to watch a movie on a historical event catches one&amp;#039;s interest more easily.  By seeing the event on screen it allows them to actually picture what they&amp;#039;re studying (or are now interested in studying) and applies the whole &amp;quot;face to a name&amp;quot; bit.  They feel more involved with the past than by just reading text on a page. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mary Beth C.==&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elle and Kelly.  I thought the argument in the intro of &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; was very good and shows that films can be a relevant source of history and sometimes seeing it on the screen even if some liberties were taken in the story brings it alive in a way that is more vibrant and real than just reading it sometimes. ~ Mary Beth C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mallory C.==&lt;br /&gt;
While reading the introduction to Reel History: In Defense of Hollywood by Robert Brent Toplin, I found myself agreeing with many of Toplin&amp;#039;s arguments. He explains that oftentimes artists and authors leave out details in order to make their work more understandable. Is this idea not true of directors or screen writers, who themselves are artists? History-orientated movies take a lot of heat for not including every detail of the story within the film. However, there are times when every detail isn&amp;#039;t necessarily possible because it prevents the plot of the movie to flow properly. It is up to the judgment of the director to pick and choose which aspect of the story he/she wants to portray. As long as the facts are correct the audience can take away valuable information concerning the past from that particular movie. Movies have a great opportunity to teach the audience about a significant part of history. A story that is so important that it must be turned into a film in order to become better known to the masses. The article Movies and American Society edited by Steven J.Ross, relates nicely to what Toplin is arguing: Movies are a significant part of our culture, with millions of people going to the movies everyday; therefore, they have the power to educate and ultimately shape the intellect of America. The article further explains that film makers have the power to influence the way in which people view their society, government, even the world. Film makers have the ability to influence the way in which the audience views history and enable the audience to understand how history is created by everyday experiences.- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jackie Reed==&lt;br /&gt;
Several of the posts have brought up the possible growth of movies as accurate historical acounts or something of that nature. Taylor pointed out that movies which have some tie to history are perhaps continuing to develope through the still very new medium of cinema, while historical writers have had longer to hone techniques of accurate story telling of historical events. But (unless we are talking about movies that are strictly non-fiction documentaries) whether they are historically/period based or not, there is an important descrepency to recognize in making this comparison. Movies are not pure imitation of life. They are forms of art which most often incorporate recognizable and familiar aspects of life in order to appeal to its audience. And whenever life is represented by a form of art, some aspect of factuality is lost by the mere imitation (like the Platonic Theory of Forms- it is not the true ideal (form) when it is already a copy- it has lost some truth). Thus, unless we are comparing historically related movies to historical fiction books, they are not comparable to histories and textbooks. ~Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jackie Reed==&lt;br /&gt;
With my previous comment in mind...&lt;br /&gt;
My debate question: As forms of art/and or entertainment, should all directors of historically based movies be held to the same level of historical integrity that historians are? Or to the same degree that writers of historical fiction? &lt;br /&gt;
(Futher more... Which is more important, artistic integrity and the director&amp;#039;s artistic expression/message or a movie&amp;#039;s historical accuracy? ~Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mallory C.==&lt;br /&gt;
I think to some degree directors should be held to the same level of historical integrity as historians. If the intention of the director is to portray a significant piece of history then the film should be accurate.  If the director is aiming for credibility in the business then it would be in his/her best interest to get their facts straight. Wouldn&amp;#039;t it be pointless for the director to not do some background research for the film? - Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jason Ward==&lt;br /&gt;
n.b. my post accepts Jackie&amp;#039;s premise as sound. However, I would like to shift Jackie&amp;#039;s debate back on to the historian. Let&amp;#039;s talk about the standard by which historians are judged. We do it every time we write a research paper. We ask who wrote the secondary source? Who published the secondary source? What kinds of motivations were behind the construction of the source?, and so on. Just look at a subject&amp;#039;s historigraphy to see that written history is not always air-tight. I think it would do us well this semester to not just analyze how film makers interpret history, but how historians interpret history. Too often we take historical texts as gospel (especially when compared to artistic representations), but is there really an ultimate truth by which we can compare apples and oranges? (historical text being apples, historical films being oranges)- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Kelly Wuyscik==&lt;br /&gt;
Jason brings up an interesting point when he said that &amp;quot;history is not always air-tight.&amp;quot;  To kind of support this a little further, I&amp;#039;d like to bring up one of our favorite sources, Wikipedia.  Now, granted it is not the most reliable source of information on the planet but we do all use it as a starting point.  But just looking at the history of those pages on historical events you can see that even events that took place hundreds of years ago are still under debate.  Those pages are constantly updated and changed, sometimes by the hour.  Historians themselves always have their own bias and oftentimes that is overlooked when doing research.  How is this any different from a filmmaker and his bias?  Or the bias of someone creating a documentary?  - Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==David Flores==&lt;br /&gt;
This is in response to Jackie&amp;#039;s post.  Although you have simplified your concern to a basic &amp;quot;is A better than B&amp;quot; question, I find the content rather complex.  A great film that tries to tell a story during a specific period in our history combines the historical fact with the director&amp;#039;s artistic expression/message.  At times, the result makes it difficult for us to separate the two.  I think when someone makes a movie, they take what is already generally known about history and fill in the little holes with what the director feels happened.  A common debate of these movies is their portrayal of the character(s).  Without a primary source, we become subjective to how we believe certain historical figures behaved.  So to answer your question, I don&amp;#039;t think directors should be held to the same level of historians are because I feel that they actually try to do different things.  Historians give us facts about the past, and directors try to bring to life these facts while expressing their own artistry in their work. - David Flores&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==David Flores==&lt;br /&gt;
A couple people have touched on this already, and it&amp;#039;s a topic that I find interesting.  The &amp;quot;Why Movies Matter&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;Hollywood&amp;#039;s America&amp;quot; articles both bring up the debate of whether the media creates society&amp;#039;s values, or do they merely convey them in their work?  I&amp;#039;ve always thought that the media used television and movies to help convey society&amp;#039;s values (for example, The Simpsons conveying the importance of family by taking the model of a 1950&amp;#039;s American family structure).  But after reading these articles, its seems apparent that movies, especially in the 20&amp;#039;s and 30&amp;#039;s, had the distinct role of creating society&amp;#039;s values.  This includes how women should be portrayed, the behavior of lesser-known ethnic groups, and so on.  Movies are a powerful tool in shaping what people believe (or think they should believe) in. - David Flores&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Katherine Stinson==&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with David that movies are a really powerful way of molding what people believe about others, but I wonder what people would think or be like if they didn&amp;#039;t have movies to influence them.  Would people still have thought that &amp;quot;...Africans were savages, and that their Afro-American decedents were lazy, happy-go-lucky, thieving, sexually promiscuous , and mentally inferior&amp;quot; (Alvin F. Poussaint quote on page 2 of Why Movies Matter), and would people&amp;#039;s buying habits be different as well? ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jason Ward==&lt;br /&gt;
Why are academicians so upset with directors if history is not accurately represented? How damaging is it for directors to make egregious errors in historical accuracy? Does a film&amp;#039;s message/ social commentary need to be grounded in &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; or can the film&amp;#039;s message transcend the nuts and bolts of historical accuracy?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Bryan Mull==&lt;br /&gt;
While reading both the introduction to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and the &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; excerpt, I was struck by the notion of just how new a medium film study is when compared to more traditional forms of history. I had never thought about how the relatively new status of films likely contribute greatly in the medium&amp;#039;s lack of respect as a means for historical discovery. The example used in &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; of how Homer&amp;#039;s poetry once was the standard form of passing on historical information showed the way that the study of history has been subjective over time. The excerpt also pointed to how Herodotus and Thucydides in many instances made up their own interpretations of speeches in history. This is a practice not unlike the artistic license used by filmmakers for their dialogue. Clearly historic films are not as far off from the more traditional means of passing on historical knowledge. - Bryan Mull	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Bryan Mull==&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of the excerpt &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; I was struck by the observation that audiences react well to the disclaimer placed before many movies: Based on a True Story. I know that I have on occasions been spurred to delve into a subject tackled by a film because of that disclaimer. The author then goes to point out that because movies based on history can spur such questioning, the film medium has a rightful place in the historical arena. I agree with this assessment, as films can touch people in ways that normal texts can never hope to achieve. The emotional responses elicited by films allow for a greater passion than some books and the emotions can spur greater inquiry to the past. Thus, I agree with Davis and believe that the film medium certainly has an important place in history. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mary Beth C.==&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Movies and American Society&amp;quot; article, I thought it was interesting to see how the themes of movies have changed through the years to reflect what was happening in society at that particular time, such as the patriotic movies of the 40&amp;#039;s and the sexual revolution of the 60&amp;#039;s and 70&amp;#039;s and yuppies of the 80&amp;#039;s. Even today you can see specific themes like this-such as the movies about the war in Iraq that have recently come out.  It will be interesting to go back and view some of the new films in about 10 years to see if our perspective has changed.  ~ Mary Beth C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mary Beth C.==&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan about the &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; article.  I usually go to movies that say they are &amp;quot;based on a true story&amp;quot; and then end up going out of the theater and researching the subject myself-to get more information or clarify things. I think that statement can be a good tool to start people off in at least a small amount of research on the topic.  My niece (who is 16) hates anything &amp;quot;historical&amp;quot; but will always want to see movies based on an actual event so its an easy way to slip a little history in and then we usually end up discussing the movie and it always leads to us looking things up about the subject and she does not even realize she is learning history! ~ Mary Beth C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Katherine Stinson==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the introduction of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History &amp;#039;&amp;#039; was interesting, but I was surprised that the author was not all upset with Hollywood&amp;#039;s portrayal of history in movies.  I was expecting the book to be about how Hollywood is all wrong when it comes to history, but the author actually believes that &amp;quot;movies can communicate important ideas about the past&amp;quot; (page 1). ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Wesley Weeks==&lt;br /&gt;
The introduction to Movies and American Society argues that movies teach us how to think, specifically mentioning race. While movies and other things do in fact teach cultural values, those values must already existed within the culture to begin with.  If a movie taught a value that was not already known in America, it would not be understood and Americans would likely not view or purchase the movie.  Movies reproduce culture more than they create it. ~Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sarah Richardson==&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Jason&amp;#039;s question: The idea of the past is a powerful thing.  It&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;ours&amp;quot; in that it&amp;#039;s a part of our national identity and perceived heritage.  If a director plays around with facts in an attempt to better present a story or ideal (i.e., Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s Braveheart), he or she will be criticized.  But if Gibson had made Braveheart in a way that is more historically accurate it wouldn&amp;#039;t have been as effective a film.  Some view these factual misrepresentations as almost immoral.  Historical films are a legitimate art form that when executed well can be an extremely effective historical medium.  What&amp;#039;s important isn&amp;#039;t that these filmmakers bend the rules but rather how they do so.  Historical films offer us a view into our own culture through what aspects of the &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; story the film emphasizes or de-emphasizes.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sarah Richardson==&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve been talking a lot about whether it&amp;#039;s appropriate for filmmakers to use artistic license when making historical films.  How much artistic license do you think is acceptable?  At what point does playing with facts completely cancel out a film&amp;#039;s historical legitimacy? - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Wesley Weeks==&lt;br /&gt;
The “Slaves on Screen” article focused on how the filmmakers created their depictions of history and how they can be a useful tool in understanding the past.  It was noticeably silent, though, on how the person who views the movie brings his or her own preconceptions and cultural values to the film.  For instance, when the movie Easy Rider was first released, many people thought the director was on the side of the people that kill the main characters at the end because they viewed that action as a good thing. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Whitney Holcomb==&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Wesley&amp;#039;s earlier comment on movies reproducing culture--  They are responsible for reinforcing and solidifying stereotypes or cultural views already in existence to some extent, and the more that do so, the more discourse created, the more effective they are. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Whitney Holcomb==&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Why Movies Matter&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, Ross tells us that &amp;quot;whether a particular cinematic discourse is true or false is less important than its ability to create a dominant sense of reality.&amp;quot;  This statement ties together points in the introduction and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Slaves on Screen&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, and means that it doesn&amp;#039;t really matter whether a spectator of a &amp;#039;based on a true story&amp;#039; film leaves wondering how much was accurate.  If the director can successfully get his vision across or emphasize a view or stereotype, mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Christine W.==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was really interesting how in the introduction to the book the author said movies were not historic because they &amp;quot;do not provide accurate, authentic, truthful, or objective treatments of history&amp;quot; (p. 4). While some of those things may be true about movies they are also true about history in general. Every event in the past that is retold by historians is biased in some way and how do we know what is the true, we can only guess based on evidence. Movies may be more colorful in their depiction of the past but to say they are not historical because they are not objective or truthful would mean that historians should discount any primary source written by a person because people are biased and liars. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Christine W.==&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised to read in the &amp;quot;Hollywood&amp;#039;s America&amp;quot; article that all the first major movie producers were immigrants. I am in two immigration classes and writin my senior thesis on the topic so things related to immigration stand out to me. I thought it was interesting because movies are something Americans take pride in and so to learn that the industry was founded by people we at one time did not consider to be Americans is amazing to me and I think it shows just how important immigration is to the heritage of this country. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Taylor Brann==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Hollywood’s America&amp;#039;&amp;#039; gave a nice summary of American film. One point I found really interesting was that immigrants began to dominate the movie business fairly early on. It’s ironic that newcomers to the country understood what the American public wanted to see more than American-born businessmen did. Also, HUAC accusing the Boy Scouts of being infiltrated by Communists is a little funny, but really scary too.  The fact that Hollywood pulled a movie because a character tried to act as a peacemaker between warring tribes, which “might be regarded as a message for peace and therefore helpful to present communist designs”(21), gives a very clear picture of the fear caused by the Red Scare. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jonathan Bell==&lt;br /&gt;
What all these readings really get me thinking about is just how influential film can be on peoples understanding of history. Even if a film presents information that is not historically true it can still influence people to believe that it is true. Without background knowledge determining what is true in a movie is very impressionistic. One of my favorite films &amp;quot;Tombstone&amp;quot; I can tell must be very fictionalized or exaggerated, but that does not change the fact that I found it enjoyable and it is my only real background on the people and events that were portrayed and leaves a strong impression in my mind. - Jonathan Bell    &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jonathan Bell==&lt;br /&gt;
The reading from &amp;quot;Hollywood&amp;#039;s America&amp;quot; particularly addresses the issue that even if the events portrayed in movies are not true they can still be educational by showing the beliefs and ideology of the people who made them and can give a glance at what sort of issues were important during the time the film was made. This is especially true when talking about movies that were produced many years in the past. Leni Riefenstahl&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Triumph of the Will&amp;quot; a propaganda film made for the Nazi party is used as a way to answer historical questions such as how the Nazi party was so successful and how they portrayed themselves. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ashley Scutari==&lt;br /&gt;
In the “Slave on Screen” readings I thought it was very interesting how they contrasted poetry and history.  It stated that poetry can be “fictionalized” and that the certain techniques of poetry such as rhythms, metaphors, and verse forms can limit historical information.  The reading also states that poetry techniques can increase the power for the features of past history.  –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Kelly Wuyscik==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that really stuck out to me in the &amp;quot;Slave on Screen&amp;quot; reading was one specific comment the author made in regards to what critics look for as opposed to audiences.  &amp;quot;Reviewers of historical films often overlook techniques in favor of a chronological summary of the plot or story line and the overall look of the moving picture in terms of costumes and props... The viewer responds as well to the film&amp;#039;s modes of narration, just as readers respond to the organization and rhetorical disposition of a history book.&amp;quot; (pg 8).  The way someone is presented with information while watching a movie needs to be different from that of information presented to someone in a history book or textbook.  A movie needs to maintain someone&amp;#039;s attention through narration and dialogue between actors whereas in a history text, the words have to do all the work themselves.  To me, they are two very different processes and this difference is often overlooked. - Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ashley Scutari==&lt;br /&gt;
In “Hollywood’s America” it is amazing how commercialized amusement reshaped America’s “leisure activities” in the nineteenth century.  In the earlier nineteenth century society was split between the wealthy and lower class with commercialized activities. Then the entertainment business expanded more and allowed lower class to receive the same amusement.  Also the entertainment business promoted more towards young teenagers, which was a way to get away and enjoy more freedom. – Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Shannon Hauser==&lt;br /&gt;
At this point it is obvious we cannot analyze films in the same way we analyze historical texts. In my opinion, as much as we should be skeptical about films we should not forget that historical texts (besides primary sources) are also interpretations of events and can either be well researched or not. The narrative format of films reaches us on a different level than straight up historical texts. Right now I am looking at this class through the lens that films dance in the middle between &amp;quot;just the facts ma&amp;#039;am&amp;quot; and fictional novel. As quoted in &amp;quot;Slave on Screen&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Poetry deals with general truths, history with specific events&amp;quot;. Films find themselves in the cross-hairs of poetry and history and it is easy to take a shot at them.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 21:30, 27 August 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==James Drury==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Movies and American Society&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reiterates that there are profound influential messages sent and received in an almost unbinding relationship between the movie watcher and movie along with and through its producers.  Movie producers recreate the past, which invigorates and perpetuates history, but may also possibly dilute history, by creating or exaggerating certain aspects, also keeping in mind that movies are usually created through the moviemaker’s perspectives.  Audiences watching movies sort the information presented and use it to understand how it is apart from reality and how they can relate what is in the movie to reality, later applying it to understand topics such as gender, class, race, sexuality, and most importantly, history.&lt;br /&gt;
James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==JT Newcomb==&lt;br /&gt;
A professor in another class suggested this week that the number of things that everyone is expected to know is diminishing while the volume of things available for people to know is rapidly increasing. He made this observation concerning what you can learn in a history class. &amp;quot;Reel Hollywood&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; seem to suggest that movies have taken a role long held by written documents, acting as a means to educate (in a loose sense of the word) an audience in history. I contemplated connection between these two ideas while I read. Perhaps movies are now a necessary part of our education, because we do not have the time to study many events in greater detail.  What would a typical American know about the fight for Scottish independence without seeing &amp;quot;Braveheart&amp;quot;? What a person knows after seeing that movie may not be completely accurate, but they&amp;#039;ve at least received a crash course.  Besides, &amp;quot;Reel Hollywood&amp;quot; argues that historians can skew the details of the past as effectively as any director... Furthur, if movies do now act as part of our education, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Do we need movies because there is more to know and less detail we are required to, or is there more to know and less detail that we are required to because we are gaining our knowledge from movies? - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Amanda Russell==&lt;br /&gt;
JT&amp;#039;s comment got me thinking about the fact that college courses in themselves are &amp;quot;crash&amp;quot; courses in whatever we are studying. With the exception of our theses or a very well honed schedule, we receive bits and pieces of history each semester. Much like a film, if our interest is sparked, we must go outside of the original material to find out more. Perhaps this is just one way that society sees education now. -- Amanda Russell&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_1_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 1 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_1_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-08-28T04:32:19Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week&amp;#039;s film here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This class is awesome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have Lady Rebecca Rolfe watching over our every word...beware.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If we pick a movie that was originally a book, should we read the book, too?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Lauren Hicks==&lt;br /&gt;
In the words of Senator Arlen Specter, &amp;quot;When Hollywood speaks, the world listens...when Washington speaks, the world snoozes (Why Movies Matter, pp. 1-2).&amp;quot; The words by Senator Specter are funny, yet relevant. Hollywood arouses the general audience more than politicians in Washington D.C. Do people need entertainment to push them into political involvement and awareness?-Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Katherine Stinson==&lt;br /&gt;
On Lauren&amp;#039;s comments on if we need Hollywood to make us interested in politics, I would say yes and no.  When some people see their favorite celebrity endorsing a certain candidate, they too get interested in politics, even if they never were interested in politics before. For example, during the Presidential election years, MTV does a campaign with celebrities to encourage the young people to vote, and has shown in the past to be successful. Other people are just interested in politics in general, and don&amp;#039;t need celebrities to encourage them to get involved.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Lauren Hicks==&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Hollywood&amp;#039;s America,&amp;quot; the author mentioned that the movie &amp;quot;Across the Pacific&amp;quot; was hastily rewritten after Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese. Instead, the setting was changed to the Panama Canal. It reminded me of movies about the Twin Towers and how movies about them were reportedly halted because of 9/11. - Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ashley Wilkins==&lt;br /&gt;
After reading &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; I admit that I was put in a sense of contemplation.  I had never really thought about poetry in the sense of fictional and nonfictional.  It made me wonder more about movies, about movies I don&amp;#039;t think are all that historically based, and just how much history from the time it was made is it the movie.  For example, the gender roles played by women and men in the movie, are the roles based on what society expects at the time or is the director taking his or her own twist on what he or she believes the gender roles should be.  Is the director taking a more radical or traditional approach to those roles.  -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ashley Wilkins==&lt;br /&gt;
In the second paragraph of &amp;quot;Movies and American Society&amp;quot; it mentions that movies show us &amp;quot;how to dress, how to look, or what to buy.&amp;quot;  Movies also tend to say how a person&amp;#039;s body should be shaped, that women should wear makeup to be pretty, etc... Movies penetrate society on many levels of how we think about ourselves and other people, some times I wonder if its safe to watch them, but then I think of how much fun I have watching them and communicating with others about the movie which is also mentioned in &amp;quot;Movies and American Society.&amp;quot;  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Taylor Brann==&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps it can be unsafe to watch movies in some cases. For instance, the women on screen are often ideals and it sometimes leads to ordinary women doing dangerous things in attempts to become those ideals. And then there are the various uses of movies as propaganda and tools of manipulation. But, as the article mentions, movies have also been forces of good. They can bring awareness to the suffering in the world and make viewers want to take action against it. Also, more personally, they can just make us feel better after a bad day. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ashley Wilkins==&lt;br /&gt;
I had just a quick question about &amp;quot;Hollywood&amp;#039;s America....&amp;quot;  It mentions that some theaters were called nickelodeons at one point in time (page 10) because it cost a nickel to view the production.  I was curious if the children&amp;#039;s channel Nickelodeon was somehow a spinoff of those theaters, or just something completely unrelated.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Whitney Holcomb==&lt;br /&gt;
Yep, that&amp;#039;s where the name comes from! -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Kellye Sorber==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; said that movies are just starting to be a source of history. There are many older movies, like Gone With the Wind, that have been around for decades.  So what does starting to be a source really mean. Are they talking about that it is just starting to be credited as a valuable source? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Taylor Brann==&lt;br /&gt;
I think the bigger point was that historical writers have had a few thousands years to develop ways of interpreting and presenting history, while filmmakers have had just over a century to develop their presentation techniques, which is probably part of the reason historians have largely ignored films as credible historical sources. Filmmakers are still the new kids on the block. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Kellye Sorber==&lt;br /&gt;
What movies today would be considered to be the most accurate cultural artifacts of our time? Are they portraying what we want future generations to remember when they think of us? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Lauren Hicks==&lt;br /&gt;
To attempt to answer Kellye&amp;#039;s first question, I believe no movie has portrayed history, now or in the past, accurately.  To see what I mean, look at the movie &amp;quot;Vantage Point.&amp;quot; There are several people who witnessed the attempted assassination, but they all have different views of the event. Therefore, no matter the movie, each film will have its own bias and viewpoint, never the whole, objective story. As for Kellye&amp;#039;s second question, future generations who have not experienced events that we all have, such as 9/11, won&amp;#039;t see them as we experienced them and familiar references that we know will get misinterpreted by future generations and history will get blurred from its original context like a game of Telephone. -Lauren Hicks     &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Kellye Sorber==&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe the reason so many historians are unwilling to really analyze and comment on &amp;quot;history-oriented&amp;quot; movies is because they are not fully comfortable with the changing technology.  As we become a more technology centered society historians and other individuals will have to look to new and different methods for unlocking history. I agree with the reading in Reel History, that &amp;quot;history-oriented&amp;quot; movies can be look at like any historical text, they are simply perspectives of an event or time. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Amanda Russell==&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; reading, though I felt it jumped around quite a bit. I was appalled by Zanuck&amp;#039;s comment on &amp;quot;Rothschild.&amp;quot; While it is just egregious to history buffs on its own, it also offends by implying (at least to me) that what actually happened in history is not interesting enough to make a movie about. There is a fine line between creative license and fiction, and perhaps Zanuck fancies himself more of a poet than a historian. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Amanda Russell==&lt;br /&gt;
One problem with history-oriented movies is that it gives historians another level to analyze. This can be beneficial to some studies, but not if you were simply studying what actually happened (not the inevitable analyses). Kind of like the difference between reading the diary of Anne Frank and a 1980s analysis of the diary of Anne Frank. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Amanda Russell==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting in &amp;quot;Why Movies Matter&amp;quot; that filmmaking today and in the 1910s sound familiar: anyone with a camera and some kind of budget can make a movie today, there are just infinitely more outlets and audiences available than there were then. Is this circular motion or was the period in between the one we will not see again? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Elle W.==&lt;br /&gt;
Slaves on Screen suggests that history itself must be carefully constructed, qualified and must admit the patchy areas of assumption or inference, whereas film is a story which is primarily entertainment which has less assumed qualifications. The films based on real life events are then questioned by the viewer, which really is a positive step towards getting more persons interested in history (in my humble opinion). –Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Elle W.==&lt;br /&gt;
Why Movies Matter describes the overall social impact of movies that I had never really thought about. A quote that particularly demonstrated the importance and dominance of movies as a mode of mass communication was on page 4 – “Far more people are today reached by the moving picture than by the daily press, [and] while we read the newspaper only in parts, the moving picture we see complete.” And this was in 1908! A few pages later… I also liked the idea of censorship being another testimony to how influential films can be on the American public. If movies didn’t really matter or mean something to America, why would censorship be necessary? – Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Elle W.==&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the introduction of the book. It clearly lays out the direction of which the book is headed and I am already convinced that historic films deserve more credit than they are given. Getting the story out there allows more people to think, question, and investigate further in more traditional ways. This argument meshes well with the Slaves on Screen idea. –Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Kelly Wuyscik==&lt;br /&gt;
Like Elle, I saw a correlation between the intro to the &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; book and the &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; article.  Film is so easily brushed off by critics and historians as a credible source of information, but I believe that using films and movies makes history interesting for more people.  True, some filmmakers take &amp;quot;artistic license&amp;quot; a bit too far and the historical content is a bit stretched, but having someone sit down to watch a movie on a historical event catches one&amp;#039;s interest more easily.  By seeing the event on screen it allows them to actually picture what they&amp;#039;re studying (or are now interested in studying) and applies the whole &amp;quot;face to a name&amp;quot; bit.  They feel more involved with the past than by just reading text on a page. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mary Beth C.==&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elle and Kelly.  I thought the argument in the intro of &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; was very good and shows that films can be a relevant source of history and sometimes seeing it on the screen even if some liberties were taken in the story brings it alive in a way that is more vibrant and real than just reading it sometimes. ~ Mary Beth C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mallory C.==&lt;br /&gt;
While reading the introduction to Reel History: In Defense of Hollywood by Robert Brent Toplin, I found myself agreeing with many of Toplin&amp;#039;s arguments. He explains that oftentimes artists and authors leave out details in order to make their work more understandable. Is this idea not true of directors or screen writers, who themselves are artists? History-orientated movies take a lot of heat for not including every detail of the story within the film. However, there are times when every detail isn&amp;#039;t necessarily possible because it prevents the plot of the movie to flow properly. It is up to the judgment of the director to pick and choose which aspect of the story he/she wants to portray. As long as the facts are correct the audience can take away valuable information concerning the past from that particular movie. Movies have a great opportunity to teach the audience about a significant part of history. A story that is so important that it must be turned into a film in order to become better known to the masses. The article Movies and American Society edited by Steven J.Ross, relates nicely to what Toplin is arguing: Movies are a significant part of our culture, with millions of people going to the movies everyday; therefore, they have the power to educate and ultimately shape the intellect of America. The article further explains that film makers have the power to influence the way in which people view their society, government, even the world. Film makers have the ability to influence the way in which the audience views history and enable the audience to understand how history is created by everyday experiences.- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jackie Reed==&lt;br /&gt;
Several of the posts have brought up the possible growth of movies as accurate historical acounts or something of that nature. Taylor pointed out that movies which have some tie to history are perhaps continuing to develope through the still very new medium of cinema, while historical writers have had longer to hone techniques of accurate story telling of historical events. But (unless we are talking about movies that are strictly non-fiction documentaries) whether they are historically/period based or not, there is an important descrepency to recognize in making this comparison. Movies are not pure imitation of life. They are forms of art which most often incorporate recognizable and familiar aspects of life in order to appeal to its audience. And whenever life is represented by a form of art, some aspect of factuality is lost by the mere imitation (like the Platonic Theory of Forms- it is not the true ideal (form) when it is already a copy- it has lost some truth). Thus, unless we are comparing historically related movies to historical fiction books, they are not comparable to histories and textbooks. ~Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jackie Reed==&lt;br /&gt;
With my previous comment in mind...&lt;br /&gt;
My debate question: As forms of art/and or entertainment, should all directors of historically based movies be held to the same level of historical integrity that historians are? Or to the same degree that writers of historical fiction? &lt;br /&gt;
(Futher more... Which is more important, artistic integrity and the director&amp;#039;s artistic expression/message or a movie&amp;#039;s historical accuracy? ~Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mallory C.==&lt;br /&gt;
I think to some degree directors should be held to the same level of historical integrity as historians. If the intention of the director is to portray a significant piece of history then the film should be accurate.  If the director is aiming for credibility in the business then it would be in his/her best interest to get their facts straight. Wouldn&amp;#039;t it be pointless for the director to not do some background research for the film? - Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jason Ward==&lt;br /&gt;
n.b. my post accepts Jackie&amp;#039;s premise as sound. However, I would like to shift Jackie&amp;#039;s debate back on to the historian. Let&amp;#039;s talk about the standard by which historians are judged. We do it every time we write a research paper. We ask who wrote the secondary source? Who published the secondary source? What kinds of motivations were behind the construction of the source?, and so on. Just look at a subject&amp;#039;s historigraphy to see that written history is not always air-tight. I think it would do us well this semester to not just analyze how film makers interpret history, but how historians interpret history. Too often we take historical texts as gospel (especially when compared to artistic representations), but is there really an ultimate truth by which we can compare apples and oranges? (historical text being apples, historical films being oranges)- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Kelly Wuyscik==&lt;br /&gt;
Jason brings up an interesting point when he said that &amp;quot;history is not always air-tight.&amp;quot;  To kind of support this a little further, I&amp;#039;d like to bring up one of our favorite sources, Wikipedia.  Now, granted it is not the most reliable source of information on the planet but we do all use it as a starting point.  But just looking at the history of those pages on historical events you can see that even events that took place hundreds of years ago are still under debate.  Those pages are constantly updated and changed, sometimes by the hour.  Historians themselves always have their own bias and oftentimes that is overlooked when doing research.  How is this any different from a filmmaker and his bias?  Or the bias of someone creating a documentary?  - Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==David Flores==&lt;br /&gt;
This is in response to Jackie&amp;#039;s post.  Although you have simplified your concern to a basic &amp;quot;is A better than B&amp;quot; question, I find the content rather complex.  A great film that tries to tell a story during a specific period in our history combines the historical fact with the director&amp;#039;s artistic expression/message.  At times, the result makes it difficult for us to separate the two.  I think when someone makes a movie, they take what is already generally known about history and fill in the little holes with what the director feels happened.  A common debate of these movies is their portrayal of the character(s).  Without a primary source, we become subjective to how we believe certain historical figures behaved.  So to answer your question, I don&amp;#039;t think directors should be held to the same level of historians are because I feel that they actually try to do different things.  Historians give us facts about the past, and directors try to bring to life these facts while expressing their own artistry in their work. - David Flores&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==David Flores==&lt;br /&gt;
A couple people have touched on this already, and it&amp;#039;s a topic that I find interesting.  The &amp;quot;Why Movies Matter&amp;quot; and the &amp;quot;Hollywood&amp;#039;s America&amp;quot; articles both bring up the debate of whether the media creates society&amp;#039;s values, or do they merely convey them in their work?  I&amp;#039;ve always thought that the media used television and movies to help convey society&amp;#039;s values (for example, The Simpsons conveying the importance of family by taking the model of a 1950&amp;#039;s American family structure).  But after reading these articles, its seems apparent that movies, especially in the 20&amp;#039;s and 30&amp;#039;s, had the distinct role of creating society&amp;#039;s values.  This includes how women should be portrayed, the behavior of lesser-known ethnic groups, and so on.  Movies are a powerful tool in shaping what people believe (or think they should believe) in. - David Flores&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Katherine Stinson==&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with David that movies are a really powerful way of molding what people believe about others, but I wonder what people would think or be like if they didn&amp;#039;t have movies to influence them.  Would people still have thought that &amp;quot;...Africans were savages, and that their Afro-American decedents were lazy, happy-go-lucky, thieving, sexually promiscuous , and mentally inferior&amp;quot; (Alvin F. Poussaint quote on page 2 of Why Movies Matter), and would people&amp;#039;s buying habits be different as well? ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jason Ward==&lt;br /&gt;
Why are academicians so upset with directors if history is not accurately represented? How damaging is it for directors to make egregious errors in historical accuracy? Does a film&amp;#039;s message/ social commentary need to be grounded in &amp;quot;fact&amp;quot; or can the film&amp;#039;s message transcend the nuts and bolts of historical accuracy?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Bryan Mull==&lt;br /&gt;
While reading both the introduction to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and the &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; excerpt, I was struck by the notion of just how new a medium film study is when compared to more traditional forms of history. I had never thought about how the relatively new status of films likely contribute greatly in the medium&amp;#039;s lack of respect as a means for historical discovery. The example used in &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; of how Homer&amp;#039;s poetry once was the standard form of passing on historical information showed the way that the study of history has been subjective over time. The excerpt also pointed to how Herodotus and Thucydides in many instances made up their own interpretations of speeches in history. This is a practice not unlike the artistic license used by filmmakers for their dialogue. Clearly historic films are not as far off from the more traditional means of passing on historical knowledge. - Bryan Mull	&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Bryan Mull==&lt;br /&gt;
At the end of the excerpt &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; I was struck by the observation that audiences react well to the disclaimer placed before many movies: Based on a True Story. I know that I have on occasions been spurred to delve into a subject tackled by a film because of that disclaimer. The author then goes to point out that because movies based on history can spur such questioning, the film medium has a rightful place in the historical arena. I agree with this assessment, as films can touch people in ways that normal texts can never hope to achieve. The emotional responses elicited by films allow for a greater passion than some books and the emotions can spur greater inquiry to the past. Thus, I agree with Davis and believe that the film medium certainly has an important place in history. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mary Beth C.==&lt;br /&gt;
In the &amp;quot;Movies and American Society&amp;quot; article, I thought it was interesting to see how the themes of movies have changed through the years to reflect what was happening in society at that particular time, such as the patriotic movies of the 40&amp;#039;s and the sexual revolution of the 60&amp;#039;s and 70&amp;#039;s and yuppies of the 80&amp;#039;s. Even today you can see specific themes like this-such as the movies about the war in Iraq that have recently come out.  It will be interesting to go back and view some of the new films in about 10 years to see if our perspective has changed.  ~ Mary Beth C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Mary Beth C.==&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan about the &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; article.  I usually go to movies that say they are &amp;quot;based on a true story&amp;quot; and then end up going out of the theater and researching the subject myself-to get more information or clarify things. I think that statement can be a good tool to start people off in at least a small amount of research on the topic.  My niece (who is 16) hates anything &amp;quot;historical&amp;quot; but will always want to see movies based on an actual event so its an easy way to slip a little history in and then we usually end up discussing the movie and it always leads to us looking things up about the subject and she does not even realize she is learning history! ~ Mary Beth C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Katherine Stinson==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the introduction of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History &amp;#039;&amp;#039; was interesting, but I was surprised that the author was not all upset with Hollywood&amp;#039;s portrayal of history in movies.  I was expecting the book to be about how Hollywood is all wrong when it comes to history, but the author actually believes that &amp;quot;movies can communicate important ideas about the past&amp;quot; (page 1). ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Wesley Weeks==&lt;br /&gt;
The introduction to Movies and American Society argues that movies teach us how to think, specifically mentioning race. While movies and other things do in fact teach cultural values, those values must already existed within the culture to begin with.  If a movie taught a value that was not already known in America, it would not be understood and Americans would likely not view or purchase the movie.  Movies reproduce culture more than they create it. ~Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sarah Richardson==&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Jason&amp;#039;s question: The idea of the past is a powerful thing.  It&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;ours&amp;quot; in that it&amp;#039;s a part of our national identity and perceived heritage.  If a director plays around with facts in an attempt to better present a story or ideal (i.e., Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s Braveheart), he or she will be criticized.  But if Gibson had made Braveheart in a way that is more historically accurate it wouldn&amp;#039;t have been as effective a film.  Some view these factual misrepresentations as almost immoral.  Historical films are a legitimate art form that when executed well can be an extremely effective historical medium.  What&amp;#039;s important isn&amp;#039;t that these filmmakers bend the rules but rather how they do so.  Historical films offer us a view into our own culture through what aspects of the &amp;quot;true&amp;quot; story the film emphasizes or de-emphasizes.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Sarah Richardson==&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve been talking a lot about whether it&amp;#039;s appropriate for filmmakers to use artistic license when making historical films.  How much artistic license do you think is acceptable?  At what point does playing with facts completely cancel out a film&amp;#039;s historical legitimacy? - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Wesley Weeks==&lt;br /&gt;
The “Slaves on Screen” article focused on how the filmmakers created their depictions of history and how they can be a useful tool in understanding the past.  It was noticeably silent, though, on how the person who views the movie brings his or her own preconceptions and cultural values to the film.  For instance, when the movie Easy Rider was first released, many people thought the director was on the side of the people that kill the main characters at the end because they viewed that action as a good thing. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Whitney Holcomb==&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Wesley&amp;#039;s earlier comment on movies reproducing culture--  They are responsible for reinforcing and solidifying stereotypes or cultural views already in existence to some extent, and the more that do so, the more discourse created, the more effective they are. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Whitney Holcomb==&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Why Movies Matter&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, Ross tells us that &amp;quot;whether a particular cinematic discourse is true or false is less important than its ability to create a dominant sense of reality.&amp;quot;  This statement ties together points in the introduction and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Slaves on Screen&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, and means that it doesn&amp;#039;t really matter whether a spectator of a &amp;#039;based on a true story&amp;#039; film leaves wondering how much was accurate.  If the director can successfully get his vision across or emphasize a view or stereotype, mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Christine W.==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was really interesting how in the introduction to the book the author said movies were not historic because they &amp;quot;do not provide accurate, authentic, truthful, or objective treatments of history&amp;quot; (p. 4). While some of those things may be true about movies they are also true about history in general. Every event in the past that is retold by historians is biased in some way and how do we know what is the true, we can only guess based on evidence. Movies may be more colorful in their depiction of the past but to say they are not historical because they are not objective or truthful would mean that historians should discount any primary source written by a person because people are biased and liars. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Christine W.==&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised to read in the &amp;quot;Hollywood&amp;#039;s America&amp;quot; article that all the first major movie producers were immigrants. I am in two immigration classes and writin my senior thesis on the topic so things related to immigration stand out to me. I thought it was interesting because movies are something Americans take pride in and so to learn that the industry was founded by people we at one time did not consider to be Americans is amazing to me and I think it shows just how important immigration is to the heritage of this country. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Taylor Brann==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Hollywood’s America&amp;#039;&amp;#039; gave a nice summary of American film. One point I found really interesting was that immigrants began to dominate the movie business fairly early on. It’s ironic that newcomers to the country understood what the American public wanted to see more than American-born businessmen did. Also, HUAC accusing the Boy Scouts of being infiltrated by Communists is a little funny, but really scary too.  The fact that Hollywood pulled a movie because a character tried to act as a peacemaker between warring tribes, which “might be regarded as a message for peace and therefore helpful to present communist designs”(21), gives a very clear picture of the fear caused by the Red Scare. -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jonathan Bell==&lt;br /&gt;
What all these readings really get me thinking about is just how influential film can be on peoples understanding of history. Even if a film presents information that is not historically true it can still influence people to believe that it is true. Without background knowledge determining what is true in a movie is very impressionistic. One of my favorite films &amp;quot;Tombstone&amp;quot; I can tell must be very fictionalized or exaggerated, but that does not change the fact that I found it enjoyable and it is my only real background on the people and events that were portrayed and leaves a strong impression in my mind. - Jonathan Bell    &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Jonathan Bell==&lt;br /&gt;
The reading from &amp;quot;Hollywood&amp;#039;s America&amp;quot; particularly addresses the issue that even if the events portrayed in movies are not true they can still be educational by showing the beliefs and ideology of the people who made them and can give a glance at what sort of issues were important during the time the film was made. This is especially true when talking about movies that were produced many years in the past. Leni Riefenstahl&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Triumph of the Will&amp;quot; a propaganda film made for the Nazi party is used as a way to answer historical questions such as how the Nazi party was so successful and how they portrayed themselves. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ashley Scutari==&lt;br /&gt;
In the “Slave on Screen” readings I thought it was very interesting how they contrasted poetry and history.  It stated that poetry can be “fictionalized” and that the certain techniques of poetry such as rhythms, metaphors, and verse forms can limit historical information.  The reading also states that poetry techniques can increase the power for the features of past history.  –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Kelly Wuyscik==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that really stuck out to me in the &amp;quot;Slave on Screen&amp;quot; reading was one specific comment the author made in regards to what critics look for as opposed to audiences.  &amp;quot;Reviewers of historical films often overlook techniques in favor of a chronological summary of the plot or story line and the overall look of the moving picture in terms of costumes and props... The viewer responds as well to the film&amp;#039;s modes of narration, just as readers respond to the organization and rhetorical disposition of a history book.&amp;quot; (pg 8).  The way someone is presented with information while watching a movie needs to be different from that of information presented to someone in a history book or textbook.  A movie needs to maintain someone&amp;#039;s attention through narration and dialogue between actors whereas in a history text, the words have to do all the work themselves.  To me, they are two very different processes and this difference is often overlooked. - Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Ashley Scutari==&lt;br /&gt;
In “Hollywood’s America” it is amazing how commercialized amusement reshaped America’s “leisure activities” in the nineteenth century.  In the earlier nineteenth century society was split between the wealthy and lower class with commercialized activities. Then the entertainment business expanded more and allowed lower class to receive the same amusement.  Also the entertainment business promoted more towards young teenagers, which was a way to get away and enjoy more freedom. – Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==Shannon Hauser==&lt;br /&gt;
At this point it is obvious we cannot analyze films in the same way we analyze historical texts. In my opinion, as much as we should be skeptical about films we should not forget that historical texts (besides primary sources) are also interpretations of events and can either be well researched or not. The narrative format of films reaches us on a different level than straight up historical texts. Right now I am looking at this class through the lens that films dance in the middle between &amp;quot;just the facts ma&amp;#039;am&amp;quot; and fictional novel. As quoted in &amp;quot;Slave on Screen&amp;quot;, &amp;quot;Poetry deals with general truths, history with specific events&amp;quot;. Films find themselves in the cross-hairs of poetry and history and it is easy to take a shot at them.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 21:30, 27 August 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==James Drury==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Movies and American Society&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reiterates that there are profound influential messages sent and received in an almost unbinding relationship between the movie watcher and movie along with and through its producers.  Movie producers recreate the past, which invigorates and perpetuates history, but may also possibly dilute history, by creating or exaggerating certain aspects, also keeping in mind that movies are usually created through the moviemaker’s perspectives.  Audiences watching movies sort the information presented and use it to understand how it is apart from reality and how they can relate what is in the movie to reality, later applying it to understand topics such as gender, class, race, sexuality, and most importantly, history.&lt;br /&gt;
James&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
==JT Newcomb==&lt;br /&gt;
A professor in another class suggested this week that the number of things that everyone is expected to know is diminishing while the volume of things available for people to know is rapidly increasing. He made this observation concerning what you can learn in a history class. &amp;quot;Reel Hollywood&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; seem to suggest that movies have taken a role long held by written documents, acting as a means to educate (in a loose sense of the word) an audience in history. I contemplated connection between these two ideas while I read. Perhaps movies are now a necessary part of our education, because we do not have the time to study many events in greater detail.  What would a typical American know about the fight for Scottish independence without seeing &amp;quot;Braveheart&amp;quot;? What a person knows after seeing that movie may not be completely accurate, but they&amp;#039;ve at least received a crash course.  Besides, &amp;quot;Reel Hollywood&amp;quot; argues that historians can skew the details of the past as effectively as any director... Furthur, if movies do now act as part of our education, which came first, the chicken or the egg? Do we need movies because there is more to know and less detail we are required to, or is there more to know and less detail that we are required to because we are gaining our knowledge from movies? - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
JT&amp;#039;s comment got me thinking about the fact that college courses in themselves are &amp;quot;crash&amp;quot; courses in whatever we are studying. With the exception of our theses or a very well honed schedule, we receive bits and pieces of history each semester. Much like a film, if our interest is sparked, we must go outside of the original material to find out more. Perhaps this is just one way that society sees education now. -- Amanda Russell&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_1_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 1 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_1_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-08-27T02:56:57Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week&amp;#039;s film here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This class is awesome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have Lady Rebecca Rolfe watching over our every word...beware.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If we pick a movie that was originally a book, should we read the book, too?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; I admit that I was put in a sense of contemplation.  I had never really thought about poetry in the sense of fictional and nonfictional.  It made me wonder more about movies, about movies I don&amp;#039;t think are all that historically based, and just how much history from the time it was made is it the movie.  For example, the gender roles played by women and men in the movie, are the roles based on what society expects at the time or is the director taking his or her own twist on what he or she believes the gender roles should be.  Is the director taking a more radical or traditional approach to those roles.  -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the second paragraph of &amp;quot;Movies and American Society&amp;quot; it mentions that movies show us &amp;quot;how to dress, how to look, or what to buy.&amp;quot;  Movies also tend to say how a person&amp;#039;s body should be shaped, that women should wear makeup to be pretty, etc... Movies penetrate society on many levels of how we think about ourselves and other people, some times I wonder if its safe to watch them, but then I think of how much fun I have watching them and communicating with others about the movie which is also mentioned in &amp;quot;Movies and American Society.&amp;quot;  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had just a quick question about &amp;quot;Hollywood&amp;#039;s America....&amp;quot;  It mentions that some theaters were called nickelodeons at one point in time (page 10) because it cost a nickel to view the production.  I was curious if the children&amp;#039;s channel Nickelodeon was somehow a spinoff of those theaters, or just something completely unrelated.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yep, that&amp;#039;s where the name comes from! -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; said that movies are just starting to be a source of history. There are many older movies, like Gone With the Wind, that have been around for decades.  So what does starting to be a source really mean. Are they talking about that it is just starting to be credited as a valuable source? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What movies today would be considered to be the most accurate cultural artifacts of our time? Are they portraying what we want future generations to remember when they think of us? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe the reason so many historians are unwilling to really analyze and comment on &amp;quot;history-oriented&amp;quot; movies is because they are not fully comfortable with the changing technology.  As we become a more technology centered society historians and other individuals will have to look to new and different methods for unlocking history. I agree with the reading in Reel History, that &amp;quot;history-oriented&amp;quot; movies can be look at like any historical text, they are simply perspectives of an event or time. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; reading, though I felt it jumped around quite a bit. I was appalled by Zanuck&amp;#039;s comment on &amp;quot;Rothschild.&amp;quot; While it is just egregious to history buffs on its own, it also offends by implying (at least to me) that what actually happened in history is not interesting enough to make a movie about. There is a fine line between creative license and fiction, and perhaps Zanuck fancies himself more of a poet than a historian. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One problem with history-oriented movies is that it gives historians another level to analyze. This can be beneficial to some studies, but not if you were simply studying what actually happened (not the inevitable analyses). Kind of like the difference between reading the diary of Anne Frank and a 1980s analysis of the diary of Anne Frank. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting in &amp;quot;Why Movies Matter&amp;quot; that filmmaking today and in the 1910s sound familiar: anyone with a camera and some kind of budget can make a movie today, there are just infinitely more outlets and audiences available than there were then. Is this circular motion or was the period in between the one we will not see again? --Amanda Russell&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_1_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 1 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_1_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-08-27T02:24:52Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week&amp;#039;s film here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This class is awesome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have Lady Rebecca Rolfe watching over our every word...beware.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If we pick a movie that was originally a book, should we read the book, too?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; I admit that I was put in a sense of contemplation.  I had never really thought about poetry in the sense of fictional and nonfictional.  It made me wonder more about movies, about movies I don&amp;#039;t think are all that historically based, and just how much history from the time it was made is it the movie.  For example, the gender roles played by women and men in the movie, are the roles based on what society expects at the time or is the director taking his or her own twist on what he or she believes the gender roles should be.  Is the director taking a more radical or traditional approach to those roles.  -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the second paragraph of &amp;quot;Movies and American Society&amp;quot; it mentions that movies show us &amp;quot;how to dress, how to look, or what to buy.&amp;quot;  Movies also tend to say how a person&amp;#039;s body should be shaped, that women should wear makeup to be pretty, etc... Movies penetrate society on many levels of how we think about ourselves and other people, some times I wonder if its safe to watch them, but then I think of how much fun I have watching them and communicating with others about the movie which is also mentioned in &amp;quot;Movies and American Society.&amp;quot;  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had just a quick question about &amp;quot;Hollywood&amp;#039;s America....&amp;quot;  It mentions that some theaters were called nickelodeons at one point in time (page 10) because it cost a nickel to view the production.  I was curious if the children&amp;#039;s channel Nickelodeon was somehow a spinoff of those theaters, or just something completely unrelated.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yep, that&amp;#039;s where the name comes from! -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; said that movies are just starting to be a source of history. There are many older movies, like Gone With the Wind, that have been around for decades.  So what does starting to be a source really mean. Are they talking about that it is just starting to be credited as a valuable source? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What movies today would be considered to be the most accurate cultural artifacts of our time? Are they portraying what we want future generations to remember when they think of us? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe the reason so many historians are unwilling to really analyze and comment on &amp;quot;history-oriented&amp;quot; movies is because they are not fully comfortable with the changing technology.  As we become a more technology centered society historians and other individuals will have to look to new and different methods for unlocking history. I agree with the reading in Reel History, that &amp;quot;history-oriented&amp;quot; movies can be look at like any historical text, they are simply perspectives of an event or time. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; reading, though I felt it jumped around quite a bit. I was appalled by Zanuck&amp;#039;s comment on &amp;quot;Rothschild.&amp;quot; While it is just egregious to history buffs on its own, it also offends by implying (at least to me) that what actually happened in history is not interesting enough to make a movie about. There is a fine line between creative license and fiction, and perhaps Zanuck fancies himself more of a poet than a historian. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One problem with history-oriented movies is that it gives historians another level to analyze. This can be beneficial to some studies, but not if you were simply studying what actually happened (not the inevitable analyses). Kind of like the difference between reading the diary of Anne Frank and a 1980s analysis of the diary of Anne Frank. --Amanda Russell&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_1_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 1 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_1_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-08-27T02:21:48Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Agrussell: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week&amp;#039;s film here.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This class is awesome.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We have Lady Rebecca Rolfe watching over our every word...beware.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If we pick a movie that was originally a book, should we read the book, too?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After reading &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; I admit that I was put in a sense of contemplation.  I had never really thought about poetry in the sense of fictional and nonfictional.  It made me wonder more about movies, about movies I don&amp;#039;t think are all that historically based, and just how much history from the time it was made is it the movie.  For example, the gender roles played by women and men in the movie, are the roles based on what society expects at the time or is the director taking his or her own twist on what he or she believes the gender roles should be.  Is the director taking a more radical or traditional approach to those roles.  -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the second paragraph of &amp;quot;Movies and American Society&amp;quot; it mentions that movies show us &amp;quot;how to dress, how to look, or what to buy.&amp;quot;  Movies also tend to say how a person&amp;#039;s body should be shaped, that women should wear makeup to be pretty, etc... Movies penetrate society on many levels of how we think about ourselves and other people, some times I wonder if its safe to watch them, but then I think of how much fun I have watching them and communicating with others about the movie which is also mentioned in &amp;quot;Movies and American Society.&amp;quot;  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had just a quick question about &amp;quot;Hollywood&amp;#039;s America....&amp;quot;  It mentions that some theaters were called nickelodeons at one point in time (page 10) because it cost a nickel to view the production.  I was curious if the children&amp;#039;s channel Nickelodeon was somehow a spinoff of those theaters, or just something completely unrelated.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Yep, that&amp;#039;s where the name comes from! -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; said that movies are just starting to be a source of history. There are many older movies, like Gone With the Wind, that have been around for decades.  So what does starting to be a source really mean. Are they talking about that it is just starting to be credited as a valuable source? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What movies today would be considered to be the most accurate cultural artifacts of our time? Are they portraying what we want future generations to remember when they think of us? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe the reason so many historians are unwilling to really analyze and comment on &amp;quot;history-oriented&amp;quot; movies is because they are not fully comfortable with the changing technology.  As we become a more technology centered society historians and other individuals will have to look to new and different methods for unlocking history. I agree with the reading in Reel History, that &amp;quot;history-oriented&amp;quot; movies can be look at like any historical text, they are simply perspectives of an event or time. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the &amp;quot;Slaves on Screen&amp;quot; reading, though I felt it jumped around quite a bit. I was appalled by Zanuck&amp;#039;s comment on &amp;quot;Rothschild.&amp;quot; While it is just egregious to history buffs on its own, it also offends by implying (at least to me) that what actually happened in history is not interesting enough to make a movie about. There is a fine line between creative license and fiction, and perhaps Zanuck fancies himself more of a poet than a historian. -- Amanda Russell&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Agrussell</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed><br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />