Difference between revisions of "329--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
Maybe the reason so many historians are unwilling to really analyze and comment on "history-oriented" 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 "history-oriented" movies can be look at like any historical text, they are simply perspectives of an event or time. -- Kellye Sorber | Maybe the reason so many historians are unwilling to really analyze and comment on "history-oriented" 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 "history-oriented" movies can be look at like any historical text, they are simply perspectives of an event or time. -- Kellye Sorber | ||
| + | |||
| + | I liked the "Slaves on Screen" reading, though I felt it jumped around quite a bit. I was appalled by Zanuck's comment on "Rothschild." 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 | ||
