Difference between revisions of "329--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Jonathan Bell) |
|||
| Line 147: | Line 147: | ||
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 "Tombstone" 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 | 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 "Tombstone" 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 | ||
| − | Juliann Boyles | + | ==Juliann Boyles== |
| − | As Jonathan points out, film can be a very powerful medium, with the potential to reach a much larger audience than a historical journal containing the published work of scholars. Uninformed Americans, however, sometimes have a difficult time distinguishing fact from well written fiction, a tendency that sometimes leads to controversy. For this confusion, many criticize the creative minds behind these controversial works that depict a fictional story laced with historical events and characters. I, however, believe it is the job of the viewer to be critical. A film, in its completed form is ultimately the combined interpretations of everyone working on the project. A film goer, like any good reader should analyze and consider the work before them. Even if the information presented is in written form, who is to say all the information is accurate and unbiased? Even when historians write, aren't they too trying to make a point, make an argument, stress their own interpretation of history? How is that any different from directors of film attempting to display their own interpretation of the past? If a viewer seeks the truth about a specific topic, research should not end with the credits of a movie, nor should it end with the last page of a text book. | + | As Jonathan points out, film can be a very powerful medium, with the potential to reach a much larger audience than a historical journal containing the published work of scholars. Uninformed Americans, however, sometimes have a difficult time distinguishing fact from well written fiction, a tendency that sometimes leads to controversy. For this confusion, many criticize the creative minds behind these controversial works that depict a fictional story laced with historical events and characters. I, however, believe it is the job of the viewer to be critical. A film, in its completed form is ultimately the combined interpretations of everyone working on the project. A film goer, like any good reader should analyze and consider the work before them. Even if the information presented is in written form, who is to say all the information is accurate and unbiased? Even when historians write, aren't they too trying to make a point, make an argument, stress their own interpretation of history? How is that any different from directors of film attempting to display their own interpretation of the past? If a viewer seeks the truth about a specific topic, research should not end with the credits of a movie, nor should it end with the last page of a text book. |
==James Drury== | ==James Drury== | ||
