Difference between revisions of "329--Week 7 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→b Inaccurate/issues:) |
(→5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline) |
||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
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 | 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 | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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 | ||
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 | 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 | ||
