Difference between revisions of "329--Week 15 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Comments on Reading in ''Reel History'') |
|||
| Line 93: | Line 93: | ||
I have to say, I liked how Toplin commented, in "Reel History," 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'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 | I have to say, I liked how Toplin commented, in "Reel History," 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'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 | ||
| + | |||
| + | Toplin'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'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 | ||
