Difference between revisions of "329--Week 15 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Comments on Reading in ''Reel History'') |
(→Comments on Reading in ''Reel History'') |
||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
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 (when we've discussed all semester how historical films should convey actual history to people). --Amanda Russell | 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 (when we've discussed all semester how historical films should convey actual history to people). --Amanda Russell | ||
| + | |||
| + | In this case of this movie, though applicable to many historical films, I don't think that criticism of creative license is overly important. For example, I don'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'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 | ||
