Difference between revisions of "329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Introduction: Why Movies Matter) |
(→Slaves on Screen) |
||
| Line 59: | Line 59: | ||
I think Davis brought up an important point regarding the "newness" of film. Like Toplin, I believe Davis was trying to say that there is no way that a film is going to be better than a book and she emphasises this by pointing out the young age of film. Like she said, film is just beginning to find it's medium in history and I think it is going to become another tool for historians (or those who want to be historians) just like text books or newspapers are now. We just need to take those films for what they are...films. - Victoria Y. | I think Davis brought up an important point regarding the "newness" of film. Like Toplin, I believe Davis was trying to say that there is no way that a film is going to be better than a book and she emphasises this by pointing out the young age of film. Like she said, film is just beginning to find it's medium in history and I think it is going to become another tool for historians (or those who want to be historians) just like text books or newspapers are now. We just need to take those films for what they are...films. - Victoria Y. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I liked the point that the author brought up about the differences between the research in movies and the books that historians write. In movies you have so many people doing the research for their specific part. The costume designer looks up what people wore in the time period, while the set designer, actor, and script writer all have their own areas of research that they need to do. After all this the director does their thing and and the movie is made. You would think that with all these people doing research inaccuracies would be caught, but I suppose it's because they're all doing their research within their field of expertise. -Megan Mc. | ||
==Introduction: Why Movies Matter== | ==Introduction: Why Movies Matter== | ||
