Difference between revisions of "329-2010--Week 15 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
B4ssm4st3r (Talk | contribs) (→Things the movie got wrong) |
Amankarios (Talk | contribs) (→Comments on the readings and the semester of US History in Film) |
||
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
This movie contains nearly all the generic elements Toplin identifies with good cinematic history (16). The clearly defined "Davids" Woodward and Bernstein actually fought several "Goliaths": their own editors, their reluctant sources, and the coverup itself. The raft of people actually involved were pared down to a few characters, and there was a highly partisan viewpoint. Screenwriter William Goldman left out only one element--there was no romance. However, there was a developing relationship. The movie started with two cock-sure professionals who were not collaborative by nature, and showed them gradually learning from one another and finally becoming a team. Their methods were very different, but in separate scenes we see how both methods were effective for different situations or in dealing with various people. This portrayal of mutual respect and tolerance is 100 times more mature and nuanced than most on-screen romances. --- Debbi S. | This movie contains nearly all the generic elements Toplin identifies with good cinematic history (16). The clearly defined "Davids" Woodward and Bernstein actually fought several "Goliaths": their own editors, their reluctant sources, and the coverup itself. The raft of people actually involved were pared down to a few characters, and there was a highly partisan viewpoint. Screenwriter William Goldman left out only one element--there was no romance. However, there was a developing relationship. The movie started with two cock-sure professionals who were not collaborative by nature, and showed them gradually learning from one another and finally becoming a team. Their methods were very different, but in separate scenes we see how both methods were effective for different situations or in dealing with various people. This portrayal of mutual respect and tolerance is 100 times more mature and nuanced than most on-screen romances. --- Debbi S. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | In the section titled "Cinematic history simplifies plots by featuring only a few representative characters" Toplin talks about how historically based cinematic films usually only include a few of the real historical characters. He says, "They [directors] introduce viewers to completely fictional characters whose backgrounds and personalities reflect the diversity of people one might encounter in a historical setting." (P. 37) I think a lot of the movies we have watched have demonstrated this very idea by Toplin. We learn about names of people in lecture on Tuesdays and then we watch the movie and realize there are characters that are not in the history books. But sometimes, these fictional characters play some of the more important roles in the movie. I definitely agree with Toplin that it is hard to keep audiences attention by showing "statistics, abstract analysis, or attention to a condition of groups." (p. 40) I think it is better to show some fictional characters in a historically based film, as long as the audience is given a larger sense of the background history of the movie. It can then be up to the audience to explore it further and learn for themselves. Cinema can be almost like the beginning stepping stone to further learning about history. -- Alex M. | ||
== Questions asked in class == | == Questions asked in class == | ||
Would the government have installed surveillence equipment in the apartments of Woodward and Bernstein? -afrisk | Would the government have installed surveillence equipment in the apartments of Woodward and Bernstein? -afrisk | ||
