Difference between revisions of "329-2010--Week 15 Questions/Comments"

From McClurken Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Things the movie got right)
(Comments on the readings and the semester of US History in Film)
Line 55: Line 55:
  
 
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. I think Glory is a good example of this. Most of the soldiers' characters in the movie were not real, but it shows the plight the real soldiers of the 54th Regiment even if it does have fictional characters. And sometimes, these fictional characters play some of the more important roles in the movie. 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.
 
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. I think Glory is a good example of this. Most of the soldiers' characters in the movie were not real, but it shows the plight the real soldiers of the 54th Regiment even if it does have fictional characters. And sometimes, these fictional characters play some of the more important roles in the movie. 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.
 +
 +
One element that was mentioned in Toplin's "Reel History" that was not included in "All the President's Men" was an unnecessary love affair. What a contrast from the sappiness of "Last of the Mohicans"! This exclusion was very much appreciated. --Anna Holman
  
 
== 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

Revision as of 03:31, 2 December 2010