Difference between revisions of "329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's reading here. | Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's reading here. | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
==Reel History, Introduction== | ==Reel History, Introduction== | ||
| Line 9: | Line 7: | ||
I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, " Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind." (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W. | I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, " Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind." (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W. | ||
| − | I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn | + | I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn |
| + | |||
| + | I would agree with the claims made so far in this book, but their is one thing that I do not understand. '''Do people really think that they are gonna get a history lesson from a movie?''' I certainly hope not. Movies can be used as a tool to get people interested in a historical topic. For instance, when I first saw the trailer for the movie "300" I automatically wanted to know more about the people involved and the daily lives that they lead, but I didn't wait for the movie to come out to learn that information. I went on the research and destroy path to find out all that I could about these men. Then, while watching the movie, I was still able to enjoy it even though I knew what events where real and which had been manifested by the director. The point here is that movies should held to a certain standard of portraying what really happened, especially movies about history, but it is also the job of the view to understand that movies, good movies moreover, are aimed at entertaining the audience not teaching them. If you want to learn while watching a movie, take the remote and turn the dial to the History channel for one of their famous in-depth, expert filled programs to get your fix of "true" facts and events. -Michael E. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I found it interesting that both ''Reel History'' and "Slaves on Screen" commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be '''should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?'''- Rachael | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | I thought the author made a really good point about historians getting annoyed with films for not presenting the full or true story by pointing out that teachers and scholars are also very selective with how they present information. I think that historical films are important for exactly the same reasons that the author pointed out - they may not always tell the entire truth, but they make the viewer ask questions and want to learn more. This has happened to me dozens of times, and I think it is a valid point. If a historical film provokes a viewer into learning more, I think it can be called a successful representation of whatever it attempted to interpret. I also agree with Rachael's question about the rules that are applied to filmmakers but not historians. "Slaves on Screen" pointed out that '''historians should have an obligation to point out whether or not something is their own speculation: "If [historians] are interpreting beyond what their evidence strictly offers, they should say so"''' (11). I feel as if many historians would be more than willing to point out inaccuracies in films, but would be far less willing to admit that their opinions may be similarly based on speculation. - Celia | ||
| + | |||
| + | I enjoyed Toplin's introduction to his ideas in "Reel History", especially '''his suggestion that films do have significant historical value, and not only as works of fiction'''. I thought it was very interesting at the end of the chapter that he wrote that "cinematic history is too important to shove aside as simply fiction, entertainment, symbolism, or commentary about current events." I agree with Toplin that films should be examined more closely in terms of historical accuracy and new interpretations. They can raise valid questions about events and decisions that were made in the past. -Meagan P. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Toplin argues for "a balanced approach in assessing cinema's treatments of the past" (2), and I am looking forward to understanding the differing viewpoints of historians, film critics, screenwriters and directors. Talking about film in general is important because watching movies is such a visceral experience, and discussing reel history is even more important because of the sheer numbers of people who see historical films and draw conclusions from them. Toplin says, "Cinematic history excites inordinate public interest and critical attention," and I think that's healthy and exciting. - Debbi S. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | I also greatly enjoyed this introduction. The point I found most interesting is when '''Toplin states that historians can use an imagined event to make a point when writing a text, as long as they admit to doing so (page 7). Why are filmmakers not held to this same standard? Historians seem to attack filmmakers for doing the same.''' -Anna Holman | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with Toplin that movies cannot replace printed history because the time constraints limit the amount of background information and context of a story. However, movies do provide a new look into history to many who do not enjoy reading historical literature. '''''It is unfortunate, but a majority of people do not enjoy reading history, attending lectures, etc.''''' However, they do enjoy watching movies and television shows that depict historical events and people. Movies help historians force people to become curious about history after watching the movies. Movies provide a different look at historical events that aid in studying printed history. For example, if a class is studying the dropping of the atomic bombs, of course they would understand how destructive and powerful the bombs were and read about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualties. However, if the same class watched a movie portraying the dropping of the bombs and images of the destruction, the students would have a much more powerful understanding of the event because they can actually see what happened instead of using pure imagination.-Samantha W. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I felt myself nodding in agreement quite frequently while reading this introduction. Two major points stood out for me. First was the idea that film and literature could complement each other, as each is good for a different aspect of conveying history. Reading academic literature or attending a formal lecture is good for the factual side of history: the dates, the names, the places. Watching a movie, however, is good for the abstract side of history: the emotions, the questions, the moral quandaries. I personally think it takes a bit of both the factual and the abstract to get the most complete story. Second was the double standard for historical fiction. As Anna mentioned, as long as historical fiction is in print, people do not seem to complain, but the second that it becomes a movie, everyone is analyzing its accuracy. That seems unfair. - Cilla | ||
| + | |||
| + | I too agreed with Toplin and his statements about the analysis of cinematic history. One thought that struck me as I read it was that '''an attentive audience can learn not only about the ideals of past history from what is there, but also learn about the ideals of modern history from what is not there.''' -Isaac Whalen | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think the most interesting contradiction in this piece is between prose and poetry as well as Historical prose and a Historical movie. Regarding these four things, prose is analogous to Historical prose and poetry is analogous to a Historical movie. These distinctions are incredibly interesting in that prose and Historical prose are very basic and often used to simply tell the facts, whereas with a poem or a movie you have more freedom. There may still be facts involved, but they are just presented differently and both poetry and movies have more freedom to fictionalize things. Although there are contrasts, poetry depends on prose, just like a Historical movie depends on Historical facts. -afrisk | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with LeAnn that the story about the man on the plane was interesting. While I am not completely against historical movies, because they are rather good, I agree that you do have to remember it is a piece of historical fiction. While it might be based off of events or people that actually existed the actual context of the movie should be taken with a grain of salt. However, as others have pointed out, '''the goal of a movie is usually to convey certain ideas and emotions, not describing an an event.''' - Jenn A. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think the thing that struck me the most regarding this reading was in the 4 principle attributes that he considers. The 4 principles that he describes are all good points to define, but I found it interesting that he does not consider whether or not the historical event was portrayed as it factually happened. Rather, he looks at the "Interpretation of an important historical situation". You would think a historian would consider this an important aspect of the film, but it does not seem to be at the top of Toplins concerns. - Victoria Y. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I, too, thought it was interesting in the introduction to this book how Toplin commented about how we can actually learn historical information from the movies. I guess I should have known from the title: ''In defense of Hollywood...'' I think it is definitely true that most people would assume that historians would most definitely attack movies that claim to portray past events and historical events because they can be exaggerated but as I think we will gather from this book, there is a lot we can learn and take away from these "history-oriented movies". -Amy V. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Toplin's introduction to his book critiques the notion of academics hating Hollywood productions. The intro provides a decent thumbnail sketch of the rest of his work, yet he lays out a few good nuggets of thought that will (or at least should)be the driving force behind his work, seeing cinematic history as a study worth pursuing (Toplin, 4). A simple sketch of his thoughts would include the idea of '''moving past a stigma against film as a non-academic view of history and take it as another medium through which to make assessments of history.''' The author notes that academics turn away from the film as a medium to communicate, in a very powerful way, historical events and characters. '''What does one get from the title and introduction of Toplin's book?''' A call for academics to step outside of the ivory tower and look at how non-academics are viewing history, a step past footnotes and long bibliographies. They need to perhaps even consider the implications of how a movie is crafting and framing a historical narrative rather than not view the product at all because it was published by the University Press. -Joe | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Slaves on Screen== | ||
| + | |||
| + | The idea that stuck out most in this reading was the concept of historians being able to maintain an "open mind" about the depiction of what history is. They should be able to look at history without previous "notions" about what they want history to be lurking in the fore front (10). "Keeping one's mind Open," allows historians the ability to take a look at history from a different angle (10). Without this ability they might just miss out on all the unexpected happenings that may have occurred throughout history. The weird and the wonderful are what keep history from manifesting into mirror images of the present in one's own personal rear view. - Michael E. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The beginning pages of "Slaves on Screen" seemed to ask the questions: can you accurately portray historical events with the constraints associated with film making? I would ago a step further and ask, '''can you reach an audience in an accessible way, one in which interests and engages them without adding a personal narrative to a historical film?''' Though I am a huge fan of the documentary, I would rather find a way to relate to my feature film experience. What I mean is essentially this, historical feature film directors, screen writers and actors take a bit of liberty with the feelings, dialog and character development, among other things. If they did not do this, how would we relate to the story. This ties in with the "Why Movies Matter" article in the statement “What audiences see is partly reflective of what they are and what they are is influenced by what they see” (1). - Caryn L. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I also liked the Sergie Einstein’s concept of making the battleship itself a character in the movie. That makes sense in a way because the ensemble of a cast may have to interact and orient themselves with and around this battleship, making it in turn an intricate part of the cast. - Caryn L. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Davis says that historical films "speculate" about the past, and calls the films "thought experiments." This is an interesting approach to studying cinematic history, because speculation and experimentation require the very things that movies do really well. Movies have raided the toolboxes of all other visual and aural media---for instance, like medieval iconography movies convey complex ideas through simple imagery. Davis calls these tools "modes of narration" and they make movies incredibly powerful. '''My question about the power of historical film is, can one be called "honest" when certain details are manipulated for the sake of a tighter, more engaging storyline? What if the film's omissions or imagined additions capture the spirit of the historical event or person? Can such changes (some would say, falsehoods) actually help communicate truth?''' - Debbi S. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Like Debbi, I found the discussion of the '''"modes of narration" in films interesting because music, lighting, sounds, costumes, etc., are indeed all of the things that make viewing historical films so much different from reading historical fiction or a scholarly historical work.''' Through manipulating all of the modes of narration, films can convey something about the spirit or mood of a time and place in vastly different ways than printed works, even if every featured character and event is fictional. For me, it is often that overall texture of the historical era portrayed that resonates most strongly after the film ends. -Mary Ann | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think the author raises an interesting point about how long film as a medium has had to develop, as opposed to historical research. As film has only really come into being in the last hundred years, it’s methods of portraying history have not been perfected. We, however, have '''grown up with easy access to films and tend to forget that compared to historical research, it has not had the time to mature in their representations of historical events.''' - Melissa E. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I found this article quite interesting because it brought up a couple ideas in relation to historical research and film. The one that struck me the most was when Davis brought up a crucial difference between creating a historical film vs writing historical fiction. '''With a film many people are involved in different areas of the research process (designers, directors, musicians and so on...)'''. However, when someone writes a book it is usually the author and maybe the editor involved. Because of these differences many different interpretations appear in the creation of a film, making it not so "accurate." - Jenn A. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Like Mary Ann and Debbi, the discussion of modes of narration really resonated with me. For instance, the scene at the very end of To Kill a Mockingbird, when Boo Radley steps out from the shadows, would not have worked nearly as well if the movie had been made in color rather than black and white (in my opinion, of course). The author has such a good point: those decisions can really make or break a film. - Cilla | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The author described two contrasting ways of depicting history in film at the end of the article. First, there was the film by Darryl Zanuck, that depicted the characters in the film as complete opposites of what they were in history. Then, there was the other producer, Francesco Rosi, who claimed that he did not need to "fabricate" history, only "interpret" it. '''While Hollywood films may be more entertaining with less historical facts, I think it's only right to make those films as accurate as possible.''' If a historically based film has little historical accuracy to it, what is the point of creating the movie? Even if only for entertainment purposes, the event the movie is portraying has lost all meaning. --- Alex M. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I was interested in the correlation between history and poetry as a means to tell a story. But, I thought it was intriguing that according to Aristotle, poets must make the story completely "unified" (3) whereas historians are required to tell it all in that time period, regardless of whether or not it fits. The same can be said for movies. Directors are less focused on telling the whole story because oftentimes, that causes it to lose its entertainment value. So instead, the take the poetic approach to the film. But meanwhile, the true history becomes muddled or sometimes even lost in the process. - Kelly R. | ||
| + | |||
| + | '''"As long as we bear in mind the differences between film and professional prose, we can take film seriously as a source of valuable and even innovative historical vision."''' (Davis, 15) This sentence we one of the final thoughts from Natalie Zemon Davis on how one can view cinematic history. Her work can serve as a guide to how to evaluate cinematic history (Toplin's term). We find that the difference between historical analysis and the historical film are not unlike the divide between Homer's poetics and the Aristotelian concept of history. She goes further to accurately and briefly define what historians should do during research. She lays out the criterion for good history with the question of how much is truly applicable to the film. Can one honestly expect the director of a film to sit with the audience and explain the sources for his ideas, frankly no. However, Davis's point is not to rag on films, rather she is trying to shift the general opinion to accepting films for what they are, a not as rigorous method to understand a particular person or event in history. She also notes that there are overlaps in methodology. Although one will readily critique the film for being limited in scope, yet every piece of historical writing must have some sort of narrowed scope and somewhat arbitrary cut off times. The film is under even tighter constrains with only a limited amount of time to explain a story. Long story short, I give Davis props for giving the filmmakers some credit in their work.--Joe | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Introduction: Why Movies Matter== | ||
| + | |||
| + | In this reading, the ways movies communicate are compared to the written word, namely newspapers. Newspapers, for a long time, had been the source of knowledge about current events and other happenings. T'''he claim is made that, "we read the newspaper only in parts, the movie picture we see complete" (4).''' Meaning, any information that people wanted the masses to know could be better received in the motion picture form than in a newspaper. This may have been for many reasons. For one, movies do not require much knowledge to watch them and get the gist of what is going on. For this reason, areas such as politics where made available to people that may not have understood it just by reading the newspaper. Movies allowed politicians to break through previous class, race, and gender barriers and to reach them with their agenda in a way that was simple enough for everyone to understand and in result take part in. -Michael E | ||
| + | |||
| + | I found the quote at the top of page 8 from Hoover's agents as striking and a comparison to all of the other readings when the agent describes '''the movie industry "as one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, influence upon the minds and cultures, not only of the people of the United States, but the entire world."''' Movies then and today have a significant impact on how the general public views any action/reaction to a plot line and as LeAnn wrote earlier you have to be careful with what is shown. At the time when Hoover's agents were watching the film industry they had to be wary of all propaganda shown at the cinema, because people would be pulled one way or another even if it was based off of wrong information. The same goes for historical films if the film shows a set that the director found appealing but is not accurate an audience will walk away with an interpretation based off of incorrect facts. -Megan W. | ||
| + | |||
| + | To me, the most interesting part of the article was the differentiation between ideology, which depicts the worldview of one film in particular, and discourse, which covers "a large group of films that express a similar worldview" (9). I thought that this was an extremely important distinction, as films with similar ideologies can be from very different genres; this varies the way that audiences react to films. -Meagan P. | ||
| + | |||
| + | What I found most interesting about this article was the quote '''"What audiences see is partly a reflection of what they are".''' This could be interpreted in several different ways; are movies influencing people in a way that makes the audience into ideal, blank-slate viewers? Does Hollywood have an agenda to mold America into a nation of mindless robots, who believe all of the stereotypes and ideas that are suggested on the silver screen? Or does this quote propose that audiences merely see a reflection of their being in movie characters? Do the viewers question the plot, the dialogue, the message? Do they synthesize and apply the movie to their life, thereby injecting a spark of their personality into the movie itself? Both of these interpretations bring together a central theme that ran through all of our readings for this week. '''Are audiences blank slates or questioners?''' -Anna Holman | ||
| + | |||
| + | I really enjoyed this article because it did not tip toe around the fact that movies intend tell us what to think, how to dress, how to act, etc. Movies teach us how to think about class, race and gender which is why Goebbels propaganda machine was so effective and movies like the Birth of a Nation was so striking. To go further than that, today's movies literally use advertising or product placement to get us to buy things that we probably do not need. -Caryn L. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Ross emphasizes the power movies have to shape society by shaping individual viewpoints. I think he's right on target, and proves it in the anecdotes about Hoover, and the Disney president's claim that movies influenced the Chinese uprising. The debate over whether movie violence begats real violence is moot if you accept this core argument about the authority movies wield over political, social and religious thought and behavior. Anna Holman, above, asked some great questions about whether spectators are passive receptacles, blank slates waiting for movies to inscribe values and opinions. I don't think we are blank slates, because we have lives outside of movies that also create our unique selves. But if the mind is a computer, I do think movies are writing a big chunk of our operating system. - Debbi S. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | I thought an interesting quote was '''“Movies matter the most about the things we know the least.” Do other people agree with this?''' I definitely agree. For example, if people are not in a diverse community, then all they know about people different from them is what they see on the screen. Some people put too much trust in Hollywood and they believe that a lot of things are true on screen. -- Justine R. | ||
| + | |||
| + | New comment -- | ||
| + | |||
| + | I absolutely agree with Justine. Some of the most popular movies of the past decades delve into subjects that are utterly foreign to an audience. Whether it's a completely different world, such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, or a mind-bending concept like The Matrix or Inception, '''people crave original, fresh stories - and to be original these days, you most likely have to come up with something that has never been seen or done before.''' I think this also applies to the escapist notion of films - that you watch a movie to escape your daily issues. You want to put yourself in another world of which you know nothing - where there aren't any cell phones or annoying fire drills or textbooks. H'''istorical films strike an escapist chord usually because they tell of a so-called "simpler" time, or at least a more slowly-paced time.''' We don't know what it would be like to live in these worlds, and I think that is why films that depict those worlds tend to be popular. - Celia | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | One of the interesting parts about this article is '''the discussion of the early film industry. It was a small-scale and decentralized place and so the possibility for almost anyone to make a film was a reality.''' The promise of the early film industry was that film would be a way of sending out information and act as a revolutionizing force because it leveled the playing field ('''see Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1936) for a contemporary view on film'''). By the 1940s this idea is taken over by commercial ventures and we end up with large-scale and centralized film production that we have today. While films very much shape and reflect our culture I think it is interesting to point out this shift in the film industry itself. What does that say about American culture? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:17, 25 August 2010 (MDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | I found the most interesting quote of this article to be this: '''"whether a particular cinematic discourse is true or false is less important than its ability to create a dominant sense of reality"''' (10). In other words, reality is far less important than what people believe to be the truth. I think this is very true of everyday life, especially when taken in conjunction with Justine's discussion above about movies as a source of information on subjects to which some people are otherwise not exposed. -Cilla | ||
| + | |||
| + | One of the things that has always intrigued me the most about movies is '''how different dynamics of people react to a movie'''. Everybody reacts differently depending on the color of their skin, their background social status, where they live and many more. The section on how people react differently to each movie was incredibly interesting and it demonstrated just how drastically people can be affected by what they are seeing on screen. A very interesting question it poses is, “Did anyone pay attention?” I think this is not simply a yes or no answer because some people had to pay more attention than others. For example, FBI director Hoover payed extra attention to movies with a certain theme whereas ordinary citizens would simply analyze say how entertaining it was to watch. In my mind, the dynamic between the movie and moviegoer is one of the most interesting things about movies. -afrisk | ||
| + | |||
| + | The way in which movies influence the publics perception of events is heavily highlighted in the “Why Movies Matter.” In particular, the focus on the control of the film industry, whether through governmental restrictions or interest groups, revealed the extent to which film can effect a society. Although the consensus today is that filmgoers are not simply a “blank slate,” it is clear that movies have a certain power over the way people learn about the society they live in. '''The role of censorship in filmmaking, therefore, plays a major role in shaping the attitudes and beliefs that pervade in American society.''' To what degree censorship can influence the society becomes the central question. If the average person learns social norms from the films they watch, yet their personal biases and beliefs also play a role, how do you determine the power of a film? - Melissa E. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with Caryn. This article acknowledges the influence (sometimes negative or incorrect) that the film industry has on a mass population, but it also acknowledges the benefits of that influence. It seems to me that Ross is stating that the film industry isn't necessarily good for historians, but it is a good starting base for people who may not have a whole lot of background information. - Victoria Y. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I thought it was very interesting when this article started mentioning the types of films that were popular in the past ("renewed prosperity in the 1920s led... to films about promises and consumption" along with rich boy/girl falls in love with poor boy/girl, while in the 1930s there were many about sexual liaisons crossing social and racial lines.) It got me to thinking about when the 1940s and WWII come around, they turn into propaganda films trying to stressing unity and patriotism. There were so many of those films John Wayne and Claudette Colbert appeared in several of them. The producers churned out a great number of them during the war period (check out this wikipedia page of WWII Films made during the war [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_films] to see a list). While today, I can only think of two films, off the top of my head, that deal with conflicts currently going on, Jar Head and Hurt Locker. (This might not have anything to do with the discussion but '''the differences between the two time periods and the films being made struck me as huge and showed how the movie business has changed immensely'''.) -Megan Mc. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I found this article interesting for many reasons. On page 2-3, the article discusses how movies affected the public. Movie producers used films to reach out to people, to inform them of what was going on in the world, and aimed to inform the public and create a public opinion. '''While I am sure sometimes the film makers opinion could have been askew, they aimed to create more awareness about various things in American society. When compared to movies presently, I believe that movies today are not aimed at that particular goal. Movies nowadays are more for entertainment purposes rather than informational. I wonder if it is possible to get back to that, where movies were entertaining yet you left the movies feeling as though you were enlightened, if just a little, by what you watched?''' The article also stated that the movie industry was not always centered around money and fame. I am curious to know what happened and what caused the change in the ideology of Hollywood? --- Alex M. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Ross describes how for the first several decades of film, the medium was open to a fairly large percentage of the population. Over time movie production came under the control of several large corporations. This stunted the flow of new and innovative ideas to the big screen. The internet, through such sites as facebook, twitter, youtube and blogs, has allowed the average American to again express their views, this time to millions of voracious internet users. - Michael G. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Just as a sidebar, '''I actually did not know nickelodeon was an actually term outside of a silly set of shows I watch as a child (just saying).''' Meagan P. towards the top of this article points out the distinction Ross makes at the very end of his his introduction concerning the difference between ideology and discourse. Although this is only one smaller piece to Ross's work, I can't help but be a little thankful that tucked away in his introduction is a point of view on how film can be studied. While the previous readings focus on film's ability to demonstrate good -or painfully awful- history. Yet what Ross introduces is a record for the effects of film throughout American history as a trend setter. I would hazard to say that Ross in a discussion of film would focus on film as a primary source which indicates how people at that specific point of time thought about a certain happening. '''In essence what Ross lays out through talking about ideology and discourse is the sort of questions one would ask himself while performing a wide spread review on a whole range of films. Why are movies important? Mind control. What do you do about it? Dissect the film beyond "I like it" or "I hate it" lines of thought.'''--Joe | ||
| + | |||
| + | Before reading this excerpt, I never realized how influential movies really were in shaping the minds and thoughts of Americans and now I can most certainly agree. When thinking of the big social changes that have occurred throughout America's history, I have always attributed them to certain individuals. While these individuals may have started social change, I would have to say that filmmakers played a major role in the continuation of that change by having the ability to reach a huge diverse audience and address present social issues. Humans are visual creatures and we are influenced most by how others think and do. --Erin L. | ||
| + | |||
| + | ==Hollywood's America== | ||
| + | |||
| + | As is seen in "Why Movies Matter," there was an increase in mass communication in America which was undoubtedly strengthened by the rise of the motion picture. '''Early tabloids like "New York World" and the "New York Journal" employed techniques that were picked up by movies, mainly simplification of ideas.''' In order to make it easier for people on the go to get their news fix these early tabloids used cartoons and short articles about local news that consisted of crime and scandal to keep their patrons interested (4). These publishing also used large pictures and ads that took up the majority of space. They also used large, racy headlines to grab the readers attention. These headlines often consisted of simple words that could have been easily understood by those that where not fluent in English (4). As we transition to the tabloids and movies of today the same tactics are employed and this has become a cause for concern. Michael Medved describes the antics of today's movies as going so far as to manipulate the minds of the masses by "glamorizing violence" and by "mocking authority." Whether anyone knows it or not, these tactics can be seen in the very same early tabloids that brought local news of "violence" and "scandal" to the everyday person on their way to work. -Michael E. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This article brought up something that I think is important when discussing movies, and that is "how influential are movies?" So I guess I just want to put it to the group and see what your opinions are. | ||
| + | My opinion is that movies certainly can influence people to a certain point but i do not think that it is reasonable to blame violent films for various acts of violence that take place.- Rachael | ||
| + | |||
| + | I found it very interesting in this article that from the early years of film, it seems that the attitude of the masses affected the subjects of films, rather than the films radically changing the views of those who were watching them. While it is clear that many films, especially silent ones, tackled sensitive subjects such as female sexuality and politics, many films later became more conservative when the audience began to change to families. But then, how do we explain films from the most recent decades, which can be both highly provocative and marketed to young people? - Meagan P. | ||
| + | |||
| + | At the end of this article, author and tv-host Michael Medved calls Hollywood a “poison factory” and complains that modern motion pictures are destroying the morality of society. It is true that many movies, especially those in the PG-13 grade or above, send the message to audiences that Americans are consumed by money, sex, and violence. Others like Medved worry that these images negatively affect the young members of the audiences. Is it possible for Hollywood to create blockbusters without glorifying characteristics that are deemed “immoral”? | ||
| + | '''In the past few years, it would seem that Hollywood is remaking older movies instead of creating new ones. Is is possible as well, that in an attempt to keep the movie atmosphere less immoral, the originality of movies is declining?''' | ||
| + | -Samantha W. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Although the film industry has improved greatly since it first began, there is still one thing that has not changed much through American history in the film industry. '''Samuel Goldwyn said it best by commenting, "The public is never wrong...The public pays money. It wants to be entertained. That's all I know."''' (11) This philosophy still holds true today. The people with the money have the control. And as new technology is used in creating better quality films, the directors are continuously pushing the envelop on how to improve the movie-watching experience for their audience. This is difficult because movie-makers are dealing with a wide range of people, different classes, different languages, gender and censorship committees. All these categories have to be considered during the film making progress. According to Mintz and Roberts, this has been quite a dilemna since the making of the first moving pictures. Maybe it is the one thing that will stay a constant through our future. -- Dmckenn2 | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | Samantha W. asked if originality is declining in Hollywood, and I think part of the answer is, Hollywood has never been terribly original. Simple formulas keep being repeated, and old movies are dusted off and given the modern treatment. This history of Hollywood's America shows this, and it also shows something more important. I think the article demonstrates one way we as human beings assimilate strange and new things. We can't absorb all the complexities of a different culture or belief system all at once; we have to start with the basics, which are often crude or stereotypical. As we learn more, we gradually develop a more balanced perspective. The movies do the same thing. For example, the authors trace how movie portrayals of Vietnam vets evolved over time. First start with the simple, then move to the complex. The originality can be found anywhere in that arc. - Debbi S. | ||
| + | |||
| + | What I found interesting in these readings is that the creation of film and movies as a whole is parallel with the growth and expansion of America itself. Mintz and Roberts state that the first successful moving pictures came out of the lives of booming railroad tycoons. Then came the inventors who improved the craft, and finally the businessmen who made it and industry (8-11). The success of the West, itself is almost tied up with films. Even nowadays other countries associate the movie making industry with America. The question that I wonder is not just "how influential are movies?" in general but '''"how influential are movies to the history of America?" If we take away the American film industry, do we loose parts of our own history?''' -Isaac Whalen | ||
| + | |||
| + | In response to the question, "How influential are movies?" I would say that they are very influential at a young age. Children sometimes do not understand that what is on screen is not real. They also imitate characters in movies. There is a reason that movie ratings exist. If a child watches a very violent movie at a young age, he or she will remember that for a long time. On a different subject, I always thought of movies as an escape from reality. Shirley Temple movies were very popular because they were happy and it made people escape from the reality of the Great Depression. I thought one quote from this article was different from what I have heard before, "The movies have often made me dissatisfied with my neighborhood because when I see a movie, the beautiful castle, palace,...and beautiful house, I wish my home was something like these." I know that many people are jealous of life in movies, but I never heard someone say that it changes their impression of where they live. I never heard of someone who has become sad after watching a movie with wealthy characters living a wealthy life. -- Justine R. | ||
| + | |||
| + | A lot of the readings deal with how modern Americans interpret history as it is presented in films, but '''this article mentions that films can shape how contemporaries see their own times as well. As the author points out, many in 1955 saw "Blackboard Jungle" and "Rebel Without a Cause" as proof that adults could expect nothing but juvenile delinquency from their teenagers and so went about railing against the terrible influences of the culture of the day and the downfall of society.''' Yet, as we all know, in reality, most young people in the 1950s behaved in ways that hardly resembled those depicted in the movies. The explosive reaction to those films makes Isaac's point a very relevant one- how much do movies shape our history as well as record it? -Mary Ann | ||
| + | |||
| + | I find it almost amusing that censorship of movies is nearly as old as movies themselves. Something about new forms of mass media seems to scare people. It isn't even just some guy giving a mild warning against a particular film or two, but groups of individuals devoting their time to "protecting the innocent public" from such vile corruption, and it has been going on for as long as movies have been around. I wonder what it is that makes films so powerful that they can frighten people so easily. - Cilla | ||
| + | |||
| + | I really enjoyed reading this section about the evolution of Hollywood and motion pictures. It's interesting to read about society's reactions to them during the different decades of the twentieth century when they first appeared. The movie industry was always affected by some event that was happening in the world or the United States including the depression, World War II, communism, and Vietnam war. At the time of World War II, President Roosevelt wanted the movies to try to help win the war and to ban the codes that were being put on the movies to explain and describe the war and all that was involved with it. So even if some think historical films do not always depict events in the most realistic or accurate ways, they always have a role to play in American Society -Amy V. | ||
| + | |||
| + | It was very interesting to see the progression of the film industry at it's earliest stages until what we know of today. I think understanding the beginning of it can help understand why and how it is now. The connections are more evident when you think of how newspapers and radios were the main form of mass communication 100 years ago. I guess when you think of the growth of the United States, films begin to make a whole lot of sense! - Victoria Y. | ||
| + | |||
| + | To answer Rachel's question, "How influential are movies?," I think the answer is very influential. However, I don't think society sees it at quite the same level that in did in the past. The article talked about how in 1907 and 1908 the mayor of NYC was peer pressured in to shutting down nickelodeons and movie theaters and a presidential committee even found movies to support "illicit lovemaking" (13). I certainly don't see anything like that happening today. However, I do believe that movies still have power even today. As Dr. McClurken mentioned on Tuesday, most Americans get their history (and I think other perceptions of the way life is) from film. - Kelly R. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Perhaps I just read this article far too late, but it did not hold my attention as well as the above articles. All that said i at least understand what Mintz and Roberts are driving at in terms of movies being a type of window into the social and cultural aspects of America. If we go by the concept that Hollywood wants to produce pieces that will be readily consumed by the populace, it is fair to say that films can reflect the climate or a culture at any given point of time. Films, like literature, are not created in a vacuum but rather are in response to an external stimulus. WWII it's time to make propaganda, in the 60's and mid 70's Hollywood produces fluff films for purely entertainment. However we can see as the tastes of the public change, those producing adapt to the interests of the public. | ||
| + | |||
| + | The article comments on how movies have had a significant decline in quality over the years, but I would have to slightly disagree with that. The big blockbusters and action movies are not the ones that win Oscars, the movies that win are still the ones that challenge people's perception of things and undertake difficult social issues. --Erin L. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Although the film industry has improved greatly since it first began, there is still one thing that has not changed much through American history in the film industry. Samuel Goldwyn said it best by commenting, "The public is never wrong...The public pays money. It wants to be entertained. That's all I know." (11) This philosophy still holds true today. The people with the money have the control. And as new technology is used in creating better quality films, the directors are continuously pushing the envelop on how to improve the movie-watching experience for their audience. This is difficult because movie-makers are dealing with a wide range of people, different classes, different languages, gender and censorship committees. All these categories have to be considered during the film making progress. According to Mintz and Roberts, this has been quite a dilemna since the making of the first moving pictures. Maybe it is the one thing that will stay a constant through our future. -Debbie M. | ||
