Difference between revisions of "471A3--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Thursday"
From McClurken Wiki
(New page: The movie Glory came out during a time (1989) when more of the social aspects of the Civil War were beginning to become more prevalent throughout the scholarly literature about the war. Th...) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Ken Burns created the series ''The Civil War'' which propelled much criticism. Some of the reasons given in the article for the criticism were his unbalanced focus on the eastern and western fronts during the war, the lack of depth on the discussion of generals (he basically only focused on Lee, Grant, and Sherman), and, like so many Lost Cause authors, he contributed the Confederates' defeat with the enemy's material strength. Why do you think Ken Burns chose to create the series in the way he did? Why did he limit many of his sources to mere memoirs that were full of inaccuracies rather than additionally researching the expansive amount of scholarly literature written on the subject? -avanness | Ken Burns created the series ''The Civil War'' which propelled much criticism. Some of the reasons given in the article for the criticism were his unbalanced focus on the eastern and western fronts during the war, the lack of depth on the discussion of generals (he basically only focused on Lee, Grant, and Sherman), and, like so many Lost Cause authors, he contributed the Confederates' defeat with the enemy's material strength. Why do you think Ken Burns chose to create the series in the way he did? Why did he limit many of his sources to mere memoirs that were full of inaccuracies rather than additionally researching the expansive amount of scholarly literature written on the subject? -avanness | ||
| + | |||
| + | I found it interesting how ''Glory'' seemed to gloss-over some important aspects about Shaw, such as his decision to take charge of the unit in the first place. Do you think this downplaying of certain historical aspects was crucial for a film like ''Glory''? Do you think the movie would have been less successful if it did not do this? -ABratchie | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have to say yes, I think. Gettysburg paints Joshua Chamberlain as WAY more of an altruistic hero than he really was. --Cash | ||
| + | |||
| + | I too, like Amy, wondered why Burns would not research using the academic sources that were readily available to him. I think that if he had done that, though, the series may not have received the praise it did from non-academic magazines (and the public, of course). I do question, however, what important aspects of the Civil War were lost since he did not consult a large variety of scholarly sources? How would this have possibly changed the results of the series and critique from academics? -ABratchie | ||
| + | |||
| + | Was "Glory" a good movie because it "reshaped the parameters of the Vietnam conventions and reinvented a notably absent moral worldview" or was it successful because it was simply a good movie? R.King | ||
| + | |||
| + | Can't it be both? --Cash | ||
| + | |||
| + | Who was Burn's target audience? Did the "The Civil War" meet the expectations of that audience? R.King | ||
| + | |||
| + | Cullen chooses an interesting quote to lead into his discussion of pro and anti-war sentiment in film. "America is to thee, thou boasted land of liberty, it is to thee I raise my song, thou land of blood, of crime and wrong" (James Whitfield). I know it is hard to generalize Civil War movies, but do you feel that as a genre they portray the "land of liberty," or the "land of blood, of crime and wrong"?- aaskins | ||
| + | |||
| + | In the article on Burn's ''The Civil War'', the author mentions that any documentary that did not place the military event at center stage could be charged with distortion (pp 247). However, isn't there the most potential for distortion in the depiction of the military event? Or do you feel that by shifting the focus on other things, the portrayal can be better warped?- aaskins | ||
| + | |||
| + | The article of Burn's ''The Civil War'' mentions that Burns displayed simplistic interpretations of key figures, especially the generals. Do you think this truly had an effect on how people understand the Civil War? -MK | ||
| + | |||
| + | Where is the line drawn between historically accurate films and entertainment? Can a line be drawn? -MK | ||
| + | |||
| + | Cullen brings up that in ''Glory'' African-Americans who became soldiers are portrayed as becoming men as well. Previously, African-Americans had been portrayed as childlike and dependent. The movie portrays this as a positive thing, while many other Civil War movies portray this as a negative aspect of becoming a soldier because it can also be seen as a loss of innocence. Why do you think the "Glory" filmmakers thought it was important to show a different perspective on what it meant to become a soldier? -angie | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think that Gallagher's article about Burns' documentary was a little harsh. I understand that maybe he over-simplified things or did not give enough time to other important military campaigns and spent too much time on Gettysburg, but maybe he was more concerned about making a documentary that people would be interested in than one that was intricately detailed. His was already incredibly long, so it would probably take forever to watch a documentary that included every small detail. Furthermore, I think if any of the film reflected Lost Cause opinions (Gallagher claims this of his description of Lee), then Burns (who is from the North) probably did that on purpose. He wants the largest audience possible, so of course he would try to appeal to the South. - angie | ||
| + | |||
| + | The "Glory" article talks about how the film is a little patronizing at times, with white benevolence serving as the vehicle for black agency. How could a Civil War movie avoid that? What would be the best way to present black empowerment in a movie set during a war over black subjugation? -GStan. | ||
