Difference between revisions of "329--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
I think to some degree directors should be held to the same level of historical integrity as historians. If the intention of the director is to portray a significant piece of history then the film should be accurate. If the director is aiming for credibility in the business then it would be in his/her best interest to get their facts straight. Wouldn't it be pointless for the director to not do some background research for the film? - Mallory C. | I think to some degree directors should be held to the same level of historical integrity as historians. If the intention of the director is to portray a significant piece of history then the film should be accurate. If the director is aiming for credibility in the business then it would be in his/her best interest to get their facts straight. Wouldn't it be pointless for the director to not do some background research for the film? - Mallory C. | ||
| + | |||
| + | n.b. my post accepts Jackie's premise as sound. However, I would like to shift Jackie's debate back on to the historian. Let's talk about the standard by which historians are judged. We do it every time we write a research paper. We ask who wrote the secondary source? Who published the secondary source? What kinds of motivations were behind the construction of the source?, and so on. Just look at a subject's historigraphy to see that written history is not always air-tight. I think it would do us well this semester to not just analyze how film makers interpret history, but how historians interpret history. Too often we take historical texts as gospel (especially when compared to artistic representations), but is there really an ultimate truth by which we can compare apples and oranges? (historical text being apples, historical films being oranges)- Jason Ward | ||
