Difference between revisions of "329--Week 10 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→a Right:) |
(→b Inaccurate/issues:) |
||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems. The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real? I do not remember talking about him in class at all? Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber | While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems. The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real? I do not remember talking about him in class at all? Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber | ||
| + | |||
| + | Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character ''Matewan'' rivals ''Glory'' in the way that history is caricatured. - Jason Ward | ||
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time == | == 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time == | ||
