Difference between revisions of "471A3--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Tuesday"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
Chadwick says that many critics of "Birth of a Nation" argued that it completely (and obviously) ignored the real history of the war. He then goes on to say that this did not matter, because audiences were more concerned with the romantic portrayal of the war anyways. Why do you think audiences cared more about the romanticism? Why didn't they want or care about having more accurate information? - Angie | Chadwick says that many critics of "Birth of a Nation" argued that it completely (and obviously) ignored the real history of the war. He then goes on to say that this did not matter, because audiences were more concerned with the romantic portrayal of the war anyways. Why do you think audiences cared more about the romanticism? Why didn't they want or care about having more accurate information? - Angie | ||
| + | |||
| + | In Gallagher's article, I found the difference between the portrayal of slaves in the lost cause films and anti-lost cause films incredible. I always assumed that the portrayal and perception of their role in the war had changed gradually, but it actually did not. In fact, in 1959, there was a film put out about loyal slaves and in 1965 there was a film about anti-slave southerners. The change seems to be abrupt and dramatic. Gallagher attributes it to the Civil Rights movement and Act of 1964, which makes complete sense. - Angie | ||
