Difference between revisions of "329--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
m |
|||
| Line 40: | Line 40: | ||
While reading the introduction to Reel History: In Defense of Hollywood by Robert Brent Toplin, I found myself agreeing with many of Toplin's arguments. He explains that oftentimes artists and authors leave out details in order to make their work more understandable. Is this idea not true of directors or screen writers, who themselves are artists? History-orientated movies take a lot of heat for not including every detail of the story within the film. However, there are times when every detail isn't necessarily possible because it prevents the plot of the movie to flow properly. It is up to the judgment of the director to pick and choose which aspect of the story he/she wants to portray. As long as the facts are correct the audience can take away valuable information concerning the past from that particular movie. Movies have a great opportunity to teach the audience about a significant part of history. A story that is so important that it must be turned into a film in order to become better known to the masses. The article Movies and American Society edited by Steven J.Ross, relates nicely to what Toplin is arguing: Movies are a significant part of our culture, with millions of people going to the movies everyday; therefore, they have the power to educate and ultimately shape the intellect of America. The article further explains that film makers have the power to influence the way in which people view their society, government, even the world. Film makers have the ability to influence the way in which the audience views history and enable the audience to understand how history is created by everyday experiences.- Mallory C. | While reading the introduction to Reel History: In Defense of Hollywood by Robert Brent Toplin, I found myself agreeing with many of Toplin's arguments. He explains that oftentimes artists and authors leave out details in order to make their work more understandable. Is this idea not true of directors or screen writers, who themselves are artists? History-orientated movies take a lot of heat for not including every detail of the story within the film. However, there are times when every detail isn't necessarily possible because it prevents the plot of the movie to flow properly. It is up to the judgment of the director to pick and choose which aspect of the story he/she wants to portray. As long as the facts are correct the audience can take away valuable information concerning the past from that particular movie. Movies have a great opportunity to teach the audience about a significant part of history. A story that is so important that it must be turned into a film in order to become better known to the masses. The article Movies and American Society edited by Steven J.Ross, relates nicely to what Toplin is arguing: Movies are a significant part of our culture, with millions of people going to the movies everyday; therefore, they have the power to educate and ultimately shape the intellect of America. The article further explains that film makers have the power to influence the way in which people view their society, government, even the world. Film makers have the ability to influence the way in which the audience views history and enable the audience to understand how history is created by everyday experiences.- Mallory C. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Several of the posts have brought up the possible growth of movies as accurate historical acounts or something of that nature. Taylor pointed out that movies which have some tie to history are perhaps continuing to develope through the still very new medium of cinema, while historical writers have had longer to hone techniques of accurate story telling of historical events. But (unless we are talking about movies that are strictly non-fiction documentaries) whether they are historically/period based or not, there is an important descrepency to recognize in making this comparison. Movies are not pure imitation of life. They are forms of art which most often incorporate recognizable and familiar aspects of life in order to appeal to its audience. And whenever life is represented by a form of art, some aspect of factuality is lost by the mere imitation (like the Platonic Theory of Forms- it is not the true ideal (form) when it is already a copy- it has lost some truth). Thus, unless we are comparing historically related movies to historical fiction books, they are not comparable to histories and textbooks. ~Jackie Reed | ||
| + | |||
| + | With my previous comment in mind... | ||
| + | My debate question: As forms of art/and or entertainment, should all directors of historically based movies be held to the same level of hisotrical integrity that historians are? Or to the same degree that writers of historical fiction? | ||
| + | (Futher more... Which is more important, artistic integrity and the director's artistic expression/message or a movie's historical accuracy? ~Jackie Reed | ||
