Difference between revisions of "329--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
Srichardson (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 79: | Line 79: | ||
I thought the introduction of ''Reel History '' was interesting, but I was surprised that the author was not all upset with Hollywood's portrayal of history in movies. I was expecting the book to be about how Hollywood is all wrong when it comes to history, but the author actually believes that "movies can communicate important ideas about the past" (page 1). ~Katherine Stinson~ | I thought the introduction of ''Reel History '' was interesting, but I was surprised that the author was not all upset with Hollywood's portrayal of history in movies. I was expecting the book to be about how Hollywood is all wrong when it comes to history, but the author actually believes that "movies can communicate important ideas about the past" (page 1). ~Katherine Stinson~ | ||
| − | The | + | The introduction to Movies and American Society argues that movies teach us how to think, specifically mentioning race. While movies and other things do in fact teach cultural values, those values must already existed within the culture to begin with. If a movie taught a value that was not already known in America, it would not be understood and Americans would likely not view or purchase the movie. Movies reproduce culture more than they create it. ~Wesley Weeks |
In response to Jason's question: The idea of the past is a powerful thing. It's "ours" in that it's a part of our national identity and perceived heritage. If a director plays around with facts in an attempt to better present a story or ideal (i.e., Mel Gibson's Braveheart), he or she will be criticized. But if Gibson had made Braveheart in a way that is more historically accurate it wouldn't have been as effective a film. Some view these factual misrepresentations as almost immoral. Historical films are a legitimate art form that when executed well can be an extremely effective historical medium. What's important isn't that these filmmakers bend the rules but rather how they do so. Historical films offer us a view into our own culture through what aspects of the "true" story the film emphasizes or de-emphasizes. - Sarah Richardson | In response to Jason's question: The idea of the past is a powerful thing. It's "ours" in that it's a part of our national identity and perceived heritage. If a director plays around with facts in an attempt to better present a story or ideal (i.e., Mel Gibson's Braveheart), he or she will be criticized. But if Gibson had made Braveheart in a way that is more historically accurate it wouldn't have been as effective a film. Some view these factual misrepresentations as almost immoral. Historical films are a legitimate art form that when executed well can be an extremely effective historical medium. What's important isn't that these filmmakers bend the rules but rather how they do so. Historical films offer us a view into our own culture through what aspects of the "true" story the film emphasizes or de-emphasizes. - Sarah Richardson | ||
We've been talking a lot about whether it's appropriate for filmmakers to use artistic license when making historical films. How much artistic license do you think is acceptable? At what point does playing with facts completely cancel out a film's historical legitimacy? - Sarah Richardson | We've been talking a lot about whether it's appropriate for filmmakers to use artistic license when making historical films. How much artistic license do you think is acceptable? At what point does playing with facts completely cancel out a film's historical legitimacy? - Sarah Richardson | ||
| + | |||
| + | The “Slaves on Screen” article focused on how the filmmakers created their depictions of history and how they can be a useful tool in understanding the past. It was noticeably silent, though, on how the person who views the movie brings his or her own preconceptions and cultural values to the film. For instance, when the movie Easy Rider was first released, many people thought the director was on the side of the people that kill the main characters at the end because they viewed that action as a good thing. – Wesley Weeks | ||
