Difference between revisions of "329--Week 4 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→1b Inaccurate/issues:) |
(→2 Film's relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time) |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
In "Reel History", Toplin discusses how some historical movies have done poorly due to the fact that they have not had a clear-cut villain. However, in my opinion, this movie suffers from an almost Disney-like black and white villain portayal. We can obviously never know if the real Tarleton was as cold blooded or murderous, but it is not a stretch to assume that it was more for the benefit of the audience's entertainment rather than historical accuracy. --Amanda Russell | In "Reel History", Toplin discusses how some historical movies have done poorly due to the fact that they have not had a clear-cut villain. However, in my opinion, this movie suffers from an almost Disney-like black and white villain portayal. We can obviously never know if the real Tarleton was as cold blooded or murderous, but it is not a stretch to assume that it was more for the benefit of the audience's entertainment rather than historical accuracy. --Amanda Russell | ||
| + | One thing the movie particularly glances over is that slavery was a big issue in the rhetoric of colonists fighting the war. The documents have frequent references to British policy as being slavery on Americans. This point is, however completely lost in this movie because of the movies false portrayal of peoples attitudes towards slavery. Slaves and free blacks were a very badly treated group in the South especially South Carolina, but the slaves and masters in the movie are shown living happily together with little or new tension between them. People in the colonies compared British actions to slavery precisely because they knew it would be absolutely horrible to be a slave. - Jonathan Bell | ||
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre == | == 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre == | ||
