Difference between revisions of "329--Week 15 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
(→Comments on Reading in ''Reel History'') |
(→Comments on Reading in ''Reel History'') |
||
| Line 85: | Line 85: | ||
"Reel History" mentioned how the other important figures involved in uncovering Watergate are never really talked about in the movie. I think it is reasonable in this movie because the movie never shows what really happens to cause Nixon to resign and never shows anything of what happens in the courts. The movie really is not about the Watergate Scandal, but about the role of Bernstein and Woodward in investigating the scandal. I think the primary message the movie is presenting is that Bernstein and Woodward helped pave the way towards the exposure of Nixon even if they did not have the big role in the Nixon investigations. - Jonathan Bell | "Reel History" mentioned how the other important figures involved in uncovering Watergate are never really talked about in the movie. I think it is reasonable in this movie because the movie never shows what really happens to cause Nixon to resign and never shows anything of what happens in the courts. The movie really is not about the Watergate Scandal, but about the role of Bernstein and Woodward in investigating the scandal. I think the primary message the movie is presenting is that Bernstein and Woodward helped pave the way towards the exposure of Nixon even if they did not have the big role in the Nixon investigations. - Jonathan Bell | ||
| + | |||
| + | I have to say, I liked how Toplin commented, in "Reel History," that even if a historical film is horrible there is usually something correct about it, Such as the clothing or the backdrop setting. There are very few comprehensive failures. I really liked that, because we've had a variety of films this semester, ones that have been fairly awesome to not so much... (i.e. Pocahontas), but all of them have had some resounding correctness to it... even if just the backdrop scenery. --Ashley Wilkins | ||
