Difference between revisions of "329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
==Slaves on Screen== | ==Slaves on Screen== | ||
| − | The idea that stuck out most in this reading was the concept of historians being able to maintain an "open mind" about the depiction of what history is. They should be able to look at history without previous "notions" about what they want history to be lurking in the fore front. "Keeping one's mind Open," allows historians the ability to take a look at history from a different angle. Without this ability they might just miss out on all the unexpected happenings that may have occurred throughout history. The weird and the wonderful are what keep history from manifesting into mirror images of the present in one's own personal rear view. - Micheal E. | + | The idea that stuck out most in this reading was the concept of historians being able to maintain an "open mind" about the depiction of what history is. They should be able to look at history without previous "notions" about what they want history to be lurking in the fore front (10). "Keeping one's mind Open," allows historians the ability to take a look at history from a different angle (10). Without this ability they might just miss out on all the unexpected happenings that may have occurred throughout history. The weird and the wonderful are what keep history from manifesting into mirror images of the present in one's own personal rear view. - Micheal E. |
The beginning pages of "Slaves on Screen" seemed to ask the questions: can you accurately portray historical events with the constraints associated with film making? I would ago a step further and ask, can you reach an audience in an accessible way, one in which interests and engages them without adding a personal narrative to a historical film? Though I am a huge fan of the documentary, I would rather find a way to relate to my feature film experience. What I mean is essentially this, historical feature film directors, screen writers and actors take a bit of liberty with the feelings, dialog and character development, among other things. If they did not do this, how would we relate to the story. This ties in with the "Why Movies Matter" article in the statement “What audiences see is partly reflective of what they are and what they are is influenced by what they see” (1). - Caryn L. | The beginning pages of "Slaves on Screen" seemed to ask the questions: can you accurately portray historical events with the constraints associated with film making? I would ago a step further and ask, can you reach an audience in an accessible way, one in which interests and engages them without adding a personal narrative to a historical film? Though I am a huge fan of the documentary, I would rather find a way to relate to my feature film experience. What I mean is essentially this, historical feature film directors, screen writers and actors take a bit of liberty with the feelings, dialog and character development, among other things. If they did not do this, how would we relate to the story. This ties in with the "Why Movies Matter" article in the statement “What audiences see is partly reflective of what they are and what they are is influenced by what they see” (1). - Caryn L. | ||
