I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn  

I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn  

I would agree with the claims made so far in this book, but their is one thing that I do not understand. Do people really think that they are gonna get a history lesson from a movie? I certainly hope not. Movies can be used as a tool to get people interested in a historical topic. For instance, when I first saw the trailer for the movie "300" I automatically wanted to know more about the people involved and the daily lives that they lead, but I didn't wait for the movie to come out to learn that information. I went on the research and destroy path to find out all that I could about these men. Then, while watching the movie, I was still able to enjoy it even though I knew what events where real and which had been manifested by the director. The point here is that movies should held to a certain standard of portraying what really happened, especially movies about history, but it is also the job of the view to understand that movies, good movies moreover, are aimed at entertaining the audience not teaching them. If you want to learn while watching a movie, take the remote and turn the dial to the History channel for one of their famous in-depth, expert filled programs to get your fix of "true" facts and events. -Michael E.

I would agree with the claims made so far in this book, but their is one thing that I do not understand. '''Do people really think that they are gonna get a history lesson from a movie?''' I certainly hope not. Movies can be used as a tool to get people interested in a historical topic. For instance, when I first saw the trailer for the movie "300" I automatically wanted to know more about the people involved and the daily lives that they lead, but I didn't wait for the movie to come out to learn that information. I went on the research and destroy path to find out all that I could about these men. Then, while watching the movie, I was still able to enjoy it even though I knew what events where real and which had been manifested by the director. The point here is that movies should held to a certain standard of portraying what really happened, especially movies about history, but it is also the job of the view to understand that movies, good movies moreover, are aimed at entertaining the audience not teaching them. If you want to learn while watching a movie, take the remote and turn the dial to the History channel for one of their famous in-depth, expert filled programs to get your fix of "true" facts and events. -Michael E.

I found it interesting that both ''Reel History'' and "Slaves on Screen" commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?- Rachael   

I found it interesting that both ''Reel History'' and "Slaves on Screen" commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be '''should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?'''- Rachael   

I thought the author made a really good point about historians getting annoyed with films for not presenting the full or true story by pointing out that teachers and scholars are also very selective with how they present information. I think that historical films are important for exactly the same reasons that the author pointed out - they may not always tell the entire truth, but they make the viewer ask questions and want to learn more. This has happened to me dozens of times, and I think it is a valid point. If a historical film provokes a viewer into learning more, I think it can be called a successful representation of whatever it attempted to interpret. I also agree with Rachael's question about the rules that are applied to filmmakers but not historians. "Slaves on Screen" pointed out that historians should have an obligation to point out whether or not something is their own speculation: "If [historians] are interpreting beyond what their evidence strictly offers, they should say so" (11). I feel as if many historians would be more than willing to point out inaccuracies in films, but would be far less willing to admit that their opinions may be similarly based on speculation. - Celia

I thought the author made a really good point about historians getting annoyed with films for not presenting the full or true story by pointing out that teachers and scholars are also very selective with how they present information. I think that historical films are important for exactly the same reasons that the author pointed out - they may not always tell the entire truth, but they make the viewer ask questions and want to learn more. This has happened to me dozens of times, and I think it is a valid point. If a historical film provokes a viewer into learning more, I think it can be called a successful representation of whatever it attempted to interpret. I also agree with Rachael's question about the rules that are applied to filmmakers but not historians. "Slaves on Screen" pointed out that '''historians should have an obligation to point out whether or not something is their own speculation: "If [historians] are interpreting beyond what their evidence strictly offers, they should say so"''' (11). I feel as if many historians would be more than willing to point out inaccuracies in films, but would be far less willing to admit that their opinions may be similarly based on speculation. - Celia

I enjoyed Toplin's introduction to his ideas in "Reel History", especially his suggestion that films do have significant historical value, and not only as works of fiction. I thought it was very interesting at the end of the chapter that he wrote that "cinematic history is too important to shove aside as simply fiction, entertainment, symbolism, or commentary about current events." I agree with Toplin that films should be examined more closely in terms of historical accuracy and new interpretations. They can raise valid questions about events and decisions that were made in the past. -Meagan P.

I enjoyed Toplin's introduction to his ideas in "Reel History", especially '''his suggestion that films do have significant historical value, and not only as works of fiction'''. I thought it was very interesting at the end of the chapter that he wrote that "cinematic history is too important to shove aside as simply fiction, entertainment, symbolism, or commentary about current events." I agree with Toplin that films should be examined more closely in terms of historical accuracy and new interpretations. They can raise valid questions about events and decisions that were made in the past. -Meagan P.

I also greatly enjoyed this introduction. The point I found most interesting is when Toplin states that historians can use an imagined event to make a point when writing a text, as long as they admit to doing so (page 7). Why are filmmakers not held to this same standard? Historians seem to attack filmmakers for doing the same. -Anna Holman

I also greatly enjoyed this introduction. The point I found most interesting is when '''Toplin states that historians can use an imagined event to make a point when writing a text, as long as they admit to doing so (page 7). Why are filmmakers not held to this same standard? Historians seem to attack filmmakers for doing the same.''' -Anna Holman

I agree with Toplin that movies cannot replace printed history because the time constraints limit the amount of background information and context of a story. However, movies do provide a new look into history to many who do not enjoy reading historical literature.  It is unfortunate, but a majority of people do not enjoy reading history, attending lectures, etc.  However, they do enjoy watching movies and television shows that depict historical events and people.  Movies help historians force people to become curious about history after watching the movies.  Movies provide a different look at historical events that aid in studying printed history.  For example, if a class is studying the dropping of the atomic bombs, of course they would understand how destructive and powerful the bombs were and read about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualties.  However, if the same class watched a movie portraying the dropping of the bombs and images of the destruction, the students would have a much more powerful understanding of the event because they can actually see what happened instead of using pure imagination.-Samantha W.

I agree with Toplin that movies cannot replace printed history because the time constraints limit the amount of background information and context of a story. However, movies do provide a new look into history to many who do not enjoy reading historical literature.  '''''It is unfortunate, but a majority of people do not enjoy reading history, attending lectures, etc.''''' However, they do enjoy watching movies and television shows that depict historical events and people.  Movies help historians force people to become curious about history after watching the movies.  Movies provide a different look at historical events that aid in studying printed history.  For example, if a class is studying the dropping of the atomic bombs, of course they would understand how destructive and powerful the bombs were and read about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualties.  However, if the same class watched a movie portraying the dropping of the bombs and images of the destruction, the students would have a much more powerful understanding of the event because they can actually see what happened instead of using pure imagination.-Samantha W.

I felt myself nodding in agreement quite frequently while reading this introduction.  Two major points stood out for me.  First was the idea that film and literature could complement each other, as each is good for a different aspect of conveying history.  Reading academic literature or attending a formal lecture is good for the factual side of history:  the dates, the names, the places.  Watching a movie, however, is good for the abstract side of history:  the emotions, the questions, the moral quandaries.  I personally think it takes a bit of both the factual and the abstract to get the most complete story.  Second was the double standard for historical fiction.  As Anna mentioned, as long as historical fiction is in print, people do not seem to complain, but the second that it becomes a movie, everyone is analyzing its accuracy.  That seems unfair.  - Cilla

I felt myself nodding in agreement quite frequently while reading this introduction.  Two major points stood out for me.  First was the idea that film and literature could complement each other, as each is good for a different aspect of conveying history.  Reading academic literature or attending a formal lecture is good for the factual side of history:  the dates, the names, the places.  Watching a movie, however, is good for the abstract side of history:  the emotions, the questions, the moral quandaries.  I personally think it takes a bit of both the factual and the abstract to get the most complete story.  Second was the double standard for historical fiction.  As Anna mentioned, as long as historical fiction is in print, people do not seem to complain, but the second that it becomes a movie, everyone is analyzing its accuracy.  That seems unfair.  - Cilla

I too agreed with Toplin and his statements about the analysis of cinematic history. One thought that struck me as I read it was that an attentive audience can learn not only about the ideals of past history from what is there, but also learn about the ideals of modern history from what is not there. -Isaac Whalen

I too agreed with Toplin and his statements about the analysis of cinematic history. One thought that struck me as I read it was that '''an attentive audience can learn not only about the ideals of past history from what is there, but also learn about the ideals of modern history from what is not there.''' -Isaac Whalen

I think the most interesting contradiction in this piece is between prose and poetry as well as Historical prose and a Historical movie.  Regarding these four things, prose is analogous to Historical prose and poetry is analogous to a Historical movie.  These distinctions are incredibly interesting in that prose and Historical prose are very basic and often used to simply tell the facts, whereas with a poem or a movie you have more freedom.  There may still be facts involved, but they are just presented differently and both poetry and movies have more freedom to fictionalize things.  Although there are contrasts, poetry depends on prose, just like a Historical movie depends on Historical facts. -afrisk

I think the most interesting contradiction in this piece is between prose and poetry as well as Historical prose and a Historical movie.  Regarding these four things, prose is analogous to Historical prose and poetry is analogous to a Historical movie.  These distinctions are incredibly interesting in that prose and Historical prose are very basic and often used to simply tell the facts, whereas with a poem or a movie you have more freedom.  There may still be facts involved, but they are just presented differently and both poetry and movies have more freedom to fictionalize things.  Although there are contrasts, poetry depends on prose, just like a Historical movie depends on Historical facts. -afrisk

I agree with LeAnn that the story about the man on the plane was interesting. While I am not completely against historical movies, because they are rather good, I agree that you do have to remember it is a piece of historical fiction. While it might be based off of events or people that actually existed the actual context of the movie should be taken with a grain of salt. However, as others have pointed out, the goal of a movie is usually to convey certain ideas and emotions, not describing an an event. - Jenn A.

I agree with LeAnn that the story about the man on the plane was interesting. While I am not completely against historical movies, because they are rather good, I agree that you do have to remember it is a piece of historical fiction. While it might be based off of events or people that actually existed the actual context of the movie should be taken with a grain of salt. However, as others have pointed out, '''the goal of a movie is usually to convey certain ideas and emotions, not describing an an event.''' - Jenn A.

I think the thing that struck me the most regarding this reading was in the 4 principle attributes that he considers. The 4 principles that he describes are all good points to define, but I found it interesting that he does not consider whether or not the historical event was portrayed as it factually happened. Rather, he looks at the "Interpretation of an important historical situation". You would think a historian would consider this an important aspect of the film, but it does not seem to be at the top of Toplins concerns. - Victoria Y.

I think the thing that struck me the most regarding this reading was in the 4 principle attributes that he considers. The 4 principles that he describes are all good points to define, but I found it interesting that he does not consider whether or not the historical event was portrayed as it factually happened. Rather, he looks at the "Interpretation of an important historical situation". You would think a historian would consider this an important aspect of the film, but it does not seem to be at the top of Toplins concerns. - Victoria Y.

I, too, thought it was interesting in the introduction to this book how Toplin commented about how we can actually learn historical information from the movies. I guess I should have known from the title: ''In defense of Hollywood...'' I think it is definitely true that most people would assume that historians would most definitely attack movies that claim to portray past events and historical events because they can be exaggerated but as I think we will gather from this book, there is a lot we can learn and take away from these "history-oriented movies". -Amy V.

I, too, thought it was interesting in the introduction to this book how Toplin commented about how we can actually learn historical information from the movies. I guess I should have known from the title: ''In defense of Hollywood...'' I think it is definitely true that most people would assume that historians would most definitely attack movies that claim to portray past events and historical events because they can be exaggerated but as I think we will gather from this book, there is a lot we can learn and take away from these "history-oriented movies". -Amy V.