Difference between revisions of "329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments"
From McClurken Wiki
B4ssm4st3r (Talk | contribs) (→Things the movie got right) |
(→Things the movie got wrong) |
||
| Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
I definitely agree with Debbie and LeAnn about the lack of prostitutes in the camp, but I was also bothered by the lack of any female presence throughout the movie. Who was doing laundry? Who was cooking? Who was reading to the wounded and helping them write letters home? While there may have been less women involved with the black regiments, these men clearly would have had wives, some of whom would have followed them into battle. Susie King Taylor, from our reading, is an excellent example of this. I think that there could have been a whole different dimension added to the emotional impact of the film if women had been working in the camps. --Meagan P. | I definitely agree with Debbie and LeAnn about the lack of prostitutes in the camp, but I was also bothered by the lack of any female presence throughout the movie. Who was doing laundry? Who was cooking? Who was reading to the wounded and helping them write letters home? While there may have been less women involved with the black regiments, these men clearly would have had wives, some of whom would have followed them into battle. Susie King Taylor, from our reading, is an excellent example of this. I think that there could have been a whole different dimension added to the emotional impact of the film if women had been working in the camps. --Meagan P. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Once again, we reinforce the idea that only the South ever held slaves. When Shaw meets up with that Colonel in South Carolina, the other Colonel says that he can't imagine Boston with slaves. Come on, Hollywood, how many times do we have to go over this? - Cilla | ||
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it == | == The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it == | ||
