Difference between revisions of "471A3--Week 11 Questions/Comments--Thursday"
From McClurken Wiki
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
I think that Gallagher's article about Burns' documentary was a little harsh. I understand that maybe he over-simplified things or did not give enough time to other important military campaigns and spent too much time on Gettysburg, but maybe he was more concerned about making a documentary that people would be interested in than one that was intricately detailed. His was already incredibly long, so it would probably take forever to watch a documentary that included every small detail. Furthermore, I think if any of the film reflected Lost Cause opinions (Gallagher claims this of his description of Lee), then Burns (who is from the North) probably did that on purpose. He wants the largest audience possible, so of course he would try to appeal to the South. - angie | I think that Gallagher's article about Burns' documentary was a little harsh. I understand that maybe he over-simplified things or did not give enough time to other important military campaigns and spent too much time on Gettysburg, but maybe he was more concerned about making a documentary that people would be interested in than one that was intricately detailed. His was already incredibly long, so it would probably take forever to watch a documentary that included every small detail. Furthermore, I think if any of the film reflected Lost Cause opinions (Gallagher claims this of his description of Lee), then Burns (who is from the North) probably did that on purpose. He wants the largest audience possible, so of course he would try to appeal to the South. - angie | ||
| + | |||
| + | The "Glory" article talks about how the film is a little patronizing at times, with white benevolence serving as the vehicle for black agency. How could a Civil War movie avoid that? What would be the best way to present black empowerment in a movie set during a war over black subjugation? -GStan. | ||
