Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 329:question:329--week_1_questions_comments [2016/09/01 19:29] – [5 General Questions] 73.152.29.161
+++ 329:question:329--week_1_questions_comments [2016/09/13 14:48] (current) – [2 Slaves on Screen] nmilroy
@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 The introduction to this book offered some good perspective on why it's important to both study films historically and note their impact on society. As we discussed in class, we may find it easier to tear an older movie apart and talk about how historically wrong they are, but doing so often misses the importance of the film's representation. Pocahontas, a classic example, gives way to all sorts of issues historically, but more importantly it gives the kids it's geared toward a false idea of what that historical event is. These kids often don't learn an alternate narrative until much later in their lives, long after the movie's ideas have been ingrained in their historical understanding. Film is much more entertaining to take in than historical accounts, so it's easier to use it as a standard narrative than to spend weeks researching what the movie could throw into a three minute song. **I'm eager to see how the author finds a compromise to this idea of entertainment versus accuracy.**  --- //[[lmccuist@umw.edu|McCuistion Lindsey V.]] 2016/08/31 22:44//
-After reading the introduction to Toplin’s work, I look forward to exploring the different tenets among historians on Hollywood’s effectiveness in portraying history on the screen. While some wish to disregard cinema as a tool, others, myself included, believe it is a means of revisioning the past through new technology. What critics of history-oriented movies fail to see is that both scholars and filmmakers manipulate their evidence to create a unified story. Scholars develop the ability to discern between relevant and irrelevant material, privileging facts in their work. Filmmakers do the same through interpretive license, yet are dismissed through claims of inauthenticity.      Nancy Milroy, 2016/09/01, 06:54
+After reading the introduction to Toplin’s work, I look forward to exploring the different tenets among historians on Hollywood’s effectiveness in portraying history on the screen. While some wish to disregard cinema as a tool, others, myself included, believe it is a means of revisioning the past through new technology. What critics of history-oriented movies fail to see is that both scholars and filmmakers manipulate their evidence to create a unified story. Scholars develop the ability to discern between relevant and irrelevant material, privileging facts in their work. Filmmakers do the same through interpretive license, yet are dismissed through claims of inauthenticity.      Nancy Milroy, 2016/09/01, 06:54  --- //[[nmilroy@umw.edu|Milroy, Nancy E.]] 2016/09/13 09:47//
+First, I must say that I am one of those people that feels that a film maker should try to stay as close to historical accounts and source material as possible. How ever I agree with the author of Reel History. A filmmaker has the right, as a story teller, to make a film as historically correct, or not as historically correct, as they wish. --- //[[jwgaddie@mail.umw.edu|Gaddie, Jason W.S.]] 2016/09/01 3:38PM//
 ====== 2 Slaves on Screen ======
@@ Line 54: / Line 54: @@
  --- //[[mcarey@umw.edu|Carey Megan A.]] 2016/08/31 22:25//
-Davis excellently compares poetry and history, stating that sometimes the content and aim is more important than the importance of verse. This speaks for history-oriented films because, while books and film both convey information, they are hardly comparable as equal tools for education. Books are able to be as long and detailed as needed while films operate under 2 hours to stress a general idea or emotion. **Davis made the point that the two mediums are ill-compared because historical writers have 2,500 years of preceding material to work with while filmmakers have about 100 years.** Before this reading I had never heard of the term "microhistory," which explores a facet of history in-depth to examine the social nature of a typical day. However, I believe microhistory, when paired with cinematic technique, is appropriate for history-oriented films because it gives the viewer a general experience of the time the film portrays. Nancy Milroy, 2016/09/01, 06:57
+Davis excellently compares poetry and history, stating that sometimes the content and aim is more important than the importance of verse. This speaks for history-oriented films because, while books and film both convey information, they are hardly comparable as equal tools for education. Books are able to be as long and detailed as needed while films operate under 2 hours to stress a general idea or emotion. **Davis made the point that the two mediums are ill-compared because historical writers have 2,500 years of preceding material to work with while filmmakers have about 100 years.** Before this reading I had never heard of the term "microhistory," which explores a facet of history in-depth to examine the social nature of a typical day. However, I believe microhistory, when paired with cinematic technique, is appropriate for history-oriented films because it gives the viewer a general experience of the time the film portrays. Nancy Milroy, 2016/09/01, 06:57  --- //[[nmilroy@umw.edu|Milroy, Nancy E.]] 2016/09/13 09:48//
 ====== 3 Introduction: Why Movies Matter ======