Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_1_questions_comments-2018 [2018/08/30 02:52] – [Hollywood's America] eandrewl
+++ 329:question:329--week_1_questions_comments-2018 [2018/08/30 19:57] (current) – [Introduction: Why Movies Matter] kmoore6
@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 Type your awesome comments here.--Jeff M.
+This really sort of opened my eyes a little bit considering, I've never really watched a film and thought of the historical inaccuracies presented in them. Reading this Intro, I can understand more of how using a critical eye can potentially shift your thoughts and feelings towards a film. Considering what I've learned over the course of the years about Pocahontas, it's easy to point out that the film contains many inaccuracies - yet people are so quick to believe what they see on media and what they choose to gravitate towards in relation to their own lives. -- Lindsey Sowers
 This chapter reminded me of conversations I've had with my mom about various movies. When I told her we would be watching Pocahontas, she replied with "the most historically inaccurate movie ever made." She holds a particular disdain for it because she grew up in Newport News and frequented Jamestown. She takes issue with the cliffs and waterfalls Pocahontas jumps off of. It really speaks to how people interact with media, especially if the media relates to their real life in some way. --Erin Shaw
@@ Line 13: / Line 15: @@
 I liked how the author doesn’t dismiss Historical films just because they have some inaccuracies. I remember watching Braveheart multiple times growing up and being fascinated about the movie for its entertainment value. Although it may not be historically accurate it fascinated me enough to want to learn more about the topic so that I could separate fact from fiction. I am excited to learn how to view things better from a more critical eye. -- Will Roszell
+I agree a lot with what Roplin has to say in his introduction. Like others are saying, I am glad he does not just dismiss the genre of historical films entirely. I agree that it is important to know your source, and know that movies may have added or changed elements just because of their nature as a medium. On the other side of this, as the nature of their medium they can also bring different things to the table that, for example, a book probably could not. -Erin Andrewlevich
+Just from the introduction I know I am going to enjoy reading this book. When I watch historical movies, I slightly judge them for being inaccurate but I know that there is a reason for it (while still judging). The real history on Pocahontas is nothing like the Disney movie but the movie was created for children and families to enjoy because that is Disney in a nutshell. Before even getting to the part on page 5 that listed some of the movies, I knew instantly that The Patriot was going to be added, which reminded me of a very long discussion I had with my U.S. History teacher back in 11th grade. Cinematic history has indeed become a huge influence in entertainment but just because the plot could be inaccurate, doesn't mean that it still hasn't done its job of teaching the viewer about whatever the topic is. -Alyx Wilson
+Toplin’s approach to looking at historical films as an art form as opposed to something that should be defined by any historical inaccuracies is extremely interesting. In particular, I find his note of how there will be some interpretive license in any sort of portrayal of history helps greatly in the defense of historical films (page 2). Adding onto this, the way that historical cinema has permeated society, not just in movies, but also on television, would seem to be something that warrants further academic study rather than dismissal of historical films. -Sky Horne
+After reading a book that was later made into a film, my friends and I will go see the movie and talk about how the book was better. There are certain parts that I’d like in the book and expect to see it portrayed the same way in the movie but it doesn’t always come across as nicely. I know they must have their reasons to do things a different way, especially adapted into a film. However, once you see it one way it’s hard to accept an altered version. This is where being open minded to how movies interpret events comes into play. I’ll judge films for taking a different approach but to be fair I have to consider that what was in the book, for example, didn’t flow as great on film or they wanted to make it more light-hearted and PG. It is interesting to know that for some films the directors, producers, cast, film crew etc, sometimes knowingly take the risk to take a different approach on something so it’s refreshing and captivating for the audience. - Johana Colchado
+I really like how Toplin argues for the validity of films as a part of the history of events and time periods. By having a reel history versus a real history makes people think about what really happened and how is it portrayed. A film can cause you to research into the history it represents and causes an emotional connection to a historical event. The event might not be portrayed correctly there is a want or need to follow up on the event. It opens a discussion about the history and how it should be portrayed. There is a huge validity to cinematic history rather than being just a work of pure entertainment, the historical cinema within the recent years show how important this aspect of history has gained traction with films such a Fury (2014), Dunkirk (2017), Lincoln (2012), and many more. These films cause a debate about how the events are presented as well as the films are a powerful reminder about our which gives them validity. --Jack Hagn
+I never realized until Toplin pointed it out exactly how often historical films will make it into the running for academy awards. I point this out in particular because I was initially one of those people who was on the fence as to whether or not historical films could be treated as a legitimate medium for learning about events of the past. I don't mean to say the past in regards to the time in which the films were developed, but rather the time that they are portraying in the film itself. This idea that historical films are in some cases a free ride to academy awards may potentially speak to why historians are hesitant to treat them as a valid form of identifying the past. I speak as someone who isn't fully invested in the academy awards every year, the concept of the academy awards seems like something put together solely for the sake of entertainment, and the acknowledgment of entertainment. In a way, perhaps academy awards act as something of a delegitimisation of historical films; meaning that if it's being treated as a historical piece and more as entertainment, then it shouldn't be considered credible. -Robert Dallas
 ===== Slaves on Screen =====
@@ Line 28: / Line 41: @@
 On page 15, “Audiences appreciate the fact something really happened, and they’ll wonder after they see the film whether it got the story right.” This is my approach to all historical films, I’ve fallen down so many historical rabbit holes from watching movies that I found out were historical films and were equally entertaining to watch. Does it really matter if the film is completely accurate if you know that going in? -- William Roszell
+I liked the points this author brought up for when judging film as a medium for historical interpretation. They bring up the point that many more interpretations and choices are present in the making of a film that may not be in many other forms of historical content. Also, different elements are important to a film that aren’t to other mediums such as lighting and music choices. These are just as equally important to the historical interpretation and can have profound impacts on the overall quality of accuracy. -Erin Andrewlevich
+On page 15 where it quotes director Sayles about how several producers say that a movie won’t be successful if it’s not based off of a true story made me think about how many movies I’d seen where the film promotes that. There are some films where they are based off of some true event but it’s very, very loosely based off of it and there have been many liberties taken in order to add some more drama and to hold the viewers’ attention. However, there are others that do pay attention to detail and want to make a film as close as possible to the real event that took place. I love it when they show the actual people or person at the end of the film with information about things they accomplished and what they are currently doing. Also, I feel as if films based off of true events garner more attention because it has a way of making us put ourselves in that person’s shoes. It just has more of a relatable aspect than some other films.
+- Johana Colchado
+The “Slaves on Screen” article reminded me of so many films but the main movie I kept thinking of was //Straight Outta Compton//. When I first watched the movie //Straight Outta Compton// I was full of questions and did some more research on the emergence of NWA in the 90’s. I remember while watching the movies I asked myself, ‘did that really happen?’ For the most part, after reading a couple of books on the gangster rap scene, the rappers themselves, and the east vs. west coast feud, the film is fairly accurate. However, in order to make a movie entertaining, there needs to be filler and there were some things that did not actually happen in real life but still made it into the film. Also, because the movie could not be 36 hours long, a lot of important events had to be redacted and the writers had to work around and cut the actual storyline but still try to make it flow. Writers also need to keep the film entertaining for the entire film. For example, if they were to include an important event, it needs to be one that will engage the audience and not something that would put them to sleep. -Lake Wiley
+On page 11 the author used a quote by Marc Bloch and Lucien Febvre that stuck out to me, "Understand, don't judge". In the film media making sure that us as historians we do not just steam roll over why these films are not accurate or how offensive they really are, but to understand the time in which they were created. Understanding that primary source is very important in the analyzation of the film and helps us as historians create not a factual history but a supposed history. Davis talks about this also on page 11, that these films are not meant to be a supposed history of fact but rather a way to simulate how characters would live in history. The simulation of history Davis argues is similar to the poetry of the ancient greeks, in that the poets of their time would situate historical figures but with additions of intrigue that would keep an audience in a performance. Looking at the films as a supposed world for the historical figures for the time can be problematic if the director is not that communicative in the validity of the historical aspects of the film and what type of story is being told. Just like in the poetry there is a lens that is being shown through the film and that specifies feelings or rationale that is not there in the historical context. Yet this lens from the director does show the reasoning of the director and the goal of the director. -Jack Hagn
+In “Slaves on Screen” the author makes the point that a film can be limited to the lense that the director chooses to portray the information, as historians most of the time try to portray the information as accurately as they possibly can. The lens in which the director portrays history can also reveal what the perspective at the time was on the historical subject. With that perspective becoming its own historical document that can be studied by historians. Comparing recent movies with movies in the past can be jarring because of how apparent the difference of racial attitudes was not that long ago. -Kyle Moore
 ===== Introduction: Why Movies Matter =====
+More now than ever, Media consumes most of our everyday lives. A huge part of entertainment for us is film watching. I think with that being said, it is important to filter what messages we send out to a vast majority. Just like I said in my previous comment, people gravitate to what they choose to feel relation to. Film is a powerful source of media that reaches all ages and is extremely accessible. Films have the potential to make us feel deep emotions, understand from a different perspective, and sometimes even seek for greater purpose; essentially changing how we view our society and environment. --Lindsey Sowers
 For me personally, I forget the power that movies have on peoples perspectives and how they have the power to be used positively and negatively. The filmmakers can assert their own biases into their films which is then shown to a mass audience. It reminded me that since movies can be a powerful influence on our perspective, then how important representation is in movies. If movies change how we see the world, then if the world that is depicted only has people who are nothing like you, then movies can have such a negative effect on your self-esteem and your worldview. It makes sense that different ethnic groups protested against depictions of their groups that were mentioned on page seven, especially if they did not agree with those depictions. --Ellora Larsen
@@ Line 43: / Line 69: @@
 I like how in this reading the author started out with talking about how movies not only entertain society but how they also transform into a medium that helps shapes them. This caught my attention due to the fact that as far back as I can remember, as a child I always wanted to dress like my favorite celebrity. It is crazy to think that the movie industry has this power over society. With power though, comes responsibility. They have an ability to move the audience and how they think about themselves and this world (page 7). "Why Movies Matter" was a great read explaining the impact movies can have on their audiences. --Caroline Collier
-This reading really helped emphasize the scope that films have, as pointed out how almost the entire country would see movies in one for or another during the week (page 2). The scope of the movies were not the only aspect that surprised me, but also how quickly censorship boards were created to manage these movies (page 8). This quick of a response to the medium, both from within the business and from those outside of it, demonstrates the recognition of film's influence over perception. Despite the recognition of film's influence, it seems that films still portray minorities in ways that are stereotyped or offensive (page 7).
+This reading really helped emphasize the scope that films have, as pointed out how almost the entire country would see movies in one for or another during the week (page 2). The scope of the movies were not the only aspect that surprised me, but also how quickly censorship boards were created to manage these movies (page 8). This quick of a response to the medium, both from within the business and from those outside of it, demonstrates the recognition of film's influence over perception. Despite the recognition of film's influence, it seems that films still portray minorities in ways that are stereotyped or offensive (page 7). -Sky Horne
+It seems silly that I didn’t put movie release dates together with them aiming to influence us before but it does and I agree with the article. I know that certain films will come out to during certain times of the year like horror movies in October or whichever month Friday the 13 would occur. The same with romantic rom-com films, Valentine’s Day is a very popular release date. I understand now Senator Specter’s comment about Hollywood and D.C., films have a way of pulling people in. We’ll flock to the movie theatre and we’ll show more interest in the latest film that’s been said to have the best CGI, cast, film location, or any combination instead of politics. Though movies can influence a lot of strong opinions from people and create sides on whether they liked the character’s beard or not. Just like politics, people will have their opinions. Now that I know this, I’m going to be paying closer attention to what films come out when. - Johana Colchado
+I believe that just like the way that some books are a reflection of the times and tend to give a message that projects the views and thoughts of the author, movies do the same thing. Often, patrons will view a movie and subtly be influenced by something in the movie that directly relates to the time period. For instance, to go off of Straight Outta Compton again, (I do not know why I keep thinking about this movie), writers made sure to include instances of police brutality that happened to N.W.A. and so many other members of the African American community. For many, including me, the inclusion of these scenes were not really nostalgic, but instead familiar. It is gross to watch a film that takes place in the past and see the almost identical events happen on the news in the present day. -Lake Wiley
+It is interesting to look back at films and pick up on just how much they influence trends in consumerism and social climate. It would not have been the first thing I looked to in regards to a movie's impact on its audience; and in hindsight, that should have been something I picked up on rather quickly. I am fully aware that product placement exists in almost all movies. I can't even begin to count the amount of times I've seen Pepsi cans or Starbucks logos thrown into places where they blend in enough to look natural, but are just annoyingly obvious enough that you know it's a corporate move. But what this reading shows is that it is more than just simple product placement. As the readings state, movies can impact trends in food as well as clothing; movies can teach us how to think about gender and race and what should and shouldn't be justified in confronting social issues. Branching off of that, movies can even influence political stances; not just our opinions on politics, but they can act as eye-openers to political events happening in real-time that we wouldn't have known otherwise unless someone told it to us. -Robert Dallas
+In “Why Movies Matter” the author brings up how culturally ingrained movies have become with American culture to a point where it shapes culture in the future. This is apparent for movies that become very popular shape American discussion from social media to national politics. With that film has a lot of power in steering public opinion when it catches a hold of the interest of the people. Recently the Marvel movies have had national influence to a point where they are continuously discussed months after people have seen it.- Kyle Moore
 ===== Hollywood's America =====
@@ Line 58: / Line 92: @@
 I like that this article talks about media dating back to the 19th century. A movie was, and still is a motion picture that could create  a sense of community between people of all kinds, no matter race, politics, etc. I also found the part about "neurasthenia" especially interesting (page 2).This modern culture rising had made people feel so overstimulated, nervous, and anxious that Doctors had created a tranquilizer to relive symptoms from this "over civilization". Doctors did this by sending electrical impluses through the patients genitals which is very unsettling. Therefore this modern culture was being perceived in a very negative light and were seen as a generation of "pathetic, pampered, weak" human beings (page 2). --Caroline Collier
+I enjoyed how this article made it so clear that the history of Hollywood is the history of America, and the two are so entangled that they cannot be fully understood individually. Also, like most of us, I was intrigued by the discussion early on of neurasthenia. I think Jessica made a great point about the ways that social retrogressives tend to repeat the same talking points, although they will use different tactics. In his history of manhood class Dr. Makintosh talked at length about how the 19th century saw medical explainatipns involving “nervous energy” and “inversion” replace a religious language that talked about the same symptoms within the context of “demonic influence” and “sin”. The results are the same, people just use different tactics to get there. —Justin Curtis
 I found it interesting how the rise of censorship and backlash over elements in movies would rise and fall and how problems in Hollywood that we have today seem to have always existed. For example, there was backlash when people felt movies were too sexualized and filled with crime in the early 1900’s there was a push for censorship and a clean up in Hollywood through films and individuals. This sort of movie climate and then reaction seemed to happen over and over again and sort of reminds me of Hollywood today and how there’s kind of a stigma associated by some with Hollywood today because of all the sexual allegations towards the people in the industry. It’s just interesting that is seemed to be a problem then like it is today. -Erin Andrewlevich
-===== General Questions =====
+I did not realize that Thomas Edison was the first to successfully project moving pictures on a screen in April 23,1896. He showed waves breaking on a beach and two young women dancing. I love the statement that the New York Times released on it,describing the showing as "all wonderfully real and singularly exhilarating." That beginning fact stuck out to me, it was the start of a an entirely new segment in our society. Roberts and Mintz had a great way of diving into the details that were behind trying to produce moving images throughout history. They even described how Ptolemy discovered that a slight imperfection in human perception called the "persistence of vision" allowed for people to merge images into a continuous motion. They go on to describe the early devices that tried to create moving pictures. There was a lot to take away from this entire introduction, but I overall really enjoyed the facts and history behind the actual creation of moving images. A lot of times in today's world everything just works, it is what it is, it exists, but I rarely sit down and think well how is my t.v. working right now, how am I able to film a video on my phone and replay it. I never really think of the history behind how something came to be and I really enjoyed learning how film came to be. Now I know. -Amiti Colson
+===== General Questions =====