Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_1_questions_comments-2018 [2018/08/30 05:51] – [Reel History, Introduction] jhagn
+++ 329:question:329--week_1_questions_comments-2018 [2018/08/30 19:57] (current) – [Introduction: Why Movies Matter] kmoore6
@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 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 48: / Line 50: @@
 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 =====
@@ Line 70: / Line 75: @@
 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 88: / Line 96: @@
 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
+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 =====