Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_9_questions_comments-2020 [2020/10/22 13:18] – lyndsey_clark
+++ 329:question:329--week_9_questions_comments-2020 [2020/10/28 01:41] (current) – [I.How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?] 73.148.123.181
@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 My Darling Clementine was not a very good secondary source. The characters, although based on real people, hardly followed the stories of the real people or their position within the town. However, **the actual story of the main characters aside, the film captured that many men worked different jobs, gambled. The film also captured the violence and the “lawless of life in the wilderness” that existed in the old west.** —Helen Dhue
+So far throughout this semester, this has been my favorite assigned movie. I really enjoyed this movie and feel like it was filmed in such a beautiful way. Of course, there are some mistakes within this movie, just like a lot of other historically based films or movies. In the beginning, the movie portrays a Native American as being violent and drunkenly attacking people. As we know, Hollywood has portrayed the Native Americans in a very incorrect way. In addition to this, there does seem to be some added characters and storylines that are not the most truthful rendition of the real story, but that was added to capture the attention of the audience. -Kaylee Williams
 ====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
 As far as historical films go, this has got to be the most historically inaccurate one that we've seen so far. For a film that is regarded as being one of the best Westerns of all time, that's kind of sad. I have multiple reasons why this film is not a good secondary source, and most of them deal with the characters. The only thing accurate about this film is the names of some of the characters (Wyatt Earp, Virgil Earp, Doc Holliday, etc.) and the ending shootout, which is famously known as the Gunfight at O.K. Corral. The first thing I noticed was that the year in which these events took place was wrong. Yes, this film is set in the vague time period when cowboys and bandits roamed the American West, but it seems like it is based on an actual event that screenwriters had heard of and just decided to go with as the plot of the story. I'm talking about the fact that the Gunfight at O.K. Corral happened in 1881, a solid year before the movie takes place. Then there are the issues with the characters. Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday were real historical figures and are each regarded as legends in the American West. I cannot stress how much it annoyed me that Wyatt Earp was the Marshal of Tombstone in the movie, because historically it was his brother, Virgil, who held that role. Then there are issues with Doc Holliday. In the movie, Doc is portrayed to be a surgeon who ventured out west after being diagnosed with tuberculosis. In reality, Doc was a dentist, not a surgeon, but at least they got the tuberculosis issue correct. Then there is the fact that the movie implies Tombstone is the place where him and Wyatt Earp met. The truth is that Doc Holliday had known the Earp brothers and ended up in Tombstone with them. At the very end we see the Gunfight at O.K. Corral, where Doc is supposedly killed. The shootout was not as dramatic as the film makes it out to be, and Doc did not die leaving Wyatt to ride valiantly into the sunset. The entire film is one giant exaggeration that is a fictional version of historical events, making it an abysmal choice for a secondary source of the time period. -- Lyndsey Clark