Page locked

This page is currently locked for editing by another user. You have to wait until this user finishes editing or the lock expires.
Currently locked by: 216.73.216.141
Lock expires at: 2025/08/26 15:43 (14 min)
This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
====== 1 Reel History, Introduction ======

I want to complain about the waterfalls in Pocahontas.  There aren't any near Jamestown.  --- //[[jmcclurk@umw.edu|jmcclurken]] 2016/08/30 10:15//

Please correct me if I am wrong, but let’s be honest, when we find out that our favorite novel is being made into a movie part of us gets excited because we get to see a novel come to life. Then again, part of us also dies because we just know that Hollywood is going to mess up the novel. However, I never thought it in terms of historical events until reading the introduction of “Reel History”. **I go into novel based movies with the knowledge that Hollywood is going to mess it up, but I almost never go into a historical based film and think that they are going to mess it up.** Maybe it is because of my lack of historical knowledge in some events, for example Argo, or maybe it is because I expect Hollywood to do history justice (okay maybe with the exception of Pearl Harbor and Titanic). After reading the introduction I realize that history is just as much of an issue in Hollywood as novels if not more because of the unwillingness of teachers and scholars to participate in discussions about historical depictions in movies versus what really happened and why Hollywood made the changes they did. Open-mindedness is what is needed not only for this class but in public forums when talking about films depictions of history because if it isn't present discussion lessens and the conclusion of 'why' might never be reached in discussing the historical event in the film.  --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/08/30 21:49//

I thought the part of the introduction where Toplin talked about historians were taken out of the historial cinematic debate was interesting. It seems to me that historians would be a vial part of a debate concerning a historical movie. If a film is attempting to portray a historical event and miss key details or miss the point of said events occurrence then that is something worth mentioning. It could even lessen the integrity of a film. These details can be picked up on by historians, adding a significant contribution to any scholarly cinematic debate.  --- //[[nfanning@umw.edu|Fanning Neal R.]] 2016/08/31 10:03// ````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````

I think it is interesting that this book and hopefully this class as it progresses will defend the importance of historical cinema. Usually historians pick out the numerous mistakes and historical details left out of the movie but are missing the artistic and cinematic value of the storytelling displayed. Historical movies have a lot to share and learn from even if they are not perfect in their historical accuracy.  --- //[[cmorg96@gmail.com|Callie Morgan]] 2016/08/31 13:08//

Mary Margaret, I definitely agree with you on being on both sides of the coin when it comes to novels being turned into movies.  I'm excited about Neil Gaiman's American Gods being made into a mini-series, because I feel that a series definitely allows for more time to bring a faithful adaptation of the book than a movie would.  

That said, as you mentioned there are historical films such as Titanic and Pearl Harbor that can change history to suit the film, and to be honest, that bothers me much more than say, the Harry Potter films versus the books.  To take such a pivotal point in history such as Pearl Harbor and turn the majority of it into a love triangle story is bad enough, but to have made-up characters do what real people did, like rush for the airplanes to launch a counter-attack (in my opinion, anyway) takes away from what the real men did back then.   --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey, Lauren E.]] 2016/08/31 13:37// 

I liked the way the author explained how filmmakers hold a lot of power over the audience and their ideas about history. I think anything from what historical events the filmmakers witnessed growing up to where there from and to possible enlightening/traumatic events they have witnessed in their our own lives can affect the historical message they are presenting to their audience. A filmmaker who experienced the travesties of war because they have seen combat or lost a loved one in battle would probably have a different approach to depicting a World War II film compared to a filmmaker that glorifies war because they never had a negative experience with it. Therefore, I think **along with focusing on popular culture, there are probably personal elements from the filmmakers that can influence the overall message.**  --- //[[lkacoyan@umw.edu|Kacoyanis, Leah F.]] 2016/08/31 14:48//

I found many different parts of Toplin's Introduction thought-provoking, so I will try my best to avoid my usually wordiness and narrow down my thoughts a bit! I never thought of cinematic history as a genre, and as one who gets more in tune to fictional, made up stories, I am looking forward to my first time really exploring this different form of storytelling that I hope has more hits than misses! Toplin talked about how filmmakers are normally more criticized then praised, and it seems they can be unfairly lumped into one category revolving around the misses. As a creator, I will be looking forward to also coming across the filmmakers who accept the "challenges of bringing the past to life on screen" and praising those efforts as well throughout the course.  --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/08/31 15:05//

Over the course of my study of History, I have come into contact with people that primarily fall into similar camps to the skeptic businessman or the snobbish historians that value the visual medium as being nothing more than a cultural facsimile rather than holding any sort of academic merit. I found that Toplin's defense of film as a stepping stone in historical research, rather than a cornerstone, was a far more pragmatic approach to research than more contemporary historians may consider. Rather than focusing entirely on the written word for lengthy accounts of battles waged or Presidents assassinated, Toplin acknowledges that a film can pique the interest of scholars and layman alike, which allows for a greater exchange of ideas than a discussion on a 20lbs doorstopper may provide.  --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/08/31 15:13//


After reading the introduction to "Reel History" I found that it seems to have strong correlation to Historic Preservation. Similar to Mythology and History, the difference seems to be in the method of its origins. Both tell a story and both play an important role to the time in which they were told. This idea of movies being bi-focal lenses that show the past-story and a portrayal of time the piece was made. I am interested in this book because right from the beginning the author states he will challenge the familiar negative assessments and recommends a more open0minded view of cinema: and i am looking forward to being able to say the same.  --- //[[jbaker8@umw.edu|Baker, Jonathon A.]] 2016/08/31 16:57//

As a historian, it is important to remember who the author is and their credentials, as this impacts whatever he or she has written.  Because of this, I did some digging into Robert Toplin.  According to the Organization of American Historians, Mr. Toplin has sterling credentials and is currently a history professor at the University of North Carolina and the University of Virginia with a specialization in film history. Mr. Toplin has also heavily involved with films created by PBS, CSPAN, and the History Channel. --- //[[ctrout@umw.edu|Trout, Christian C.]] 2016/08/31 21:38//

Frequently, people roll their eyes at movies infamously known for their historical inaccuracy such as Braveheart or Pocahontas, etc. Toplin raised a compelling point when defending Hollywood's portrayal of historical events. Movies have a way of "arousing emotions, stirring curiosity, and prompting viewers to consider significant questions." While the specific details are often left out and directors use their artistic liberties to make a story more pleasing to their audience, they are also able to reach the viewer in ways that novels with black and white text cannot. When you read about the horrors of slavery, you can imagine the terrors and hardships but when you watch 12 Years a Slave, it feels as though you're living it. Movies enwrap the audience into the time in which it is set. It is still necessary to question and critique a film that strays from historical accuracy, but like poetry, it isn't meant to be entirely factual, it's entertainment. **I think that so long as people take historical films as a starting point in understanding and developing interest in a certain historical theme or period, the responsibility is on them to continue to research and find the truth**.  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford, Lauren E.]] 2016/08/31 22:29//

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

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 ======

Davis focus on director's view of presenting films as a medium for history fascinated me. Davis contrasts historical film making to historical book writing. For instance,Davis uses the //Battle of Algiers// as an example of historical film making and thus contrasts to historical book writing. Davis points out that the director while accepting the award admits the film does not substitute for primary sources, such as a film reel of the actual event. **Movies, as Davis suggest serve as a historical medium that reaches audiences traditional mediums, which newspapers or scholarly articles do not.** However, historical book writing learns from historical film making in how to reach a broader audience. 
 --- //[[ejames@umw.edu|James, Emily B.]] 2016/08/30 21:25//

This article discusses the difference between historical writing and historical filmmaking. One would think that the difference is obvious, one is a film with a director, and one is a written base account of the historical event. However, there is more to the difference than the director versus the writer. The director has more liberties with the film adaptation of the event over the author who should not knowingly record events of history, even the small stuff, wrong. However, looking back at film adaptions, even loose adaptions, I realize that sometimes the lines blur between the filmmaker and author’s account, especially in the eyes of the audience. This blur, I notice, tends to occur especially in terms of the music being used. However, like the article states, **“as long as we bear in mind the difference between film and professional prose, we can take film seriously as a source of valuable and even innovative historical vision”** (Davis 15) because differences can be vital to gain a better understanding of not only the plot but also the historical event.  --- //[[mmcmaken@mail.umw.edu|Mary-Margaret McMaken]] 2016/08/31 09:34//

In speaking about how historians choose what goes into a history and what does not, she highlights that there is not one "truth" to be found in history, but there are multiple histories that may or may not overlap. Historians are storytellers, however factual they strive to be, so it follows that we can look at historical films in much the same way. **One of the key differences between the writing process and the film making process Natalie Davis points out is the amount of control a single person has over the project.** A single author of a book makes the majority of the decisions, while a movie includes the screenwriter, the cinematographers, the directors, the editors, the actors, and usually dozens more at least. The choice, for instance, to zoom in close on one character's face over another means something. It may cause the viewer to empathize with the character; it often prioritizes that character's experience over the others in the scene; and it may, indeed, give the moment (and the story) an entirely different meaning. All of this from just one choice highlights how intentionally one must approach making a film, especially if they are trying to be as accurate as possible, in order to not let their own opinions influence the narrative. Each choice creates meaning, shaping the world of the film, and--in some way, large or small--the worldview of the viewers who see it. I think studying those small choices can reveal a lot about the people who made the film, their viewpoint, their world, the discourse that existed at the time the movie was produced (Gone with the Wind comes to mind).  --- //[[jpeters4@umw.edu|Peterson, Julia C.]] 2016/09/01 00:55//

**After reading Davis’s argument about Slaves in film and how film is a new medium for history it made me look at the comparison of how much time and experience filmmakers have compared to the years that historians have.** When looking at how far history has come in thousands of years and how much historians are still being critiqued and their work being tested and discussed and then looking at the mere hundred years that film has been around, one can realize the major task that film industry has taken up when making historical films. Now this doesn’t mean that filmmakers and directors can become ignorant of the work already done by historians when it comes to making their films, but maybe they should be cut some slack since it is still such a new medium.   --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/08/31 11:26//

It is incredibly interesting to think about and study how much goes into producing a movie about a historical event or even just one that is set in the past. Many minds have to research, study, and make decisions about how the scenes will look, what the characters will wear or say, and even how they will say it. I think it is important to note as we learn about historical cinema what Davis says here in the end of this chapter. **She writes that no longer do people take historical movies as fact** which presents a new reason for the importance of this kind of movie: it starts a conversation about and peaks interest in the subject of each of these films.  --- //[[cmorg96@gmail.com|Callie Morgan]] 2016/08/31 13:25//

This section of reading was a great introduction to the purpose and correlation of history and hollywood history. I enjoyed the correlation to a time in history where the change in methodology changed to prose, with Herodotus and Thucydides. I also found the section on Pontecorvo's "Battle of Algiers" was eye opening, and depicted a beneficial case of Hollywood history and the heights --- //[[jbaker8@umw.edu|Baker, Jonathon A.]] 2016/08/31 17:32// it can obtain for the audience. 

This entire article got me thinking of all the films I have seen that have been, as they say, "based on a true story" or "based on a true event". I always wondered when leaving the movies: how much time and effort goes into the director, writer, etc, to really get the story right and but to still appeal to the audience and make in entertaining enough to watch and stay engaged with the historical content. When writing a historical book, I feel like its easier to write about the historical event (s) out onto paper neatly organized into chapters but when putting that vision across film along historical accuracy with wardrobe, setting and dialog, it becomes more difficult because the event actually happened and if the visual is word than the entire film is ruined. 'Realness can't be invented', she quotes at the end. --- //[[nsciadin@mail.umw.edu|Natalie Sciadini]] 2016/08/31 19:00//  

I was able to connect Toplin's Intro to Davis's article, specifically page 12, in recalling how one year in the late 1990s, all five films nominated for Best Picture were historical in nature. Could there have possibly been correlations between the factors Davis noted --- amount and extend of initial research done, the calibur and methods of the actor, whether the director is specific or allows free reign --- and the accuracy of the movie in terms of historical representation? And did that relate to the fact it received an Oscar nomination, or did the Academy nominate it because of its artistic interpretation and creative license, meaning it was inaccurate?   --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/08/31 20:08//


I thought the end of the article was the most interesting, where the author talks about the difference between writing a historical novel and writing a historical film. While both media allow for some artistic interpretation, films and novels have to stay factually accurate in most respects, but both do deviate from those facts. In some ways I can see that having so many different departments all doing historical research could cause inaccuracies and continuity errors (especially where dramatization is involved), while having only one person doing research on an entire book can vet sources for a very specific subject. **On the other hand, I can also see how having so many people doing historical research on a film might actually strengthen its accuracy by almost crowd-sourcing the historical information, and a single author of a book might make mistakes because of a bias or not having other people to check certain facts.**
 --- //[[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

====== 3 Introduction: Why Movies Matter ======

I chuckled a bit when the article spoke of World War I and its effect on Hollywood, and in particular, WWII, as I immediately began thinking of the Looney Tunes and Disney cartoons I'd seen that were made at the time, and centered on the war.  Bugs Bunny once encouraged people to buy war bonds, and Disney did a cartoon that satirized Adolf Hitler, but also took a very dark turn when it focused on a young German boy being prepped to become a Nazi soldier.  These were cartoons, and nowadays, animation is often looked at as something for children alone, but the target audience was obviously very different back then.

**Something else that struck me quite a bit from this article was the quote from D. W. Griffith in 1921.  "The camera is the agent of Democracy.  It levels the barriers between classes and races." ** I would love to know more about what he was talking about, because I personally cannot say that barriers between races in particularly is leveled out.  This very same article also quoted Alvin F Poussaint, who said that movies were "at least partially responsible for teaching blacks and whites that Africans were savages."  Even today, I hear of black actors being called to play thugs and gangsters rather than cops.  

**Thinking more about Griffith's barriers comment, things like white-washing are often the subject of debate when it comes to casting choices in films.**  Joseph Fiennes, a white man, is set to play Michael Jackson, and Matt Damon is being criticized for being in a movie about The Great Wall of China.  I see both sides, while everyone knows what Michael Jackson looked like after the mid-nineties (please correct me if I am wrong), he was still an African American, and casting a white man to play him can definitely be seen as insulting to his memory. I admit that when I first heard of Matt Damon being cast in The Great Wall, I rolled my eyes, but then I learned that the movie is not a historical piece so much as it is a sci-fi fantasy film, and that the director is  Yimou Zhang, a Chinese man who defended the casting choice.  There are times when white-washing seems to directly effect the film's box office success.  Ridley Scott tried to say that he could not successfully put out Exodus: Gods and Kings by hiring "Muhammad So and So from such and such".  That comment alone I thought was rather insensitive, and it turned out that the movie only made about 64% of its budget. It must be pointed out, in my opinion, at least, that white-washing is hardly a new thing.  John Wayne and Elizabeth Taylor played Genghis Khan and Cleopatra in the sixties. --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey, Lauren E.]] 2016/08/30 19:54//

**This article mentions the political effect that movies had on Americans during the early 20th century. It mentions that people paid more attention to the political messages of films rather than to Washington or the press. Does film still have the same effect on people today?** It seems to me that films are not as political as they apparently they once were, but films like Spotlight that convey a strong message still exist. Is there the same impact, or are films made mostly for entertainment nowadays?  --- //[[nfanning@umw.edu|Fanning Neal R.]] 2016/08/31 10:27//

This article seems to continue Toplin's sentiment that film exists as more than simply as a form of entertainment. Having existed for over a century, film has become a way for the mass dissemination of ideology and presenting new ideas into the public realm for discussion. **Film transcends the boundaries of class, race, language, or nationality by presenting images that can be perceived however the viewer so chooses.** While there may be some difficulty discerning commentary from crass entertainment, films today do still hold inherent value in conveying certain messages. Multi-billion dollar franchises such as //The Hunger Games// have strong female protagonists holding their own in physical combat rather than cowering behind men. Films such as //Flight 93// humanize people elevated into martyrdom by portraying them as human beings as flawed as any other. Even something as simple as an animated Disney film can convey a message to an entire generation of children that grow into young adults and remember the words of their favorite Disney character to "Just keep swimming" or "let it go" or "the past hurts, but only in the past". So while the average film is not going to be weighted with political or social commentary, it may very well still be carrying the weight of a message either via subtle detail or even overt characterization.  --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/08/31 15:13//

This article dives into the topic of film influence on an array of actors of life. Movies cover an array of aspects, events, and emotions of everyday life,and how these movies cover them can be both in a negative and positive light, that can ultimately affect the way we think about the past present and future. **At the beginning of this article, I couldn't help but flashback to when High School Musical premiered on Disney Channel, I was about 6 or 7 and i immediately assumed that high school was going to be just like that, I would find a boy who liked me and would want to sing and dance with me all the time** (Granted I was young). But even now at my age, watching movies that are deemed 'coming of age', a small part of me wishes thinks that life is really like how it is being portrayed in film. I wonder if anyone thought the movie industry would be a flop? --- //[[nsciadin@mail.umw.edu|Sciadini, N.]] 2016/08/31 19:47//


**I thought it was interesting that so many people went to see movies in the 1920s and early 1930s (the article mentions that by 1930, weekly attendance was almost 100% of the nation's population), and that with such high numbers, audiences must have been a decent cross-section of class, race, and gender. Today, I get the impression that weekly admission for movies is far lower than 100% of the nation's population, and that today, going to see movies with any kind of frequency is something more limited to wealthier Americans.** This especially struck me because it seems that in the 1920s and 1930s, there were serious issues and barriers between demographics that could have divided Americans. It seems to me that today we lack a common, unifying pastime of entertainment that really unites Americans across these dividing lines that we can debate and discuss over.

The article's discussion of historical censorship in the film industry also interested me. Of course the social and political climate was very different from our own, but I still found it pretty amazing that Hollywood censors were so concerned with censoring sex, violence, and obscene language, but films like //Birth of a Nation// and its depiction of Africans and African-Americans as savages was a successful film among white audiences.
 --- //[[mcarey@umw.edu|Carey Megan A.]] 2016/08/31 19:49//

“For over 100 years, movies have served as a powerful means of disseminating ideas to millions of people” … This sentence prompted me to think of both the incredible pros and cons this very true fact can lead to from two perspectives (the filmmaker’s and the historian’s), simply as time has come and gone and history itself has passed. As technology has evolved and enabled more creativity to take place behind the silver screen, a pro for filmmakers as they develop and perfect their craft, has this led to more ineffective and inaccurate portrayals of our history to the new generations of citizens in our country, and the world as a whole?  --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/08/31 20:07//

I enjoyed this article a lot because in comparison to the introduction of //Reel History// and “Slaves on Screen,” which talk about history in movies, this article talks about the history of movies. I think this is important to remember as we go on in class, because while we are looking at history through movies, we are also looking at the history of movies. It’s easy to forget since they are such a common thing now where events in the past are considered history since they only happened once or over a time period that has ended. As the article states, movies have the ability to persuade people, to make them think, to see the world a different way, to make them act. To look at historical films, we need to look at and keep in mind film history as well.  --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/08/31 21:06//

Last semester I took a course in Early British Society at the University of Edinburgh. A huge portion of our discussions revolved around the impact cinemas had on society. Similarly, Ross discusses how Hollywood impacted American society. In History 329, I imagined that we would be discussing historical inaccuracies and how to approach historically based movies, so I'm glad that this article incorporated how cinema-going influenced American society in the early 20th century. Movies can tell us about the past, but as shown here, they can also tell us about present notions of race, sexuality, radicals, and other references to pop culture. This ties into what Dr. Mcclurken was discussing during class on Monday- movies may act as secondary sources but they are also primary sources for the times in which they were created.  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford, Lauren E.]] 2016/08/31 22:29//

I was interested in the “hypodermic needle” approach that the scholars originally assumed viewers as a blank slate. Thinking about the fact that scholars themselves were and are movie goers it was surprising to me that they considers movie patrons as coming from nothing. Especially considering the way we make so many caveats now when we try to make assumptions about target audiences in film studies.-Callie Liberty

This sort of film study puts into context the sheer impact of films on the public. Movies were largely accessible to all types of people, so they all shared similar ideas in terms of what was true and what was false, what was good and bad. Developments such as these lead to the widely accepted historical inaccuracies we find as well as the public's general apathy towards those inaccuracies. If a scene doesn't go exactly as the real event had but it's still very emotional or powerful, then to what extent does the history really matter?

I think the author's quote of **"when Hollywood speaks, everyone listens. Sometimes when Washington speaks, the world snoozes" is quite accurate.** It seems like people have a better idea of the latest movies, such as //Suicide Squad//, than what is going on in the election. Movies have such a strong impact on people, especially when viewers can see a new side to things and learn from the film. I think this is especially relevant in war movies, such as //American Sniper// or //Eye in the Sky// which show very intense aspects to the military that civilians often aren't as aware of, such as choosing between innocent civilians' lives or ensuring a kill on a high-priority terrorist. --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/09/01 00:08//


The most interesting thing I found about this piece was the fact that movies have always had a deeper message to them. Before the rise of the "studio system," some people found the best way to spread their socio-political messages was to deliver them in a form of entertainment with commentary interspersed into it. I remember watching a few silent films from the early 20th century, mostly Charlie Chaplain and a few other shorts, and I never noticed any sort of message in them, so I assumed all early films were probably comedies or else more experiments with the medium itself. Today, we obviously have films that are made for pure entertainment with a fairly shallow message (films like //Jurassic World//, //Transformers//, etc.), but I have always gotten the impression that modern movies generally want to deliver some deeper message, whether it's a film like //Good Will Hunting// or //Slumdog Millionaire//. I was kind of amazed that filmmakers immediately took to using film as a way of convincing audiences of a certain viewpoint long before big studios started making movies for entertainment's sake.
 --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins, Daniel C.]] 2016/09/01 05:28//


====== 4 Hollywood's America ======

The section on Wartime Hollywood, specifically movies produced during the WWII era intrigued me. Movies like //V for Victory// served as morale boosters thus showing the impact of movies on culture. Movies which focused on Pearl Harbor capitalized on emphasizing the US's greater role in WWII. During this period, Hollywood served as propaganda for keeping the morale intact. Even cartoons were utilized for morale boosters. **While movies were seen as a way to escape during the Great Depression, Hollywood's transition into becoming a unifying factor and thus contributing to keeping American morale for the war high intrigued me.** 
 --- //[[ejames@umw.edu|James, Emily B.]] 2016/08/30 21:11//

When reading about Hollywood’s America one particular section really caught my attention, the Silent films. It was interesting to hear that during the progressive not only was journalism a medium for showing the cultural reform and dark reality of the US at the time but film was too. I had always seen films of this era as modest, the picturesque ideal of the US, but rather it started out as a way to show the realistic and straightforward view of life at the time. They were ways to make the harsh reality and hard to grasp social issues into more light and playful issues. --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/08/31 11:41// 

Making films is political. Throughout this reading, the authors discuss this. The anti-communist films that came out in the 1940s and 1950s and D.W. Griffith's portrayal of fragile white women being attacked by Black brutish men are just two examples of films reinforcing and contributing to the discourse of their respective moments in history. Films are not created in a vacuum. Films are driven explicitly by politics (as in the case of the House UnAmerican Activities Committee), bounded by what can be possible within the current discourse, and are often partially determined by what the makers think people will want to see. (The slowish adoption of sound highlights this last item.) --- //[[jpeters4@umw.edu|Peterson, Julia C.]] 2016/09/01 01:09//

I thought it was interesting that studios soon realized the worth of movie stars and how they attracted an audience to the theaters. This idea may explain why in some historical films the reason certain actors are casted who do not resemble the actual historical figure. Most movie trailers try to promote big names in their films in order for the audiences to come because they have a positive connotation to that particular actor. Filmmakers know that popular actors are more likely to have a strong fan base who would see the movie and make the studio lots of money.  --- //[[lkacoyan@umw.edu|Kacoyanis, Leah F.]] 2016/08/31 15:49//

**It was interesting to read that by the late 1960s/early 70s, a number of the period’s most influential films revised older genres.** I instantly started thinking of some forms of hipster culture, and old fads of the 90s and even farther back than that,  are becoming fads again among younger generations. DC’s Legends of Tomorrow is a show that has paid cool homages to eras like the 50s and the Wild West (granted, the characters always have their time machine to run back to that’s full of today’s technology, so it’s probably a little inaccurate … ). Regardless, these are the connections I like to make, and I’ll be interested to continue to make connections on how history and pop culture relate.  --- //[[afanghel@umw.edu|Fanghella, Amy E.]] 2016/08/31 20:07//

This article gave a good detailed timeline of film and how it started from nothing and evolved, developed through the evolution of technology, its tactics, choosing the right storyline for what was 'in'; war film, crime film,  and became what it is roughly is like today. A common theme that seems to occur throughout these articles is the movies are displaying aspects of life, love, loss, fantasy etc, but could it be that the timing of these movies are everything? **Could it be that screenplays are sitting around, waiting for the right moment in reality to picked up because society needs to see the movie to have some type of influence on their choices at that particular time? Could it all be on purpose?**  --- //[[nsciadin@umw.edu|Sciadini, Natalie]] 2016/08/31 20:34// 

This piece was very comprehensive in evaluating the ways that cultural ideologies changed and help shape change in creating the film industry. Starting so far back with the Victorian ideals and mapping out the process from vigorous activities to motion photographs and moving all the way through to the 20th century. The transition from original to new hollywood to me laid a great basis for the film studying we will be doing in this course.-Callie Liberty

This article seemed rather biased to me.  "One night a year the country shuts down" when talking about the Oscars and when pertaining to movies stated that, "Of all the products of popular culture, none is more sharply etched in our imagination than movies".  The piece late sums up its argument by concluding that, "the movie industry has has been the nations most important purveyor of culture and entertainment to the masses.  I do think this article has lots of good quantifiable data, but took away from the facts my putting movies and Hollywood on some kind of pedestal.  This being said, the article was well-structured and imparted a good understanding of how the film industry changed throughout the years. --- //[[ctrout@umw.edu|Trout, Christian C.]] 2016/08/31 22:12//

What I liked about this article was how it got down to the little bits of the history of film such as the culture before and the technology before to how it changed views on things such as gender. I liked how it showed how movies changed with events, for example how movies during the Great Depression showed characteristics of the depression even if they weren’t about it. I also found it interesting how people split depending on what the movies were about after World War II, while before people came to the movies to watch anything. The article definitely got me thinking about the state of movies today and which stage we are in now. Are movies being made right now to make a point, or are they for fun like some of the progressive era movies or in the 70’s? Is there a point to our movies today, or are we just making them now to try and escape what’s going on in the world? --- //[[mlindse2@umw.edu|Lindsey, Megan E.]] 2016/08/31 22:44//


This article definitely caught my interest. As someone who has always loved film, but has not gotten into certain parts of the history of film, this really opened my eyes to how varied the history of film has been in terms of its messages, techniques, and place in American culture. Specifically, I found it interesting how movie stars were "invented" around the time that feature-length films were starting. The entire concept did make sense to me, since silent, short films did not necessarily need a charismatic and talented actor to pantomime for a few minutes (especially if the cameras were incapable of close-ups), but I had never considered that the idea of the movie star had to originate somewhere. **I also found it very interesting that when sound was introduced, these movie stars helped solidify and popularize certain American accents, which I am sure helped homogenize what was probably a more diverse set of accents across the country, since many people probably wanted to sound like celebrities**. I also found it interesting that by the 1930s, reactionary groups had made Hollywood return to more pro-law/pro-authority tropes, ending its critical and rebellious streak of commentary, which immediately brought to my mind Alfred Hitchcock, whose early films (such as //Blackmail//) equally satirize and belittle criminals and police.
 --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins, Daniel C.]] 2016/09/01 05:40// 

====== 5 General Questions ======

I think movies do have the potential to teach us about history.  Not everyone enjoys reading, but will sit down and watch a move like Gettysburg without having to read The Killer Angels by Michael Shaara, the novel of which the film is based on.  I do think that most people have the common sense to know that Hollywood will take liberties with their stories and sometimes change it, but perhaps seeing Gettysburg might motivate someone to drive up to Pennsylvania and see it for themselves, or if they live too far away, perhaps read an article or two themselves after all.
 --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey, Lauren E.]] 2016/08/31 21:49//

**Does Hollywood owe it to its viewers to make historically accurate movies? Or should they base it on historical events or people and add in more parts that will draw more viewers (ie adding more drama and chaos)? Why do directors often decide historical movies need more drama than the actual events?**  --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/09/01 00:08//

**Can films ever be as objective as history books? (I ask this question while keeping in mind that history, even in books, is subjective.) In what ways can film tell history better than a written narrative?** Why? --- //[[jpeters4@umw.edu|Peterson, Julia C.]] 2016/09/01 01:09//

**What is the difference between Historical Accuracy and Historical Authenticity? For example, a Television show like //Vikings//, while not the most Historically Accurate, is very Historically Authentic. Apollo 13, on the other hand, might be Historically Accurate but it's not the most Historically Authentic.  --- //[[jwgaddie@mail.umw.edu|Gaddie, Jason W.S.]] 2016/09/01 3:28PM//