329-2012--Week 1 Questions/Comments

Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's reading under the appropriate headings.

Reel History, Introduction
'''Toplin encourages us to keep an open mind about the interpretive techniques employed by Hollywood filmmakers. By fudging the facts where unimportant, they can sometimes create a more compelling narrative that reaches to a greater audience and conveys ideas more clearly. ''He also stresses the importance of acceptance of cinematic history in academic circles and the public mind, but in a way I wonder if he is simply preaching to the choir. After all we wouldn't be reading his work if we hadn't already demonstrated our interest in the matter'.'' - Cooper Lawton

I liked Toplin's point about the attention that films that are set in the past get. I thought it was a surprising fact. Most of the time, I know at least for myself, a movie is historical if it is trying (and I use the word trying...) to convey an event from history. However there are films that are set in the past that have nothing to do with a specific event in history. I like that Toplin made me stop and think about just how many films are set in the past. --Kayle P

I like that Toplin points out that the filmmakers help influence the way we see an event though their films. I feel if the movie is moving enough and the moviegoers don't have much background of a particular event than they can walk away with the same opinion as the director has with out even noticing it. Hopefully I can proclaim that I will be as unbiased towards these movies as Toplin says he is towards Hollywood. --Olivia H.

I really liked the way that Toplin opened the introduction with a real life experience, it worked well to hook the reader making the information easy to relate with. As with most people I have talked to over time they are either extremely critical of a film because it lacks accuracy or they have no idea that the film was based on a nonfiction event that happened in the past.I also liked how Toplin defended films in a sense that films can convey certain aspects of history that books cannot, and can lead the viewers to want to learn more about the events portrayed in the film. --Mary O.

While reading his introduction I wondered if films should be analyzed kind of like oral histories, not so much for the hard facts but for what they could tell about the society and collective knowledge/interpretation of a certain event/time period during the time the movie was made. '''Many historical movies are remade many times as we can see in the list of films Dr. McClurken has given us, and for each event it is portrayed differently every time. Is that so much the director taking artistic license or the society shaping what Hollywood throws at us?'''--Kendall

This book claims to challenge the familiar negative ways people (mostly scholars) talk about movies. Generally scholars seem to hate using movies as a window into the future. However, I really think that films can be used to analyze history, even if it's not the time period for what the film is speaking. For example, over the ages we have watched Pochantas develop from a helpless damsel in distress to a cartoon character head over heals in love with John Smith (Thank you disney). Lately, we've seen even better portrayals of the "queen of the Forrest" as a thirteen year old girl taken from her village and dying tragically in the New World from Smallpox. I strongly believe that (though these stories may be inaccurate) films give an audience what they need at a particular moment. When we need a hero, Americans get one. When we need the "colors of the wind" we get them. -JST

Toblin's arguement that films are a legitimate medium to understanding history was a concept I had been familiar with, but I had always thought of it as negative, that Hollywood never got the facts quite right. Toblin's view that they can be a positive method of understanding history, although not the best as he still recommends books, was surprising to me. His points are valid, especially since films can portray the larger themes during historical periods with greater emotional impact than a book can. I am looking forward to reading more of his book, especially his discussion of the way films impact the public understanding of history. - Amanda V.

The discussion for the introduction started off with the distain many scholars share for the lack of truth portrayed in many historical films. While reading this piece I kept wondering why scholars put such high academic expectations on these films. Most people go to the movies to be entertained and while movie makers aren't usually historians the films they produce must find that balance of truth and entertainment. The mass audiences that make a film a flop or success do not carry such particular standards when it comes to the accuracy of a film. Historical films do their part in somewhat enlightening an audience that otherwise would have no or little knowledge of the time being portrayed. These films should be taken for what they are even with their historical accuracy isnt up to par. - Rachel T.

I think Toplin is saying that Hollywood manipulates and dramatizes from their own interpretation oh history. Even though not everything is portrayed accurately, history is after all all about interpretation. Maybe moviemakers get the facts, but don't believe it will make for an interesting movie. The main point of a movie is to entertain, but it allows moviemakers to send a message to the audience. - Hannah Laughlin

I agree with my peers that Toplin's view of Hollywood's handling of the past was a fresh approach. Sometimes I feel that when people complain about historical accuracy of a film, they are assuming that that is the "intellectual" approach. I liked how Toplin challenged my thinking on this and made me reasses the way in which I view and interpret films with historical merit. --Ellen Smethurst

I was very glad to see that Toplin started by talking about the differences between films and books when dealing with historic material. I have always felt that films needed to be held to a different standard than books. For most of history, an accurate representation of the period would not make a film with wide audience appeal. - Laura-Michal Balderson

Slaves on Screen
The reading made some really interesting points about approaching history with an open mind, and that made me reevaluate the way I've thought of some of my favorite historical movies. But it didn't really talk much about slavery on screen, so I was confused about the title choice. --Carrie

One of the things that really resonated with me is how Davis writes that "films can show - or, more correctly, speculate on how the past was experienced" (7) because it got me thinking of how no matter how hard directors try, a film is never going to be 100% accurate. For example, if a director is trying to create a movie centered around enslaved life or slave revolts, there has never really been day-by-day accounts from both enslaved perspectives and slave owner perspectives that would correspond. This article actually made me a little less irritated at the directors who made historically inaccurate movies. --Paige

All films, whether non-fiction or fictional tell have the potential to tell a story that reaches out to the audience to give a lasting impression. Specifically in the cases of historical films, the finished product could provide historical information but also give viewers significance to why the film’s backdrop (such as political, social, and economic landscapes) of a particular timeframe are important. What I found interesting was what Davis argued her writing was the status of the finished product and how the film (does or does not) represents the truth of the story. In most feature films, Davis argued that they are often “creatures of invention, without significant connection to the experienced world or historical past.” I disagree and believe that some feature films can have the potential to accurately tell historical experiences to audiences. I guess I will find out if historical accuracy can be portrayed correctly in feature films by the end of the semester. – Megan

'''This reading makes me wonder what sort of considerations filmmakers take when deciding the tradeoff between accessibility of material to the general public and historical accuracy. What causes some filmmakers to make the leap from presenting possible actions historical characters might have taken to defying established and known facts about their thoughts and activities? Specifically, is it in any case appropriate to misrepresent facts in order to more clearly portray important ideas? If so, to what extent? Is there a line to cross between historic representation and fiction, or do films fall somewhere on a continuum between the two?''' - Cooper Lawton

I have to agree with Carrie and say that this reading does provide interesting view points on how history needs to be approached. Audiences tend to have a more brutal approach towards films that are advertised as "based on a true story" and seem to forget that the word "based" was used. Instead it seems that most audiences of films based on an historic event would prefer the film being advertised as "this is the actual story word for word no creative liberties were taken with this film". I also have to side with Paige, I was guilty of criticizing films for inaccuracy but this article opened my mind a bit. --Mary O.

This article introduced a new perspective for me toward historical films.I tend to (as many people do I think) look at movies as A) horribly flawed attempts at historical recreation or B) literary works with their own unique characters, symbolism, etc. I had never considered the comparison with Greek poet-historians like Homer. --Stefanie L.

I found the comparisons between prose, films, and other artistic works very interesting. That although at time some exaggeration was allowed, it was only to a point, and the accuracy of the tale was still unquestioned. Although I understood before this article that there often tend to be underlying messages that can be internalized by the viewer of a movie in regards to the period or individual, but I never considered the extent to which movies, inaccuracies and all, and be taken in and recognized as a truth by some individuals. -- Patti M.

I also had the question about at what point do the filmmakers pick between accurracy and accessability. I know there are time constraints for filming and film length, but does that give them the excuse to not give an event its proper depiction. This can also be seen in films that are adapted from books. -- Emily E.

During this reading, one of the main paragraphs that stuck out to me was page 15 when the author quotes John Sayles to say how important it is to include when a movie is based on a real story because this will create both a certain emotion in the viewer's eyes and it automatically gives it credibility. However, the overall outline of the movie or a certain scene might be slightly swayed to instill a certain emotion when that in actuality was not there. I think this article helped me understand that while some movies such as documentaries are produced for historical reasons, and some are for entertainment and monetary reasons and unfortunately the latter would be more popular. Therefore, their story line will be synonymous with that event, regardless of accuracy.--Aqsa Z.

Davis mentions the many ways a historian can err in writing and interpreting history, so if a historian can misinterpret and judge history incorrectly is it that far of a reach that movies, thought of as a means of entertainment, would as well? And I would think even more so seeing as they are made with more creative license than a historian apparently should use. As Davis explains historians can take educated imaginings based on facts they have found, just as filmmakers can. When reading this I found many similarities drawn between historical filmmakers and historians as far as approaches to imagining history. I also liked Davis concluding line, "Rather than being poachers in the historian's preserve, filmmakers can be artists for whom history matters." That films can be used as another medium for people to experience history in a more sensory way. --Kendall

I'm torn between wishing for accuracy and appreciating when films don't deliver accurate portrayals--The Other Boleyn Girl comes to mind. While it's true that the movie is based on a book based on some sort of history, I still crave a little bit of realism. On the other hand, history isn't fit for films. It's not boring, but it doesn't transfer well for a massive audience, so I see the need for a bit of warping. -- Brooke P

This article bitterly reminded me of the thousands of students who left Titanic in 3D remarking they did niot realize it was based on a true story. For many film is a gateway to the past, and as the author says- a way to experience the emotions of the time. While Titanic might have several errors etched in its Academy Award winning length, it introduces students to the topic. Also... Slavery.... Not to sure what that meant... -- JST

There is this need among historians to say that film isn't history. Maybe they just don't understand how it can contribute to the study of history. Films are based upon true stories, but are tweaked to entertain and change history/reality. '''Who wouldn't want to find a story and change what happened to make it more interesting? No one would retell a story that was boring. Films still depict accuracy/realism in movies, whether it be dress or language. Films are making history by making stories known to the public that would have been previously unknown. '''- Hannah Laughlin

This article was an interesting read which left me thinking about why it seems some directors are more interested in creating a film that twists and alters historical facts when the truth is more interesting and stranger than the fiction they create. The article also made me think of how easily accessible movies are.'''If you think about it when you watch a movie it is very different than reading, there is no such thing as a faster or slower movie viewer everyone watches the movie at the same pace. '''There is no real required skill to watching a movie think of how films impacted and continue to impact the lives of people who are or were illiterate. With this observation alone it is no wonder why films have had such a dramatic impact on society. - Jason M.

Throughout this article I was struck by the delicate balance that is desired between historical accuracy and artistic interpretation. On page 12, it talks about all of the "little" decisions made by the director, actors, costume designers, composers, cameramen, etc. A movie is certainly a collaboration of many interpretations. Books, as the author of this reading points out, have significantly less people contributing. Sometimes I wrongly think a movie is a perfect reflection of the director's intentions. This reading contradicted that and I feel like now I have a more well-rounded way to look at movies. --Ellen Smethurst

'''I thought this article was had unnecessarily long point of saying, "Don't hold movies to the same standards of real history writing." Isn't this writing the obvious? '''The "slave" theme of the first page is extremely tenuous in the next 8 pages, making me wonder if the author ran out of material or examples that fit the theme. The article spends too much time talking about each medium, historic filmmaking and historic writing, separately then finishes with 2 pages of comparison. I think I would have enjoyed the article more if the theme and examples were tighter of an overarching point. Instead, it seems kind of slipshod in its point until the very end of the article. - Zhen Chen.

Introduction: Why Movies Matter
The thing that really stood out for this reading was how self-explanatory so many of these concepts were, but that I'd never really stopped to think about them. Like with the rating system: you see them in every movie trailer and poster, but even though I knew technically why they were there, I'd never considered it in the context of early censorship, and how those impact audiences even now. --Carrie

It was interesting to read that movies have a larger purpose, the idea that they want to have an impact on the movie-goer and the society around them. I agree with Carrie, this was such a simple thing, because I did not think about movies as something other than entertainment, but I can understand how some movies would want to leave a greater impact. --Kayle P

Most of us have learned about the mass amount of people who went and watched movies at the first movie theaters in the early 1900's in American history. So it sometimes makes me forget that movies still influence our fashion and our thoughts, as if that only happened back then and not now. But this reading made me remember all the times I saw an outfit or a behavior in a movie that I have wanted to copy for myself. --Olivia H.

Like Carrie and Kayle, I never really thought about how movies impacted society, but as I was reading the article it all made sense and kept thinking about movies that I have seen that fit into these concepts. After reading this article, I don't really think they're are really any directors how want to create a movie for just pure entertaintment. No matter what, movies have an impact on what people think, buy, and even career choices. For example, Disney created several short films to promote buying war bonds and for propaganda, after watching Indiana Jones, I wanted to be an archaeologist, I mean who wouldn't? --Paige

I have always considered movies to be one way that the masses can learn about a certain concept. This article made me realize that the film industry is not only trying to teach the masses, but give comments on how the world is at the time. I did not realize that this had been occurring since the start of the industry. -- Emily E.

Like many of the comments above the connection to the impact movies can have on the masses was an interesting point in this article. The idea that "movies can change the ways in which people think about themselves and their world" (6) just goes to show the impact that movies can have on the individual. Also the concept of repetition in related films (pg 9) to aid in creating a form of reality in the minds of the viewer is just another example of the power of film. -- Patti M.

Compared to the first three readings Ross does not mention historical films specifically but keeps his writing centered around the movie business in general. When the specifics of historical film is taken out of the picture it is much easier to see the wide impact that films have on the masses. The way Ross explains how much influence films have on the masses is also kinda scary to hear how much influence films can have people's consciousness of the world around them. Because of the amount of influence films can have on the viewersI think filmmakers, historical one specifically, have at least the responsibility to disclose when they are making great deviations from historical fact as historians have a responsibility to disclose when they are making their own judgments or conveying their own imaginings s Davis said in Slaves on Screen. -- Kendall

This introduction also made me consider the links between American film and society. I remember repeating actions of recreating outfits from movies because I thought that was how people were supposed to behave, which is proof of the impacts that films can have on people and society. I like that the author addressed that films have always been a means of introducing ideas and reflections about society and therefore helping form the society that watched them. -Amanda V.

What is really interesting about this article is that it discusses the power that movies and the movie industry was able to obtain in such a relatively brief period. I think that movies became this incredible medium to promote ideas to audiences that otherwise would never become exposed to them. This rapid spread of ideas is accompanied by government crack downs which then severely limits the artistic freedoms that movie makers once had. It would be interesting to see how society would have shaped itself without the use of movies as an influence for change. -Rachel T.

I always thought of the movies as a way for families and individuals to enjoy their time; not necessarily a way to alter or persuade one's thinking unless the movie was politically motivated. But now thinking back on it, very few movies can be made without a certain bias. On page two, the author discusses how movies were the only way many Americans would get information on gays, lesbians, and different minority groups and this would be the only information they received. Even now a day with so many other media outlets, the hidden bias's in movies and tv shows are there and continue to shape people's minds and opinions. --Aqsa Z.

This article sparked a number of thoughts about films that I had never contemplated before. I was aware that films had the power to influence the way people dressed or consumed but I had never contemplated that when films use certain images repeatedly people become accustom to these images and ideas. An example could be if films began showing an African American child and Caucasian child playing together people in even the most remote towns would begin to feel comfortable with the idea of interracial friendships. This sort of social influence is a great example of why film is such an important medium and the affect which it can have on a society. - Jason M.

Hollywood's America
The closing paragraph for this reading says it all.'''Movies have and will continue to play a major role in our society as far more than just entertainment. '''The film industry is so deeply rooted in American culture that society does not realize the influence films have over us, shaping our ideas and behaviors and exposing taboo topics and situations on the big screen. --Mary O.

The article offers an interesting summary of US cinema's development and its parallels to contemporary culture. It did raise some "chicken or the egg" questions for me though. Are most movies reactionary, or do some spur social changes? The author appears to believe the former, suggesting that producers are somewhat fearful of regulation/social backlash. I would be curious to hear some examples to the contrary. --Stefanie L.

'''I did not like this article. I thought it was very long and very boring because it rehashed a lot of the concepts that were in the previous articles. This article would have been a lot more effective if it is read first because it is very detailed and pretty much covers everything we need to know for an introduction.''' --Paige

--Ok, let me backtrack. I said "spur social changes," which is a complete "yuck" for me (ie solely watching Kony 2012 does absolutely nothing to change the world, no matter what Facebook tells you). Sorry about that. How about "shaping public opinion" or "drawing public attention to a particular issue"? --Stefanie

I must agree with Paige above in regards to the length and and repetitive nature of this article. Other than that, being able to see the progression of the development of the film industry was interesting. To see how different era adapted the industry and how people participants and on-lookers dealt with the changes through film. --Patti M.

After reading "Why Movies Matter" and Mintz and Roberts, I had a similar question to Stefanie's. Do movies influence the public or does the public influence movies? When we are viewing and analyzing films this semester, I'm curious to see how people will fall based on their conclusions. We will be viewing two Native American movies from the early 1990s, so I hope we'll discuss the context for their production and whether it was reactive or anticipatory or maybe neither.--Brooke P

While I agree with my classmates that this article was rather long, I found it interesting in certain aspects of talking about the history of film. I believe that while most of us enjoy film, not much of us know the history behind how it progressed to Hollywood America. I cannot believe how quickly technology progressed from the 1887 "kinetoscopes" (fifty feet of film to show 40 seconds of moving picture) to a little over a decade later with the popularity of nickelodeons. I'm intrigued by the ending of this article, with the author mentioning that movies and videos reflected cultural ideas. I'm interested to related more of this idea later in the class. - Megan

The article ran out of steam after the post-war era and seemed content to simply list off movies and say "Yeah, that happened too." Maybe its just the flaw of being a relatively recently release, there just hasn't been enough time to see the historic significance. More cynically, I'd say the more recent cinema history disprove or at least cast doubt on the author's stance that the public influences movies moreso than the other way around. Still, I enjoyed reading the history of a media that we all enjoy. Has anyone ever heard of someone not enjoying movies? Or conversely, how many times have you heard "I like movies" as an answer to what your hobbies are. The author is certainly correct in his last paragraph about the importance of movies on culture. -Zhen