[1] Within the last few decades, we have generated a great number of “historical” films reaching the American public. With these “historical” films come the question of whether or not the film portrayed history in an accurate manner; if not, why were the facts manipulated the way that they were. Unfortunately, this question is usually answered in the negative, and the audience is left with a fictional account of a factual happening, thereby giving the viewing public mixed messages concerning the issues raised within the film. Film used in this manner can be a dangerous tool in the hands of powerful people with agendas and ulterior motives.
[2] Manipulated history used in an inappropriate manner is one of the ways in which the Nazis were able to convince so many people to follow their evil and tyrannical beliefs. This is not something that we as Americans can have happen. History in the cinema should be a carefully monitored area, so as to prevent fictional accounts to be passed as the truth. If we allow our screenwriters and directors to have free reign in the movies, they could theoretically conjure up any scenario that they pleased and pass it off as an actual event. This can not be so. If history is to be conveyed through film, it should be of the highest accuracy. Many people rely on what they see as fact so that if all movies decided to create a “history” that never happened, a large percentage of the American population would fall victim to their chicanery.
[3] Through a discussion of how history has been maneuvered within films, specifically Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace and Music, I pose the question of how closely should our films be monitored for historical inaccuracies. This serves to benefit ...
... middle of paper ...
... learn about the true evils of slavery, Columbus, and the other tyrants that we have since held up as divine, but in time they will learn the whole truth. Learning this truth is the purest form of nationalism. Learning every aspect of our history is the only way that we as a people can truly take pride in our country. If we allow our filmmakers to continually bombard us with fallacies and half-truths, where will we be as a society when we no longer have a history, an identity, to hold onto?
Works Cited
Holden, Joan. “Woodstock: The Four Dollar Revolution.” Ramparts Oct 1970: 60-62+.
Kauffman, Stanley. “Stanley Kauffman on Films: Woodstock.” New Republic 2 May 1970: 20+.
Loewen, James W. Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. New York: Touchstone, 1996.
Woodstock Festival
http://encarta.msn.com/
Films are necessary in our time period because the human eye can articulate the message intended through sight allowing visual imagination to occur. In the book, world 2 by Max Brooks, he creates a character by the name Roy Elliot who was a former movie director. Roy Elliot manages to make a movie titled “Victory at Avalon: The Battle of the Five Colleges” and some how it goes viral. Similarly, Frank Capra’s film, “Why we Fight” expresses a sense of understanding the meaning of wars. Films do not inevitably portray truth because they display what the film director views as important and beneficial for people to know.
...e. Cinema can create new or old perceptions of reality through their depictions of ideas or images. Martyrs of the Alamo is a film that created a new perception of nationalism during a period where there were threats against the United States. D.W. Griffin’s productions of the film perpetuated racial images of Mexicans in order to enhance his central theme. Through out the film we see these racializations through the contrast in characters and how different scenes were created to evoke emotions needed to instill this need to belong.
Tindall, George, and David Shi. America: A Narrative History. Ed. 9, Vol. 1. New York: WW. Norton & Company, 2013. 185,193. Print.
[2] Regardless of how careful the director, producer, and actors are at being loyal to the subject matter, then, the question still remains whether or not Hollywood is a legitimate resource for historical matter. Is it possible for a dramatic, high priced and glitzy medium to be honest and true to its subject matter in such a way that viewers are not confused but more educated walking out than they were walking in? Is the Movie Theater any place for history to be learned? Directors fight and argue that indeed Hollywood is equally as reliable and legitimate a source as other "texts." The movies provide a more immediate resource, allowing history to change from the dreaded school subject to an appea...
Screen Junkies have two Honest Trailers”300” and “Frozen” that have been hilariously broken down for the audience. In 300 the audience views the movie in a “blend of historical truth” (Screen Junkies), since the it has to do with Spartans. Screen Junkies is not only trying to make one laugh with their critics but it is also letting the reader know that the movie is based on many other things other than just Spartans. The language in the movie creates the reader to be “detecting gaps and contradictions” (Mays 1310) due to it not being completely honest. Many historical movies are not exactly based on what happened in the past but just a form of
Ever since movies began to be made after historical events they always include inaccuracies in the ways they depict them. Film’s ability to offer visual representation of historical events sure beat reading a book due to the fact they fill the viewer up with information and entertainment. History films are a stand-in for reality, leading the viewer to witness wars, and events as if he/she is present during that time. Directors tend to see the injunction to present the past accurately in terms of plot and set design and do whatever it is possible to get these details right. The focus of some directors is to catch the viewers’ attention so that people will actually go see the film. They are often forced to sacrifice real events and add a twist to it so that it becomes more entertaining to watch. In the movies; Flags of our Fathers, The Great Raid, The Thin Red Line, and Pearl Harbor directors did whatever they could to depict events accurately. Major events are described as they really happened, but there is always something added that did not exactly occur from what the textbook tel...
...are not spreading information primarily for money. The reason why movies are mostly fictional is because the point of a movie is to make money and the makers of the movie won't get people to come to the theaters without a plot. The plot usually does not contain a character based on a historical figure, but even if it is based on a true story, there are fabrications to save money in the budget. For example, the Oliver Stone, who directed Born on the Fourth of July, filmed a scene at Syracuse University that took place in Washington because filming the scene at the nation's capital would've been too expensive (After the Fact page 404). In the end, money is probably the reason for the exaggeration of historical events in films. If screenwriters didn't have to be concerned with making a movie attractive to viewers, they could stick to the historical truth more often.
The issues surrounding welfare and welfare reform are controversial, political, and difficult to resolve. The debate continues today as to who deserves benefits and who does not. In 1933, President Roosevelt created Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) as part of the New Deal. This early form of welfare was available to those who could demonstrate a need and the ability to maintain minimal assets of their own. It specifically targeted aid to single women with children. It was a controversial and highly debated subject. Even now, many years later, Congress continues to debate and reform welfare programs. It still brings with it the same intensity, controversy, and conflicting opinion it did years ago.
Carroll, Lewis. Through the Looking Glass and What Alice Found There. New York: Barnes and
...ctual roles, or adding in exciting events that revise the storyline. These changes are beneficial to producers because they engage a large audience and generate massive profits. In contrast, they do not always have a positive effect on viewers. Although they are entertaining which is an important aspect of theatre culture, they also are often misguiding. Many spectators take movies at face value, without considering that they may not exactly qualify as primary source material. Even when an historical event is fabricated to teach or enhance a moral message, it still doesn’t compensate for bending the truth. Moviegoer’s may have a positive experience and gain some skewed historical perspective, perhaps better than what they knew before the movie, but they loose out on the truth and therefore, a genuine understanding of the historical event, and its significance.
As it is commonly known, Hollywood tends to dramatize historical occurrences when it depicts events of the past. However, this does not mean that the movies they create are always historically inaccurate. Most of the time, the important details are kept and easy to relate to the events that actually took place.
Loewen, James W. Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2007. Print.
It is said that history is written by the victors. Although, it is important to consider how this fact impacts society. Media often uses historical tales to entertain. If the history the media describes is biased, is it naïve to think that the media portrays the most accurate, objective, and honest picture of the historical event? The following evidence cannot undeniable prove that every historical story is false, or even biased, but it does prove that the film, The Patriot is biased.
The speaker started the poem by desiring the privilege of death through the use of similes, metaphors, and several other forms of language. As the events progress, the speaker gradually changes their mind because of the many complications that death evokes. The speaker is discontent because of human nature; the searching for something better, although there is none. The use of language throughout this poem emphasized these emotions, and allowed the reader the opportunity to understand what the speaker felt.
Risner, Doug (n.d.). What Matthew Shepard would tell us: Gay and lesbian issues in education. In H.S. Shapiro, K. Latham & S.N. Ross (Eds.), The institute of education (5th ed., chap.12). Boston, MA: Pearson.