The Important Message in Romero
[1] Can film as a medium make any sense of History? Most of the time that seems not even to be the issue. So-called “historical” movies such as Pocahontas and Glory have been attacked for straying from the recorded facts of the events they portray in an attempt to tell a more attractive story. This practice has its roots in the movie-making process. Hollywood exists to make money, do not be fooled. Movies cost millions of dollars to film, print, release, and promote. Therefore, producers have little choice but to create movies that will appeal to as many moviegoers as possible in an effort to earn back the investment. To this end, moviemakers feel the need to take liberties with plot, characterizations, and historical accuracy to create a product that will sell. Hollywood favors drama and conflict, so when an historical story lacks one of these elements, it is often simply added for the sake of appeal. This practice falls under great scrutiny by those with a serious interest in the events that these movies portray. Because the better part of American viewers expect and demand stories told with the Hollywood spin, those films that attempt to stick doggedly to the facts generally do poorly in the box-office.
[2] Many historical films, however, have found success while staying true to the facts. These films oftentimes come from producers, directors, and actors with a genuine concern for the events they deal with. Spike Lee certainly had a pointed interest in the making of Malcolm X, as did Tom Hanks in making Saving Private Ryan. Hanks’ emotional tie to the movie surfaced in his speech at the podium of the Oscars this past year when he urged Americans to support our veterans and reminded us of the gift they have given to our country. Passion such as Hanks’ from within the making of the movie can provide an energy and vibrance that appeals even more than cheap Hollywood tricks. Either way, the same dangers apply, because passion usually fosters strong opinions that create biases in recounting the facts. Biographies tend to radiate greatness; war movies tend to take sides; racial movies tend to invoke sympathy. The same passion that motivates these people to make historical movies can also lead to a perversion of the story’s historical facts.
Fighting the use of the word ‘redskins’” by Brian Cladoosby says how “[s]tudies show the use of American Indian-based names, mascots and logos in sports has a negative psychological effect on Native peoples” Cladoosby places a link to Dr. Michael A. Friedman research report which backs his case. In his study Dr. Friedman, a clinical psychologist says how Redskins is “uniquely destructive” because it “perpetuates the stereotypical and outdated caricature” and “promotes and justifies the use of a dictionary-defined racial slur, thus increasing risk for discriminatory”. With the rate of Native American suicide one of the highest in the nation the addition of their culture and history being stereotyped young Natives are facing discrimination and then being told that it’s okay because it’s for a sport. Cladoosby adds how that it creates a challenge to Natives who want to “maintain a foundation in their culture and language” meaning that ignoring a name that was once used when hunting their ancestors means that they are ignoring their culture. The name is not just racist and derogatory but promotes the an old-fashioned and stereotypical view of Native
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.
History can be learned through several different mediums, and it is arguable that the most popular methods are through film and literature. Each come with their own respective advantages and disadvantages, and can each have a different effect on how an event is both portrayed and conceptualized. When comparing the 1987 book Mutiny on the Amistad: The Saga of a Slave Revolt and its Impact on American Abolition, Law and Diplomacy by Howard Jones, and the 1997 film Amistad directed by Steven Spielberg, it is apparent that both the book and the film are able to effectively retell the story of the events that took place aboard the Amistad in 1839. Yet each shed a different light on the matter and have been received by people in a different way.
In today's day and age, it's rare to see famous historical events and societal disasters not be picked apart by film directors and then transformed into a box office hit. What these films do is put a visual perspective on these events, sometimes leaving viewers speculating if whatever was depicted is in fact entirely true. I have never felt that feeling more than after I finished watching Oliver Stone’s JFK.
Beginning the mid 1920s, Hollywood’s ostensibly all-powerful film studios controlled the American film industry, creating a period of film history now recognized as “Classical Hollywood”. Distinguished by a practical, workmanlike, “invisible” method of filmmaking- whose purpose was to demand as little attention to the camera as possible, Classical Hollywood cinema supported undeviating storylines (with the occasional flashback being an exception), an observance of a the three act structure, frontality, and visibly identified goals for the “hero” to work toward and well-defined conflict/story resolution, most commonly illustrated with the employment of the “happy ending”. Studios understood precisely what an audience desired, and accommodated their wants and needs, resulting in films that were generally all the same, starring similar (sometimes the same) actors, crafted in a similar manner. It became the principal style throughout the western world against which all other styles were judged. While there have been some deviations and experiments with the format in the past 50 plus ye...
Native Americans are trying to take that next step. For the past 100 years Americans have stolen their sacred names and used them for mascots of high school, college, and professional sports teams. The National Education Association is one of the first to step to the plate by passing, Article I-41, which advises use of Prejudicial Terms and Symbols "The National Education Association deplores prejudice based on race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender, age, disability, size, marital status, or economic status and rejects the use of names, symbols, caricatures, emblems, logos, and mascots that promote such prejudice. (92,94)" By having these practices they believe the rights of Native Americans are protected. Native American Mascots in sports need to change to protect and uphold the rights that are granted to them from the constitution.
Issue of whether to keep Mascots in schools or not, started in late 1970’s and from then this debate is going on. Most of the schools have Indian Mascots in place for half a century and suddenly it become problem to use Indian Mascots. Over 500 Native American organizations also announced their support for the removal of those mascots and over 1200 schools across the United States have changed the name of their sports teams and some school refused to play with those schools using Indian mascots. But some school still think that using mascots are just paying homage to the Native peoples and it’s just another group claiming to be offended. Sports teams used those mascots to promote their team’s athletic powers, like wolf, lion and eagle etc. How portrait of an Indain wearing hat with feather or headdress can be offensive or racist? One thing which never be done up to now that is to view our history from Native eyes. First of all, learn about their culture and their living style from their new perspective not the one which is given in our history books. From last hundred years we taught our generations that this is our country and we had a very long war with Indians which won. We also tell different kind of stories like burning of Fort Pequot Indians because they had trade relationship with British company. Can stories like this possibly be related to mascot issue? Using mascots are really a problem or just a political incorrectness.
page 175 “No help or backing was to be had then from his high-born comrades; that hand-picked troop broke ranks and ran for their lives to safety of the wood.” (Heaney)
Classic narrative cinema is what Bordwell, Staiger and Thompson (The classic Hollywood Cinema, Columbia University press 1985) 1, calls “an excessively obvious cinema”1 in which cinematic style serves to explain and not to obscure the narrative. In this way it is made up of motivated events that lead the spectator to its inevitable conclusion. It causes the spectator to have an emotional investment in this conclusion coming to pass which in turn makes the predictable the most desirable outcome. The films are structured to create an atmosphere of verisimilitude, which is to give a perception of reality. On closer inspection it they are often far from realistic in a social sense but possibly portray a realism desired by the patriarchal and family value orientated society of the time. I feel that it is often the black and white representation of good and evil that creates such an atmosphere of predic...
One could easily dismiss movies as superficial, unnecessarily violent spectacles, although such a viewpoint is distressingly pessimistic and myopic. In a given year, several films are released which have long-lasting effects on large numbers of individuals. These pictures speak
...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.
...al events. Some events that happened in the film, didn't actually happen in history. Especially the whole romantic theme, though the scenes with romance helped develop the plot of the film, and to elaborate on the film's themes and message. Although the film seems to be mostly inaccurate, it still held some historical accuracy.
While hundreds, even thousands of excellent movies have been made over the years since motion pictures were invented, there are some movies that stand out among the best. There are various reasons for these standouts, sometimes incredible acting, sometimes impeccable story lines, but in many cases, it is the issues addressed by the movie. Most of the greatest movies contain commentaries or analyses of certain issues, be they moral, social, or otherwise. John McTiernan directed one of these films, The Hunt for Red October, based on the similarly titled best-selling novel by Tom Clancy. The Hunt for Red October, a product of the anti-communist attitudes of the 1980’s, is above all a commentary on morality. It follows a critical moral decision made by one man, Soviet Captain Marko Ramius, portrayed by Sean Connery, and follows the consequences of that moral decision to their conclusion. While this is not the only instance of morality being questioned in this movie, it is the most important, as it is the decision upon which the story is based. Other characters, like Alec Baldwin’s character of Jack Ryan, and Scott Glenn’s character Captain Bart Mancuso also have to make moral decisions that will have important effects on Ramius’ decision.
“Entertainment has to come hand in hand with a little bit of medicine, some people go to the movies to be reminded that everything’s okay. I don’t make those kinds of movies. That, to me, is a lie. Everything’s not okay.” - David Fincher. David Fincher is the director that I am choosing to homage for a number of reasons. I personally find his movies to be some of the deepest, most well made, and beautiful films in recent memory. However it is Fincher’s take on story telling and filmmaking in general that causes me to admire his films so much. This quote exemplifies that, and is something that I whole-heartedly agree with. I am and have always been extremely opinionated and open about my views on the world and I believe that artists have a responsibility to do what they can with their art to help improve the culture that they are helping to create. In this paper I will try to outline exactly how Fincher creates the masterpieces that he does and what I can take from that and apply to my films.
According to ProCon.org, prostitution was a profession that dated back to 2400 B.C. Though many things since then have changed, the practice of selling sex has been more or less the same. What has changed is the way that people now view the practice. Throughout the years the debate has been whether prostitution should become legal or illegal. Organizations like Amnesty International want to push forward the idea of legalizing consensual “sex work” between two adults who are willingly participating because it would help keep those in that line of work safer than they are now. While on the other side of the issue there are