Respond in a small paragraph to one of the following:
1-Which film(s) do you consider "national" American film(s)? What makes them so? Explain using narrative and formal examples as supporting arguments.
2-Cortes' articles emphasize the power of images to change public opinion and mold the psyche of American audiences. Williams disregards this point of view and directs our attention towards the economic circumstances and historical events that have shaped the images we see. Where do you stand in this argument?
2. I believe that both of these points stand on opposite sides of the spectrum, but they rely on one another to work. Fiction needs some sort of grounding in reality in order to effectively work most of the time. An audience of scholars might look past the icons of a film to the historical backdrop that created them and draw a greater appreciation for the situation, while still a casual viewer looking to be entertained might instead see the icons as truthful characters and learn through them. Personally speaking, I think that it's a filmmakers job to educate the audience through the work so that they can understand what the film represents while still staying true to its characters.
ReplyDeleteI think that both Cortes and Williams make valid points in their arguments. I believe that historical events or economic circumstances can be exaggerated in films, therefore reinforcing public opinion. To those who are not educated on the truth of historical events, these exaggerated depictions are reality. The viewer sees a film of historical events as being based in fact and accepts it as truth, when the filmmaker may have altered the truth of these events to fit a story line. I think public opinion on historical events that are not well known can be greatly influenced by image.
ReplyDeleteCortes and Williams’ opposite points in the articles are probably the main arguments we have for the media culture we live in. Both arguments are very true when we talk about the power of images. But I would stand for Cortes’ idea, which the images are powerful to change public opinion and the spirit of the time we live in. Today, our cultural climate is highly based on media. The affects of media can easily redirect the course of stereotypes and prejudices of societies. Images are not only just artistic results, but also educational references of culture to public today. But audiences should not be educated by every image they see (this can turn some type of propaganda), they should think critically, and distinguish fiction and facts of films that handle cultural or political issues.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that both those points are completly irreverent to each other. This is because of our media culture and how directors make movies. It is there job to make sure that we as the viewers understand what they want us to see without changing the representation of the characters. Our media as well is not for artistic purposes but for us to be able to learn about the culture around us.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Glory (1983) by Denzel Washington is national American film. It is based on the letter of the Robert Gould Shaw. He was an officer during American Civil war and volunteered to lead a first company Black soldiers, 54 Massachusetts. Shaw had to face discrimination from both confederates as well as from his fellow officers. This movie tell us about the history of the America as well as the problem it went through over time. this movie project over its audience about racism and then how they (shaw and his fellows) overcame and resolve the problem. Here is the critic review about this movie, "A stirring and long overdue tribute to the black soldiers who fought for the Union cause in the Civil War, Glory has the sweep and magnificence of a Tolstoy battle tale or a John Ford saga of American history."
ReplyDeleteThere are many films that can be considered national American films. WIth the majority being war films because of the nationalism that coincides with the American Army. I believe "The Patriot", "Apocalypse Now", "Saving Private Ryan", and "Platoon" are just a few examples. However there were early national American films in the early 1900's that may seem out of date today but, for example the film "Birth of a Nation" is viewed as one of the first nationalistic films made. War time movies bring about a special feeling to viewers that help bring feelings of nationalism to anyone. "The Patriot" told a tale of a revolutionary war hero who fights for not only America, but most importantly his family. "Birth of a Nation" depicts two families, northern and southern, before, during and after the civil war in which the battles and struggles are shown for the fight of a Nation.
ReplyDeleteThere are many films that can be considered national American films. WIth the majority being war films because of the nationalism that coincides with the American Army. I believe "The Patriot", "Apocalypse Now", "Saving Private Ryan", and "Platoon" are just a few examples. However there were early national American films in the early 1900's that may seem out of date today but, for example the film "Birth of a Nation" is viewed as one of the first nationalistic films made. War time movies bring about a special feeling to viewers that help bring feelings of nationalism to anyone. "The Patriot" told a tale of a revolutionary war hero who fights for not only America, but most importantly his family. "Birth of a Nation" depicts two families, northern and southern, before, during and after the civil war in which the battles and struggles are shown for the fight of a Nation.
ReplyDelete2. I don't nessecarily think these points of view are opposite of eachother. I think both can coexist. A film can be historically correct and be based off of real images and information, but it can also serve a purpose to educate and persuade the geneneral public's opinion. If I had to choose a side it would be William's views. Portraying things correctly shows respect for history. Also if films are more raw with less emotional input/ persuasive views the audience will be more capable of forming their own opinons instead of adapting the popular belief. Its close to impossible to make a film completly unbiased, but I feel when it comes to historical films the less opinions/input the better.
ReplyDelete1. Although there are many choices of films that represent the nation in patriotic ways. Many of these films have a strong premise of pro-America, and American supremest undertones. However I believe that there are other films that can be classified as "national" films, such as Citizen Kane, and Modern Times. These films aren't representing the flag, or the nation, but the individual types of people that make it America. Charlie Chaplin in Modern Times makes a good representation of the everyday struggle and work that some men have to go through just to make it. While Citizen Kane shows the opposite side with big business, materialism, and rich, high power, and influential individuals. It is all these different types of people that make this nation what it is today. -James Thompson
ReplyDelete1. I believe Crossing Over (2009) is a national American film because it shows the major contemporary issues in immigration by using a Caucasian, Korean, Hispanic, and Middle-Eastern cast. The film deals with several stories relating to the struggles of an immigration officer trying to decide whether his job is morally acceptable as well as immigrants trying to live in the country or obtain green cards.
ReplyDeleteThe film is quite bleak in it's depiction of American culture; showing that there are people who are much too willing to take advantage of immigrants in their half-American position, in this case FBI official acts to deport a young Muslim girl solely because the girl wrote an essay with anti-American sentiments and also in the case of a Australian woman who blackmailed by an immigration officer. It also comments of the alienation of immigrants by other immigrants, a young Persian woman is ostracized from her family because she has chosen to date a non-Iranian man.
The film ends with both happy and sad resolutions to the many characters but ultimately forwards a message of unity despite the difference . I consider the film national not just because of it's plot but also because of its diverse cast which I think representative of America should be grounded on, the idea that there are no “true Americans” just those that live the country hoping to find happiness.
The first movie that pops into my head when thinking about American films is the Godfather series. Even though the director said he was going to make this movie with no identifiable ethnicity, we all know this is about an Italian family involved in the mafia. But, this movie is not just about an Italian family, it is about an Italian-American family now living in America and dealing with struggles of discrimination along with struggles of every day life. I am pretty sure you never hear the original Godfather speak Italian, he only speaks English which shows that he tried really hard to become an American citizen. He is living the American dream with a loving wife and family. He tried to leave his son, Micheal out of the family business to start legitimizing his family, but through circumstances he was brought in. The Godfather is a national American movie because almost everyone loves these movies and it deals with important issues like immigration, Americanization, friends and family.
ReplyDelete1. I think that films that exemplify the American Judicial and Legislative processes could be considered national films. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington a common man makes his way up to become a U.S Senator. This films shows how a common man can become a congressman and fight corruption. Another national film would be 12 Angry Men. In this film a jury tries to decide whether a person is innocent or guilty of a crime, against all odds one jury member is able to convince all the others of the mans innocence. These two films show how an individual can affect the american processes and how it is there duty to do so.
ReplyDeleteBoth Cortes and Williams have valid arguments. Films have often been used to depict certain situations within a certain context. In an effort to evoke the kind of feeling that someone is going through or has gone through, powerful images are needed.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is when a film depicts a situation gratuitously simply for entertainment value and monetary interest. This is where negative stereotypes really take hold.
(Jason LaManna)
ReplyDelete2. People have to remember that the first job of a director is to entertain. Very rarely does a director care more about specific historical events being accurate as they do about the audience enjoying their film. Entertainment before education in the directors eyes. Many people don't know the 100% truth about a historical events and take these films as a textbook. The people who do pay attention to detail such as this and know the history are called critics. There are less of them as there are people who are looking to enjoy a film. I do believe public opinion on most historical events can be influenced greatly by image.
2-Cortes' articles emphasize the power of images to change public opinion and mold the psyche of American audiences. Williams disregards this point of view and directs our attention towards the economic circumstances and historical events that have shaped the images we see. Where do you stand in this argument?
ReplyDeleteI think that images both mold the psyche of American audiences -and- manipulate economic circumstances, which in turn create historical events. Our economy is largely based on media influence (advertising), so it's all very cyclical. Without advertising and subliminal messages, our economy would have to operate differently, and without the economy our media and images would be different because they wouldn't be as monetarily motivated.