Working full time. My brain kind of shat itself for lack of a better word.
Starting study notes today, I'll get back to posting my progress with the movie once the show is over. Hope everyone had a good easter and is making better progress than I.
:)
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Reading
Frost / Nixon the book by Frost himself - quite snide and humorous, features transcripts I can compare to the movie.
Nixon's autobiography - boring. I hate it. I'm only reading watergate / resignation / media related pieces. It's the biggest tool of propaganda in Nixon's favour.
Can't get my hands on all the presidents men book though, which will be good to get once I can get to St Mary's Library.
Nixon's autobiography - boring. I hate it. I'm only reading watergate / resignation / media related pieces. It's the biggest tool of propaganda in Nixon's favour.
Can't get my hands on all the presidents men book though, which will be good to get once I can get to St Mary's Library.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Proposal Task- Final Result
So I didn't ask for criticism, instead sent this to Mr. Wright himself and got my mother (a teacher) to proof read. There isn't a conclusion and I'm currently to tired to try and cut down my word count to allow for one.
2/5 marks, here I come! Yay! ¬.¬
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
Description of Preliminary Research
Initially terrified and thrilled at the idea of an individual research into any topic of my choice in history, I sifted through every piece of history I’d ever found interesting. For the first term or so, I wasted very little time on the topic of The Holocaust deniers and wasted too much time on the topic of Vampirism in folklore before deciding both were far too narrow to write about, nor did they interest me that much.
So, I got back on track the only way I know how: watching television. The History Chanel, to be exact. Moving into the realms of Modern History, I was fascinated by the scandal of Watergate, and the involvement of Richard M. Nixon. I began to explore the Internet as a springboard for further research, finding a site dedicated purely to the Presidency of Nixon, the Watergate scandal and his resignation. From this I also came across multiple resources (including online books, docos and movies) about the Watergate scandal. The one that particularly caught my eye was the use of film as a historical recollection. After discussions with Mr Wright, I chose to watch and explore how the films Frost/Nixon and All The Presidents Men dealt with Watergate, and how they could be assessed as history in film. I decided to explore under the project type “History in the Media- Film”
I came to my final essay question of “Assess the historical value of the films Frost/Nixon and All The Presidents Men as historical sources” From this I found myself questioning a few aspects of using film as history. Things like “Is it important if the film gets history right?” and “Are the audiences perceptions of the film important” and lastly “Why should/shouldn’t films be seen as appropriate historical sources to study?”
Though far from finished in this topic, I’m pleased with the progress I’ve made already. However, I need to acquire a book called The Contemporary History Handbook by Brian Brivati, Julia Buxtun and Anthony Seldon, in which a whole chapter of assesses how to use films as a historical source. I’ll also need to analyse the films further in comparison to things like the Frost/Nixon interview transcript compared with the dialogue in the film’s interview, or read auto/biographies of the men involved at the Washington Post at the time of the scandal. I’ll also need to answer questions on reliability and eventually assess the value of the films, even compare them to other historical sources and weigh up their value as historical material. Further reading into memoirs of Frost, Nixon, Bernstein and Woodward will also be useful in my assessments of the films, as a contrast between personal recollection and what changes the directors may have made. Despite my project being initially “History in the Media” I’ll also be looking into other project types inadvertently as this project progresses, I’m sure.
2/5 marks, here I come! Yay! ¬.¬
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-
Description of Preliminary Research
Initially terrified and thrilled at the idea of an individual research into any topic of my choice in history, I sifted through every piece of history I’d ever found interesting. For the first term or so, I wasted very little time on the topic of The Holocaust deniers and wasted too much time on the topic of Vampirism in folklore before deciding both were far too narrow to write about, nor did they interest me that much.
So, I got back on track the only way I know how: watching television. The History Chanel, to be exact. Moving into the realms of Modern History, I was fascinated by the scandal of Watergate, and the involvement of Richard M. Nixon. I began to explore the Internet as a springboard for further research, finding a site dedicated purely to the Presidency of Nixon, the Watergate scandal and his resignation. From this I also came across multiple resources (including online books, docos and movies) about the Watergate scandal. The one that particularly caught my eye was the use of film as a historical recollection. After discussions with Mr Wright, I chose to watch and explore how the films Frost/Nixon and All The Presidents Men dealt with Watergate, and how they could be assessed as history in film. I decided to explore under the project type “History in the Media- Film”
I came to my final essay question of “Assess the historical value of the films Frost/Nixon and All The Presidents Men as historical sources” From this I found myself questioning a few aspects of using film as history. Things like “Is it important if the film gets history right?” and “Are the audiences perceptions of the film important” and lastly “Why should/shouldn’t films be seen as appropriate historical sources to study?”
Though far from finished in this topic, I’m pleased with the progress I’ve made already. However, I need to acquire a book called The Contemporary History Handbook by Brian Brivati, Julia Buxtun and Anthony Seldon, in which a whole chapter of assesses how to use films as a historical source. I’ll also need to analyse the films further in comparison to things like the Frost/Nixon interview transcript compared with the dialogue in the film’s interview, or read auto/biographies of the men involved at the Washington Post at the time of the scandal. I’ll also need to answer questions on reliability and eventually assess the value of the films, even compare them to other historical sources and weigh up their value as historical material. Further reading into memoirs of Frost, Nixon, Bernstein and Woodward will also be useful in my assessments of the films, as a contrast between personal recollection and what changes the directors may have made. Despite my project being initially “History in the Media” I’ll also be looking into other project types inadvertently as this project progresses, I’m sure.
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Questions, websites and a bunch of other things.
So, I have a few questions using film as a historical text, and figured I may as well post them here.
PART ONE OF BLOG.
THE QUESTIONS.
1) Is it important if the film gets history right?
To explore this I'll try to acquire transcripts of the Frost/Nixon interview to see whether lines have been added for dramatic effect.
Similarly I'll try to explore the situation the Washington Post was actually in when reporting on the Watergate Scandal.
2) Are the audiences perceptions of the film important?
Ie. If the audience watch the film and takes it LITERALLY as what happened, is that really an issue?
Furthermore, is it any different to reading a bias piece of literature?
3) Can it be argued that the films are really a product of the directors own personal context?
Adding to this, can it be argued that the films are also a reflection of the social context they were created for?
4) Is the portrayal of the media as heroic, brave and truth seeking entirely accurate? Should we question this portrayal?
5) Is the directors manipulation of audience's emotions through various techniques create an unfair image of the historical issue? Does it detract from it's value as a historical source?
6) Why should / shouldn't films be seen as appropriate historical sources to study?
So, they're some of the questions I'm hoping to include later on in my essay. Anyone has any other suggestions, feel FREE to offer them up :)
PART TWO OF BLOG
WEBSITES
Okay so Google books has offered me up this delicious little gem, known under the title The contemporary history handbook By Brian Brivati, Julia Buxton and Anthony Seldon. As per usual though, google censors most of the frigging chapter from me, NOT TO MENTION A PAGE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FEW PAGES THEY ALLOW FOR READING. I HATE YOU GOOGLE BOOKS.
The only useful bits are from page 394 down, I might look into a purchase of this book for referencing and for answers to the questions I pose above.
I did a library search on some online website to see if anywhere had it. Results came out as "Sorry, we cannot find libraries in Australia that have this item.
The nearest locations with libraries that have the item include:
Germany"
I hate you internet. I really do.
link:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rmO7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA394&lpg=PA394&dq=film+as+a+historical+source&source=bl&ots=7K_52JTA8v&sig=Pw8janKUFdRPfZtnF9CfYNo5on8&hl=en&ei=QVuPS5faJZHutQPXk7DbCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=film%20as%20a%20historical%20source&f=false
Also, this website is amazing. Like, woah. Way to do all my questioning about the historical value of films for me. If i cite this, basically all I'll be doing is justifying these things through the examples of the two movies. AWESOME.
http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/thinkingabouthistoricalfilm.html
Well, after this I'll post a seperate blog about the contexts of the two films, both within the film, around the time of the films production and the directors own personal context.
I'll also include some background information on the directors which may include some insight into the portrayal of Watergate and Nixon's involvement.
OH OH OH, and I'm thinking that all this research is leading to A NEW QUESTION.
DAA DAAA DAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
"Assess the historical value of the films Frost/Nixon and All The Presidents Men as historical sources."
OR
"Evaluate the historical value of the films F/N and ATPM in their treatment of the Watergate Scandal."
Perhaps? Yes ? No?
PART ONE OF BLOG.
THE QUESTIONS.
1) Is it important if the film gets history right?
To explore this I'll try to acquire transcripts of the Frost/Nixon interview to see whether lines have been added for dramatic effect.
Similarly I'll try to explore the situation the Washington Post was actually in when reporting on the Watergate Scandal.
2) Are the audiences perceptions of the film important?
Ie. If the audience watch the film and takes it LITERALLY as what happened, is that really an issue?
Furthermore, is it any different to reading a bias piece of literature?
3) Can it be argued that the films are really a product of the directors own personal context?
Adding to this, can it be argued that the films are also a reflection of the social context they were created for?
4) Is the portrayal of the media as heroic, brave and truth seeking entirely accurate? Should we question this portrayal?
5) Is the directors manipulation of audience's emotions through various techniques create an unfair image of the historical issue? Does it detract from it's value as a historical source?
6) Why should / shouldn't films be seen as appropriate historical sources to study?
So, they're some of the questions I'm hoping to include later on in my essay. Anyone has any other suggestions, feel FREE to offer them up :)
PART TWO OF BLOG
WEBSITES
Okay so Google books has offered me up this delicious little gem, known under the title The contemporary history handbook By Brian Brivati, Julia Buxton and Anthony Seldon. As per usual though, google censors most of the frigging chapter from me, NOT TO MENTION A PAGE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FEW PAGES THEY ALLOW FOR READING. I HATE YOU GOOGLE BOOKS.
The only useful bits are from page 394 down, I might look into a purchase of this book for referencing and for answers to the questions I pose above.
I did a library search on some online website to see if anywhere had it. Results came out as "Sorry, we cannot find libraries in Australia that have this item.
The nearest locations with libraries that have the item include:
Germany"
I hate you internet. I really do.
link:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=rmO7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA394&lpg=PA394&dq=film+as+a+historical+source&source=bl&ots=7K_52JTA8v&sig=Pw8janKUFdRPfZtnF9CfYNo5on8&hl=en&ei=QVuPS5faJZHutQPXk7DbCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCwQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=film%20as%20a%20historical%20source&f=false
Also, this website is amazing. Like, woah. Way to do all my questioning about the historical value of films for me. If i cite this, basically all I'll be doing is justifying these things through the examples of the two movies. AWESOME.
http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/thinkingabouthistoricalfilm.html
Well, after this I'll post a seperate blog about the contexts of the two films, both within the film, around the time of the films production and the directors own personal context.
I'll also include some background information on the directors which may include some insight into the portrayal of Watergate and Nixon's involvement.
OH OH OH, and I'm thinking that all this research is leading to A NEW QUESTION.
DAA DAAA DAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
"Assess the historical value of the films Frost/Nixon and All The Presidents Men as historical sources."
OR
"Evaluate the historical value of the films F/N and ATPM in their treatment of the Watergate Scandal."
Perhaps? Yes ? No?
Friday, February 19, 2010
Friday, February 12, 2010
The Events of Watergate
So here's a neat little time line I found of watergate at http://www.watergate.info/burglary/
The site is SO helpful in providing information as a background to Nixon resignation.
I've decided having a good background knowledge about Nixon will be important because to assess the ways the films handle his resignation and the events that caused it will need a comparison to a non-hollywood influenced source of information which will explain the events as best they can.
I'm thinking that a composite from a multitude of non-fiction books, biographies and possibly even Nixon's autobiography would be a good place to start compiling the facts, in order to have a strong suit to compare with the films.
From this though I've also been thinking about looking at the films. When comparing them to each other and to the real story of Nixon's resignation, I'll have to explore the emotional response they're attemping to revoke. When doing this background information won't exactly prove my point, but perhaps references to the films audience, director and the context under which the film was made is more information I need to look into.
Until next time (Meaning later today, I'm going to be posting a lot !)
Alex
-x-
Brief Timeline of Events
1968
November 1968: Richard Milhous Nixon, the 55-year-old former vice president who lost the presidency for the Republicans in 1960, reclaims it by defeating Hubert Humphrey in one of the closest elections in U.S. history.
1970
July 23, 1970: Nixon approves a plan for greatly expanding domestic intelligence-gathering by the FBI, CIA and other agencies. He has second thoughts a few days later and rescinds his approval.
1971
June 13, 1971: The New York Times begins publishing the Pentagon Papers -- the Defense Department's secret history of the Vietnam War. The Washington Post will begin publishing the papers later in the week.
September 9, 1971: The White House "plumbers" unit - named for their orders to plug leaks in the administration - burglarizes a psychiatrist's office to find files on Daniel Ellsberg, the former defense analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers.
1972
June 17, 1972: Five men, one of whom says he used to work for the CIA, are arrested at 2:30 a.m. trying to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate hotel and office complex.
June 19, 1972: A GOP security aide is among the Watergate burglars, The Washington Post reports. Former attorney general John Mitchell, head of the Nixon reelection campaign, denies any link to the operation.
August 1, 1972: A $25,000 cashier's check, apparently earmarked for the Nixon campaign, wound up in the bank account of a Watergate burglar, The Washington Post reports.
September 29, 1972: John Mitchell, while serving as attorney general, controlled a secret Republican fund used to finance widespread intelligence-gathering operations against the Democrats, The Post reports.
October 10, 1972: FBI agents establish that the Watergate break-in stems from a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage conducted on behalf of the Nixon reelection effort, The Post reports.
November 11, 1972: Nixon is reelected in one of the largest landslides in American political history, taking more than 60 percent of the vote and crushing the Democratic nominee, Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota.
1973
January 30, 1973: Former Nixon aides G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord Jr. are convicted of conspiracy, burglary and wiretapping in the Watergate incident. Five other men plead guilty, but mysteries remain.
April 30, 1973: Nixon's top White House staffers, H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, and Attorney General Richard Kleindienst resign over the scandal. White House counsel John Dean is fired.
May 18, 1973: The Senate Watergate committee begins its nationally televised hearings. Attorney General-designate Elliot Richardson taps former solicitor general Archibald Cox as the Justice Department's special prosecutor for Watergate.
June 3, 1973: John Dean has told Watergate investigators that he discussed the Watergate cover-up with President Nixon at least 35 times, The Post reports.
June 13, 1973: Watergate prosecutors find a memo addressed to John Ehrlichman describing in detail the plans to burglarize
the office of Pentagon Papers defendant Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, The Post reports.
July 13, 1973: Alexander Butterfield, former presidential appointments secretary, reveals in congressional testimony that since 1971 Nixon had recorded all conversations and telephone calls in his offices.
July 18, 1973: Nixon reportedly orders the White House taping system disconnected.
July 23, 1973: Nixon refuses to turn over the presidential tape recordings to the Senate Watergate committee or the special prosecutor.
October 20, 1973: Saturday Night Massacre: Nixon fires Archibald Cox and abolishes the office of the special prosecutor. Attorney General Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus resign. Pressure for impeachment mounts in Congress.
November 17, 1973: Nixon declares, "I'm not a crook," maintaining his innocence in the Watergate case.
December 7, 1973: The White House can't explain an 18 1/2 -minute gap in one of the subpoenaed tapes. Chief of staff Alexander Haig says one theory is that "some sinister force" erased the segment.
1974
April 30, 1974: The White House releases more than 1,200 pages of edited transcripts of the Nixon tapes to the House Judiciary Committee, but the committee insists that the tapes themselves must be turned over.
July 24, 1974: The Supreme Court rules unanimously that Nixon must turn over the tape recordings of 64 White House conversations, rejecting the president's claims of executive privilege.
July 27, 1974: House Judiciary Committee passes the first of three articles of impeachment, charging obstruction of justice.
August 8, 1974: Richard Nixon becomes the first U.S. president to resign. Vice President Gerald R. Ford assumes the country's highest office. He will later pardon Nixon of all charges related to the Watergate case.
The site is SO helpful in providing information as a background to Nixon resignation.
I've decided having a good background knowledge about Nixon will be important because to assess the ways the films handle his resignation and the events that caused it will need a comparison to a non-hollywood influenced source of information which will explain the events as best they can.
I'm thinking that a composite from a multitude of non-fiction books, biographies and possibly even Nixon's autobiography would be a good place to start compiling the facts, in order to have a strong suit to compare with the films.
From this though I've also been thinking about looking at the films. When comparing them to each other and to the real story of Nixon's resignation, I'll have to explore the emotional response they're attemping to revoke. When doing this background information won't exactly prove my point, but perhaps references to the films audience, director and the context under which the film was made is more information I need to look into.
Until next time (Meaning later today, I'm going to be posting a lot !)
Alex
-x-
Brief Timeline of Events
1968
November 1968: Richard Milhous Nixon, the 55-year-old former vice president who lost the presidency for the Republicans in 1960, reclaims it by defeating Hubert Humphrey in one of the closest elections in U.S. history.
1970
July 23, 1970: Nixon approves a plan for greatly expanding domestic intelligence-gathering by the FBI, CIA and other agencies. He has second thoughts a few days later and rescinds his approval.
1971
June 13, 1971: The New York Times begins publishing the Pentagon Papers -- the Defense Department's secret history of the Vietnam War. The Washington Post will begin publishing the papers later in the week.
September 9, 1971: The White House "plumbers" unit - named for their orders to plug leaks in the administration - burglarizes a psychiatrist's office to find files on Daniel Ellsberg, the former defense analyst who leaked the Pentagon Papers.
1972
June 17, 1972: Five men, one of whom says he used to work for the CIA, are arrested at 2:30 a.m. trying to bug the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate hotel and office complex.
June 19, 1972: A GOP security aide is among the Watergate burglars, The Washington Post reports. Former attorney general John Mitchell, head of the Nixon reelection campaign, denies any link to the operation.
August 1, 1972: A $25,000 cashier's check, apparently earmarked for the Nixon campaign, wound up in the bank account of a Watergate burglar, The Washington Post reports.
September 29, 1972: John Mitchell, while serving as attorney general, controlled a secret Republican fund used to finance widespread intelligence-gathering operations against the Democrats, The Post reports.
October 10, 1972: FBI agents establish that the Watergate break-in stems from a massive campaign of political spying and sabotage conducted on behalf of the Nixon reelection effort, The Post reports.
November 11, 1972: Nixon is reelected in one of the largest landslides in American political history, taking more than 60 percent of the vote and crushing the Democratic nominee, Sen. George McGovern of South Dakota.
1973
January 30, 1973: Former Nixon aides G. Gordon Liddy and James W. McCord Jr. are convicted of conspiracy, burglary and wiretapping in the Watergate incident. Five other men plead guilty, but mysteries remain.
April 30, 1973: Nixon's top White House staffers, H.R. Haldeman and John Ehrlichman, and Attorney General Richard Kleindienst resign over the scandal. White House counsel John Dean is fired.
May 18, 1973: The Senate Watergate committee begins its nationally televised hearings. Attorney General-designate Elliot Richardson taps former solicitor general Archibald Cox as the Justice Department's special prosecutor for Watergate.
June 3, 1973: John Dean has told Watergate investigators that he discussed the Watergate cover-up with President Nixon at least 35 times, The Post reports.
June 13, 1973: Watergate prosecutors find a memo addressed to John Ehrlichman describing in detail the plans to burglarize
the office of Pentagon Papers defendant Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist, The Post reports.
July 13, 1973: Alexander Butterfield, former presidential appointments secretary, reveals in congressional testimony that since 1971 Nixon had recorded all conversations and telephone calls in his offices.
July 18, 1973: Nixon reportedly orders the White House taping system disconnected.
July 23, 1973: Nixon refuses to turn over the presidential tape recordings to the Senate Watergate committee or the special prosecutor.
October 20, 1973: Saturday Night Massacre: Nixon fires Archibald Cox and abolishes the office of the special prosecutor. Attorney General Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William D. Ruckelshaus resign. Pressure for impeachment mounts in Congress.
November 17, 1973: Nixon declares, "I'm not a crook," maintaining his innocence in the Watergate case.
December 7, 1973: The White House can't explain an 18 1/2 -minute gap in one of the subpoenaed tapes. Chief of staff Alexander Haig says one theory is that "some sinister force" erased the segment.
1974
April 30, 1974: The White House releases more than 1,200 pages of edited transcripts of the Nixon tapes to the House Judiciary Committee, but the committee insists that the tapes themselves must be turned over.
July 24, 1974: The Supreme Court rules unanimously that Nixon must turn over the tape recordings of 64 White House conversations, rejecting the president's claims of executive privilege.
July 27, 1974: House Judiciary Committee passes the first of three articles of impeachment, charging obstruction of justice.
August 8, 1974: Richard Nixon becomes the first U.S. president to resign. Vice President Gerald R. Ford assumes the country's highest office. He will later pardon Nixon of all charges related to the Watergate case.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
"Evaluate the historical value of three films treatment of the end of Nixon's Presidency."
I like it, thanks for the suggestion Mr Wright!
This weekend I'm going to be at the state library researching what ACTUALLY happened, (even though I have a pretty good knowledge that leads me to understand Nixon was in the same sort of league as Mao in my books), giving what reliable information I can to set the situation of the real event. Then I'll compare them to All The Presidents Men, Frost/Nixon and the movie Nixon (the semi-biographical one, still more of a movie that it is factual)
Few questions though:
- When I'm doing this though, should I be putting the directors into their own context? ie. What age / situation they were in during his resignation, their political views or any other factor that might change the portrayal of the end of his presidency?
- Should I also include things like dramatic techniques which may exaggerate tension or heightened emotions for commercial purposes?
- As for the actual film themselves should I look into how realistic and accurate they are as opposed to how much Hollywood has polarised them in order to make a major film ?
- Maybe a small delve into human emotions? Perhaps things like conflicting emotion about Nixon in the movies (Like Nixon/Front) where the director attempts to create sympathy for the situation of Nixon, portraying him as the 'broken, lost, lonely man who made a lot of mistakes which cost him his life" type person. This, I suppose, is an interesting thing to assess, whether this spin on the character comes from the Director (Ron Howard) own personal context or whether it was just employed to make Frost/Nixon a good film. Perhaps it is the loathing you feel suddenly challenged by the directors appeal to look at Nixon in a sympathetic light after all the atrocious things he did is a good thing to evaluate and assess
- When I go about writing my Proposal and eventually my practise essay, should I be assessing the film based not only on historical values but on influences from Hollywood, Target Audience and the Directors personal Context?
- HISTORICAL VALUE: Are we talking how accurate? Once again, are we addressing how the influences previously mentioned affect this?
-Should I perhaps look at the film from differing perspectives? I'm not quite sure if this will work, I'm just thinking that by using broader scope such as this I'll be displaying strong analytical abilites.
If anyone (and I really mean, anyone) wants to discuss, answer or tell me I've written something useless up here, PLEASE TELL ME! This stuffs going to help me with my proposal, and I'd love feed back!
I like it, thanks for the suggestion Mr Wright!
This weekend I'm going to be at the state library researching what ACTUALLY happened, (even though I have a pretty good knowledge that leads me to understand Nixon was in the same sort of league as Mao in my books), giving what reliable information I can to set the situation of the real event. Then I'll compare them to All The Presidents Men, Frost/Nixon and the movie Nixon (the semi-biographical one, still more of a movie that it is factual)
Few questions though:
- When I'm doing this though, should I be putting the directors into their own context? ie. What age / situation they were in during his resignation, their political views or any other factor that might change the portrayal of the end of his presidency?
- Should I also include things like dramatic techniques which may exaggerate tension or heightened emotions for commercial purposes?
- As for the actual film themselves should I look into how realistic and accurate they are as opposed to how much Hollywood has polarised them in order to make a major film ?
- Maybe a small delve into human emotions? Perhaps things like conflicting emotion about Nixon in the movies (Like Nixon/Front) where the director attempts to create sympathy for the situation of Nixon, portraying him as the 'broken, lost, lonely man who made a lot of mistakes which cost him his life" type person. This, I suppose, is an interesting thing to assess, whether this spin on the character comes from the Director (Ron Howard) own personal context or whether it was just employed to make Frost/Nixon a good film. Perhaps it is the loathing you feel suddenly challenged by the directors appeal to look at Nixon in a sympathetic light after all the atrocious things he did is a good thing to evaluate and assess
- When I go about writing my Proposal and eventually my practise essay, should I be assessing the film based not only on historical values but on influences from Hollywood, Target Audience and the Directors personal Context?
- HISTORICAL VALUE: Are we talking how accurate? Once again, are we addressing how the influences previously mentioned affect this?
-Should I perhaps look at the film from differing perspectives? I'm not quite sure if this will work, I'm just thinking that by using broader scope such as this I'll be displaying strong analytical abilites.
If anyone (and I really mean, anyone) wants to discuss, answer or tell me I've written something useless up here, PLEASE TELL ME! This stuffs going to help me with my proposal, and I'd love feed back!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)