I hope you all enjoyed our movie this week, Apollo 13. As is usually the case, true stories make the best movies.
For us, it is an especially important time to be thinking about the space program. As you may know, the space shuttle (our most recent space vehicle) has reached the end of its life with its final landing in July 2011. There is a huge debate raging over what - if anything - will replace it. With a return to the moon being put forth as a goal of NASA, any future space vehicle would have to be more like those in the Apollo program. Our space shuttles are incapable of going to the moon.
As you might imagine, any new program would involve billions of dollars. One side of the debate argues that the benefits to science that would be realized are worth all of the money needed. The other side argues that in a time of such difficult economic problems, it would be irresponsible to spend money in space.
Your generation will have to pay for much of whatever is decided in this debate. Whether it's paying the billions that the program will cost if we decide to return to the moon, or the potential scientific advances if we decide to cancel NASA's plans. What do you think we as a country should do? Should we make the investment necessary to return to the moon? If so, why? If not, why not?
Please make your responses thoughtful. If you would like extra credit, make sure your response is in by the end of this Sunday.
Again, I hope you enjoyed the movie. We'll be scheduling the next one in the next few weeks.
Thank you all for coming out to see The Patriot. I think that most everyone thought it was a great movie - even if it is difficult to watch at a few points.
The Patriot is probably a perfect film to watch in order to think about the value of Hollywood movies based on historical events. One of the knocks that these types of films gets is that they play fast and loose with the history in order to draw big box office money. Making money is after all the job of Hollywood movie executives. So this is a legitimate complaint. In fact, it is a complaint that I hear from a few parents every year as we kick-off the History Film Festival.
My question to you here is; What is the value of this kind of big-budget Hollywood "history" film? Should it be judged just as entertainment? Or is there any academic value to watching the film? Does it lead viewers astray - especially those with a weak understanding of history? Please explain whether or not you think they have historical value. And why you think that.
Well, I know it wasn't the most pleasant movie to watch. I do hope that you found Andersonville interesting and informative.
The Andersonville National Historic site is just a few hours north of us in Georgia. It's hard to imagine that such horrific war crimes took place so close by. Some of the scenes in the movie reminded me of scenes from the concentration camps of the Holocaust - albeit on a smaller scale. But nearly 14,000 dead in one prison over the course of about two years is still a staggering figure.
The movie raised several important questions. Is it possible for humans, when put into those kind of circumstances, to maintain the basic laws of human decency (not to mention actual laws)? Is it understandable that some would go into a "survival of the fittest" mode, like the raiders in the movie? Is that behavior excusable, at least at some level?
On a more general note, do you think that the History Film Festival (our after school movies) has been worthwhile? Have you enjoyed the films? Understanding that we have to keep the films related to our class, what would you change about the Festival? Were the movies too graphic (violent, harsh language, etc.)?
My goal with the History Film Festival has been to show you movies that you might not go out and rent on your own. I hope that you've enjoyed it.
"Once you let the black man get upon his person the brass letter, U.S., let him get an eagle on his button, and a musket on his shoulder and bullets in his pocket, there is no power on earth that can deny that he has earned the right to citizenship."
Frederick Douglass
Thanks to everyone that came to the movie. I hope you all enjoyed it - and learned something. The story of the 54th Massachusetts is an important one, and just an example of the nearly 200,000 black troops that served in the Civil War. One interesting fact about the 54th is that they served at the Battle of Olustee, which took place near Lake City, FL (just about 1 1/2 hours from Tallahassee).
If you came to the movie and are interested in earning extra credit, complete the survey at the following link by clicking here.
I hope that everyone enjoyed Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee. If you completed the preview blogging before the film and attended the film viewing, you will receive extra credit. There is nothing else to do!!
Before attending the Film Festival showing of Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee, I'd like for you to read through the plot summery and other material below - and watch the trailer. While this is one of the better films that will be shown this year, it will be more enjoyable if you have a bit of prior knowledge.
The plot, which is based on events covered by several chapters of Brown's book as well as other sources on Charles Eastman, revolves around three main characters: Charles Eastman né Ohiyesa (Adam Beach), a young, Dartmouth-educated, Sioux doctor held up as living proof of the alleged success of assimilation; Sitting Bull (Schellenberg), the proud Sioux chief who refuses to submit to U.S. government policies designed to strip his people of their identity, their dignity and their sacred land—the gold-laden Black Hills of the Dakotas; and SenatorHenry Dawes (Quinn), an architect of government policy on Indian affairs.
While Eastman and patrician schoolteacher Elaine Goodale (Paquin) work to improve life for the Indians on the reservation, Senator Dawes lobbies President Ulysses Grant (Thompson) for more humane treatment, opposing the bellicose stance of General William Tecumseh Sherman (Feore). The Dawes Commission (actually held from 1893 to 1914)[1] develops a proposal to break up the Great Sioux Reservation to allow for American demands for land while preserving enough land for the Sioux to live on. The Commission's plan is held up by the stance of Sitting Bull, who has taken a position of leadership among the Sioux as one of the last chiefs to fight for their independence. Dawes, in turn, urges Eastman to help him convince the recalcitrant tribal leaders. After witnessing conditions on the reservation, Eastman refuses.
Hope rises for the Indians in the form of the prophet Wovoka (Studi) and the Ghost Dance—a messianic movement that promises an end of their suffering under the white man. This hope is obliterated after the assassination of Sitting Bull and the massacre of hundreds of Indian men, women and children by the 7th Cavalry at Wounded Knee Creek on December 29, 1890.
Beginning just after the bloody Sioux victory over General Custer at Little Big Horn, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee intertwines the perspectives of three characters: Charles Eastman, né Ohiyesa, a young, Dartmouth-educated, Sioux doctor held up as living proof of the alleged success of assimilation; Sitting Bull, the proud Lakota chief who refuses to submit to U.S. government policies designed to strip his people of their identity, their dignity and their sacred land - the gold-laden Black Hills of the Dakotas; and Senator Henry Dawes, who was one of the architects of the government policy on Indian affairs. While Eastman and patrician schoolteacher Elaine Goodale work to improve life for the Indians on the reservation, Senator Dawes lobbies President Grant for more humane treatment, opposing the bellicose stance of General William Tecumseh Sherman. Hope rises for the Indians in the form of the prophet Wovoka and the Ghost Dance - a messianic movement that promises an end of their suffering under the white man. This hope is obliterated after the assassination of Sitting Bull and the massacre of hundreds of Indian men, women and children by the 7th Cavalry at Wounded Knee Creek on Dec. 29, 1890. Written by HBO Films
As with all movies based on historical events, historical accuracy should be taken into consideration when deciding on how valuable a film is for educational uses. Here's what Wikipedia has to say about historical accuracy:
The role of Eastman has been exaggerated to allow him to be a witness to multiple historic events. He was not present at Little Big Horn nor was he involved in drawing up the Dawes plan to individualize Indian land ownership.[2] Eastman first met Dawes as a lobbyist, years after Wounded Knee.[2]
Furthermore, Eastman is not a major figure in Brown's book. Much of the material on Eastman appears to be drawn from Raymond Wilson's 1999 biography of Eastman, Ohiyesa.
Henry L. Dawes is portrayed sympathetically. Though his motives were to increase the cultural assimilation of Native Americans into American society overall, the Dawes Act that he sponsored in 1887 and his later efforts as head of the Dawes Commission, decreased the amount of land owned by Native Americans through the parcelization of Native American reservations and was the chief contributor to Native American poverty later on. Native Americans lost, over the 47 years of the Act's life, about 90 million acres (360,000 km²) of treaty land, or about two-thirds of the 1887 land base. About 90,000 Indians were made landless. The Dawes Act deteriorated Native American communal life-style, culture, and unity.[3][4]
I think that you will find this to be an excellent film. Both entertaining and educational. Please just leave a comment saying that you read the above post.
Thank you all for coming out to see The Patriot. I think that most everyone thought it was a great movie - even if it is difficult to watch at a few points.
The Patriot is probably a perfect film to watch in order to think about the value of Hollywood movies based on historical events. One of the knocks that these types of films gets is that they play fast and loose with the history in order to draw big box office money. Making money is after all the job of Hollywood movie executives. So this is a legitimate complaint. In fact, it is a complaint that I hear from a few parents every year as we kick-off the History Film Festival.
My question to you here is; What is the value of this kind of big-budget Hollywood "history" film? Should it be judged just as entertainment? Or is there any academic value to watching the film? Does it lead viewers astray - especially those with a weak understanding of history? Please explain whether or not you think they have historical value. And why you think that.
Our next film will be coming up soon. Have a great Thanksgiving!!
I hope you all enjoyed our Movie on Thursday. In order to receive your 5 points of extra credit, you must write a review of the movie.
You must type and print your review and hand it in by Friday, May 14, 9:30 am. Make sure it is double-spaced, and at least one and a half pages in length.
Be sure to not only refer to the Hollywood aspects of the film, but to its historical content as well. You must demonstrate that you have an understanding of the events covered in the movie.
I reserve the right to give something less than 5 points if the quality is not as expected.
I don't think that it has ever been so quiet in my room after one of our film festival movies. This film obviously had an impact on those that participated on Tuesday. Was Boy in the Striped Pajamas a sad movie? Disturbing? Maybe even frustrating? The answer is yes to all of those questions. But Hollywood produces lots of sad movies, not to mention all of the disturbing stuff that they turn-out. What makes movies like this different is that it also an important movie for kids today to see. Important, not just because it deals with an important historical event like the Holocaust, but because it demands that we watch it with a questioning eye.
That means that whenever we watch a movie that deals with history, we should not take it as the full story on the issue. Sometimes a movie is biased toward one side of the issue, and could give a distorted picture to the uninformed viewer. For example, read the following excerpt from Wikipedia that includes criticism about our movie from a Jewish rabbi:
The book is a novel: it is not historical fiction. The very premise of the book - that there would be a child of Shmuel's age - is, according to critics, an unacceptable fabrication that does not reflect the reality of life in the camps.
Rabbi Benjamin Blech condemned it: "This book is not just a lie and not just a fairytale, but a profanation." His chief complaint is that it supports the idea that ordinary people were unaware of the horrors of the Nazis' mass extermination of Jews. He argues that everyone for miles around could smell the stench of death and expresses doubt that the 9-year-old son of a Nazi official could be unaware of what a Jew is (or whether he himself is one).
He writes, "Note to the reader: There were no nine-year-old Jewish boys in Auschwitz -- the Nazis immediately gassed those not old enough to work. Also, the Auschwitz death camp was surrounded by electric fences, making any attempts to crawl in through a hole impossible."[2][3]. Such alleged falsification of history has important consequences, say Boyne's critics, for the way that the victims of the Holocaust might be remembered and commemorated, thus reviving arguments that were previously aired about Steven Spielberg's Schindler's List and the manner in which that film sanitised and falsified aspects of the concentration camp experience too.[4]
So, what does this mean? Does it mean that the movie is worthless for use in a history class or history film festival? I don't think so, but some would probably disagree. One of the goals that I have for my film festival is to teach you all to look more critically at information that is presented in a movie, or in music, or even on the news.
Now, after you have thought more critically about the movie, what level of importance does it carry? Do you think that this kind of movie should be seen by kids today? What can they learn from a movie like this? What does a movie like this say about things we may learn from people that are close to us - even sometimes parents? Does the movie leave you wanting to learn more about this horrible episode in history? What kinds of questions, if any, does the film leave you asking?
As always, I appreciate that you have taken the time to watch this film with us and to give me your thoughts on it.
I hope you all enjoyed our movie from last week, Apollo 13. As is usually the case, true stories make the best movies.
For us, it is an especially important time to be thinking about the space program. As you may know, the space shuttle (our current space vehicle) is reaching the end of its life. It will soon be taken out of use, and there is a huge debate raging over what - if anything - will replace it. With a return to the moon being put forth as a goal of NASA, any future space vehicle would have to be more like those in the Apollo program. Our space shuttles are incapable of going to the moon.
As you might imagine, any new program would involve billions of dollars. One side of the debate argues that the benefits to science that would be realized are worth all of the money needed. The other side argues that in a time of such difficult economic problems, it would be irresponsible to spend money in space.
Your generation will have to pay for much of whatever is decided in this debate. Whether it's paying the billions that the program will cost if we decide to return to the moon, or the potential scientific advances if we decide to cancel NASA's plans. What do you think we as a country should do? Should we make the investment necessary to return to the moon? If so, why? If not, why not?
Again, I hope you enjoyed the movie. We'll be scheduling the next one in the next few weeks.
Well, I know it wasn't the most pleasant movie to watch. I do hope that you found Andersonville interesting and informative.
The Andersonville National Historic site is just a few hours north of us in Georgia. It's hard to imagine that such horrific war crimes took place so close by. Some of the scenes in the movie reminded me of scenes from the concentration camps of the Holocaust - albeit on a smaller scale. But nearly 14,000 dead in one prison over the course of about two years is still a staggering figure. The movie raised several important questions. Is it possible for humans, when put into those kind of circumstances, to maintain the basic laws of human decency (not to mention actual laws)? Is it understandable that some would go into a "survival of the fittest" mode, like the raiders in the movie? Is that behavior excusable, at least at some level?
On a more general note, do you think that the History Film Festival (our after school movies) has been worthwhile? Have you enjoyed the films? Understanding that we have to keep the films related to our class, what would you change about the Festival? Were the movies too graphic (violent, harsh language, etc.)?
My goal with the History Film Festival has been to show you movies that you might not go out and rent on your own. I hope that you've enjoyed it.
I hope you all enjoyed the Tuskegee Airmen. The movie should serve as inspiration for all of us, regardless of skin color. I know it does for me.
In one of our blogs last month, we discussed whether or not MLK's dream has been realized. We tied that discussion into the recent inauguration of Barack Obama. Tuskegee Airmen fought in World War II, many years before MLK would do his work and deleiver the "I Have a Dream" speech, and more than 50 years before Obama would be elected our first African-American president.
It would have been easy for those black pilots to give up on their dream, many did by walking away. What lessons do you think the movie provides for us? How do you feel about the movie? Do you think that the story of the Tuskegee pilots should taught more widely in school? This is a pretty wide-open blog. Stick to the general subject, but feel free to talk either about the movie or about the topic of the Tuskegee Airmen in general.
Submit your response here on the blog. Do not email your comments.
I posting links and video clips with more information about the pilots. Take time to look them over. If you are working on this at school, you will not be able to view the YouTube videos.
Thanks to all that showed up today for the 5th episode of The Revolution. I really think that this is a great series. I hope have enjoyed it and found it educational.
There are a few things that I want you to address today.
First, what was that greatest contribution of the Prussian officer Baron von Steuben to the patriot cause?
Second, what was the outcome of the Battle of Monmouth (courthouse) in 1778? What does it mean for Washington? Following the battle, what was the general feeling about the capability of the Continental Army?
Finally, after taking back control of Philadelphia, Washington turns over control of the city to one of the army's most capable generals. Who was this general? (Hint: It was one of the last things mentioned in the episode.)
Remember, do not post a comment on this blog. Email your answers to velizhistory@gmail.com.
The US History Film Festival will meet again soon. Keep your eye on the class calendar. Have a great weekend. Finish up those history fair projects.
I hope you found today's episode of The Revolution entertaining and informative. Hopefully you remembered to sign in this afternoon, which was the first step toward earning your extra credit. This is the final step. You will need to answer the following question(s) in an email to me. DO NOT COMMENT ON THIS BLOG POST.
What was the focus of Benjamin Franklin's mission to France? What did he want the French to do? What was there immediate response to Franklin's request? What was the final outcome of Franklin's mission? What event helped the French with their final response to Franklin's request?
Remember, you will only receive your credit by responding to these questions by email - velizhistory@gmail.com
