American modern history and American contemporary history Movie Review , history homework help

Question Description

I don’t understand this History question and need help to study.

NOTE: The movie is your choice, however it must be relevant to the time period, time period is after 1865, the United States after the Civil War slavery liberation till the end of Word War II in 1945. And it must relate to U.S. history. The movie should describe an event or an important thing at this time, such as civil war, World War II war in the Korean War Cold War. Or the Great Depression and so on. It is best to write things before World War II becasue I just learnt here.

I have the movie review guidelines and sample movie review below. Also, I have the main contents of history events in my required time peiod from 1865 to 1945. Please read carefully!

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Ann X. Ample History 201 Online – Summer 2014 TITLE: REVIEW – Your Film Title Here (Italicize, underline, or quotes) A. ABSTRACT: 1. What is the basic plot? 2. What are the major influences in the plot (these are possibilities)? a. Neo-colonialism b. Ethnic Nationalism/Social Darwinism c. Capitalism & materialism d. Manifest Destiny e. Ethnic & gender Self-determination f. Mal-distribution of wealth B. MEDIA: 1. What type of film is being presented? a. Action b. Comedy c. Documentary d. Docu-Drama e. Drama f. Pop Culture 2. What was the story filmed in? a. Black and white (usually a statement film) b. Color c. Both (black and white often used to authenticate the storyline) 3. Did music have an important role? a. Was it used passively in the background or as an integral part of the scene? b. Was it classical, jazz, hip-hop, country, r&b, rap, r&r, latin, middleeastern? 4. Were there special effects or unusual camera angles? a. Explosions, gunfire, other sound effects b. Computer generated graphics c. Panoramic views d. Close-ups e. Use of light - natural/artificial, shadows 5. What type of dialogue occurred? a. Academic/Scientific jargon b. Contemporary/Slang c. Obscene/Scatalogical d. Foreign accent/Foreign language e. Subtitles f. Elizabethan g. Southern drawl/Brooklynese 6. What type of actors were used? a. Well-known stars b. Unknowns c. Did the story need a recognized actor to make up for a lack in the subject? d. Was the story-line strong enough to be accurately portrayed by anyone? e. Was the bottom-line the amount of money that the director hoped to make by using stars in his cast? C. CONTENT: 1. Discuss three pivotal scenes and their significance. 2. What are the major issues in these scenes? a. Political b. Economic c. Technological d. Social/cultural D. BIAS: 1. Has the director made similar films like this one? 2. Did he present a story slanted along inclusion, exclusion, or omission of these topics? a. Ethnicity b. Gender c. Class d. Religion e. Politics 3. Was there conflict among the characters based on the previous question, and was the conflict intensified, resolved, or left open for interpretation? E. EFFECTIVENESS: 1. How did you feel about the movie? 2. Why did you feel this way? F. HISTORICAL CONTEXT / FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 1. Why was this film possible and profitable? 2. Is the film based on historic events? 3. Source of historical confirmation? 4. Does the film present any concepts and values from the past that are a part of today’s culture; why or why not? ONE INCH MARGINS ON ALL FOUR SIDES, 12 PT. FONT, TIMES NEW ROMAN CAPITALIZE AND BOLD FACE TYPE ALL HEADINGS JUST AS SHOWN IN OUTLINE DOUBLE SPACE EVERYTHING EXCEPT NAME, CLASS, DAY, TIME David Vasquez History 119 Movie Review #2 12/04/2005 Grapes of Wrath By John Steinbeck Directed By John Ford ASTRACT: The novel Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck was made into a controversial movie in 1936 directed by John Ford. Under the direction of director John Ford, the Grapes of Wrath told the story of a particular family that was one of many migrants from Okalahoma that was affected by the Great Depression and dust storms that corroded the land they lived on. The economic and natural disasters that families had experience forced many families to pick up and leave the farms they had worked and lived on for years. The Goad family was one of these families that after decades of living and working the only land they now had to leave; in fact, they were forced because although they lived on the land, they were actually only sharecroppers. Share croppers such as the Goad family, were forced to leave all they had and knew on the account that the superintendents, under orders of banks and political elites, drove poor working class people off lands for economic and political reasons. Thomas Goad, the eldest son of the Goad family, returns to his family during this time and after serving four years in prison. When he arrives, he finds them absent from the family home, and the home is in shambles. Along the way, Thomas meets a preacher who follows him to his old house and there they find hiding a neighbor who explains the situation. The neighbor tells Thomas that his family is at his uncle’s farm and is expecting to leave to California with the rest of his family. Thomas find this hard to believe due to the long history his family has had with the farm. However, he learns of the forced evacuations and the “dusters,” winds that turned the once “Garden of Eden” land into desert. The reason is however, unclear why families are forced to evacuate since blame on the whole issue goes from superintendent, companies, banks, and eventually to the mysterious unknown men back East. Thomas is very disturbed and grows angry, and once he finds his family he joins them through their struggles of leaving all they know for the unknown California where they hope they will find work and prosperity once again. Inspired by a pamphlet that promises such, the Goad family soon is on the way, with Thomas, and experiences the hard realities of prejudices, discriminations, poverty, and false hopes that comes from the migration. Through out this plot, the viewer can witness all aspects of social, political, and ethnic determination the Goad family had to face. In addition, the severity of how social class was used to pit people against each other in the name of progress and capitalist gain. MEDIA: The Grapes of Wrath was made in 1940 and is entirely black and white. Steinbeck became aware of the political situation back in 1935 during which mass migration from Okalahoma became a hotly debated issue in California politics. These migrants earned the named Oakies while on their arrival to California, and it was Steinbeck in his novel that first captured their struggle. Along with movie director John Ford, whom also had a fascination with the Oakies, both men began to make the film that would capture the audience with sufficient amounts of drama yet that would teach the truth of the Oakies and their experiences of discriminations and social struggle that a documentary could bring out. This combination of a Docu-Drama move made Grapes of Wrath very effective in exposing the hypocrisy of Americas capitalists system and the class struggle of worker against elite. The movie also was strengthening with the music that was played from beginning to end. Director John Ford was also a silent films producer and director, so he did not want to tune out the characters or take away from the plot; therefore, he was conservative with placing music at certain times. However, he used the same song “A Red River” in the beginning and end. This song expresses a land of bounty and is played as the family leaves the farm; however, the farm they leave is no lush paradise only a desert. The song may seem inappropriate, yet its place is justifiable because it represents the hope the family has in their exodus to the new “Promise Land” California. This is song is played both during the time they leave the farm and in the ending when the family picks up again and head towards Fresno. Ford was not interested in close-ups; his concern was to capture the audience’s attention not only of an individual character. Ford’s purpose was to capture the entire moment. For example, through out the movie, the characters can be seen contrasted with the place and time that the particular scene is shot. The panoramic views of mountains, plains, and roadsides can all be absorbed into the moment along with the characters and their actions at that moment. Ford also made sure to shoot scenes outside of the studio during the early morning hours and at dusk. His reason was to capture as much natural shadows with natural light versus what would be artificial in a studio. One scene that has had very high praise for its genius was the scene with Thomas Goad, his preacher friend and the neighbor discussing the situation of how the families of the Dust Bowl came about. During this scene, the only light that Ford used was a candle. This gave a mysterious and realistic shot, and its effect pulled the viewer into the scene making them a fourth member in the conversation. This was also one of the few scenes that had closeups, and proved how ingenious Ford was to be conservative in using close-ups. It was also in this scene that the viewer could appreciate the dialogue that would continue to be played though the whole movie. The language used was truly pure in the representation of the people portrayed. Ford made sure to keep this film real in how the actors used the migrants’ rough speech and body language. Back to the scene with Thomas Goad learning of the struggles that had taken hold of his family, the speech along with the candle lit room and conversation was perfect in how it represented the way these hard men spoke and displayed their emotions. The speech used was also distinguished in the characters and the class of a particular character played. For example, the superintendents and police used language that was modern and educated whereas the migrant and agitators were more loose in speech and displayed more freedom in the way they expressed their words along with their body language. Henry Fonda played Thomas Goad; he was in fact the most notable actor and had played in other movies directed by Ford. He was especially chosen by Ford for the part of Thomas Goad because he had the look that Ford wanted in expressing a young man who was angry at society and the injustices. Ma Goad played by Jane Darwell, was not originally selected but was chosen because of her experience in silent films; therefore she was able to utilize her experience by making Ma Goad a major role in the movie. Ma Goad was soon taking over the movie when it came to expressing the struggle Of the Goad family; this can easily be accredited by the way Jane Darwell was able to capture the moment with her body and facial expressions. Many of the other cast members had also played roles in Ford movies; however, none were as notable or famous as Henry Fonda. CONTENT: Three of the most pivotal scenes were in the beginning with Thomas Goad being told of the facts that had been taking place with his preacher friend and old neighbor in the candle lit room, the scene in which the family leaves the farm, and finally the ending with Thomas Goad explaining his thoughts to his mother as he departs for good. As I stated before, the scene with Thomas Goad in the candle lit room was the first pivotal scene because it set the movie on the course to explaining the situation. In this scene, the first special effect takes place as the Thomas’ old neighbor flashes back in time describing how the superintendents evicted the various farmer families off the lands. While explaining this, the neighbor, in his working class speech, practically breaks down describing how unjust it was that they took his land. He argued that his land was his to live and die in just as it has been for decades. However, I could not help but think about the various Native American tribes who lost this same land that this man was now crying about loosing. Was this really sweet justice? Nevertheless, his arguments brought Thomas to the current events taking place and also revealed something unfamiliar to Thomas. Thomas was now transforming from an “I” to “We” and begun to see himself not angry in a selfish way for his own problems but angry for what his people have been experiencing. Right after this scene Thomas meets up with his family at his Uncle’s house. Here he learns more of the economic and natural troubles that have caused his family to leave for California. Soon as the family leaves, Ma Goad is in the middle seat of the old jalopy truck that is half-way to being junk, she’s asked why she don’t give the old farm one last look and why she looks so scared. Ma Goad’s response would be pivotal because not only does it display how families like the Goads lost everything it also showed the determination that these families had in overcoming and pressing on to. However, Ma Goad’s response was ironic; she said in her response, “I never had my house pushed over” and “I never had to loose everything I had in life” this was a statement that could have easily been said by the Native Americans who suffered the same lost by people like the Goads and other migrant who now faced the same pain in being stripped of the only land and home they had. The third most pivotal scene was at the end of the movie. Throughout the whole movie the idea was to get to California as a family. However, the trouble that found them along the way made this impossible. Thomas Goad was coming close to being caught for a crime and had to leave. His mother caught him first though, and before he left, so as not to bring any trouble to his family and the decent migrant camp, Thomas shares the developing ideas that have invaded his mind since the beginning of the journey. Both mother and son have grown incredibly close, and their relationship has captured the whole movie by now. Thomas explains that his time has come to move on before trouble arrives; furthermore, Thomas wants to learn more of the economic and political problems that have caused his people to face the social crisis they have. This conclusion brings the whole movie in perspective and shows the purpose Ford had in expressing Steinbeck novel. The idea that Thomas was an angry young man, a loner, he now sees the bigger picture and the movie comes about representing the social, political, and economic struggle, not of an individual, but of a communal experience of working class people. BIAS: Ford and Steinbeck did not use any slants or bias. During making this film both Steinbeck and Ford received great criticism and controversy for presenting a film that promoted communism and anti-government propaganda. They in fact had to face being black listed in Hollywood and also were investigation with the F.B.I. However, Steinbeck and Ford were not communist and did not support communism. They were, however, liberals and many conservatives still questioned them for being anti-American and boycotted the Grapes of Wrath movie, book, and had book burnings demonstrating Ford and Steinbeck. In the end, the movie actually proved to be quite water downed from the novel and the real life situations in the migrant camps. Eleanor Roosevelt also backed this up when she visited these camps across California. EFFECTIVENESS: I felt very privilege to have seen this movie, they do not make movies this pure and sincere when portraying historical and social events. I was at first hesitant in choosing this film because I was in fact the one with the bias. I had the idea of knocking the film down for excluding how the Mexicans and other migrants who were foreign and of color were affected by the Dust Bowl Migrants. But, in the end, I believe this film goes beyond color lines and of ethnic culture it is much broader in prospective and purpose. This movie brings together the culture of working people, which affects all. Ma Goad said it best in the last few lines of the movie when describing the differences of elite and working class people. She emphasizes the pride working people should have and that indeed they are “the people” that makes our country peculiar and great. Caesar Chavez said it best,” it brought memories of my past just like my life” and “I never felt so proud of poor people before after I read that book.” HISTORICAL CONTEXT / FACTUAL BACKGROUND: It was almost impossible to make this film because of the paranoia of a “Red Scare” that was taking place in the U.S. and its fear of communist agitators. Steinbeck and Ford had to be very careful in making this film and the film had not been very well received or appreciated until later on in the century for that reason. Nevertheless, this film has proven historically accurate according to primary sources from those that experienced the struggles of the 30s and the Dust Bowl Migration. Today the story of the Dust Bowl Migrants continues with the story of Mexican immigrants who suffer similarly what Oakies had. The movie Grapes of Wrath should teach us that the American dream is still being sought after for to this day. Appreciating this film and the values of family, persistence, and hard work it portrays through the Goads, should remind us to be thankful and appreciative to the new immigrants today who share these same values, the values that have always made America great. ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer


Surname 1
History 119
Movie Review #2
Review – Iron Jawed Angels
Iron Jawed Angels is a 2004 film directed by the famous German filmmaker Katja von Garnier
the told the story of the struggles of two fierce radical agitators in the person of Alice Paul and
Lucy Burns in achieving the rights of women to vote. In opening scenes of the film, these
women were portrayed as independent and fun-loving individuals that banter over pink hats and
who should buy it before the other person. While the women suffrage campaign of the early
20th-century was a serious affair that required a lot of political consultations and support to
succeed, this HBO sponsored movie attempted to connect these feminist to the contemporary
women by relating to their funny, sexually attractive and heroic sides. Also, it is the story of the
suffragists that faced the fears of torture and imprisonment so as to secure the rights of women to
vote in the United States during a period where the traditional roles of women remained in the
home despite their contribution to the development of their society. The director of the movie
illustrated strong characters that led marches, picketed the White House, and went on hunger
strikes to agitate for their civil rights at a time that such a campaign was considered as
overzealous since the nation was dealing with the challenges of World War 1. This film
portrayed Paul and Burns as the leaders of a new generation of feminists that eschewed the
moderate approach of the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA).

Surname 2

Ben95 (13216)
UC Berkeley

Top quality work from this tutor! I’ll be back!

Heard about Studypool for a while and finally tried it. Glad I did caus this was really helpful.

Thank you! Reasonably priced given the quality