In spite of the film being made very sensitively and with immense respect to those heroes without any harries, personal dramas or additions, it was still criticized for its trailer. Many people said that the trailer looked as if it were a conventional trailer. There were some who thought it was too soon after the event. Universal received criticism that a national tragedy was being exploited. Another film, The passion Of The Christ, the fear, excitement, expectation, passion, tears, wonder that this film generated was huge.
The life-changing experiences credited to this movie are many. This movie is about Jesus Christ and the brutal depiction of his suffering during his last 12 hours on Earth which, according to Christian beliefs, was brought about by his unconditional love for us. It raked considerable controversy because of the crucifixion scenes that are bloody, vicious, and torturous. Religious leaders were upset about the Catholic interpretation of the Bible and Jews called the film anti-Semitic and believed that Jews would be blamed for the death of Jesus.
When the film was finally released, it broke all records and became the highest grossing independent film of all time. Lastly, another film that strikes me as being political is JEFF, this movie is about Dadaism Garrison’s investigation of the assassination fjord F. Kennedy. It was meant to demonstrate that Kennedy’s assassination was not the act of a disturbed Marxist loner but the result of a right-wing conspiracy. It includes a lot of speculation about the misconduct of the government and the testimonies of many unreliable individuals.
The movie became embroiled in controversy when it was being filmed. Stone was blamed by the Media for ladling out unverifiable hypotheses. American newspapers ran several editorials that criticized the liberties taken with historical facts, including the implication that President yond B. Johnson was also involved in the conspiracy. I think for the unique subject line, I would like to talk about these said movies and how they have impacted American History. I think that over the years viewers interpret their own opinions on each film. Onto think that the director’s meant to criticize Christians or Jews in the movie The Passion of The Christ, and I don’t think in the film JEFF, the directors intended on speaking about misconduct of the government I think these films are meant to depict recent and or past history and tried to implement the actual events that occurred on these important dates in American History. Member sitting in Biology class when watching the second plane strike the World Trade Center.
I was devastated and didn’t know what the outcome would be for America. I never thought there would be a couple of movies generated from the series of events that had taken place on that horrific day. However, now watching these films I do think it was a great way to show past history in our country. Yes there maybe things taken out of context or some controversy about what actually happened but in the long run it is part of our history and it is great to have these films to better educate our younger generations. What has been the legacy of the depiction of the American West in Hollywood westerns? In other words, do you think the positive or negative portrayals of groups of people has become more deeply believed than they otherwise would be? Studies of the American West have sought to refine the analysis of Hollywood genres, as in the work of John Celestial and Edward Becomes, among others.
Genre critics such as Steve Neal and Rick Alton have thus found the Western a useful model for exploring the larger role of genres in film history. Ironically, the decline of the western has been offset by steady rise in critical attention to the genre, which has included ongoing attention to the representation of Native Americans throughout the westerns history, as well as approaches to the roles of women in the genre.
Influenced by feminist film theory as well as queer theory, recent critics have also turned their attention to one of the genre’s more obvious but unexplored concerns, the representation of masculinity: thus scholars such as Jane Tompkins, Paul Willed, and Lee Clark Mitchell have interrogated what for decades seemed to be a secure and unproblematic presentation of conventional gender arms.
The westerns often exclusively male world allows for a veiled homoerotic, and that the genre’s essential violence betrays strains Of masochism in both its characters and its fans. More recently, criticism of the western has only begun to consider the impact of what has been called the “New Western History,” represented by innovative historical reconsideration such as Patricia Nelson Limerick’s The Legacy of Conquest (1987), which argues that real-estate deals rather than thrilling shoot-outs may be at the heart of the winning of the West.
Related work has greatly enriched historical understanding of the role women played in western expansion, as well as the complex psychological justification for the near extermination of Native Americans. The western has generally been successful at keeping the facts of history at bay, but “revisionist” westerns have often attempted to more closely align fantasies of the West with available facts.
It remains to be seen whether or not the history of the West that is currently being revised by historians will provide a new source for stories for the near-dormant genre. In any case, the body of critical work on the western alone indicates the genre’s significance in American culture and cinema; however, it is telling that for audiences in the twenty-first century the western is less likely to be encountered at the local movie theater, where it was once a staple, than in a college classroom, as a relic and a representation of American cultural history.