Write a five pages argumentative essay about one of three movies.
Reaction Paper:
This is another formal, argumentative/persuasive essay. You do NOT have to address ALL of the themes and issues raised in the questions. You should, however, try to incorporate some of them into an overall thesis/argument. MAKE A CLEAR, PRECISE THESIS AND ORGANIZE YOUR ESSAY AROUND 1T! Remember to use specific information from the films as evidence to support your argument(s). Also remember that the general rule in formal writing is to avoid self-reference (no "I").
Write on ONE of the following:
1. Consider the films Friendly Persuasion, Shenandoah and The Beguiled. Then answer the following question(s) for your essay: According to these Civil War movies, what was life like on the home front? What view(s) of the Civil War was (were) presented in these films? How did the films deal with the issue of race? Gender? The nature of war? Motivations for fighting? How do the films treat the issue of individualism? Resistance to war? Were they pro-South, pro-North or something else? How did the films reflect their own times as well as the 1860s? Which of these movies was the best historically? As a film? Why?
OR
2. In his book, The Reel Civil War, Bruce Chadwick argues that Civil War movies "went West" in the 1950s and 1960s. He points to the fact that many Civil War films of the era starred famous "cowboy heroes" like Gary Cooper, James Stewart, and John Wayne, and that the stories themselves were really Just Westerns complete with men in cowboy hats riding horses and firing six-shooters. He includes The Horse Soldiers, Friendly Persuasion, and Shenandoah in this interpretation. Do you agree with Chadwick? Did the Civil War really go West in all of these movies? Why or why not? What other themes could be seen in these movies? What other interpretations might be offered as an alternative to Chadwick's view?
OR
3. Some critics have argued that Gettysburg is a pro-Southern movie because it shows the Confederate viewpoint on an equal footing with the Union perspective. They see this as part of what they call a "revival of pro-Southern" film-making led by Ted Turner. Many of these same critics argue that the film Glory is a flawed attempt at portraying the emancipationist memory of the Civil War. They argue that the film focuses on a regiment made up of mostly free black men from the North rather than on slaves and that this misses an opportunity to show the slave experience. They also argue that the film is really about the white office, Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, instead of the black soldiers. Discuss one or both of these films and the critical response to it are the critics right about the movie(s)? Why or why not? If these films actually tell us more about the times in which they were made, what do they show us about the late 1980s and early 1990s? These films focus on battles more directly than most of the earlier movies. How does making a war movie that is about fighting differ from those that show the home front or other aspects of the era?