Sources

This is the relevant information for the two key sources for the essay:

Author: Tim O'Brien
Title: The Things They Carried
Year: 1990
Publisher: Penguin
City: NY

Author(s): James West Davidson and Mark Hamilton Lytle
Title: After the Fact: The Art of Historical Detection Volume II
Year: 2005
Publisher: McGraw-Hill
City: NY

10/17

This is a long post. Be sure to read it in its entirety.

As we discussed in class, we will be working with the first draft of the second essay somewhat differently than we worked with the first. By 5pm on Friday, October 19th, you will send a copy of your essay via email to both your peer review partner and myself. Then by 10am on Monday, October 19th, email a response (the parameters are outlined below) to both the partner and myself.

The Response:

I will not be grading or commenting on this draft, which will be the only draft of this essay before it is assigned a grade. That means that these peer reviews are terrifically important: you will not just be helping your partner with what you think will improve your paper, but also what you think I will be most interested in seeing in their work. We discussed what that means in class, but to recap: the specific requirements outlined in the prompt; attention to specific detail in texts and the appropriate films; and paragraphs which consistently demonstrate their purpose, involve textual and cinematic evidence, and connect back to the overall argument.

For the review itself, first read through the essay at least once, getting a sense of the piece as a whole. Then go through the manuscript using the tracking changes tool to make suggestions about the paragraphs...

(NOTE#1: as I said in class, do not go through making proofreading changes to the sentences--this is their job. Should there be a pattern of poor grammar that you notice, be sure to point it out. Otherwise, limit your comments to 'comments': that is, what in the paragraph is working and what isn't, rather than rewriting it.)

(Note #2: You are required to have at least one comment on each paragraph. Feel free to put the comments in terms specific to me: 'I think Prof. Henkle would have a problem with the second sentence here because...')

...After you've gone through and made your comments on the individual paragraphs, write a 200 or so word general comment on the essay, in much the same way you have seen me do with yours. Do this at the top of their essay, in letter format (addressing it directly to the author). If you're using the tracking changes format, this will appear in red.


A Few More Notes:

The preferred format is MS word, which will give your reviewer the opportunity to use the 'track changes function' I demonstrated in class. (If you cannot access MS word during this time, email me for other possibilities--still, MS word is going to be very helpful here).

The peer review groups have been assigned for anyone who was in class, plus Polina (who was assigned a partner to make up an odd number of students). Contact me if you need the email address of your partner. Those of you who were not in class, need to contact me immediately to be assigned a partner. If you have been assigned but have since forgotten your group member, the partner list is to the right.

pearl harbor

The movie pearl harbor is about the attack on pearl harbor, Hawaii, by the Japanese in a pre-emptive strike, on December 7th 1941. the Japanese thought that the US was going to invade them for their oil and rubber so they attacked them first. the movie was made in 2001, and it depicts the lives of 2 soldiers who are best friends and how they split up and are reunited during the war. Randall Wallace didn't really follow the truth in the movie, instead he directed the movie toward the audience and what they would like. there weren't very many war seance. the movie starts off showing you two boys playing in 1923 showing you right from the beginning that this movie is not going to be specifically about the fighting but also about the lives of the characters in the movie. the characters are the bored antsy teenagers that wanted to run off to war. Ben Afflek volunteered for a station in the British air force. the characters seem very stereotyped and the dialogue is not really about the war. the movie has a war in it but its more of a romance torn apart by war and sewn back together very roughly. in "the man i killed' by Tim O'Brien, the death of the enemy wasn't especially victorious in the narrator's mind. he grieved over it and felt guilty, even though it was war. while in pearl harbor when there is finally a fighting scene and they are flying over japan and dropping bombs they feel no grief only triumph over the people who surprise attacked them and killed two thousand people. Davidson and Lytle would not see this movie as authentic because the fights they did have were not similar to the ones in real life.

The Battle of Ia Drang

The movie “We Were Soldiers” was adapted from the book We Were Soldiers Once..and Young by General Harold Moore and Joseph L. Galloway both who were at that battle and acted as consultants to this movie.. The movie and the book are both about the first part of the Battle of Ia Drang which took place in the highlands of South Vietnam from November 14 to 16 1965.

Randal Wallace, the director and screenwriter of this movie, went to great lengths to authentically “recreate the war’s/battle’s historical context (418). The movie opens with actual news footage after the battle in Vietnam of an interview with the Col Moore expressing his gratitude to his men for their courage and sacrifices during the battle. He tells the interviewer with barely contained emotion to “convey to the American people what a tremendous fighting man we have here. He’s just an outstanding man and…I can’t tell you how highly I feel for them. They’re tremendous.”

These are some of the many things that were done to create that authentic feeling:
They used real equipment such as military helicopters and land vehicles and real napalm.
The used the clothing of 1965 for the non-military actors and the correct uniforms of the time and place for the military personal.
The portrayed accuracy in the appearance of the characters throughout the battle; everyone was dirty and bedraggled.
They used props that were used by the real characters during the conflict such as cigarette packs, books, and field equipment.
The not only acquired the period armaments the combatants used the also built AK-47’s from scraps for the North Vietnamese soldiers.
The depiction of wives getting telegrams telling them that their husbands were killed being delivered by cab drivers.

Yes there were thing that were done that didn’t happen during the battle such as using fireworks instead of bullets and computer generated airplanes but I don’t believe they are of great consequence compared to the things that Wallace got right. Gen. Hal Moore felt that this movie accurately portrayed what happen there so who are we to doubt him?

JarHead

Jarhead is a movie that is about the Gulf War but it doesn’t really focus on the war itself. The movie is more of a story-truth than a happening-truth. This would be called a Hollywood movie and not a historical movie. The story focuses on one men and how he spends his days in the war. Even thought the movie is about the war and the soldiers that went to it, you don’t really get much information about the war and you only hear them talk about the war for small periods of time. The movie moves really fast and there aren’t that many events that happen. They stay along time which each even that they put in the movie and about two are the only ones that have to do with the war itself. They add the element of family and girlfriends which is what attracts people to what the movie and also because they put funny scenes. They show the fear that the soldiers have and how much they also want to be there. The main character doesn’t kill anyone during this movie. Is really interesting how he spend somewhat more than 120 days in the war and in the movie he says that he spend four days with four hours and one minute in the war. Meaning that most of the time they were there doing training or doing nothing at all and just waiting and they only spend so little of their time in the action of the war. He never gets to fire his gun against an enemy and never kills anyone. Davidson and Lytle would say that this movie is not authentic and it actually isn’t. Even thought this movie is suppose to be about war, is more about how the war may affect someone and how it changes the things back home because time doesn’t stop in the real world when they are at war. When it comes to saying that is a war movie it really isn’t authentic but if you talk about the meaning of the movie, you would say that even thought it may hadn’t happen that way that it is true. So it is just the truth with some exaggerations and things that may or may not have happen.

Platoon

A movie made in 1986 well after the Vietnam war, has seemingly captured a true essence of the soldiers that participated in such a task. The movie concentrates on the character played by Charlie Sheen who voluntarily chose to be in the Vietnam war for 365 full days. He quickly begins to regret it a week into his journey with the platoon as he finds himself suffering under difficult natral conditions leading him to tire faster, faint more and allowing for the soldiers with him to undermine him and attack him verbally.
The movie has a very depressing and mournful tone all throughout. There is nothing patriotic about it that flatters American decision in entering the war (especially through a very violent redneck character named Bunny, whose destructive nature emphasizes a terrible American stereotype). Furthermore we see that all the men, besides the character played by Charlie Sheen, are poor or unable to evade the war which shows how the War is inevitable for those who couldn't buy their way out of it. There is lack of pride within these men, as the men had in movies such as Green Berets, and their use of pot and deragotory speech of women show how little they favor being part of this war, hence making them characters easier to relate to and more personal. This, in turn, is the reason why Davidson adn Lytle would find this film, very authentic.
Davidson and Lytle themselves interpret Platoon as "the first commercially successfful films to look thhe war itself. to see Vietnam as history." With this quote Davidson and Lytle seem to convey the idea that seemingly historical facts within a movie allow it to become more authentic rather then a movie that prides itself on effects, just because they can use them, or the element of love to capture the audience. In Platoon there is really no sign of victory, regardless of the little missions the platoon does succeed in, theres still constant silence, with mere crickets adding to the jungle effect. The only music we hear is the solemn and depressing adagio for strings that just speaks for the characters most of the movie.
The only happiness we see in all these men is when they are diving themselves from the war entirely , just trying to escape, which i find to be the most authentic feeling. Their struggle with natural obstacles or the kidn of treatment they receive from one another consdiering the time it is based on, allow even more authenticity to pour through. EVerything from red ants, to race, to illegal killings become a dispute, which seems to me as the unhealthy animal instinct humans may have, especially trapped in such violent conditions.

Apocalypse Now - authentic

The movie Apocalypse Now, is quoted as “pretentious” (p 422) by Davidson and Lytle. The movie does not explain what is going on, but rather makes the watcher guess. This film is considered authentic according to Davidson and Lytle. This movie does not have any war stereotypes. It gives you war for what it really was. It makes war seem ambiguous. This movie has accuracy, which is needed in order for a movie to be considered authentic.

This movie is not pro Vietnam. The director of this movie wants you to think that war is addictive, that it in reality it drives you nuts. It wants you to understand that when your fighting, you want to be home, and when your home, you want to be fighting.

The movie opens up with the forest being bombed. You then see a quiet, but dark room. The only source of light entering that room is from a half opened blinds on the window. Outside of the room, it is very light. In the background nothing is heard, except a helicopter flying is heard in his head. He is at home, but wants nothing more than to be back in the forest, fighting. The music in the beginning of the movie is very peaceful. This movie makes you conclude that people at war do pointless things. It makes war seem absurd. The people fighting make a battle that has no actual gain it, other than a personal gain, which in this case would be surfing with the good tides.

Pearl Harbor

The movie of my choice is Pearl Harbor written by Randall Wallace. The movie is set during the time in which the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. The movie in general is about a love story that is set during a war that complicates everything. To be more specific the movie is about a pilot who falls in love with a nurse. The Pilot volunteer's to go fight in Britain, and his best friend and the love of his life are transferred to Pearl Harbor. While in Britain the Pilot "dies". The nurse finds out and is extremely depressed but shortly after hooks up with his best friend. I can go more into detail but as you can see the movie has nothing to do with the actual bombing in Pearl Harbor. In stating that I believe that Davidson and Lytle would call the film a myth. I believe this to be true because the director choose a certain event like Pearl Harbor just to be the setting of his love story. Davidson and Lytle prove my point when they say, "Hollywood, an industry that markets the fantasies and fears of popular culture, inescapably finds itself in the myth business, creating stories, themes, and character types that embody the cultural ideals of its audiences and give expression to their deepest feelings ( Davidson and Lytle 405). The film give very little information on the actual events that took place on the horrible day. The movie could have given more information on the historical event that actually took place for it to have been considered some what authentic.

Reality in war films

It is true that almost all of the war films created so far are not 100% accurate on events telling. Even the films that provide evidences and first hand documents are not perfectly truth. Almost all of these films contain personal emotions and dramatic plots. "The historical 'reality' presented by dramatic films is radically different from that of a letter or diary." ( Davidson & Lytle 403) I agree with this statement. The film "Flags of Our Father" also supports my opinion.

"Flags of Our Fahter" is rather a personal memoir than historical presentation. But in some specific fields, it is even more accurate than those historical presentation film. Memoir as a first hand document is considering as accurate as diary and letters. The mian character in this film is a retired soldier who was once fighting for the United States during WWII against Japanese armies. When the war ended, the soldier himself is treated as a national hero because he was the one who swings the flag after the victory. Newspapers and TV shows were talking about him all over the time that put him in a position as hero. But himself, in the other hand, did not satisfied because he was not the one who bring victory to the U.S. He was a soldier that fight the war with all other soliders. Those who died in war were the heroes that sacrificed their lives to the victory. News reporters were miss reported the fact and showed no respects to those who died in the war. According to the main character and also the way i agreed that war heroes are not the one who survived in the war but the one who sacrificed their own lives in order to bring up the victory to the country.

Born on the Fourth of July

Born on the Fourth of July tells a story of a man who changed his beliefs of the Vietnam War after experiencing the fighting himself. Davidson and Lytle would say that this film is not authentic. They would say the movie is not authentic because most of the scenes are dramatized. The movie begins showing Ron Kovic Tom Cruise) doing all the normal things a teenager would do, like playing baseball and hanging out with his friends. This scene is authentic because it’s the life of any young man. But Kovi goes to fight in the war and suffers paralyzing wounds. When Ron Kovic returns home he expects a hero’s welcome, but instead he received discouragement. This is when the non authencity begins. He went to fight because he wanted to defend his country against communism but he soon finds out that the government had lied to him and his friends. He expresses his feelings to his parents and his naïve mother orders Ron Kovic to move out of the house. This scene of moving out is included to make the audience feel sympathy for the hero. The cries between mother and son makes tears run down the audiences cheeks. In Where Trouble Comes Davidson and Lytle states, “No matter how “true” a feature film tries to be to the emotions of it’s characters, it makes will always place dramatic considerations above strict fidelity to the historical record” (405), proves that even the moment of a son leaving his house because of a disagreement of war issues.
The film is easier to be able to pick out the exaggerations then a text. In this film the lighting, color, music and clothing all emphasis the idea that the war was a mistake. The changes of setting was more interesting then just seeing the Vietnam war and all the fighting. The love scenes were included to sell the movie as said by Davidson and Lytle “To justify the a budget of millions, a film must make money, and over the years box-office receipts have proved that audience are attracted to plot with an element of romance” (404).

Windtalkers

The movie Windtalkers is a film based on the Battle of Saipan between US and Japanese forces for the island of Saipan. Historically speaking, I can say that the movie is pretty accurate besides the characters in it. The Battle of Saipan was a battle to gain control of the isle of Saipan and kick the Japanese out. The 2nd and 4th Marine Divisions we're responsible for all the land battles, while there was support artillery from the sea and whereever they set up ground artillery. In the movie we have the 2nd Marine Division landing on the shores of Saipan, backed by artillery support, to capture the island for utilization against the Japanese. The movie is called Windtalkers because the term windtalker is what they called Native American code talkers in WWII, in which case here are two Navajo men. In reality, Navajo code talkers played a key role in successfully relaying messages and directing coordinates for artillery fire that could be intercepted, but couldn't be understood or cracked by the Japanese. I believe Davidson and Lytle would take this movie as mythical instead of authentic. The Battle of Saipan wasn't even very accurately portrayed in this movie, to be frank the Japanese soldiers that were stationed in Saipan we're worn-out and wounded soldiers, not like the fierce fanatical fighters you see in Windtalkers. The real Battle of Saipan was some 30,000 poorly equipped Japanese soldiers defending against some 70,000 well equipped US soldiers with aircraft carrier and bomber support. The whole operation took less than a month to complete with obviously an American victory. However in the film, the Japanese soldiers are these very well equipped soldiers who, as Davidson and Lytle would put it, "(they shout alot and run around ineffectively)(WhenTrouble 423)."

The film is titled Windtalkers, however if you've seen the movie the two Navajo code talkers are just sideshows compared to how much attention they put on Sgt. Joe Enders. And just because of that the film loses a chance it could have had at being authentic, instead of telling a story or an account of these Native American code talkers, it decides to focus on Sgt. Joe Enders, the defender of the codetalkers. The battle scenes are quite action packed and intense, but a little too unrealistic. In the first battle scene with the slaughter of then Cpl. Joe Enders, as the last soldier is killed in front of Enders, Enders takes a brief pause and screams for a good minute, also the bullets have stopped coming, but after the end of his yell a grenade in slow motion
flies through the air and explodes in front of Enders. I think Davidson and Lytle would agree that this is a little too dramatic. Though there are some historical accuracy that Windtalkers displays, the other's are just plain inaccurate. This film could seem like an authentic piece, but I doubt Davidson and Lytle would agree on that.

Authentically Saving Private Ryan

The movie Saving Private Ryan, produce by the extremely well known Steven Spielberg, is one that Davidson and Lytle, authors of “When trouble comes,” a detailed analysis of war representation through film, would almost definitely describe as “authentic”.
The word “authentic” according to Davidson and Lytle refers to historical accuracy. According to these authors, authentic contrasts with the word “mythical,” explained by Davidson and Lytle as “deals with expectations rather than reality. (417)” The authenticity or reality of war is extremely well presented in this film.
Saving Private Ryan is about a group of soldiers during World War Two, who are sent on a mission to find and bring Private James Ryan home back to his mother. He is ordered to come home after his three brothers are killed during the war. This movie is mainly composed of Captain John H. Miller, played by Tom Hanks, along with his group of troops, encountering many different military obstacles on their conquest or wild-goose-chase, trying to reach Private Ryan.
This movie was shot in such a way that authenticity is very easily seen. There are many crucial details that may be overlooked, but in fact help prove or support the validity in this film.
One detail that is very important is how the cameras were used throughout the movie. During all of the fighting scenes the cameras actually move with the actors. The cameras give the viewer the feeling that they are actually part of the group, following the soldiers with their every step. This proves authenticity in the way that the cameras were positioned in angles that the real feeling of what it was like to be part of the action could really be experienced by the audience. Also, at certain points in the film, during various fight scenes, the cameras zoom in on Captain Miller. The lighting becomes a little tinted and the view becomes a little fuzzy. From there the camera shoots as if it is Captain Miller looking around almost in slow motion. Miller and the audience are able to see the atrocities that occur during war, with the slow motion to emphasize reflection on the historical reality.
The blood and guts throughout the movie also help support the idea of “authentic”. The producer of this movie is not trying to hide anything that really occurred during war. Spielberg shows the viewer the incredible amount of gore in order to show what actually occurs on the battlefield at time of vicious fighting. At one point in the first battle seen, Tom Hanks’s character gets sprayed with a comrade’s blood, and then lifts his helmet from the ground and empties it of blood. This detail shows the historical realness of what really happens during war.
Although there are many more details the few definitely helps to prove the idea that historical accuracy is demonstrated in this film. This gives support to the claim that Davidson and Lytle would view Saving Private Ryan as “authentic”.

The Patriot

In the movie, The Patriot, we follow a family of Americans who are entangled in the epic Revolutionary War against Great Britain. The main protagonist, Benjamin Martin, does not want any involvement in the war at first because of his past experiences in the French and Indian War but eventually enters the fight to avenge the death of one of his children. The murderer of his son is none other than Colonel William Tavington, the cold-hearted red coat commander who will become the main antagonist throughout the rest of the film. Martin, with his rag tag militia, does tremendous damage to the British forces stationed in America and eventually turns the tide of the war.
I didn’t need to finish this film to know that if Davidson and Lytle were sitting right next to me, they would find many reasons to call this movie a huge myth. The picture that The Patriot paints is “Americans are amazing, just good men while the British are tyrannical monsters”. Colonel Tavington is delineated as a man without a conscience in this movie. It just happens that he kills off two of Benjamin Martin’s sons to further grip the viewer’s heart. One scene to take note of is when Tavington barges into a church and promises to spare the lives of those who give the whereabouts of the militia. When a man, out of fear, gives the hard kept secret away, Tavington leaves the church, locks the door and burns everybody inside to the ground. The camera goes into the burning church to show the panic and pain of the people while we also see the face of Tavington show no remorse. Even more heart gripping is the fact that the eldest son of Benjamin Martin’s wife and family burned in the church as well. A blossoming love story is crushed by the main villain; where have we seen that before?
Martin is portrayed as a superhero throughout the movie. He takes down countless British soldiers, even when the odds are against him. Of course, the hollywood explanation behind his sudden power boost is that he needs to rescue his eldest son from being hanged. The last battle is twisted up with music and slow motion action to make Martin’s victory more epic than it should be. All in all, The Patriot is as authentic as my chances to attend Harvard.

Braveheart-mythical

The movie starts out with men wearing rags, looking on one hand like Native Americans and on the other hand like George of the Jungle. The men fight on horses that seem very much like an olden day war. Almost right away there’s a love plot to catch the attention of the audience. Once the woman of his dreams dies, William Wallace {Mel Gibson} takes charge of the men who did this to his lover, the English. When the war between Wallace’s side, the Scottish, and The English commence, one will notice a myth straight away as Wallace is constantly fighting for the entire Scottish side. It seems almost as if he’s a one-man team beating the English all on his own. This is of course quite mythical. In the movie, First Blood Part 2, Davidson and Lytle bring up a similar case where Rambo locates an MIA prison camp trying to rescue American prisoners. Everyone thinks he will fail because he’s all alone but “Needless to say Rambo manages to fight off entire detachments of Vietnamese and their Russian allies, rescuing the American prisoners and piloting them safely home. {423}” From these two examples one can see how mythical a scene like this could really be.
On the other side we see Gibson in an authentic light when we hangs on to the handkerchief of his lover, which helps him get through the war. It gives him strength to give a pep talk to his fellow soldiers and keep them going. However on the other hand one might look at the actual battle scenes and notice that the Scottish have no armor, all they have is rakes and sticks to fight while the English have Armor, and real weaponry. Davidson and Lytle point out that just as Gibson and soldiers in Braveheart lack everything essential for war, making this an evidential myth, “Cimino went to extreme lengths shooting these sequences, not so much to re-create historical reality as to obtain the proper “look” for this myth. And because myth deals with expectation rather then reality, Cimino obliged. {417} Myths keep an audience more entertained because they are films where the audience expects something to happen and it usually does. This gives satisfaction to the audience and at the same time, a successful movie.

Saving Private Ryan

One of the war films I am writing about is Saving Private Ryan. The author of Where Trouble comes by Davidson and Lytle would say that Saving Private Ryan is “Authentic”. Saving Private Ryan unlike other war movies they do not exaggerate or dramatize events. In Many war movies that we see today, when a soldier is shot and killed it does not look authentic. Hollywood directors seem to dramatize the death to much. Many times the soldier flops back and forth before hitting the ground. In a lot of movies there is barley any blood after the guy gets shot. In Saving Private Ryan when a soldier was shot and killed they fell straight to the floor without any theatrics there was blood all of the dead soldiers body. The movie is very gruesome and can be nausating at times. Saving Private Ryan does not care if your grossed out they want you to feel how they felt. Saving Private Ryan did not stereotype the American soldiers like other war movies do. The movie showed many deaths on both the enemy and the American side. The soldiers uniforms looked very real. The movie even shows accidental deaths which occurs alot during war. Many war movies dont show this. There was a scene in the movie where on of the soldiers puked when he reached Normandy. I think this is important showing the soldiers as human rather then perceiving them to be tough macho men. The small amount of sound In the movie makes the film seem more authentic. Other movies need the music to make the movie more dramatic. The movie has a whole looked real its almost scary. The movie was on location which is very important in getting a better feel for the place they fought at.
Davidson and Lytle would be very pleased with the work Steven Spielberg did in making saving private Ryan a accurate account of what happened. The movie was in the point of view the soldiers. This was done to show the viewers the reality of war. The main thing here was there were no sides just plain facts. Dispite what people say the movie companies are better off get the histroical facts right because that will get more viewers.

We Were Soldiers

“These are the true events of November, 1965… the Ia Drang Valley of Vietnam…” This is the first thing you hear as the movie, We Were Soldiers, opens on a dry deserted valley. If you were to ask Davidson and Lytle if this movie was authentic they would probably say no. It follows all of the war movie clichés, such as the unwounded-well-rounded-colonel, the American victory, the morals, and the heart-wrenching emotions it evokes. We can deduce this by reading the excerpt “Where Trouble Comes”. They talk about how certain directors will make choices to make the story seem better and to sell the movie, “…directors and screenwriters will tinker with the plot and characters until the story provides them with what they need.” (Where Trouble Comes”, 404.) The movie itself seems exactly that, until you watch the behind the scenes bonus feature titled “We Were Soldiers: Getting it Right”. Here the director explains he wanted to “get it right” because no Vietnam movie has yet to do so. The Author of the book the movies is based on agrees and is satisfied that the directors follow the story and try not to stray from the book, but who’s to say this book is authentic?
The battle of the Ia Drang valley was the first battle where the Viet Cong were directly fighting Americans, and it lasted for 56 hours straight ending in an American victory. This is the basic plot of the movie and it is factually correct. But what wasn’t factually correct was a multitude of things. The actual conversations, the love stories (although I’m sure they had wives and families waiting for them), and the way the battle actually took place. The movie even shows the Viet Cong plotting their attacks. How would the American Army have any clue what conversations these Vietnamese men had with each other? This was probably added to round out the plot, or some other crazy artistic decision.
Something that Davidson and Lytle mention, is that mythical war stories always show the enemy as vicious and the Americans as the superior ones. In We Were Soldiers there are quite a few scenes that humanize the VC soldiers, in example a young soldier writing in a journal that holds a picture of his wife and gets brutally murdered, later the Colonel mails the wife a letter telling her he was an honorable man.
This movie may be an exaggeration of the truth but it's still the truth.

10/15

In order to help each other, as well as begin working on your essay due Friday, write a 250-400 word response discussing one of your films. Is that film 'authentic' according to Davidson and Lytle? Why or why not? It should refer specifically to both Davidson and Lytle and your film. The specificity of description will be one of our major concerns here--how do you describe a film with the same detail one can describe a text?

As always, any responses less than 250 words do not count for credit.