Many historical movies had been made about people or group of people and their accomplishments or in some cases mistakes. This does not mean that the directors and producers do not know about history. It is just that for their own benefit, the directors, storywriters, producers and other people change some historical facts and even the attitudes of the characters in order to stimulate public interest. One of the movies that has historical inaccuracies in it is the movie “Braveheart.” Even though the movie is somewhat accurate, it looks like the story-writer added some twists and turns to make it look interesting, without backing it up with accurate historical events. The historical inaccuracies in the movie “Braveheart” have several basic areas which include adding or deleting characters and inaccuracy regarding the lives and actions of historical figures.
However many viewers do not realise that documentaries are only a version of reality. Moore exploits this ignorance by employing the elements of documentary construction to create a misleading and manipulating relationship between the filmmaker and his audience. Constructing Lies! The first way in which he uses the construction process is by incorporating shot construction. This creates an impression between the director and viewers giving a more desired effect.
Based on the principle of accountability, filmmakers should not be held legally responsible for the actions of moviegoers. Another opposing argument states filmmakers should be at fault because they show a false sense of reality in their movies. Several supporters of this idea criticize the filmmakers’ lack of consequences in the movies. In multiple movies, the bad guy gets away without any retribution for the crimes they committed. The lack of consequences in the movies leads to deliberate, heinous crimes in which the perpetrator thinks he can get away with his actions.
For example, you may have completely different thoughts on the movie than your friend who also saw the movie. Sometimes people, such as Jensen and Wosnitzer take away a message that the producer never intended. This just goes to show that a film can be interpreted
Movie observers have their favorite kind of film they love to watch. By that, we disregard certain films because it does not fit into the mold of what we think a film should look like. We should keep in mind that all films will not fit our preconceived notions. To become a receptive viewer we must be willing to venture beyond the norm. Films are not only for entertainment and are not only for profound artistic statements.
Stoppard deviates from the conventional themes of the genre as he does not intend to take the genre seriously initially. Although his work is successful where Stoppard comments strongly on crime writing, he refers to The Real Inspector Hound as a ‘jokey play’ where it has been criticised for not having the same quality as his other works. However he employs elements of cosy including the rigid use of a clue-puzzle literary game with an initial crime, a detective, character impersonation, suspects and clues, red herrings, specific settings and a dénouement. Through imitating key features of The Mousetrap composed by Agatha Christie, this enables Stoppard to employ certain conventions of cosy while simultaneously swaying from other elements in order to create a satirical play and comment on the genre as a whole. Stoppard uses his play to mock the conventions of cosy crime fiction as some believe theatrical whodunits are inevitably shallow and dull thus Stoppard only delineates the obvious.
Still, up to this point, the footage being used was that that had been filmed through the lens of Thierry’s camera, leading us to believe that this film was really a documentary about purely street art and artists. Then, there is a distinct turning point. This comes when Thierry decides to actually make a film with all of his footage. The film is terrible and Banksy does not approve, so he tells
O'Brien creates an intentional paradox for his readers when he writes the violent, but grabbing story of Rat Kiley and then at the end of the story, tells the reader that the characters and events of the story did not happen just as he described them, but that they happened in a totally different way to other people. But he insists that the story is true. With this, O'Brien challenges the reader to discover the truth of the event. O'Brien gets the reader to figure out what fiction of this book is actually worth. Firstly, did O'Brien confuse the reader when he said that the events did not happen after the reader became involved in those events?
Could have been the clothes or the living conditions, a change that could have been made to do the experiment better could be to use normal clothes or have the researchers play the guards. Whether you call it uninformed consent or deception I think this is the most problematic issue in the video. This type of experiment is an important one in the history of social research because it demonstrates how easily one can become wrapped up in research and forgets about the values of the participants. Although because it is sometimes difficult to address social ethical issues you must not choose to ignore
If he has became bad, he must have had experienced different situations that brought the evil alive. Talking about the movie, I personally do not think that Jack came to the island clean. There did not appear that many situations that could have changed him in a such way. In this case, if we become beasts through out our lives, there must be the chance of getting back. If there really is something that attracts us to the dark side, there has to be a light at the end of the tunnel.