So under the wise guidance of the History Wizard I've decided that I well be using two films to create a comparison of the changing views and perspectives of JFK and his influence in the Cuban Missile Crisis or..something to that effect. I've already watched 'Thirteen Days'(2000) and I'm having trouble locating 'The Missiles of October'(1974). Thanks to Sir I'm moving forward with my project- Thanks, Sir! :) Edmodo post -
They're films so I'm guessing both reconstructions aren't the most objective versions of what actually happened. Both have been constructed by directors seeing things from an american perspective and having the agenda to make the events as interesting as possible for viewing, probably dramatising the whole thing. They probably don't explain much of the causes and lead up to the crisis, like the bay of pigs incident, US Jupiter missiles in Turkey/Italy, Cuba's fear of invasion or attack from America and if they do its probably mostly bias in favor of the Americans. So, in my opinion, no they do not make 'good' history.. They offer an incomplete, bias to prospective, agenda driven, dramatised, subjective version of events. How can I compare them? I haven't seen them yet..BUT I'd say they each have been effected by there context differently and that the 2001 version probably has more sources of information - released at later dates and a broader 'revolutionary' view. They had different directors- each with different views/ideals?- Once again, any advice is welcomed with open arms and thanks.
They may be bias but they would provide an insight into the American psyche or something profound as that.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Paul (think it is you Paul).
ReplyDeleteYou need to look at the films and take the history aspects which the films portray and maybe cross examine it with other versions/different sources.
It would also be interesting to see how your issue is depicted in the media/film etc, which i feel would be very important when considering the changing views and perspectives.
Although it may not be 'official history' (written in a textbook by a historian and what not) it can provide an insight and obviously a different perspective of the history..... even if it may be dramatised a little.
Just a thought... no idea if it is right haha.
Of course it's Paul! It's true, do you guys remember reading Clendinnen's views on history? She speaks about the nature of the American psyche in regards to their view on history- they have a consensus that American is so great and everything it does is righteous. The same can be seen for JFK, an American Icon; Americans choose to see him as a war hero- though he is often criticized for the destruction and sinking of his ship- others believe he should have been court marshaled for his actions that day- but yet the consensus remains. I intend to contrast multiple sources, including both films, to explain why different perspectives, contexts, backgrounds, nationalities, bias' and agendas etc impact the changing views of JFK and his influence on the Cuban missiles crisis in history. John had friends in the media so that will be interesting - what's also interesting is the fact that the white house did not reveal a lot of information to the public about the crisis, possibly in fear of the public becoming erratic with what could have been WW3 seemingly about to break out.
ReplyDeleteOfficial? Who cares! You're right they offer a reconstruction of history that does have its value in perspective- obviously- that is what I'm writing about... "The changing perspectives"
Thanks for the insight :)