UPDATED SCHEDULE

October 30     Gather sources…you should have all sources in hand by Saturday.

            October 31

                  November 1

                  November 2

                  November 3

November 4   Research Complete…sources gathered and read.

            November 5

November 6   Introduction due…must have a clear thesis. Argue something!

                        Outline of the rest of the paper is due. (formal or informal is fine)

            November 7

                  November 8

                  November 9

                  November 10

November 11            NO CLASS

                  November 12                           

November 13 COMPLETE ROUGH DRAFT DUE IN CLASS 

(8-10 pages,Times 12, double-spaced, one-inch margins, your own original work completed this quarter. Rough drafts must include a bibliography and a minimum of ten sources)

COMMON ISSUES WITH THE FILM REVIEWS:

COMMON ISSUES WITH THE FILM REVIEWS:

1. edit…I do not mean to fix run ons. Perhaps you do not know how to fix a run on. I mean edit. You do know the problem in the following sentence:

She ran through the forest in in her wedding dresses.

The film Star Wars, Based on a novel, is ahistorical. It does, however, capture a historical model of good of evil.

2. 1960s….not 1960’s

3. its versus it’s

4. transitions…

5. adverbs:

“The problem with adverbs is it lets people choose shitty verbs and nouns. One of those is going to be generic.” Matt Woodman

In order to write good stuff you have to hate adverbs.
(Theodore Roethke, quoted in The Glass House: The Life of Theodore Roethke, by Allan Seager. McGraw-Hill, 1968)

Critic Michiko Kakutani of The New York Times has been lavish in her use of -ly adverbs, as have many of her colleagues at the newspaper. Some time ago she described a British novelist's prose as "engagingly demented." Legions of -ly locutions have followed over the years, including "casually authoritative" and "eye-crossingly voluminous." Meanwhile, her colleagues have come up with "beguilingly Boswellian" (Joseph J. Ellis), "laughably archival" (Dinitia Smith), "jesuitically contradictory" (Bruce Hrierson), and "genetically goofy" (David Carr).

Arts reviewers (and blurbists) everywhere seem enamored of the device, and little wonder; it offers an alternative to shopworn critical adjectives like brilliant, gripping, or plodding. It can also tweak such adjectives toward fresh meanings, as in yawningly brilliant.

(Arthur Plotnik, Spunk & Bite: A Writer's Guide to Punchier, More Engaging Language & Style. Random House, 2005)

"At their best, adverbs spice up a verb or adjective. At their worst, they express a meaning already contained in it" (Writing Tools: 50 Essential Strategies for Every Writer. Little, Brown and Company, 2006).

I believe the road to hell is paved with adverbs, and I will shout it from the rooftops. To put it another way, they're like dandelions. If you have one on your lawn, it looks pretty and unique. If you fail to root it out, however, you find five the next day . . . fifty the day after that . . . and then, my brothers and sisters, your lawn is totally, completely, and profligately covered with dandelions. By then you see them for the weeds they really are, but by then it's--GASP!!--too late.
(Stephen King, On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft. Scribner, 2000)

We must eliminate adverbs, the old worn-out clasp which holds words tied to each other. The adverb preserves a monotonous character in a sentence.
(Futurist Manifesto, quoted by Zbigniew Folejewski in Futurism and Its Place in the Development of Modern Poetry. Univ. of Ottawa Press, 1980)

Sam Daniels: Alarmingly high fatality. All localized within a three mile radius. Incubation period: short. Appears contained. Alarmingly. Casey, you didn't put "alarmingly."
Casey Schuler: It's an adverb, Sam. It's a lazy tool of a weak mind.
(Dustin Hoffman and Kevin Spacey in the movie Outbreak, 1995)

How well [Evelyn Waugh] faces the problem of linking passages between the scenes. There is almost a complete absence of the beastly adverb--far more damaging to a writer than an adjective.
(Graham Greene, Ways of Escape. Simon & Schuster, 1980)

I am dead to adverbs; they cannot excite me. To misplace an adverb is a thing which I am able to do with frozen indifference; it can never give me a pang. . . . There are subtleties which I cannot master at all--they confuse me, they mean absolutely nothing to me--and this adverb plague is one of them.
(Mark Twain, "The Contributors' Club." The Atlantic Monthly, June 1880)

Elmore Leonard, “To use an adverb this way (or almost any way) is a mortal sin.”

“Write with nouns and verbs, not with adjectives and adverbs. The adjective hasn’t been built that can pull a weak or inaccurate noun out of a tight place.”

–William Strunk and E.B. White

 HERE ARE SOME FROM YOUR ESSAYS:

…we vividly grasp

… it was extremely wrong

…very well done

…she continually states

…the filmmaker was shockingly honest.

…they seem to genuinely love her

…Evelyn ominously whispers, “Death is only the beginning.” (this one is acceptable)

RESEARCH BUDDIES HOMEWORK

Break into pairs. Exchange either email addresses or phone numbers. Over the next few days, you are going to exchange supportive communications with one classmate regarding progress on the research paper. Ask each other for a progress report. Inquire about books and articles. Try to help think of sources or arguments in a unique way. Be a supportive colleague.
You will give a full report of this interaction to me on Tuesday.

STEP 1: EXCHANGE EMAIL OR PHONE

STEP 2: GIVE A BRIEF UPDATE OF WHERE YOU ARE IN COLLECTING RESEARCH ON YOUR TOPIC. 

STEP 3: COMMIT TO EMAILING/CALLING/TEXTING A SUPPORTIVE MESSAGE OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS.

STEP 4: COME TO CLASS ON TUESDAY PREPARED TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON YOUR RESEARCH AND TO TELL ME HOW YOUR RESEARCH BUDDY TREATED YOU.

COMMON PROBLEMS IN THE PROSPECTUS

1.     CHOOSE WORDS WISELY:

Literally, but yet, lots of, stepped up to the plate

2.     RUN-ON SENTENCES:

3.     HOW CAN A COLON MAKE A FRAGMENT?

The subjects I will study will be: art, history, and music.

                                                (fragment)

The subjects I will study will include: art, history, and music.

                                                (fragment)

            The subjects I will study will include the following: art, history, and music.

4.     EDIT MORE THOROUGHLY:

Silly errors on final drafts are not acceptable.

            Two ideas may help you edit more carefully:

A.     Read your essays aloud;

B.     Bring me a draft.

           

5.     TOPIC FOCUS:

The topics are far too broad. You cannot write a good ten page paper on all of World War Two, for instance. There was not enough evidence that research had begun in earnest.

How do you narrow your research focus?

            …History of Medicine

…Medicine in the 19^th century

…Medicine in Europe in the 19^th Century

--ALL OF THE FOLLOWING, HOWEVER, WOULD WORK…

…Birth of the germ theory

…Pasteur and the Role of Invention in Medicine

…Mesmer and Medical Abuse in 19^th Century Vienna

…relationship between Industrialization and Medicine

History of Middle East

History of Islam

Medicine in Early Islam

--ALL OF THE FOLLOWING, HOWEVER, WOULD WORK…

…Bedside Manner and Al Razi

…Recent Scholarship on Ibn Sina

…Role of Zakat in Establishing Hospitals in the 9^th Century Muslim World

…Educating Doctors in Early Islam

FILM AND HISTORY ASSIGNMENT... DUE October 23

Watch a movie (a feature film) that is set in the past. Take notes as you watch the film. Write a formal essay of 3-4 pages regarding the history portrayed in that movie.  This essay must be typed (and double-spaced), carefully written, and thoughtful in its comments.

Pay special attention to the way the film treats the history. Use our textbook to give you ideas about how history is conceived in different ways. You should also cite other sources. The number and type is up to you.
Critique the way the filmmakers presented and used the historical context as a background (or foreground) for the action in the movie.

**Use quotes and scene descriptions from the movie to illustrate your arguments**

This film review is a critique essay. Follow these guidelines while preparing this essay:

1. In one paragraph, summarize the premise and plot of the movie briefly in your paper.  In what

time period does the film take place? What civilization or part of the world is the film portraying? If you turn this paper into a description of the film, there will be dire consequences!

2. Following the summary paragraph, there are various ways to approach your critique:

A.  Is the film historically accurate? Are the “facts” about historical events correct?  Or do the filmmakers play with cause and effect, the actual historical order of events?  Is the film anachronistic? Are there things like costumes and technologies that actually didn’t exist in that era (or place)?

B. Is the movie an allegory about the filmmaker’s own time? Can you detect elements of the time that the movie was made in the message of the movie? Films made about same historical subject will differ substantially if one is made in 2014 and one in 1950.

C. Would the film be useful in a history class? If so, consider ways of incorporating this film into the teaching of a social studies class.

D. What is the central message or purpose of the movie? What central theme was the director trying to convey?

E. Analyze the film within its genre. Is it a gangster film? If so, how does it stack up to others?

You may also come up with your own approach to the film. In fact, I encourage you to present an original way of viewing the film you choose. While you watch the movie, be ready to stop the action and start the writing if a brilliant idea comes to mind.

A Short List of Suggested Films:

Ancient

300 (2006)

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum (1966)

Alexander (2004)

Ben Hur (1959)

The Egyptian (1954)

Gladiator (2000)

The Greatest Story Ever Told (1965)

HBO: Rome (2005-2007)

Ifigeneia (1977)

King of Kings (1961)

Land of the Pharaohs (1955)

Jesus of Nazareth (1977)

The Mummy (1999)

The Robe (1953)

Spartacus (1960)

The Ten Commandments (1956)

Troy (2004)

16th Century
Elizabeth (1998)
Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2005)
The Return of Martin Guerre (198x)
Queen Margot (1994)
Aguirre: Wrath of God (1972)
Apocalypto (2006)

17th Century
The Three Musketeers (1993)
The Last Valley (1971)
Seven Samurai (1954)

18th Century
The Madness of King George (1994)
Dangerous Liaisons (1988)
Amadeus
Mutiny on the Bounty
The Mission (1986)

19th Century
Master and Commander (2003)
Out of Africa
Mountains of the Moon Zulu! (1964)
Zulu Dawn (1979)
The Deceivers (1988)
Anna and the King (2000)
Jose Rizal (1998)

20th Century
Apocalypse Now

The African Queen
Ghost and the Darkness
A Passage to India (1985)
Gandhi (1982)
Seven Years in Tibet
The Last Emperor (1987)
M*A*S*H!
The Quiet American
Painted Veil

Motorcycle Diaries !
Evita!
Dr. Zhivago (1965) 

Asia

Jing ke ci qin wang (The Emperor and the Assassin 1999)

Kakushi-toride no san-akunin (The Hidden Fortress 1958)

Miyamoto Musashi (Samurai I of the Samurai Trilogy 1954)

Ran (1985)

Shi mian mai fu (House of Flying Daggers 2004)

Ying xiong (Hero 2002)

HISTORY FILM REVIEW EXAMPLE

The Patriot: Movie Review From the Journal of American History vol. 87, no. 3, on-line version: 

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jah/87.3/mr_2.html

The Patriot, directed by Roland Emmerich for Centropolis Entertainment, Columbia Pictures, and SONY Pictures Entertainment, is a stirring account of a little-known campaign of a war that has been largely ignored by Hollywood. It tells the story of Benjamin Martin (Mel Gibson), a South Carolina planter and widower with seven children. His horrific experiences in the French and Indian War make him unwilling to take up arms against the British when South Carolina votes for independence in 1776, though his eldest son, Gabriel (Heath Ledger), joins the Continental army. Martin is forced to take sides when the war literally comes into his front yard and British troops harm his family and burn his home. He assumes command of the local militia and becomes the scourge of the British, cutting their supply lines and attacking their outposts. Martin and his men pay a heavy personal price for their patriotism, but they persevere and play a key role in defeating the British army in South Carolina. After Gen. Charles Cornwallis surrenders, Martin and his men return to South Carolina to rebuild in their independent country.
This film is a well-told, well-acted, and handsomely photographed historical epic, and accolades must go to Emmerich and Gibson for tackling a subject that is certainly less than familiar to the average summer movie patron. Adding more credibility to the historical accuracy of this film was the participation of historians from the Smithsonian's National Museum of American History as consultants. The sets and scenery show much attention to historical detail. Colonial Charleston, the plantations, villages, and taverns—all convey an atmosphere of period authenticity. The Fort Carolina set is especially well done; the British built a number of such forts by constructing earthwork and palisade fortifications around plantation houses.
However, much of The Patriot is not historically accurate in the interpretation of broad themes or in specific details of the campaign in the South and of warfare in the American Revolution. Gibson acknowledged, "If one were to adhere to historical accuracy all the way, you'd probably have the most boring two hours on earth, but firstly it's entertainment and we've taken license with history to make it more compelling."
Mel Gibson's character is a composite of several partisan leaders, most notably Francis Marion, Thomas Sumter, and Andrew Pickens. Like Marion, Martin makes his headquarters on an island in the middle of a swamp. Both Sumter and Pickens took up arms after their plantations were burned by the British. Aside from those facts, Benjamin Martin has little in common with his real-life counterparts.
The most serious deficiency of The Patriot is its almost complete omission of the Loyalists. A significant segment of the population of the Carolinas and Georgia remained loyal, and much of the fighting there was a civil war between Tories and Whigs. Though Loyalist provincial and militia units constituted one-half of the British army in the South, the film portrays only one Loyalist soldier, Captain Wilkins (Adam Baldwin) in Colonel Tavington's (Jason Isaacs) dragoons. Tavington is based on Banastre Tarleton, who commanded the British Legion, a Loyalist provincial regiment. The film gives the impression that Tavington's regiment is British and that Captain Wilkins is the only Loyalist in its ranks. No other Loyalist soldiers appear in The Patriot.
The atrocities committed by Colonel Tavington and his troops are highly exaggerated. Benjamin Martin first encounters this bloodthirsty officer after he has opened up his home to treat the wounded of both sides. Tavington has the British wounded removed, then orders the execution of the wounded Continentals and the burning of Martin's plantation. When one of Martin's sons tries to intervene, Tavington fatally shoots him in the back. Tavington and his men subsequently murder slaves who refuse to cooperate with them and go on a farm-burning spree in which they kill the wife and child of one of Martin's men. The culminating atrocity occurs when Tavington descends on the village of Wakefield, which is home to a number of Martin's guerrillas, and has the entire population locked inside the church, which he then sets ablaze.
Though the real-life Banastre Tarleton was a ruthless and brutal officer, he never committed atrocities of the sort depicted in The Patriot. The most notorious episode associated with Tarleton was the Waxhaws Massacre on May 29, 1780. In that engagement Tarleton and his legion attacked a regiment of Virginia Continentals. The Virginians fired only one volley before the Tory horsemen broke their line. They then tried to surrender, but a killing frenzy took hold of the Loyalists and most of the helpless Continentals were mercilessly cut down. Three-quarters of the Virginians were killed or so badly wounded that Tarleton left them on the field. An American officer who saw the wounded after the battle estimated that the average number of wounds per man was sixteen.
Tarleton enthusiastically burned the farms of suspected Patriots and summarily executed suspected guerrillas—on several occasions in front of their families. Dastardly as Tarleton's actual behavior was, it pales in comparison to that of The Patriot's Colonel Tavington. There is no evidence that Tarleton executed wounded Continentals, nor that he killed women and children. The British had a very practical motivation for not killing their Continental captives, as it would invite retaliation against British prisoners. The Waxhaws Massacre occurred in the heat of battle and was exacerbated by the intense animosity between Tories and Whigs. In an interview, Gibson acknowledged, "Some of the worst crimes were committed between the Loyalists and the Rebels, the colonists themselves." However, when Tavington is preparing to incinerate the church with the villagers inside, Captain Wilkins, a Tory, is the only one of his men to express any reservations.
The portrayal of African Americans and slavery in the movie has also been a subject of much controversy. Benjamin Martin is a prominent planter in South Carolina and thus would have owned slaves. In order not to stigmatize the film's hero, Martin does not own slaves but employs free black workers, probably the only such labor arrangement in colonial South Carolina. Later, Martin takes his family to a "maroon" community of fugitive slaves on the coast to hide them from the British. In reality, those slaves were hiding from the Patriots. Thomas Sumter often used slaves seized from Tory owners to pay his militiamen.
The military details of uniforms, equipment, and tactics also reveal inaccuracies too numerous to list here. All British soldiers did not wear red uniforms, and very few Continental soldiers had blue coats and white trousers. This latter fact was more accurately depicted in A&E's The Crossing, in which audiences see little uniformity in the attire of the Continentals. In the southern campaign most of the American army was militia, and the Continental contingent had no tents and had trouble acquiring clothing or provisions of any kind. The Patriot misses an excellent opportunity to show the true depth of suffering and deprivation that the Continental regulars endured for independence. The climactic battle in the film also bears little resemblance to the actual Battle of Cowpens, upon which it is based. Finally, the field artillery available to both sides could not fire exploding shells.
In conclusion, The Patriot is a very entertaining film that uses the American Revolution in South Carolina as a backdrop to tell a story about the way the war affected a fictional family. "This is not historically accurate," said Mel Gibson. "In the broad strokes, yes—on other levels, it is sheer fantasy. It's a good thing that historians are going to harangue this and say, 'It's not accurate.' Good. It'll make somebody pick up a book."

William Ross St. George Jr. Wilmington, North Carolina