The Lincoln Film

[volgadon]

I didn't say to shy away from it. But using a source that is not complete over something that is more complete just so you can exercise your critical thinking skills does not belong in history class - it belongs in critical thinking class.

Critical thinking is perhaps THE most important skill for any historian, yet all too often is taught so poorly.

[Dravin]

I didn't say to shy away from it. But using a source that is not complete over something that is more complete just so you can exercise your critical thinking skills does not belong in history class - it belongs in critical thinking class.

I never proposed using a source in a history class just so you can exercise critical thinking skills.

Using a not-ideal source as a lesson opener just doesn't sound right to me. There are a lot better sources out there that doesn't introduce unnecessary error in the history.

So you think that say... a more comprehensive PhD level textbook on a subject should be used over say the handful of pages it might get treated in a introductory or high-school text? The PhD level treatment is more 'ideal' than the lower level textbooks. Why use the lower level treatment? Because such a treatment is not the purpose of the course, or because one needs to walk before they run.

Critical examination of documentaries are not usually centered around what is added for dramatic effect or what is fictional just so you can advance a story.

Material gets added or spun because it coincides with the bias of the creator. It makes their viewpoint a better sell. Witness documentaries (and textbooks) that gloss over or avoid nuances concerning the history of the US so that it coincides with the national mythos. Yes, documentaries are unlikely to say X person was at a location they weren't, but they do use dubious sources, spin sources, and skirt around uncomfortable aspects of history in their telling of their viewpoint of history (or whatever). Throw in some patriotic music, some unsubstantiated myths, and avoid some hard truths and you have just as much ability to stick in someone's head and sway opinion. In some ways moreso as covered in my comment to Volgadon below.

Actually, that is an important skill to have as those are some of the commoner embellishments and distortions in primary (and even secondary) sources.

In some ways the embellishments in historical sources, textbooks, or documentaries are more insidious, at least people don't go into the Time Machine or Medea (or heaven forbid a historical drama :gasp: ) accepting everything to be gospel truth. When people read The Conditions of the Working Class in England, Western Civilization II or some PBS documentary they are a lot less likely to stop and critically examine the work and instead just accept it as gospel. The end result if they never catch themselves? An awful lot of people who believe the the Elementary School play about the first Thanksgiving is reasonably accurate to what happened. Or who buy into the have-no-flaws heroic caricatures of American founding fathers.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Dravin

[Guest]

Actually, that is an important skill to have as those are some of the commoner embellishments and distortions in primary (and even secondary) sources.

Exactly. Critical Thinking class is a completely separate class from World/Local History. It is taught as a subset of Reading and Phonics that comprise 3 credits every single year of Elementary School and the first 2 years of high school, which is also a separate class from English Language Class even when everything we read in Reading and Phonics is in English. Well, at least in the Philippine Catholic School System.

Edited December 5, 2012 by anatess

[Guest]

So you think that say... a more comprehensive PhD level textbook on a subject should be used over say the handful of pages it might get treated in a introductory or high-school text? The PhD level treatment is more 'ideal' than the lower level textbooks. Why use the lower level treatment? Because such a treatment is not the purpose of the course, or because one needs to walk before they run.

The movie has contextual errors. You don't introduce contextual errors if you plan to walk before you run.

Material gets added or spun because it coincides with the bias of the creator. It makes their viewpoint a better sell. Witness documentaries (and textbooks) that gloss over or avoid nuances concerning the history of the US so that it coincides with the national mythos. Yes, documentaries are unlikely to say X person was at a location they weren't, but they do use dubious sources, spin sources, and skirt around uncomfortable aspects of history in their telling of their viewpoint of history (or whatever). Throw in some patriotic music, some unsubstantiated myths, and avoid some hard truths and you have just as much ability to stick in someone's head and sway opinion. In some ways moreso as covered in my comment to Volgadon below.

In some ways the embellishments in historical sources, textbooks, or documentaries are more insidious, at least people don't go into the Time Machine or Medea (or heaven forbid a historical drama :gasp: ) accepting everything to be gospel truth. When people read The Conditions of the Working Class in England, Western Civilization II or some PBS documentary they are a lot less likely to stop and critically examine the work and instead just accept it as gospel. The end result if they never catch themselves? An awful lot of people who believe the the Elementary School play about the first Thanksgiving is reasonably accurate to what happened. Or who buy into the have-no-flaws heroic caricatures of American founding fathers.

Of course you don't just use ANY documentary to teach your history class.

The movie's creators did not make the movie to teach history. Spielberg is not a historian. His objective is to make money at the box office. It's a hollywod movie. Entertainment purpose.

[Dravin]

The movie has contextual errors. You don't introduce contextual errors if you plan to walk before you run.

Textbooks have errors in them. And in history learning how to recognize and deal with errors and biases in your sources, to critically analyse them, is learning to walk. If you think that the subject of history is some sort of objective list of facts you're not walking, you're crawling.

The movie's creators did not make the movie to teach history.

And The Time Machine wasn't written to teach history either, and yet, it has value to that end. That something wasn't intended to teach history doesn't mean history cannot be learned from it.

But that's okay Anatess, you can win if you really want to, you win.

Edited December 5, 2012 by Dravin

[pam]

Rotten Tomatoes critics gave this an amazing rating but 'the audience review' wasn't as raving. I've read that this movie is being pushed for an Oscar but from regular viewers, there were some fairly sized disappointments. No one whined about the acting, but I guess historically (as already mentioned) it lacked, and secondly, the cinematography is overly dark and gloomy (visually), making it difficult to watch.

My husband really wants to see it. I'm indifferent. Off the bat it looks "alright" but I know you can't accurately choose a book by its cover.

The only Oscar mention I've seen so far has been for Daniel Day Lewis' performance. Perhaps I just haven't seen any others yet.

[Bini]

The only Oscar mention I've seen so far has been for Daniel Day Lewis' performance. Perhaps I just haven't seen any others yet.

It's speculation. Kind of like how Black Swan kept getting rave reviews from critics and was being pushed for an Oscar but a lot of viewers said that other than the beautiful cinematography, it just wasn't that great.

[volgadon]

Textbooks have errors in them.

I paid over 80 bucks for a college textbook in Western history that contained several sizeable bloopers, illogical staments, muddled thinking, and other fun items.

And in history learning how to recognize and deal with errors and biases in your sources, to critically analyse them, is learning to walk. If you think that the subject of history is some sort of objective list of facts you're not walking, you're crawling.

Amen. Watching a movie and discussing it also allows one to come to grips critically with a very prevalent source of information about the world for many people.

But that's okay Anatess, you can win if you really want to, you win.

Aye.

[volgadon]

Exactly. Critical Thinking class is a completely separate class from World/Local History. It is taught as a subset of Reading and Phonics that comprise 3 credits every single year of Elementary School and the first 2 years of high school, which is also a separate class from English Language Class even when everything we read in Reading and Phonics is in English. Well, at least in the Philippine Catholic School System.

I think that severing critical thinking from an history class is disastrous. I don't mind separate critical thinking classes, but it has to be a component of history as well.

[Guest]

But that's okay Anatess, you can win if you really want to, you win.

Dravin, next time, if you want a pissing contest, you'll have to let me know so that I can play the game by those rules.

I thought we were debating opinions from 2 different perspectives from 2 different backgrounds. 3 if you add Volgadon's from the another side of the world. I didn't know we were going for wins and loses.

I have a bigger chance of winning a game of basketball with you than these types of superiority contests. And I'm only 5 foot nothing.

[Guest]

I think that severing critical thinking from an history class is disastrous. I don't mind separate critical thinking classes, but it has to be a component of history as well.

Of course! You study Critical Thinking so that you can apply it everywhere!

My point is - I do not believe that the movie Lincoln by Steven Spielberg 2012 is a good media to use in a history class covering the 13th Amendment, the life of Lincoln or the Civil War because of its contextual quality.

All you guys are saying is that the contextual quality does not matter because it can be an exercise in critical thinking.

And I countered with - if you want to use something lacking in contextual quality for an exercise in critical thinking, you take the movie Lincoln and discuss it in Critical Thinking class. Not History class. In a history class you discuss the history in its proper context using sources that support such context that you're teaching.

That about wraps it up.

[FunkyTown]

Of course! You study Critical Thinking so that you can apply it everywhere!

My point is - I do not believe that the movie Lincoln by Steven Spielberg 2012 is a good media to use in a history class covering the 13th Amendment, the life of Lincoln or the Civil War because of its contextual quality.

All you guys are saying is that the contextual quality does not matter because it can be an exercise in critical thinking.

And I countered with - if you want to use something lacking in contextual quality for an exercise in critical thinking, you take the movie Lincoln and discuss it in Critical Thinking class. Not History class. In a history class you discuss the history in its proper context using sources that support such context that you're teaching.

That about wraps it up.

All I care about is historical authenticity. Like, for instance:

How much of the movie is dedicated to Lincoln's well-known predilection for hunting Vampires?