This document provides a comparison of the films The Birth of a Nation, Gone with the Wind, and Glory and their portrayal of the Civil War and issues of race. It argues that Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind presented inaccurate and distorted views of history that negatively impacted Americans' understanding of slavery and race relations. In contrast, Glory was praised for being the most historically accurate film about the war and the first to properly depict the role of black soldiers. While all three films had large cultural impacts, Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind spread misinformation, while Glory helped correct previous misrepresentations.
This is the film link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGQaAddwjxg
This is a critical analysis of the film Birth of a Nation; the analysis must answer the following questions:
What was the film about?
What do you think was the director’s main goal in making this film?
How does it help us to understand the history of racism in the U.S. at that time and today?
What problems do you see with the film especially the ways in which the film portrays African-Americans and the Ku Klux Klan?
Crucial: your critique must be analytical, critical, and not only descriptive.
Grading of the Critique:
The review will be graded according to the quality of content, composition, and critical analysis. I will examine whether you have addressed the assignment, answering the four questions posed above.
The finished review must be in typewritten form, (5 pages) double spaced, the typed size must be 12 pt. Times New Roman font is required. Bold lettering is not acceptable. A cover page is required. It must include the title, your name, the date, and the name of the course. You do not need to use other sources for your critique but you may use them. If you use other sources aside from the film, you must include a bibliography. All sources must be cited according to the Turabian Style Manual. Outside sources not allowed.
This is the film link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGQaAddwjxg
This is a critical analysis of the film Birth of a Nation; the analysis must answer the following questions:
What was the film about?
What do you think was the director’s main goal in making this film?
How does it help us to understand the history of racism in the U.S. at that time and today?
What problems do you see with the film especially the ways in which the film portrays African-Americans and the Ku Klux Klan?
Crucial: your critique must be analytical, critical, and not only descriptive.
Grading of the Critique:
The review will be graded according to the quality of content, composition, and critical analysis. I will examine whether you have addressed the assignment, answering the four questions posed above.
The finished review must be in typewritten form, (5 pages) double spaced, the typed size must be 12 pt. Times New Roman font is required. Bold lettering is not acceptable. A cover page is required. It must include the title, your name, the date, and the name of the course. You do not need to use other sources for your critique but you may use them. If you use other sources aside from the film, you must include a bibliography. All sources must be cited according to the Turabian Style Manual. Outside sources not allowed.
This paper sheds some light on how the American Dream was galvanized with the discovery of America and how it was evolved into a glimmer of hope for social, sexual, racial, economic and religious equality, democracy, wealth and freedom, which sugars the pills of negative consequences of the American Dream. Considering that dream is something which has not been achieved yet, the American Dream is nothing less than a social criticism of society and a preview of their struggle for the rights that they deserved, and yet they did not have. Although the American Dream was launched innocently and optimistically for a better life, it fell short of expectations in the end. On the contrary, it turns to a nightmare haunting American people with the fear of intolerance of difference, violence, alienation, isolation, ostracism, scapegoating, discrimination, materialism and capitalism. In this paper, the low-down of the American Dream behind its dazzling display will be analysed through two plays: Arthur Miller’s The Crucible and Edward Albee’s The Zoo Story. Ultimately, it will be concluded that the American Dream is a bomb programmed to exterminate itself and only human virtues such as compassion, forgiveness, love, empathy and sacrifice can bring salvation to mankind in the grip of injustice, depression, emotional breakdown, moral decline, and social collapse.
This paper sheds some light on how the American Dream was galvanized with the discovery of America and how it was evolved into a glimmer of hope for social, sexual, racial, economic and religious equality, democracy, wealth and freedom, which sugars the pills of negative consequences of the American Dream. Considering that dream is something which has not been achieved yet, the American Dream is nothing less than a social criticism of society and a preview of their struggle for the rights that they deserved, and yet they did not have. Although the American Dream was launched innocently and optimistically for a better life, it fell short of expectations in the end. On the contrary, it turns to a nightmare haunting American people with the fear of intolerance of difference, violence, alienation, isolation, ostracism, scapegoating, discrimination, materialism and capitalism. In this paper, the low-down of the American Dream behind its dazzling display will be analysed through two plays: Arthur Miller’s The Crucible and Edward Albee’s The Zoo Story. Ultimately, it will be concluded that the American Dream is a bomb programmed to exterminate itself and only human virtues such as compassion, forgiveness, love, empathy and sacrifice can bring salvation to mankind in the grip of injustice, depression, emotional breakdown, moral decline, and social collapse.
Selbstbewusstsein Stärken und aufbauen - 10 Übungen✮ Steffen Schojan
Selbstbewusstsein stärken und aufbauen - 10 Übungen
Die Übungen, um Dein Selbstbewusstsein zu stärken und aufzubauen wurden von Harry Palmer entwickelt, der auch die Avatar® Materialien entwickelt hat und in eine für jeden Menschen umsetzbare Form gebracht hat. In den Slides gebe ich dazu Hinweise auf Bücher.
Selbstbewusstsein Stärken und aufbauen - 10 Übungen:
Führe bitte die Übungen Selbstbewusstsein stärken durch in der Reihenfolge wie Du es möchtest. Lies zu erst die Übung und das erwartete Ergebnis, entscheide dann, welche Übung für Dich im Moment passend ist.
Selbstbewusstsein Stärken und aufbauen - 10 Übungen:
Die Übungen Selbstbewusstsein stärken und aufbauen geben Dir neue Energie, um wieder freie Aufmerksamkeit und Mut zu haben, das zu tun, was Du wirklich tun willst. Die Übungen Selbstbewusstsein Stärken führen zu mehr Wohlbefinden, Entspannung, Beruhigung, Einsichten, Selbstkontrolle, Selbstvertrauen, Selbstsicherheit - Du bekommst das Gefühl lebendiger zu sein.
_______________
Möchtest du dein Verständnis vom Leben erweitern?
Die wichtigsten Lektionen, die du lernen kannst, sind bereits in deinem Bewusstsein vorhanden. Diese zehn Aktionen sind spezifische Anwendungen der Avatar®-Verfahren, zugeschnitten auf Menschen, die den Avatar Kurs noch nicht gemacht haben.
Hab' Spaß damit !
_______________
Der Avatar Kurs ist ein kraftvoller und schnell wirksamer Selbstbewusstseinstraining-Kurs. Er beruht auf der ein- fachen Tatsache, dass deine Überzeugungen bewirken, dass du jene Situationen und Ereignisse kreierst oder anziehst, die du als dein Leben erfährst.
Das Ziel des dreiteiligen Avatar Kurses ist es, dich anzuleiten, dein eigenes Überzeugungssystem zu erforschen und dir die Werkzeuge mitzugeben, mit denen du die Dinge ändern kannst, die du ändern willst. Der AVATAR KURS gibt dir Einblick, wie dein Bewusstsein im Innersten funktioniert.
Der Avatar Kurs lehrt Welt-Lektionen (Erfahrungen) anstelle von Wort-Lektionen (intellektuelles Verständnis). Darum ist ein erfahrener AVATAR-MASTER erforderlich, der dich in die konkreten Lektionen einführt, die bereits in deinem eigenen Bewusstsein enthalten sind.
Teil I des Avatar Kurses (enthalten in den Büchern: "Absichtsvoll leben" und "ReSurfacing") verbindet dich mit einem erweiterten Gewahrsein darüber, wie deine Überzeugungen dein Leben beeinflussen. Er wird als zweitägiger Workshop angeboten.
Teil II des Kurses führt dich dahin, deine eigene Existenz wieder viel bewusster wahrzunehmen und die mühelose Fähigkeit zurückzugewinnen, deine persönliche Realität zu kreieren.
Teil III des Avatar Kurses erkundet die grundlegenden Überzeugungen, die das Universum erschaffen und bietet eine einfache und wirksame Technik zum Umgang mit Überzeugungen an. Diese Technik wird in einer Reihe von Verfahren angewendet, um Konflikte, Begrenzungen, anhaltende unerwünschte Zustände und sogar Schmerzen zu handhaben.
Big Uncle is a name for the concept of “benevolent security”. Privacy is a dated concept, disappearing fast. People get all tied in a knot over this, but the consequences are only as bad as we let them be. Like any technology, there will be evil applications and there will be good ones. There are upsides: Big Uncle not Big Brother.
Who controls which one we get? The people who work in IT: we make either one happen, we are the troops.
6The movie-made Movementcivil rites of passageSharon .docxrobert345678
6
The movie-made Movement:
civil rites of passage
Sharon Monteith
Memory believes before knowing remembers.
(William Faulkner)
Forgetting is just another kind of remembering.
(Robert Penn Warren)
Film history cannibalises images, expropriates themes and tech-
niques, and decants them into the contents of our collective
memory. Movie memories are influenced by the (inter)textuality of
media styles – Fredric Jameson has gone so far as to argue that such
styles displace ‘real’ history. The Civil Rights Movement made real
history but the Movement struggle was also a media event, played
out as a teledrama in homes across the world in the 1950s and
1960s, and it is being replayed as a cinematic event. The interrela-
tionship of popular memory and cinematic representations finds a
telling case study in the civil rights era in the American South. This
chapter assesses what films made after the civil rights era of the
1950s and 1960s express about the failure of the Movement to sus-
tain and be sustained in its challenges to inequality and racist injus-
tice. It argues that popular cultural currency relies on invoking
images present in the sedimented layers of civil rights preoccupa-
tions but that in the 1980s and 1990s movies also tap into ‘struc-
tures of feeling’. Historical verisimilitude is bent to include what
Tom Hayden called in 1962 ‘a reassertion of the personal’ as part of
the political, but it is also bent to re-present the Movement as a
communal struggle in which ordinary southern white people are
much more significant actors in the personal and even the public
space of civil rights politics than was actually the case. Historical
facts as we retrieve and interpret them are only one facet of the
movie-made Movement.
Sharon Monteith - 9781526137531
Downloaded from manchesterhive.com at 11/19/2022 05:48:34AM
via free access
The movie-made Movement 121
In a reception-driven analysis, film genres and sub-genres do not
exist until they become necessary. It would be impossible to argue
that something called ‘civil rights cinema’ existed before the end of
the 1980s, by which time a provisional sub-genre of feature films
had begun to develop around race and rights with reference out to
the Movement. In the 1960s films that examined civil rights strug-
gles in any guise at all were usually reviewed as ‘small town movies’
or ‘southern melodrama’ or ‘social problem pictures’. Over the last
two decades of the twentieth century, there has developed a criti-
cally self-conscious body of work on commemoration and retrieval
and it is during this period that, as Richard Rorty has observed, ‘the
novel, the movie and the TV program . . . gradually but steadily
replaced the sermon and the treatise as the principal vehicles of
moral change and progress’.1 Before this, movies with plots incor-
porating civil rights struggles could turn up in any popular genre
from westerns to courtroom dramas, and even comedies.
Slowly a small but distinct body of f.
Contexts ()understanding people in their social worldsHom.docxdickonsondorris
Contexts (/)understanding people in their social worlds
Home (/) Departments (/departments/) Blog (/blog/) About (/about/) Search (/search/)
guest posts (https://contexts.org/category/guest-posts/)
more oscars diversity won’t solve hollywood’s whiteness
problem
by Rachel King | February 25, 2016
(https://flic.kr/p/8NyHL6)
Photo via Craig Piersma, Flickr CC.
For the second year in a row, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences released a
disappointing list of Oscar nominees that is, like its members, overwhelmingly White,
heterosexual, and male. As bad as that is, the biggest problem with #OscarsSoWhite isn’t
just that neither Ryan Coogler nor Will Smith will be taking home a statue on February 28 .
It’s that Hollywood remains inside a bubble of privilege, and that precious little emanating
from it reflects what’s actually happening in this country. For many Americans, everyday
existence has taken on a greyish, dystopian cast; nearly a decade after the collapse of the
economy, we’re still living with depressed wages and lost jobs and homes, as well as
rampant gun violence, and more mental illness
(http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/10/why-more-americans-suffer-from-
mental-disorders-than-anyone-else/246035/#slide3) than just about any other country in the
world. And driven by high levels of substance abuse and suicide, mortality is on the rise for
young (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/science/drug-overdoses-propel-rise-in-
mortality-rates-of-young-whites.html) and middle-aged
(http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-
americans-study-finds.html?_r=0) Whites.
th
https://contexts.org/
https://contexts.org/
https://contexts.org/departments/
https://contexts.org/blog/
https://contexts.org/about/
https://contexts.org/search/
https://contexts.org/category/guest-posts/
https://flic.kr/p/8NyHL6
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2011/10/why-more-americans-suffer-from-mental-disorders-than-anyone-else/246035/#slide3
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/science/drug-overdoses-propel-rise-in-mortality-rates-of-young-whites.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/death-rates-rising-for-middle-aged-white-americans-study-finds.html?_r=0
The Depression did call forth escapist fare, but it also elicited a great deal of
biting social critique. Back then, Hollywood made big-budget movies with
major stars that were designed to appeal to a nation of people who, like
today, were both terrified and angry. But for all their rabble-rousing, the
studios of that era weren’t brave.
And yet, of the eight Best Picture nominees, only one (the surprise indie nominee Room) is a
contemporary domestic drama. All the rest are historical or speculative, taking place
anywhere from a decade to a century in the past or off in some distant future. In fact, the
most overtly socially conscious of the Best Picture nominees may be the film about the
financial crisis of a decade ago, .
1. BOAN vs. GWTW vs. Glory:
Spoiler – Glory Wins
Lynda Balloni
HIST 379: The Civil War & Popular Culture
May 13, 2015
2. “Hollywood has often done rewrites of history quickly and with little or no regard for the
actual story (…). Film has always been casual in its presentation of history. Driven by
commercial considerations, the need for wide audience appeal, producers consistently distorted
and sanitized the past.”[1]
In the above quotation, Bruce Chadwick observes the film industry’s willingness to alter
the truth in order to maximize their profits, in general, but he also argues that movies set in the
Civil War era take this tendency to a level that has yet to be matched by films pertaining to any
other period. American audiences have a unique fascination with the Civil War that filmmakers
have used to their own advantage through their personal monetary gain, of course, and by
permeating American consumerist culture with their own biased view of history. Historical
accuracy in most Civil War films is seriously lacking, particularly regarding the issues of slavery
and race relations. Since the dawn of feature-length films in 1906[2], movies about the Civil
War have painted a distorted picture of the past, particularly in the South, where an illusion of
slavery as a friendly, mutualistic relationship and rich, leisurely Southerners strolling about their
plantations without a care in the world started manifesting itself on the big screen. Films, like all
cultural vessels, will always be a product of their time and a reflection of their creators’ biases
and restrictions; however, when examining Civil War films specifically through the lenses of
accuracy in historical memory and race relations, Birth of A Nation and Gone with the Wind are
two of the most harmful movies to our country’s memory and Glory is one of few movies set in
this period that provides hope for a more educated public in the future.
3. Before examining the inaccuracies that were presented in Birth of a Nation and Gone
with the Wind, it is pertinent to note the impact that these movies had on the American
public. Both films are in the top five box office successes (using inflation adjusted dollars) of all
time.[3] In inflation adjusted dollars, Birth of a Nation had made $460.9 million domestically as
of 2013.[4] Gone with the Wind earned over $60 million (~$1 billion, inflation adjusted). By
1945, six years after the movie premiered, approximately 120 million Americans (roughly the
same number of adults living in the United States at the time) had seen the film. It was so
popular that for the first time, movie theaters allowed more than one showing of a film at once, it
ran for two straight years in Atlanta and four years at a theater in London, and some movie
theaters even doubled the cost of tickets for GWTW.[5] Now, the permeation of these movies
throughout American society is not benign because they both put forth historical distortions that
have tainted the memory of the Civil War and created lasting implications against the view of
African Americans to this day. Neither BOAN nor GWTW were presented as completely
fictional works; they claimed that even if a specific scene may not have taken place exactly as it
happens in the movie, the historical implications behind the event are all true (but this is not
really the case). A few of these falsehoods that Chadwick mentions include: the portrayal of all
Confederate soldiers as heroic warriors (as opposed to deserters or Union sympathizers),
ignorance of the atrocities of slavery, a “saintly” picture of President Lincoln, the
characterization of slaves as always being happy and loyal (but also foolish and incompetent),
the portrayal of Southern women as frail and girly, the portrayal of Southerners in general as all
being wealthy owners of land and slaves, and a “Reunionist” ending to top it all off – these films
almost always end with a scene symbolizing reconciliation of the Union by the reintegration of
Northerners and Southerners.[6] Generally speaking, none of these assumptions are accurate,
4. but that fact could not stop the power of these films in infiltrating Americans’ historical memory
of the Civil War and view of race for decades after their release.
“We do not fear censorship, for we have no wish to offend with improprieties or
obscenities, but we do demand, as a right, the liberty to show the dark side of wrong, that we
may illuminate the bright side of virtue - the same liberty that is conceded to the art of the
written word - the art to which we owe the Bible and the works of Shakespeare.”[7]
As previously stated, the one of the reasons movies like Birth of a Nation were so
harmful to society is that they do not present themselves as works of fiction, but as historically
accurate, nonfiction, factual, and true films. The opening sequence to BOAN begins with a scene
where “Gus, [a former slave] heavy beads of sweat on his forehead, hands extended to grab her
[a pretty, white, Southern girl], is a sadistic creature coming out of the rocks to seize carnal
satisfaction. Unwilling to submit to a black man, with death the only option, Flora
leaps.”[8] The plot of Birth of a Nation is choppy, jumping back and forth between pre-and
post-slavery America to emphasize the points that everything in the South was fine before the
War and it was the abolitionist troublemakers who caused all of their problems, black people
were happier and safer under the institution of slavery, the South never stood a chance in the war
against the better-equipped North, and Reconstruction brought a radical change to the function of
the governing bodies in the United States, which were essentially taken over by newly freed
blacks and abolitionists. None of these assumptions, which all play up the popular rhetoric that
the Civil War was a “Lost Cause” for the South from its beginning since the North had better
5. access to weaponry, a more developed infrastructure, and a higher population. These myths all
manifested into characters in BOAN that developed into common caricatures that became a
central aspect of Civil War films: the selfish, trouble-making Northerner, the innocent and
beautiful young Southern belle, her kind and generous slave-owning father, and of course the
incredibly offensive black caricatures of Mammy (the hardworking, obedient but sassy black
women) and Jim Crow (the ignorant and potentially dangerous fool of a black
man). Currently, Birth of a Nation is almost universally recognized as being an atrociously
inaccurate portrayal of this period in American history, but despite all of its criticisms, the ideas
about race and historical memory put forth by this film are still visible in American society and
culture today.
“With three hours and fifty-two minutes of celluloid, Gone with the Wind helped to quash
seven decades of Northern attacks and ridicule of the South that had forced, and kept Southerners
on the defensive. (…) It transformed Southerners into considerate landed gentry who were kind
to blacks, prayed at meals, read great books and helped give America its rich, agrarian way of
life. (…) [It] seemed to absolve whites in the 1930s of guilt for their insistence on white
supremacy.”[9]
Gone with the Wind, the book and the film, has been scrutinized for its historical
inaccuracies and offensive depiction of black people since its release. However, a defense
of GWTW, spearheaded by its author, Margaret Mitchell, has existed since its publication and
still holds up today in the eyes of some historians. Mitchell always defended her own research,
6. claiming that she checked “thousands of historical statements [she cited] for accuracy”[10], and
her sympathizers argue that although the scenes presented as being factual are mostly not correct
and even the overarching idea behind the film (the popular “Lost Cause” narrative) is not true,
“the struggles of North and South in the movie are struggles of the American people anywhere
and anytime.”[11] … Well, for now it is probably for the best to ignore the implications of that
statement and how the issues faced by former slave owners during the Reconstruction period can
be compared to the horrors their former slaves had to endure, but it is an important point to
make. … The reasons why Gone with the Wind was so successful are pretty simple: a lot of
money was put into this movie, it had a killer cast, it was put out around the end of the Great
Depression when people were finally willing to spend a little extra money, and it used its
narrative of the struggle of Southern whites as a tool to sympathize with the American audience
as it emerged from the Depression. It was easy for Americans to relate to the issues being
handled by Scarlett and her family since so many families were also scraping to get
by. Additionally, it continued the trend of using caricatures rather than characters, at least in
the case of the representation of black people in the film. The “Mammy” character had already
existed in Hollywood for decades, but Gone with the Wind outdid itself in its use of this
technique by casting Hattie MacDaniel for the role. She played the character of Mammy (in this
instance, she was named Priscilla) so well that not only did she win the Oscar for her
performance, but “Malcom X said that of all the abuses of blacks in the film, the depiction of
Prissy hit him the most.”[12] She was hardworking, loyal, and feisty, but also weak-willed and
unintelligent when compared with the white characters in the film - the exact stereotypes that
people the likes of Malcolm X dedicated part of their lives to breaking down.
7. Despite all of Gone with the Wind’s glaring issues as a historical document, some people
still defend it, particularly in comparison to Birth of a Nation. GWTW (the movie) alluded to the
role of the Ku Klux Klan as a positive force in the South during Reconstruction, but never
actually stated outright that the KKK was doing positive work. BOAN, on the other hand,
explicitly depicts the KKK as a group of men who were doing something necessary and good for
society…pretty terrifying that people ever bought this (and some still do). The downplay of the
KKK in GWTW may have actually been more harmful that its depiction in BOAN, since
“eliminating the Klan removed vigilantism from Southern makeup and undercut any thoughts
that Southerners, or anybody, should go outside the law for justice.”[13] One problem that
faced Gone with the Wind’s main critics was the timing of the movie’s release – GWTW came
out amidst the fight for integration of black actors into films, and since the movie actually
employed black people (and then humiliated them through their roles), organizations like the
NAACP had trouble publicly condemning the film. Gone with the Wind had two things all
Hollywood movies need to succeed: a big budget and good timing with its release, so even with
all of its faults, it was virtually unstoppable once it hit the American audience.
“Glory was “Made to commemorate, (and cash in on,) the 125th anniversary of the war, to
give Americans a realistic look at black soldiers and the psychological complexities of their lives
in the Civil War.”[14]
Much like the creators of Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind, everyone involved in
the making of Glory had an agenda. Ed Zwyck, the director, and Freddie Fields, the producer,
8. wanted to make a movie that told a historically accurate but fictionalized account of black
soldiers’ experience during the Civil War. Supposedly Fields got the inspiration for the film
when he happened to be in Boston and walked passed the city’s monument to the
54th Massachusetts regiment (an all-black unit) in the Union army, something he knew virtually
nothing about. After this potentially mundane experience, Fields set forth on a mission to tell the
story of black American soldiers (who had fought to support the country since the Revolutionary
War).[15] Since Gone with the Wind, no major Civil War film had even turned a profit,
but Glory would succeed in breaking that barrier in Civil War movies as well. It also was the
first movie to actually employ Civil War reenactors, and it paved the way for the conception of
television series exploring the role of black American soldiers, eg., Buffalo Soldiers.[16]
Glory also created a new enemy from its portrayal of the war; it was not the abolitionists,
the Union soldiers, or even the Confederate soldiers this time, but the institutions of slavery and
racism, more in general. It is in this manifestation of an abstract enemy that Glory reveals its
possible ulterior motive as well: it works as an allegory for the battle between “good” (the United
States/democracy/capitalism/Christianity) and “evil” (Communism/Atheism – in this instance,
not specifically the USSR or any other country since this occurred at the end of the Cold War
when the anti-Soviet rhetoric softened, a little). Glory was universally renowned by critics and
historians, and the New Republic went so far to describe it as “not only the first feature film to
treat the role of black soldiers in the Civil War, it is also the most powerful and historically
accurate movie about the war ever made. If it wins the popularity it deserves it will go far to
correct the distortions and romanticizations of such earlier blockbusters as The Birth of a
Nation and Gone with the Wind”.[17]
9. The Birth of a Nation, Gone with the Wind, and Glory all had a tremendous impact on the
way the American public viewed the Civil War, particularly its historical memory and effects on
issues with race up to the present day. These movies were so successful since their creators had
the financial means to produce some of the highest-quality films of their era, the means to reach
a wide audience (virtually the entire population of the United States), and an ulterior motive that
suited the mood of American society at that point in time. Since popular culture by definition
reaches a wide portion of the public, it has the potential to foster tremendous political and social
change and function as a means of education or propaganda as well as entertainment. The
directors, writers, and producers of these movies were aware of the power that movies can have,
so they used their talent and connections to spread their message across the world, and they have
all succeeded in this goal.
[1] Bruce Chadwick, The Reel Civil War: Mythmaking in American Film (New York: Random
House Inc., 2001), 4.
[2] “The Story of the Kelly Gang”, National Film and Sound Archive, Australia, accessed May
13, 2015.
[3] Chadwick, 12.
[4] Tim McMahon, “Highest Grossing Movies Adjusted for Inflation”, Inflationdata.com, May
16, 2013.
[5] Chadwick, 187.
[6] Ibid., 7-9.
[7] D.W. Griffith, The Birth of a Nation, (1915: United States: Epoch Producing Co.), silent film.
[8] Chadwick, 3-4.
[9] Ibid., 212-218.
[10] Ibid., 209.