Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- 329:question:329--week_12_questions_comments [2016/11/17 05:40] – [2 Things the Movie got right] ccooney
+++ 329:question:329--week_12_questions_comments [2016/11/17 07:46] (current) – [6 The So, what? question] khaynes3
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 Some details that are truly minor that the movie got slightly wrong was some of the clothing and set designs were too much like the 90s. At times I kept seeing that this was about boycotts of the 90s not the 50s. This also shows how the treatment is still relevant in the 90s as it was when the movie was set. It shocked me that I could believe that at times the plot was taking place in the 90s. --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/11/16 22:16//
-Similar to how everyone else has been harping on Miriam Thompson's characterization, it seemed to me that she was there to act as sort of the sole white character meant to show that not all white people were bad. Almost as though they just had to throw in a token good white character so as to not completely demonize all white people during the 1950's, despite this being a film that is explicitly NOT about white people in the south.
+Similar to how everyone else has been harping on Miriam Thompson's characterization, it seemed to me that she was there to act as sort of the sole white character meant to show that not all white people were bad. Almost as though they just had to throw in a token good white character so as to not completely demonize all white people during the 1950's, despite this being a film that is explicitly NOT about white people in the south. Meanwhile, Mr. Thompson's brother seems downright sadistic in his racism during his eerie monologue about how Odessa and how "they" keep asking for more while doing less. I have no idea how accurate that was outside of Klansmen, but it was disturbing nonetheless.  --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/11/16 23:40//
+One of the things I began to notice as the film continued was that it seemed to be more of a character revolution for Miriam than it was for the people actually participating in the movement. It touched on how Odessa felt liberated but placed a stronger emphasis on the liberation that the white woman went through. I wish that the film placed more of an emphasis on the black perspective as this is a story that should be told from their narrative, but if the films goal was to instead portray how the movement also influenced whites to join the cause, I suppose that it did the job. One of my favorite moments was when Miriam insisted that she wanted to do what she could to help. I think that this is an important lesson for us to take with us as we progress through life, to be cognisant that change is still needed and that we can all play a role to some extent. --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford Lauren E.]] 2016/11/17 00:08//
 ====== 2 Things the Movie got right ======
@@ Line 34: / Line 36: @@
 At the dinner table, Tunker talks about how people in favor of desegregation were communists. This is accurate and the accusations of communism continued into the 60s. The Civil Rights movement in the late 1950s and early 1960s was mostly focused on church communities and led by churches.The SCLC was a major group led by MLK and others. It's also accurate that police in cities like Montgomery either helped or ignored violence and intimidation of blacks.  --- //[[mcarey@umw.edu|Carey Megan A.]] 2016/11/16 21:52//
-A sad reality of the times was that the education standards at the Black Only schools were lacking, evidenced by the Cotter boys having some difficulty reading. Now, I will freely admit that this might just because of my southern upbringing completely clouding reality, but the manner that the Thompson children and even Mrs. Thompson treated Odessa seemed relatively accurate from what I know of some middle class families. Oftentimes in families such as that, the mother would be busy with social events and community work during the day, so the bulk of child rearing may fall to their maids meaning that the mothers might be somewhat out of touch with their children (as evidenced by how Mrs. Thompson had no idea what her eldest daughter's favorite meal was). Meanwhile, the maids often saw the children they cared for as an extension of their own family, hence Odessa's small gift for Mary Katherine on Christmas.  --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/11/16 23:34//
+A sad reality of the times was that the education standards at the Black Only schools were lacking, evidenced by the Cotter boys having some difficulty reading. Now, I will freely admit that this might just because of my southern upbringing completely clouding reality, but the manner that the Thompson children and even Mrs. Thompson treated Odessa seemed relatively accurate from what I know of some middle class families. Oftentimes in families such as that, the mother would be busy with social events and community work during the day, so the bulk of child rearing may fall to their maids meaning that the mothers might be somewhat out of touch with their children (as evidenced by how Mrs. Thompson had no idea what her eldest daughter's favorite meal was). Meanwhile, the maids often saw the children they cared for as an extension of their own family, hence Odessa's small gift for Mary Katherine on Christmas. And while some called out Miriam's driving across Montgomery to pick up Odessa as unrealistic, I know that some employers did in fact do this simply because it was more practical than forcing your maid to walk miles and miles for hours and hours when you could pick them up in maybe 15-20 minutes.--- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/11/16 23:34//
+Whites are accurately presented as being politically connected. Early in the film, Miriam contacts the police department and pulls strings to get the officer to apologize to Odessa. This connectedness gets uglier as the film progresses, as we see the Council meeting later on. I remember seeing footage of similar meetings in school and on the History Channel, where people like Father Charles Coughlin would give speeches to large crowds of white men. The men in the Council are white small business owners of Montogomery, commissioners, police officers, and even the mayor is present. Tunker jokes with Norman that there would be "no white sheets, no secret oaths," implying that the meeting would still include all of the other elements of a KKK meeting minus the ceremony.
+ --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/11/17 01:03//
 ====== 3 Questions about interpretation ======
@@ Line 52: / Line 57: @@
 One issues that the movie addressed really well was the uneasiness of wanting to support of the boycott. It was clear in the movie that some knew that it was going to be difficult and something that really didn’t want to do.Another point that was portrayed well was closeted supporters. Miriam, during Christmas, knew that she had to keep her thoughts to herself. She tells Mary Catherine that she cannot tell her dad and she looks at Odessa pleading for her not to tell that she has been giving rides. Supporters who decided to stand with the cause only when it was convenient for them were as much the problem was those who were outright against desegregation.  --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/11/16 22:09//
+I thought it was interesting that the film touched on, but didn't really explicitly say, that the Civil Rights movement at this time was very religiously oriented and began with church groups in the South. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a reverend, and many of the early Civil Rights leaders were religious leaders. In one scene we see the Council meeting juxtaposed to the church meeting with a cross hanging above the pulpit in the middle of the screen. But at no point do we see the groups really doing much outside of the church besides waiting for rides at the carpool lot. In the end, we hear the women at the carpool lot sing a hymn. I wasn't sure if the filmmakers felt they adequately addressed this part of history through imagery and the church meetings, or if they wanted to avoid making that aspect of the history too explicit so as not to divide their audiences in 1990.
+ --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/11/17 01:09//
+What significance did Mary Catherine’s older sister play? Was it stated what college she went to? She made a few negative comments about her hometown not being progressive or it was stuck in the past, or something to that effect. --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/11/17 01:46//
 ====== 4 Movie as a Primary Source about the time in which it was made ======
@@ Line 72: / Line 82: @@
 The movie is a good primary source on the 1990’s because the movie focused on African Americans during Civil Rights but did so through the eyes of a white girl.  The film was progressive enough to show the African American side of things, but still rooted in the past enough that it had to so by focusing on the white characters. --- //[[ctrout@umw.edu|Trout, Christian C.]] 2016/11/16 21:44//
+**I agree with Christian. I think that this film would have been considered progressive for the 90s but because it decided to mainly focus on a middle class, privileged white woman and how her world was shaken up by the Montgomery Bus Boycott. That being said, I do also think that they developed the characters of Odessa's story as well but this, to me, seemed like Hollywood was trying to appeal, again, to a white audience with a story that was not theirs to tell.  --- //[[lrainfor@umw.edu|Rainford Lauren E.]] 2016/11/17 00:14//
 People who were born in the late 1940s would have been about the same age as Mary Catherine. They would have been able to relate to her experience seeing the South change and this would have been very different from movies produced during their parents' time that depicted life in the South such as Gone With the Wind. By the 1990s, filmmakers were more willing to show unpleasant parts of history as it really happened.  --- //[[mcarey@umw.edu|Carey Megan A.]] 2016/11/16 22:02//
@@ Line 93: / Line 105: @@
 I think the film got right Southern white womens’ place, subordinate to her husband. While I can definitely see the ‘90s intermingling with the plot, mainly the hint of feminism without being directly overt about it. However, I think Miriam’s fear of her husband was very real. Her husband served as the provider of her house and therefore she had to conform to him. She was supposed to be seen as pristine because she’s white and when they raid the carpool place, they equate her as black.
  --- //[[ejames@umw.edu|James, Emily B.]] 2016/11/16 23:32//
+I thought it was interesting that they never showed MLK Jr. I suppose that was to focus on the story at hand and not be another piece of media focusing on MLK. I really liked Miriam finding her place in the struggle for race equality. Seeing the two women, dealing with the same social problem in two different aspects was good from a historical perspective because the story is less one-sided.  --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/11/17 01:46//