Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_12_questions_comments-2022 [2022/11/10 00:49] – 76.78.226.211
+++ 329:question:329--week_12_questions_comments-2022 [2022/11/10 15:40] (current) – 192.65.245.80
@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 I did not feel as though this movie was particularly effective, but it did seem to be accurate. It portrayed the time period and the bus boycott well, but did so through the lens of a white person, which felt like a choice that alienated the true purpose of the film from showing the efforts of the bus boycott to teaching a white person to not be prejudiced. However, that was a tactic used by many films for a more "relatable movie" such as Gentleman's Agreement focusing on a non-Jew learning the struggles of Jewish people). It was not sugarcoated but it wasn't really the best way to present the issues either. -- Logan Kurtz
+In this movie, they got some parts of the history correct. The way that the bus boycott was portrayed was fairly accurate, especially in the unorthodox ways that people had to help each other. The race relations of the time and place was another aspect that the filmmakers got right in this movie. As the racism is portrayed fairly accurately for what it looked like then. The accuracy starts to fade with the replacement of real people with a fictional storyline and characters. -Margaret Jones
+I think this movie was a great secondary source of the overall time period and the discrimination that occurred. I think regarding specifics, it would not be a good secondary source considering it has a fictional cast. But overall, I think it ws accurate about how African Americans were treated and the overall tension that was in most environments. - Erika Lambert
+While I did find this film an interesting watch, I do not think that it would serve well as a secondary source. Primarily, I found that it is uncertain what this film was trying to be. If it was trying to be a historically accurate homage to the Montgomery Bus Boycott, it was wildly unsuccessful. The fictional characters and white protagonist make sure of that. If it was simply attempting to be a dramatic film that happens to have the boycott as a setting, then yes, it succeeded. However, that type of film does not do any good in a scholarly setting. Overall, I thought the filmmakers could have done a much better job considering how impactful the historical event was. Unfortunately, I think this film falls under the category of dramatized and whitewashed film. -Burke Steifman
+I wish that they could’ve made a movie with the original people involved, and/or their descendants. While the actors were well known, it would’ve been very cool to have actors with that connection in the movie. -Michaela Fontenot
+I think that this movie is okay as a secondary source. The fact that it is told using fictional characters makes it seem as though there are not important enough stories to be telling from this time period. It tells the story of the time with good enough accuracy. The only complaint I have is that it focuses more on a white woman's reckoning with her own attitudes and beliefs towards the end and not what the focus of the movie supposedly was. It should have continued to focus on Odessa and her experiences in this time. It seemed to portray the racism of the time accurately, however. -Sarah Moore
+This film was overall wishy-washy in its historical accuracy. It portrayed an accurate setting and did justice to the many obstacles faced by African Americans, yet includes a completely fictional cast at a time when there were so many historical figures the filmmakers could have picked from. I can see the benefit of wanting to make a movie about regular people and how they were affected by historical events, especially since at the end of the day not everyone who participated in the Civil Rights movement became nationally famous -- most were ordinary people. Nevertheless, it is just strange that the filmmakers chose such a famous historical event and completely fictionalized everything, especially when there are so many lesser known true stories that deserve to be told and that could have been. — Sasha Poletes
+The long walk home came out in 1991. As a secondary source, the movie takes an event that happened in history and puts its own spin on it. Because none of the characters are true to life, the viewers can see what the event might have been like for a civilian at the time, but it does not provide true historical context. The made-up characters allow the filmwriters to take liberties with the story a fictional even though the setting is true. Like others, it was a little weird to see a predominantly white person's view on a predominantly black person's event, but I’m not going to begrudge a movie that was made over 20 years ago for the societal standards we have now. To sum it up, this is not a good secondary source, but it could give viewers an insight into the time and event if it was otherwise previously unknown to them. -Annika
 ====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
 ====== III.	How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======
+The film deviates drastically from scholarly sources, mostly due to the fact none of these characters lived or were a part of the actual event. This seems particularly weird because in most of our previous movies there was at least one historical figure and the supporting figures were likely an amalgamation of several different, but real, historical figures. It does not seem like it would have been that hard for the movie to incorporate this into its main characters. One of the things the film has going for it is that it is based on the experiences of the writer, which might be why he used fictional characters. Because the film is “inspired” by the events, it gets more leeway than if it said “this is what happened” and supported the movie with historical facts. -Annika Sypher
+For starters, none of these characters are real. They are all fictional characters set in the time period of the Civil Rights movement. However, this movie portrays the time period and the social settings within the time period very well. Rosa Parks herself even said that the movie's tone was right and that the movie's events could have actually happened within her time. The movie is able to show the social customs, forms of dialect, and stereotypes/beliefs about African-Americans fairly accurately. I do believe that the movie could have added some real-life characters to go along with the movie to add some extra connection to real events and people, but it wasn't necessary for the movie to be successful. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-12-31-ca-5514-story.html#:~:text=No.,social%20customs%20are%20accurately%20portrayed.       - Zack Steinbaum
 ====== IV.	How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ======
@@ Line 30: / Line 50: @@
 This movie had big names, notably Whoopi Goldberg who was in films such as //The Color Purple// and //Ghost//. Her casting brought a lot of attention to this film, and to an issue that continues to be apparent in America to this day. There are so many powerful true stories that could have been shared, so I wonder why they chose to display this time period through fictional characters. -- Logan Kurtz
+This film was especially insightful as a primary source due to its white savior storyline. This narrative is very typical of the time that it was made as well as being common now as well. The notion of a white savior complex/narrative is used often times to make the person making the film feel good about themselves. Had the movie used a black character as a narrator, it would’ve had a much stronger impact on the story that the movie was aiming to tell. During the 90s it was much easier to say you weren’t being racist while making a movie about a black story, even if the primary focus was on a white person. -Margaret Jones
+I very much enjoyed this movie because of the blatant and sad honesty it told. I think it was very saddening and uncomfortable to watch but had a lot of honesty in it. I do not think that it had a white savior storyline, at least in my vision of the film, because I thought most of the film was centered around Whoopi Goldberg's character or in most scenes, her son standing up for his rights. - Erika Lambert
+I think that because this film was created in the 1990s, this was a time period when people began to at least acknowledge the horrible acts of the past, even if not so common. I think that is shown in this film due to it speaking about the cruel history of America during the Civil Rights movement and the treatment of African Americans. - Erika Lambert
+The Long Walk Home is very similar to a lot of films from the 90’s, where the lens used is just not right. Like several of the films we have watched, the filmmakers either don’t realize or don’t care that the perspective of the film is completely backwards. In a story about the struggle of African Americans, a white savior is the center of the plotline. These types of films create false narratives about real history, which does no good for society. The Long Walk Home is a perfect example of this occurrence. -Burke Steifman
+Yet again we fall prey to the white knight trope within movies, this time in the form of Miriam. (white knight-ette?) She’s portrayed as a saint for just doing the bare minimum by being nice to Odessa. Like thanks for the scaled back but still very much there racism. This was a hard movie to watch, but it is important to view. I think this makes a good primary source for the time, as it is very informative to how Americans thought about these issues.  -Michaela Fontenot
+Much like other historical movies released in the 1990s, this movie focused on a white character at the end instead of the black character who the movie should have been about. This movie was set against the bus boycotts during the Civil Rights Movement, so why did the story end up circling back to the white woman? Well, it is because America was not ready for anyone but white people to be the main subject of a movie. The movie Glory also fell victim to this trend. Although it was about a black regiment during the Civil War, it can be argued that it mostly focused on their white officer. Both movies are the products of a time that was not yet ready for diverse perspectives and main characters on their screens. -Sarah Moore
+This film's characterization of Miriam and the white saviorism of it, perfectly fits in with the 1990s. It is a telling of the boycott, but it is still framed through the lens of a white person. It is almost like you cannot have a story about people of color without inserting a white person into it. However, what I found interesting looking through the Wikipedia page is that this movie started off as a short film by a USC graduate student John Cork. He based his screenplay off of his experiences with his maid Elizabeth Gregory Taylor in Montgomery. The film is a white savior story, but how much of the story and its portrayal is how Cork saw himself and his mother in this situation. So, the basis of the story is rooted in some truth, which I found interesting. (The short film was not directed by Cork, but by another student. Which upset Cork, so he sued. You can read about that here, along with another article about Cork and the short film itself: https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-02-04-ca-40597-story.html, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1988-01-18-ca-24534-story.html) - Taylor Coleman
 ====== V. The "So, what?" question	======
@@ Line 43: / Line 79: @@
 Hollywood really enjoys making white savior movies. The Long Walk Home is just another example of that. The movie did a good job of showing the racism in the 50s, but that's about it. It'd be nice to say that people have gotten less racist since then and some people have, but some people haven't. The people who haven't have just been pressured into being less overtly racist by the rest of society. -Katherine Rayhart
+This is a strange film, and it is difficult to decide what to make of it. It simply does not make sense why, even in the 90’s, a filmmaker would decide to make a film about the Montgomery Bus Boycott from the perspective of a white person. For me, this film is one of the most obvious examples of Hollywood effecting historical events I have seen. -Burke Steifman
+This film was not worth the watch in the historical or entertainment context. For me, it was lacking in meaningful dialogue. There were moments when there was little or no dialogue and perhaps that was an artistic choice meant to represent something, but I couldn't figure out what. It becomes frustrating in that sense and also makes the storyline harder to follow. -Sarah Moore
+White savior stories dominate narratives that should be focused on people of color. Long Walk Home starts off as it will be a story about Odessa, but by the end the internal familial struggles of Miriam take over. Odessa is almost completely forgotten about, she is used in the latter half of the film as a way to get Miriam to stand up for herself. But, that’s not the story that should be told in this movie. Odessa’s struggles should be at the forefront, not Miriam’s. Miriam’s struggles are not the main issue, her husband not speaking to her because she brings Odessa to work should not be the main focal point. It felt like the movie missed the mark on which story should be told. A Civil Rights Story should focus on people like Odessa, not Miriam. It should not sprinkle in MLK when it sees fit to drive a narrative. Stories like these where the Civil Rights Movement is shown through the White perspective is wrong and gives false impressions. The Civil Rights Movement was powered by Black people, and a White person should not tell that story. - Taylor Coleman
+As others have pointed out, this movie is a prime example of a typical white savior story. Though always disappointing, it is not surprising that the film directors choose to veer away from African American stories and perspectives and instead focus on white characters to make films more appealing to white audiences. This trend still continues to this day — the movie The Help was not released too long ago, and contained a similar narrative of introducing issues faced by African Americans but shifting to white characters and letting them save the day. Not only does this teach audiences that white stories are more important than Black stories, but that white people did all the important work while everyone else did nothing. It is incredibly unjust to center white stories in events in which they were often not helping but rather actively working against, like the Civil Rights movement. Yes, there were white people who cared about and fought for civil rights, but at the end of the day it is not right to make it about them. -- Sasha Poletes
+At the end of the day, a movie about African-Americans fighting for civil rights should not be from the narrative of a white person. This only furthers the downplaying of African-Americans and adds to the 'white savior' trope that has been played in so many of the movies we've watched this semester. The movie does accurately descript the time period and the tone within it, but at the end of the day, this movie is fictional. There are no real-life people in the movie; only fictional ones. - Zack Steinbaum