329:question:329--week_12_questions_comments-2022
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| 329:question:329--week_12_questions_comments-2022 [2022/11/10 05:25] – moore_sarah | 329:question:329--week_12_questions_comments-2022 [2022/11/10 15:40] (current) – 192.65.245.80 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 20: | Line 20: | ||
| - | I with 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 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' | 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' | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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, | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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' | ||
| + | |||
| ====== II. Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ====== | ====== II. Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ====== | ||
| Line 28: | Line 33: | ||
| ====== III. How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ====== | ====== 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' | ||
| ====== IV. How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ====== | ====== IV. How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ====== | ||
| Line 52: | Line 60: | ||
| - | Yet again we fall prey to the white knight trope within movies, this time in the form of Miriam. (white knight-ette? | + | Yet again we fall prey to the white knight trope within movies, this time in the form of Miriam. (white knight-ette? |
| + | |||
| + | 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:// | ||
| ====== V. The "So, what?" question ====== | ====== V. The "So, what?" question ====== | ||
| Line 69: | Line 81: | ||
| 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 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' | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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, | ||
| + | |||
| + | 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' | ||
329/question/329--week_12_questions_comments-2022.1668057933.txt.gz · Last modified: 2022/11/10 05:25 by moore_sarah