Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • 329--week_5_questions_comments
329:question:329--week_12_questions_comments-2022

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
329:question:329--week_12_questions_comments-2022 [2022/11/10 06:53] – [I.How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?] poletes_aleksandra329: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'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 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 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? ====== ====== II. Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
Line 30: 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'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? ====== ====== IV. How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ======
Line 54: Line 60:
  
  
-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, sd it is very informative.  -Michaela Fontenot+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  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 
Line 81: Line 87:
  
 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 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
329/question/329--week_12_questions_comments-2022.1668063180.txt.gz · Last modified: 2022/11/10 06:53 by poletes_aleksandra