Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_12_questions_comments-2022 [2022/11/10 13:36] – [I.How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?] 76.78.225.92
+++ 329:question:329--week_12_questions_comments-2022 [2022/11/10 15:40] (current) – 192.65.245.80
@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 ====== 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 84: / 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
+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