329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| 329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments [2016/09/29 10:02] – [3 Questions about interpretation] dhawkins | 329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments [2016/09/29 15:01] (current) – 76.78.226.90 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
| Can’t really have an eight-hour long speech in a movie, but I will say that it would have been nice to attempt to show the time lapse in that twenty-minute scene via jump-cuts or changing the lighting to show that the sun was setting. | Can’t really have an eight-hour long speech in a movie, but I will say that it would have been nice to attempt to show the time lapse in that twenty-minute scene via jump-cuts or changing the lighting to show that the sun was setting. | ||
| - | This movie actually did a lot of things right about the interpretation of its history. However, I want to call into question the interpretation of Cinque. Throughout most of the movie he seemed very aggressive and not subdued. These are understandable reactions considering his circumstance obviously, but I believe in class that he was considered charming and not as upfront as they portrayed. I may be wrong, but that is something we were told to look for and I think it is a good discussion question. --- // | + | This movie actually did a lot of things right about the interpretation of its history. |
| There were a few things that I found inaccurate about the film, even though it seemed overall fairly accurate. As some people have already said, the different parties who made claims to the slaves did not all show up at the same exact time, which was probably for dramatic effect, but was not how the events played out. John Quincy Adams' speech, as some others have said, was actually eight and a half hours, and was not really the basis for why the court made their decision. The other major error I noticed probably plays into interpretation too, but I noticed there were several times where the characters mentioned the possibility of civil war. Since the North had slaves at this time, and since abolitionists who wanted to get rid of slavery completely were still not taken as seriously as they were later in time, it seems like this was something added by the filmmakers to give the case more gravity and significance in the historical long term. | There were a few things that I found inaccurate about the film, even though it seemed overall fairly accurate. As some people have already said, the different parties who made claims to the slaves did not all show up at the same exact time, which was probably for dramatic effect, but was not how the events played out. John Quincy Adams' speech, as some others have said, was actually eight and a half hours, and was not really the basis for why the court made their decision. The other major error I noticed probably plays into interpretation too, but I noticed there were several times where the characters mentioned the possibility of civil war. Since the North had slaves at this time, and since abolitionists who wanted to get rid of slavery completely were still not taken as seriously as they were later in time, it seems like this was something added by the filmmakers to give the case more gravity and significance in the historical long term. | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| **In comparison to the previous films we have watched and studied, I believe this movie has done the greatest in portraying the history; its people and its occurrences thus far (granted the bar was not set high).** From the lead characters on the numerous sides of the story to the well dressed and cultured insights to the locality of the people and their many origins. From Baldwin' | **In comparison to the previous films we have watched and studied, I believe this movie has done the greatest in portraying the history; its people and its occurrences thus far (granted the bar was not set high).** From the lead characters on the numerous sides of the story to the well dressed and cultured insights to the locality of the people and their many origins. From Baldwin' | ||
| - | Seeing as how in Last of the Mohicans and The Patriot people were able to load their weapons within a few nano-seconds, | + | **Seeing as how in Last of the Mohicans and The Patriot people were able to load their weapons within a few nano-seconds, |
| I think this movie was a drastic step up from the others we watched in terms of historical accuracy and realism. I think I enjoyed it more because of this fact. It got many of the characters and the overall story of the Amistad correct. It portrayed the slave trade in the negative light I think it should have. At times it was graphic, but that's how terrible it actually was. It's hollywood so they did not get everything right, but overall I was impressed. I really liked the language barrier was kept intact and a simple linguist was not able to conquer that barrier. Also, most of the attire was correct for the time period I believe. | I think this movie was a drastic step up from the others we watched in terms of historical accuracy and realism. I think I enjoyed it more because of this fact. It got many of the characters and the overall story of the Amistad correct. It portrayed the slave trade in the negative light I think it should have. At times it was graphic, but that's how terrible it actually was. It's hollywood so they did not get everything right, but overall I was impressed. I really liked the language barrier was kept intact and a simple linguist was not able to conquer that barrier. Also, most of the attire was correct for the time period I believe. | ||
| --- // | --- // | ||
| - | The film does a good job depicting just how confusing the trial of the Mende would have been. The language barrier doesn’t disappear after someone ‘listens to the color of the wind.’ The trial is conflicted between deciding to whom the Mende belong while also trying to decide if they belong to anyone at all. Everyone seems to have their own personal motive in freeing or capturing the Mende, whether for the sake of Christianity, | + | **The film does a good job depicting just how confusing the trial of the Mende would have been. The language barrier doesn’t disappear after someone ‘listens to the color of the wind.’** The trial is conflicted between deciding to whom the Mende belong while also trying to decide if they belong to anyone at all. Everyone seems to have their own personal motive in freeing or capturing the Mende, whether for the sake of Christianity, |
| Overall, I thought Amistad did a great job of remaining true to the story in the movie. In class, we had learned that the Mende’s “team” of Americans had learned Mende and went around, yelling numbers in Mende to find an interpreter so I really liked seeing that in the film. The fear of the majority of the Supreme Court being in favor of slavery was also mentioned in the movie as the case was being brought before the nine judges. | Overall, I thought Amistad did a great job of remaining true to the story in the movie. In class, we had learned that the Mende’s “team” of Americans had learned Mende and went around, yelling numbers in Mende to find an interpreter so I really liked seeing that in the film. The fear of the majority of the Supreme Court being in favor of slavery was also mentioned in the movie as the case was being brought before the nine judges. | ||
| - | In regards to film accuracy, I believe this is the most proficient portrayal of history (in the semester) thus far. The film’s overall accuracy can most likely be attributed for two reasons. Stephen Spielberg directed it who does not spare audiences from historic atrocities (as seen in 1993 Schindler’s list), and anyone attempting to recreate such delicate subject matter, should do so with the utmost care. With the exception of some (probable) character flaws that depict the abolitionists with more passivity and heroism than their advantageous investment in the case to further promote their cause, I believe he did so as truthfully as documented history would allow. As expected, all of the broad content is present throughout the film regarding key figures and dates which include (but not exclusive to) the presence of all parties concerned with the trial’s outcome, including Adams’ alliance to the abolitionists, | + | In regards to film accuracy, I believe this is the most proficient portrayal of history (in the semester) thus far. The film’s overall accuracy can most likely be attributed for two reasons. |
| + | As others have said, the creators of this film clearly paid more attention to historical accuracy than most of what we have seen so far. While some minor characters were made up from composites, and some characters (like John Quincy Adams) given questionably over-important roles, the film shows how the slave trade was still active illegally between some West African peoples and Europeans/ | ||
| + | --- // | ||
| ====== 3 Questions about interpretation ====== | ====== 3 Questions about interpretation ====== | ||
| **Why would Spielberg include the violent scenes on La Amistad if, historically, | **Why would Spielberg include the violent scenes on La Amistad if, historically, | ||
| Line 63: | Line 65: | ||
| - | When looking at the characters, John Quincy Adams really took a large role. From my understanding, | + | When looking at the characters, John Quincy Adams really took a large role. From my understanding, |
| Anna Paquin as Queen Isabella, really…? | Anna Paquin as Queen Isabella, really…? | ||
| - | I thought it seemed a little odd that there was a baby born during the voyage. Wouldn’t the slave traders not want to “deal” with a newborn? It seems like it would’ve been obvious that she was pregnant before the ship sailed so I thought that was kind of odd. Or maybe the producers thought it would be a powerful scene to have a woman commit suicide as well as kill the baby when she went overboard? Why did the opening scene have to be so bloody? Weren’t there only four crew members and the captain? How much blood could a few people lose? It seemed a little overkill on the goriness. Also, was Queen Isabella a child during this? She’s seen with a doll and jumping on her bed. What was the purpose of that presentation? | + | **I thought it seemed a little odd that there was a baby born during the voyage. Wouldn’t the slave traders not want to “deal” with a newborn?** It seems like it would’ve been obvious that she was pregnant before the ship sailed so I thought that was kind of odd. Or maybe the producers thought it would be a powerful scene to have a woman commit suicide as well as kill the baby when she went overboard? |
| - | + | ** | |
| - | The majority of the film focused on the white politicians in the United States fighting to “save” slaves by fighting to prove their value as humans. This ignores how the slaves portrayed in the film actually spent the bulk of two years in an American prison. Or how the film radically distorts race relations into this anachronistic discussion of equality, when in reality the issue was less about equal human rights and more about economics. I am unsure if Spielberg set out to create a historically accurate film, but his efforts would have been for naught as historic fact undermines the idea that race relations were as clear cut as abolitionists being pro-African. | + | **The majority of the film focused on the white politicians in the United States fighting to “save” slaves by fighting to prove their value as humans.** This ignores how the slaves portrayed in the film actually spent the bulk of two years in an American prison. Or how the film radically distorts race relations into this anachronistic discussion of equality, when in reality the issue was less about equal human rights and more about economics. I am unsure if Spielberg set out to create a historically accurate film, but his efforts would have been for naught as historic fact undermines the idea that race relations were as clear cut as abolitionists being pro-African.** |
| --- // | --- // | ||
| The film for the most past was pretty historically accurate. My question is, how accurate was the portrayal of the Mende in this movie? How much research went into portraying them? Did the filmmakers, potentially, | The film for the most past was pretty historically accurate. My question is, how accurate was the portrayal of the Mende in this movie? How much research went into portraying them? Did the filmmakers, potentially, | ||
| - | Religion played an interesting if secondary role in the film. Throughout the film, there are references peppered throughout to Christianity and its presence in the United States, whether it was the traveling choir coming to pray at the jail or Tappan' | + | **Religion played an interesting if secondary role in the film.** Throughout the film, there are references peppered throughout to Christianity and its presence in the United States, whether it was the traveling choir coming to pray at the jail or Tappan' |
| --- // | --- // | ||
| ====== 4 Movie as a Primary Source about the time in which it was made ====== | ====== 4 Movie as a Primary Source about the time in which it was made ====== | ||
| Line 84: | Line 86: | ||
| **I definitely agree about the treatment of race in this movie. The time in which this film was made, created a huge difference in the depiction of African Slaves at the time. Most of the actors used to portray the main Mende people were actually from Africa or at least one generation removed.** This says a lot about the time in which the film was made because if it had been made sooner, there would most definitely have been a lot more problems. | **I definitely agree about the treatment of race in this movie. The time in which this film was made, created a huge difference in the depiction of African Slaves at the time. Most of the actors used to portray the main Mende people were actually from Africa or at least one generation removed.** This says a lot about the time in which the film was made because if it had been made sooner, there would most definitely have been a lot more problems. | ||
| - | There is a common theme throughout movies of the main character/ | + | There is a common theme throughout movies of the main character/ |
| ====== 5 Comparing the reading to the movie ====== | ====== 5 Comparing the reading to the movie ====== | ||
| Line 106: | Line 108: | ||
| So am I the only one who wondered if Matthew McConaughey’s victorious leap had to be done in more than one take because he crashed into his chair? | So am I the only one who wondered if Matthew McConaughey’s victorious leap had to be done in more than one take because he crashed into his chair? | ||
| - | I feel like it is important to watch //Amistad// because I feel like it’s a part of history that is forgotten or at the very least not talked about. All the previous movies you learn before in as far back as elementary school, but before Tuesday I had never even heard of the Amistad. We could’ve watched any other movie about the slavery we are taught, but instead we watched a movie about a real event that is not. This movie is important because instead of watching something we already know about, we are actually caught into the history. | + | **I feel like it is important to watch //Amistad// because I feel like it’s a part of history that is forgotten or at the very least not talked about. All the previous movies you learn before in as far back as elementary school, but before Tuesday I had never even heard of the Amistad. We could’ve watched any other movie about the slavery we are taught, but instead we watched a movie about a real event that is not. This movie is important because instead of watching something we already know about, we are actually caught into the history.** --- // |
| - | As a historian, what would you change about them movie? Would taking out some of the scenes of the slavery aboard the ship change the overall message and theme of the movie? | + | **As a historian, what would you change about them movie? Would taking out some of the scenes of the slavery aboard the ship change the overall message and theme of the movie? |
| The film seemed to be almost a complete reversal of what American cinema was like in its early days in regards to the history of race relations in the United States. Whereas older films either vilified Africans and African-Americans or ignored the brutality of slavery, this film does not shy away from it. Spielberg, who is not really known as an especially violent director, recreates at least some of the gory, disturbing elements that were the foundation of the slave trade. By forcing the audience to watch it, the film takes us one step closer to understanding, | The film seemed to be almost a complete reversal of what American cinema was like in its early days in regards to the history of race relations in the United States. Whereas older films either vilified Africans and African-Americans or ignored the brutality of slavery, this film does not shy away from it. Spielberg, who is not really known as an especially violent director, recreates at least some of the gory, disturbing elements that were the foundation of the slave trade. By forcing the audience to watch it, the film takes us one step closer to understanding, | ||
| --- // | --- // | ||
329/question/329--week_5_questions_comments.1475143347.txt.gz · Last modified: 2016/09/29 10:02 by dhawkins