Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • 329--week_14_questions_comments-2022
329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments

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_5_questions_comments [2016/09/29 13:01] – [2 Things the Movie got right] mmcmaken329: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.  --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/09/28 20:38// 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.  --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/09/28 20:38//
  
-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. --- //[[nhouff@mail.umw.edu|Houff, Nicholas T.]] 2016/09/28 21:58//+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.** --- //[[nhouff@mail.umw.edu|Houff, Nicholas T.]] 2016/09/28 21:58//
  
 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 50: Line 50:
 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, despite his indifference towards the active movement (discussed in class). Naturally, the premise of the film revolved around an initial and appealed hearing, where proof of falsified documents (origin of defendants) would negate the charges of piracy and murder and of course, the events that lead to such a trial following La Amistad’s interception by the U.S. brig Washington. Although I am uncertain of the facts, I do question Cinque’s inquisitive nature and his familiarity with John Quincy Adams in the third act of the film. Overall, I base my contrast my research only on the primary source readings. --- //[[dblount@umw.edu|Blount, David M.]] 2016/09/28 23:58//  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, despite his indifference towards the active movement (discussed in class). Naturally, the premise of the film revolved around an initial and appealed hearing, where proof of falsified documents (origin of defendants) would negate the charges of piracy and murder and of course, the events that lead to such a trial following La Amistad’s interception by the U.S. brig Washington. Although I am uncertain of the facts, I do question Cinque’s inquisitive nature and his familiarity with John Quincy Adams in the third act of the film. Overall, I base my contrast my research only on the primary source readings. --- //[[dblount@umw.edu|Blount, David M.]] 2016/09/28 23:58// 
  
-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/Euro-Americans and the lengths slave traders would go to buy and sell human beings to support a larger slave society. The film portrayed both the brutal and cruel treatment of slaves on slave ships as well as the uprooting of identity that came with being sold into a different form of slavery than what many Africans knew. While the end of the film stretched the effects of JQA's argument on the Supreme Court, it generally did a good job, I felt, of showing how moral arguments supplemented Baldwin's legalistic case that ultimately returned the Mende and Cinque to freedom. +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/Euro-Americans and the lengths slave traders would go to buy and sell human beings to support a larger slave society. The film portrayed both the brutal and cruel treatment of slaves on slave ships as well as the uprooting of identity that came with being sold into a different form of slavery than what many Africans knew. While the end of the film stretched the effects of JQA's argument on the Supreme Court, it generally did a good job, I felt, of **showing how moral arguments supplemented Baldwin's legalistic case that ultimately returned the Mende and Cinque to freedom.** 
  --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/09/29 05:03//  --- //[[dhawkins@umw.edu|Hawkins Daniel C.]] 2016/09/29 05:03//
 ====== 3 Questions about interpretation ====== ====== 3 Questions about interpretation ======
Line 65: Line 65:
  
  
-When looking at the characters, John Quincy Adams really took a large role. From my understanding, which might be wrong, he played a role in the trial but not quite as large as the movie portrays. Is John Quincy Adams’s role in the movie enhanced because he was former president? Or was it simply easier to write for his character? --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/09/28 20:24//+When looking at the characters, John Quincy Adams really took a large role. From my understanding, which might be wrong, he played a role in the trial but not quite as large as the movie portrays. **Is John Quincy Adams’s role in the movie enhanced because he was former president? Or was it simply easier to write for his character?** --- //[[abrooks6@umw.edu|Brooks Anna R.]] 2016/09/28 20:24//
  
 Anna Paquin as Queen Isabella, really…?  I realize that obviously Spain was involved in this, but I don’t understand why it was necessary to include the scenes with the queen.  And as Natalie pointed out, while there were suicides, there was never an instance of the crew deliberately chaining the slaves to a net of rocks to throw them overboard.  I’m leaning toward Steven Spielberg wanted to up the horror of what the slaves on the Amistad went through.  And while I thought he did a fine job (as he always does) Morgan Freeman’s character was fictional.  I know that he couldn’t have played David Walker, as he died before the events of the Amistad, but why not James W. Pennington? --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/09/28 20:39// Anna Paquin as Queen Isabella, really…?  I realize that obviously Spain was involved in this, but I don’t understand why it was necessary to include the scenes with the queen.  And as Natalie pointed out, while there were suicides, there was never an instance of the crew deliberately chaining the slaves to a net of rocks to throw them overboard.  I’m leaning toward Steven Spielberg wanted to up the horror of what the slaves on the Amistad went through.  And while I thought he did a fine job (as he always does) Morgan Freeman’s character was fictional.  I know that he couldn’t have played David Walker, as he died before the events of the Amistad, but why not James W. Pennington? --- //[[lfrey@umw.edu|Frey Lauren E.]] 2016/09/28 20:39//
Line 71: Line 71:
 **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? Was she supposed to be oblivious to the importance of the Amistad case? --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/09/28 21:47// **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? Was she supposed to be oblivious to the importance of the Amistad case? --- //[[khaynes3@umw.edu|Haynes, Kelly E.]] 2016/09/28 21:47//
  
- +** 
-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.**
  --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/09/29 00:29//  --- //[[ccooney@umw.edu|Cooney, Corey R.]] 2016/09/29 00:29//
  
329/question/329--week_5_questions_comments.1475154098.txt.gz · Last modified: 2016/09/29 13:01 by mmcmaken