329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments-2018
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-2018 [2018/10/04 08:34] – [Questions about interpretation] 72.205.3.184 | 329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments-2018 [2018/10/04 13:01] (current) – [The "So, what?" question] kmoore6 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| ~Will Everett | ~Will Everett | ||
| - | As we discussed in class, one of the major points of the case regarding the Mende was opted out; and that in particular was the treatment of the Mende while in captivity during the trials. So many people came to see these Mende people, most of them being there because they found it amusing; it was a source of entertainment (much like the zoo). There was almost no evidence of those large gatherings of people stopping in to observe these men. The only people apart from the Amistad Committee came to visit were the Christians who took pity on them as they saw slavery as sinful. --Robert Dallas | + | As we discussed in class, one of the major points of the case regarding the Mende was opted out; and that in particular was the treatment of the Mende while in captivity during the trials. |
| - | I had a lot of questions regarding the accuracy of the trials, especially Cinque' | + | **I had a lot of questions regarding the accuracy of the trials, especially Cinque' |
| - | He does discuss the Declaration of Independence, | + | He does discuss the Declaration of Independence, |
| - | Queen Isabella of Spain wasn't a little girl in charge of a country in during the trial, she was 19 in 1839, and had been ruling without a regent for six years. Her mother had been regent prior to her turning 13. --Jessie Fitzgerald | + | **Queen Isabella of Spain wasn't a little girl in charge of a country in during the trial, she was 19 in 1839, and had been ruling without a regent for six years. Her mother had been regent prior to her turning 13. --Jessie Fitzgerald** |
| source- https:// | source- https:// | ||
| - | John Quincy Adams’ portrayal is quite different from historical record. The extent of John Quincy Adams' relationship with Cinque was changed. There was no historical record of Cinque having a personal meeting in John Quincy Adams’ home. With no record of Adams’ having a personal relationship with Cinque to the extent shown in the movie. -Kyle Moore | + | John Quincy Adams’ portrayal is quite different from historical record. The extent of John Quincy Adams' relationship with Cinque was changed. |
| The movie shows Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour. When in fact, Van Buren, following the political traditions of the time, did not personally campaign for his presidency. – Courtlyn Plunkett | The movie shows Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour. When in fact, Van Buren, following the political traditions of the time, did not personally campaign for his presidency. – Courtlyn Plunkett | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| The inaccuracies that most bothered me was the Mende people’s ability to understand aspects of western culture so easily on their own. For example, the scene where Cinque understood based on the stars that the ship was not actually sailing East was inaccurate. The Mende on that ship did not understand navigation by stars. Also, it felt weird how easily some of the Mende suddenly started to understand and speak English, and how one of them figured out the story of the Bible just from looking at one. It reminds me of the past examples of films we have watched in which the non-Europeans had a sudden understanding of European ways and speech. -- Carolyn Stough | The inaccuracies that most bothered me was the Mende people’s ability to understand aspects of western culture so easily on their own. For example, the scene where Cinque understood based on the stars that the ship was not actually sailing East was inaccurate. The Mende on that ship did not understand navigation by stars. Also, it felt weird how easily some of the Mende suddenly started to understand and speak English, and how one of them figured out the story of the Bible just from looking at one. It reminds me of the past examples of films we have watched in which the non-Europeans had a sudden understanding of European ways and speech. -- Carolyn Stough | ||
| - | One of the first things I noticed was the fact that the first court appearance was not on the USS Washington as was told to us by Dr McClurken. It was held in the courthouse in New Haven. Another thing I noticed was that Tappan seemed to get along with John Quincy Addams in the beginning of the film, contrary to what was said in our lectures. One other thing that was shown in the movie was the arrest of Jose Ruiz and Pedro Montes who actually left the country before they could be arrested. These were a few things that seemed out of place and were probably done in the interest of cinematic experience. --Jack Hagn | + | One of the first things I noticed was the fact that **the first court appearance was not on the USS Washington as was told to us by Dr McClurken.** It was held in the courthouse in New Haven. Another thing I noticed was that Tappan seemed to get along with John Quincy Addams in the beginning of the film, contrary to what was said in our lectures. One other thing that was shown in the movie was the arrest of Jose Ruiz and Pedro Montes who actually left the country before they could be arrested. These were a few things that seemed out of place and were probably done in the interest of cinematic experience. --Jack Hagn |
| Carolyn, I also think the same about the inaccuracies in the film. The Mende didn’t know how to navigate but somehow Cinqué knew how and tried to put them back on course to Africa. Understanding each other with simple gestures and dirt sketched map seem too far fetched. Although there are a lot of things that neither group understood about one another, I think it was way too easily how Cinqué and the other guy caught on compared to the rest of their group. - Johana Colchado | Carolyn, I also think the same about the inaccuracies in the film. The Mende didn’t know how to navigate but somehow Cinqué knew how and tried to put them back on course to Africa. Understanding each other with simple gestures and dirt sketched map seem too far fetched. Although there are a lot of things that neither group understood about one another, I think it was way too easily how Cinqué and the other guy caught on compared to the rest of their group. - Johana Colchado | ||
| ====== Things the Movie got right ====== | ====== Things the Movie got right ====== | ||
| - | Does present a few powerful, unforgettable scenes of the horrors of the Middle Passage. --Lindsey Sowers | + | Does present a few powerful, unforgettable scenes of **the horrors of the Middle Passage**. --Lindsey Sowers |
| West Africans themselves sold other tribes to Portuguese and Spanish slave traders. Former president John Quincy Adams came out of retirement to win the freedom of the slaves and have them returned to Sierra Leone. - Andrew Mullins | West Africans themselves sold other tribes to Portuguese and Spanish slave traders. Former president John Quincy Adams came out of retirement to win the freedom of the slaves and have them returned to Sierra Leone. - Andrew Mullins | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| ~Will Everett | ~Will Everett | ||
| - | There was a language barrier between the Mende and the Americans, creating problems as the Mende weren' | + | **There was a language barrier between the Mende and the Americans, creating problems as the Mende weren' |
| The threats and concerns of Senator John C. Calhoun were accurate to what he had been arguing during the 1830s. In 1828, Calhoun anonymously published //South Carolina Exposition and Protest// to argue for nullification, | The threats and concerns of Senator John C. Calhoun were accurate to what he had been arguing during the 1830s. In 1828, Calhoun anonymously published //South Carolina Exposition and Protest// to argue for nullification, | ||
| "The Tariff of Abominations: | "The Tariff of Abominations: | ||
| - | In the beginning of the movie while in the courtroom they used the real name of man who was buying the Mende slaves illegally, Jose Ruiz. Also, in the courtroom everyone was fighting over the rights of who gets the ship and everything on it, including the Mende people; which also is accurate. | + | In the beginning of the movie while in the courtroom they used the real name of man who was buying the Mende slaves illegally, Jose Ruiz. **Also, in the courtroom everyone was fighting over the rights of who gets the ship and everything on it, including the Mende people; which also is accurate.** |
| The movie accurately portrayed the language barrier between the Mende people and the Americans and the difficulties that arise from it. – Courtlyn Plunkett | The movie accurately portrayed the language barrier between the Mende people and the Americans and the difficulties that arise from it. – Courtlyn Plunkett | ||
| Line 53: | Line 53: | ||
| Reading about the middle passage and learning about the horrific and terrifying elements involved is tough. Seeing a film depiction is heart-wrenching. Viewers are forced to see the horrors of the middle passage and the treatment of the African captives as nothing more than animals. Spielberg taps into every emotion with the Middle Passage sequence and inhibits the viewer from only being sad or angry at slavery; the viewer is also sickened and disturbed. It’s frightening and the idea that Spielberg does not shy away from highlighting the gruesome details allows for the slave history of the middle passage to receive the attention that it needs. While there are some problems—like the chiseled bods of the captives for instance—the movie and the horrifying imagery reminds all of what happened and that what happened was morally and inherently wrong. -Lake Wiley | Reading about the middle passage and learning about the horrific and terrifying elements involved is tough. Seeing a film depiction is heart-wrenching. Viewers are forced to see the horrors of the middle passage and the treatment of the African captives as nothing more than animals. Spielberg taps into every emotion with the Middle Passage sequence and inhibits the viewer from only being sad or angry at slavery; the viewer is also sickened and disturbed. It’s frightening and the idea that Spielberg does not shy away from highlighting the gruesome details allows for the slave history of the middle passage to receive the attention that it needs. While there are some problems—like the chiseled bods of the captives for instance—the movie and the horrifying imagery reminds all of what happened and that what happened was morally and inherently wrong. -Lake Wiley | ||
| - | The movie was able to get a fair amount right from the general story that was related to us in class about the Amistad case. There were only a few women and children on the boat when it was discovered by the USS Washington off the coast of Long Island. Martin Van Buren was the president at the time and was up for re-election, | + | **The movie was able to get a fair amount right from the general story that was related to us in class about the Amistad case. There were only a few women and children on the boat when it was discovered by the USS Washington off the coast of Long Island. Martin Van Buren was the president at the time and was up for re-election, |
| - | I think the filmmakers did a good job portraying the kidnapping and voyage of Africans. It was difficult and horrific to watch how they were treated. The moment where the lady willingly goes overboard with the newborn was a truly emotionally charged scene. I can’t imagine what it must have been like to act out and film those parts. The Tecora was a slave ship that actually did exist. The term ‘goods’ in regards to slaves is accurate, they weren’t seen as individuals but merchandise like we discussed last class. They did get some of the character’s names right who represented the Mende in court. They also got the frustrations of a language and culture barrier correct, even if it was briefly. | + | **I think the filmmakers did a good job portraying the kidnapping and voyage of Africans.** It was difficult and horrific to watch how they were treated. The moment where the lady willingly goes overboard with the newborn was a truly emotionally charged scene. I can’t imagine what it must have been like to act out and film those parts. The Tecora was a slave ship that actually did exist. The term ‘goods’ in regards to slaves is accurate, they weren’t seen as individuals but merchandise like we discussed last class. They did get some of the character’s names right who represented the Mende in court. They also got the frustrations of a language and culture barrier correct, even if it was briefly. |
| - Johana Colchado | - Johana Colchado | ||
| - | The hectic and packed court room scene at the beginning of the film did a good job of representing all the different sides to this case. There were the Spanish slave owners, the crew of the USS Washington, the Secretary of State on behalf of Spain, and of course the Mende themselves.--Sam Hartz | + | **The hectic and packed court room scene at the beginning of the film did a good job of representing all the different sides to this case.** There were the Spanish slave owners, the crew of the USS Washington, the Secretary of State on behalf of Spain, and of course the Mende themselves.--Sam Hartz |
| ====== Questions about interpretation ====== | ====== Questions about interpretation ====== | ||
| - | The language barriers that caused a break down in communication was explored in this movie to show how they had to over come another obstacle. With the lack of subtitles in certain parts the audience got a feel for what it is like to be unable to understand one another. How do you think they decided how and when to use subtitles? Do you think that audiences were drawn away from the movie because it was heavily subtitled? | + | **The language barriers that caused a break down in communication was explored in this movie to show how they had to over come another obstacle**. With the lack of subtitles in certain parts the audience got a feel for what it is like to be unable to understand one another. How do you think they decided how and when to use subtitles? Do you think that audiences were drawn away from the movie because it was heavily subtitled? |
| - | Like Grace says in her comment before, I thought it was an extremely interesting and important directorial choice that Spielberg made when choosing to not include subtitles at the beginning of the movie. It helps show the confusion that the enslaved peoples would have had been brought to a new world and how confusing it would have been. Would the story have been different if they chose to add subtitles to the film for all scenes or is it better the way the movie portrayed it? --- Ellora Larsen | + | Like Grace says in her comment before, I thought it was an extremely interesting and important directorial choice that Spielberg made when choosing to not include subtitles at the beginning of the movie. |
| Cinque was completely portrayed as a Jesus character - an idealized tragic hero. His Christ comparisons only become stronger as the Mende (or just that one guy) become more engrossed in Christianity. However, it is interesting that while the story posits him as the hero, he is never the one to save himself, unless he is literally killing a lion or a man. White men must do the saving for him, and while they may use "his words", | Cinque was completely portrayed as a Jesus character - an idealized tragic hero. His Christ comparisons only become stronger as the Mende (or just that one guy) become more engrossed in Christianity. However, it is interesting that while the story posits him as the hero, he is never the one to save himself, unless he is literally killing a lion or a man. White men must do the saving for him, and while they may use "his words", | ||
| - | When Baldwin first visits the Africans in prison when they are in an outdoor courtyard, there is a disagreement over where he can place his table because the two groups (Mende and Temne) have divided the space amongst themselves. Were the Amistad Africans all Mende? And what is the significance of having a specific part in the film where emphasis is placed on the disagreement that would arise because of differing ethnic groups? -Maddie Shiflett | + | When Baldwin first visits the Africans in prison when they are in an outdoor courtyard, there is a disagreement over where he can place his table because the two groups (Mende and Temne) have divided the space amongst themselves. |
| - | The multiple references to the coming Civil War raise a lot of questions for me. Of course, the Civil war was not fought until twenty years after the events of the movie, but multiple characters treat it as if it is an inevitability. Is this the movie doing the same thing Last of the Mohicans did and setting the stage for a conflict that nobody was sure would happen? Unlike LotM, this movie is set in a time in which the seeds for the conflict being foreshadowed were already sewn; the Civil War was the result of long-boiling tensions. Still, would John Calhoun actually have threatened Martin Van Buren with it so explicitly? (Justin Curtis) | + | **The multiple references to the coming Civil War raise a lot of questions for me. Of course, the Civil war was not fought until twenty years after the events of the movie, but multiple characters treat it as if it is an inevitability. Is this the movie doing the same thing Last of the Mohicans did and setting the stage for a conflict that nobody was sure would happen? Unlike LotM, this movie is set in a time in which the seeds for the conflict being foreshadowed were already sewn; the Civil War was the result of long-boiling tensions. Still, would John Calhoun actually have threatened Martin Van Buren with it so explicitly? (Justin Curtis)** |
| The Tecora was showing flying an American flag (1:22:57) Is there any reason for this? It seems unlikely to be a mistake in the movie. Would the Portuguese fly an American flag to avoid detection and search by the British? | The Tecora was showing flying an American flag (1:22:57) Is there any reason for this? It seems unlikely to be a mistake in the movie. Would the Portuguese fly an American flag to avoid detection and search by the British? | ||
| - | While //Amistad// is intense and thought-provoking film about the horrors of the slave trade, the movie still goes back to the same narrative where the helpful whites come to the rescue to help the slaves escape the institution of slavery (that the whites created). While there were many whites fighting for or supporting the gradual emancipation of slaves, all of their roles were not like knights in shining armor like the film at times portrayed.-Lake Wiley | + | While //Amistad// is intense and thought-provoking film about the horrors of the slave trade, the movie still goes back to the same narrative where **the helpful whites come to the rescue to help the slaves escape the institution of slavery (that the whites created)**. While there were many whites fighting for or supporting the gradual emancipation of slaves, all of their roles were not like knights in shining armor like the film at times portrayed.-Lake Wiley |
| - | I agree with you, Lake. In this Article I found, it states it perfectly: "While the film is loosely based on the true story of a group of Mende people from Sierra Leone, who in 1839 overpowered their Spanish captors aboard the slave ship La Amistad, it is largely a tale of white hero worship. | + | **I agree with you, Lake. In this Article I found, it states it perfectly: "While the film is loosely based on the true story of a group of Mende people from Sierra Leone, who in 1839 overpowered their Spanish captors aboard the slave ship La Amistad, it is largely a tale of white hero worship. |
| - | The movie gives little time to the bloody slave mutiny led by Sengbe Pieh (called Joseph Cinque in the United States). Instead, Mr. Spielberg devoted most of the two and a half hours to the jumbled aftermath in the U.S. justice system, __where white lawyers defend the poor Africans__." | + | The movie gives little time to the bloody slave mutiny led by Sengbe Pieh (called Joseph Cinque in the United States). Instead, Mr. Spielberg devoted most of the two and a half hours to the jumbled aftermath in the U.S. justice system, __where white lawyers defend the poor Africans__." |
| As other people have mentioned, the multitude of namedropping an impending civil war seemed to be a piece that was merely for audience enjoyment or understanding rather than something that would have been an actual though people would have had during this time. Having hindsight might be interesting for the viewers but it’s inaccurate because the people at that specific time could not have predicted the future. -Erin Andrewlevich | As other people have mentioned, the multitude of namedropping an impending civil war seemed to be a piece that was merely for audience enjoyment or understanding rather than something that would have been an actual though people would have had during this time. Having hindsight might be interesting for the viewers but it’s inaccurate because the people at that specific time could not have predicted the future. -Erin Andrewlevich | ||
| Line 87: | Line 87: | ||
| ====== The movie as a primary source of its time ====== | ====== The movie as a primary source of its time ====== | ||
| - | The movies shows that American audiences and film makers were willing to confront the issue of slavery in a very realistic way. The level of violence and the exploration of slavery on film showed the changing cultur in America, people were willing to have this conversation about their past. The need for a white savior though was still present in this film and shows that audiences are not entirely willing to explore their history without a reedeming white guy to show that even at their worse, they still have figures that were ahead of their time and accepting to all. --Grace Corkran | + | **The movies shows that American audiences and film makers were willing to confront the issue of slavery in a very realistic way. The level of violence and the exploration of slavery on film showed the changing cultur in America, people were willing to have this conversation about their past. The need for a white savior though was still present in this film and shows that audiences are not entirely willing to explore their history without a reedeming white guy to show that even at their worse, they still have figures that were ahead of their time and accepting to all**. --Grace Corkran |
| Morgan Freeman' | Morgan Freeman' | ||
| Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
| Amistad depicts a lot of the historical cruelty of slavery but is still a Spielberg Hollywood movie. The Hollywood influence is mostly in the character portrayals. Depicting the 40-year-old Roger Baldwin by late 20’s Matthew McConaughey as one influence. The movie frames the American characters, (Baldwin, Joadson, and Quincy Adams) as the moral center of the movie with their morality developing as they get close to Cinque and learn more about his life. The movie even adding the relationships between Cinque and Adams’ to further the theme of the Americans being the moral center in the movie. -Kyle Moore | Amistad depicts a lot of the historical cruelty of slavery but is still a Spielberg Hollywood movie. The Hollywood influence is mostly in the character portrayals. Depicting the 40-year-old Roger Baldwin by late 20’s Matthew McConaughey as one influence. The movie frames the American characters, (Baldwin, Joadson, and Quincy Adams) as the moral center of the movie with their morality developing as they get close to Cinque and learn more about his life. The movie even adding the relationships between Cinque and Adams’ to further the theme of the Americans being the moral center in the movie. -Kyle Moore | ||
| - | As we talked about a few times in class before, the 1990s were a time of increased realization and push of multiculturalism. This movie takes the story of an enslaved group of people would have NEVER been even thought of to be a good movie before the 1990s since it was such (and still is) a touchy topic for people to watch or address. This movie shows the push to have more tough conversations in America and how difficult and truly awful of a practice it was but at the same time, how important it was too early Americans. Spielberg liked to push the limits of stories that were traditionally made into movies by going toward more difficult subjects like he did with // | + | As we talked about a few times in class before, the 1990s were a time of increased realization and push of multiculturalism. This movie takes the story of an enslaved group of people would have NEVER been even thought of to be a good movie before the 1990s since it was such (and still is) a touchy topic for people to watch or address. This movie shows the push to have more tough conversations in America and how difficult and truly awful of a practice it was but at the same time, how important it was too early Americans. |
| - | The movie demonstrates a time where the US wants to acknowledge the horrific acts of the past, but still shifts them to both a Eurocentric outlook as well as one that puts the US in as good a light as possible. The movie positions that the divide between the North and South was a universal rift, and that nearly everyone in the North was anti-slavery/ | + | **The movie demonstrates a time where the US wants to acknowledge the horrific acts of the past, but still shifts them to both a Eurocentric outlook as well as one that puts the US in as good a light as possible. The movie positions that the divide between the North and South was a universal rift, and that nearly everyone in the North was anti-slavery/ |
| I thought the way they portrayed some miniscule things was powerful. The language barrier and how they overcame it, but also the way it was represented in the beginning with no subtitles I assume would be pretty thought provoking for the average viewer. -Erin Andrewlevich | I thought the way they portrayed some miniscule things was powerful. The language barrier and how they overcame it, but also the way it was represented in the beginning with no subtitles I assume would be pretty thought provoking for the average viewer. -Erin Andrewlevich | ||
| - | ====== Comparing | + | When I think of 90s movies, I think of core love movies like You've Got Mail, Sleepless in Seattle, Pretty Woman, Titanic, etc. So, the fact that this movie did not have a central or even a side ongoing romance was shocking |
| - | The readings were good first person accounts from key abolitionist actors of the day, the movie depicts the Amistad case as being about a " | + | ====== Comparing the reading to the movie ====== |
| + | ** | ||
| + | The readings were good first person accounts from key abolitionist actors of the day, the movie depicts the Amistad case as being about a " | ||
| Cite: Foner, Eric. //The Amistad Case in Fact and Film// http:// | Cite: Foner, Eric. //The Amistad Case in Fact and Film// http:// | ||
| - | In comparing the story of Equiano to the journey Joseph Cinque endures, there are definitely significant portions of Equiano' | + | In comparing the story of Equiano to the journey Joseph Cinque endures, there are definitely significant portions of Equiano' |
| - | Tappan' | + | **Tappan' |
| Tappans account | Tappans account | ||
| - | I think the film did a good job of addressing the religious rhetoric | + | I think the film did a good job of addressing the religious rhetoric |
| ====== The "So, what?" question ====== | ====== The "So, what?" question ====== | ||
| This movie shows the horrors of slavery in a very immersive way. The audience feels as though they are on the slave ship witnessing the absolute atrocities against these people, with no way of stopping it. We can not go back in time to see slavery in action or walk on to a slave ship and see the terrible conditions fellow humans had to endure, but with this movie we can get a sense of what it might have been like. By teaching the modern audience about their stories and the trials they were put through, it gives it much needed recognition. -- Grace Corkran | This movie shows the horrors of slavery in a very immersive way. The audience feels as though they are on the slave ship witnessing the absolute atrocities against these people, with no way of stopping it. We can not go back in time to see slavery in action or walk on to a slave ship and see the terrible conditions fellow humans had to endure, but with this movie we can get a sense of what it might have been like. By teaching the modern audience about their stories and the trials they were put through, it gives it much needed recognition. -- Grace Corkran | ||
| - | In terms of its portrayal of the tensions present in the United States during this time, I think that this movie shows that talk of the possibility of a civil War occurred much earlier than what is generally understood today. Of course, the Civil War was the result of years and years of building tensions and pressures. Yet, in modern discussions, | + | **In terms of its portrayal of the tensions present in the United States during this time, I think that this movie shows that talk of the possibility of a civil War occurred much earlier than what is generally understood today.** Of course, the Civil War was the result of years and years of building tensions and pressures. Yet, in modern discussions, |
| This movie is all the more powerful for being a realistic depiction of true events. Unlike in The Patriot, there is very little exaggeration or dramatization. The only thing I noticed was that the Amistad had a larger crew that was killed when the Mende took over the ship, as opposed to just the captain and cook. It does a good job of telling this story and its impact on the greater movements and unrest in America and foreshadowing the events that were to come. –Jessie Fitzgerald | This movie is all the more powerful for being a realistic depiction of true events. Unlike in The Patriot, there is very little exaggeration or dramatization. The only thing I noticed was that the Amistad had a larger crew that was killed when the Mende took over the ship, as opposed to just the captain and cook. It does a good job of telling this story and its impact on the greater movements and unrest in America and foreshadowing the events that were to come. –Jessie Fitzgerald | ||
| Line 128: | Line 130: | ||
| How did this film attempt to portray the complexities of the transatlantic slave trade? The film repeatedly showed extended scenes of utter violence and horror that was hard to watch, leaving the viewer to think, "when will this end?" That's when the harsh reality hits you, the enslaved Africans ripped from their homes were thinking the same thing. Our discomfort while watching these scenes is only a microcosm of the trauma enslaved African people had to reconcile for the entirety of their lives. Rather than glorify the slave trade, this film shoves the death of innocent peoples right in your face, and refuses to let you disregard this unforgivable time in our past any longer.--Jessica Lynch | How did this film attempt to portray the complexities of the transatlantic slave trade? The film repeatedly showed extended scenes of utter violence and horror that was hard to watch, leaving the viewer to think, "when will this end?" That's when the harsh reality hits you, the enslaved Africans ripped from their homes were thinking the same thing. Our discomfort while watching these scenes is only a microcosm of the trauma enslaved African people had to reconcile for the entirety of their lives. Rather than glorify the slave trade, this film shoves the death of innocent peoples right in your face, and refuses to let you disregard this unforgivable time in our past any longer.--Jessica Lynch | ||
| - | Ultimately, I agree that this is the most historically accurate movie we have seen in the class. It takes some liberties, but all of those liberties make the story better for audiences without sacrificing the authenticity of the movie. I feel this is true for a variety of reasons; for one, Stephen Spielberg is far more talented than the likes of Roland Emmerich (and I believe more talented than Michael Mann as well). However, that alone isn’t enough for historical accuracy: it also manages to be better because of the nature of the subject matter. The other movies were ultimately unwilling to commit to the reality of history because they are dealing with myths that a majority of Americans still believe in. Many Americans are unwilling to accept that colonization was a violent endeavor that even the “good guys” were complicit in, so Pocahontas tiptoed around that topic. Americans were unwilling to accept that Americans might be committing their own war crimes, unwilling to accept that a man considered an American Hero could also own slaves, so the Patriot provided us with a singularly black and white view of the Revolution. The slave trade, on the other hand, was so unambiguously brutal and unethical that nobody truly disagrees with that anymore (and the people who do, well, screw them), so this movie was more willing to engage with history in an intellectually satisfying way. (Justin Curtis) | + | Ultimately, I agree that this is the most historically accurate movie we have seen in the class. It takes some liberties, but all of those liberties make the story better for audiences without sacrificing the authenticity of the movie. I feel this is true for a variety of reasons; for one, Stephen Spielberg is far more talented than the likes of Roland Emmerich (and I believe more talented than Michael Mann as well). However, that alone isn’t enough for historical accuracy: it also manages to be better because of the nature of the subject matter. |
| While the movie does follow the general outline of the events, it takes enough liberties to put some ease on the US audience. While there are some prominent US citizens in the film who are overtly racist (Van Buren, Calhoun, and Tappan to an extent), most are abolitionist. Through this, it pushes the idea that the North was completely against slavery and was so from much earlier than when the movements caught on. Portraying events like this muddies the past and makes it much easier for people to ignore the atrocities the US committed, something that shouldn’t be forgotten or in any way lessened. The only part of this that I thought it did well was displaying how willing politicians are to throw away any sense of morals in order to get reelected. | While the movie does follow the general outline of the events, it takes enough liberties to put some ease on the US audience. While there are some prominent US citizens in the film who are overtly racist (Van Buren, Calhoun, and Tappan to an extent), most are abolitionist. Through this, it pushes the idea that the North was completely against slavery and was so from much earlier than when the movements caught on. Portraying events like this muddies the past and makes it much easier for people to ignore the atrocities the US committed, something that shouldn’t be forgotten or in any way lessened. The only part of this that I thought it did well was displaying how willing politicians are to throw away any sense of morals in order to get reelected. | ||
| - | I think that with this movie the filmmakers wanted to accurately depict both the story of the Amistad and the complex political and legal dynamic around slavery in the 1830’s. In the instances where scenes were clearly dramatized for the audience, such as the early attempts at communication between Joseph Cinque and Roger Baldwin, it was done in a way that didn’t really take much away from that depiction. --Sam Hartz | + | I think that with this movie the filmmakers wanted to accurately depict both the story of the Amistad and the complex political and legal dynamic around slavery in the 1830’s. |
329/question/329--week_5_questions_comments-2018.1538642092.txt.gz · Last modified: 2018/10/04 08:34 by 72.205.3.184