Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments-2018 [2018/10/04 12:58] – [Comparing the reading to the movie] kmoore6
+++ 329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments-2018 [2018/10/04 13:01] (current) – [The "So, what?" question] kmoore6
@@ Line 120: / Line 120: @@
 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, the Amistad case or events of the 1830's-early 1840's are mentioned with less frequency despite their contribution to the building tension. By including John Calhoun and his talk of a possible civil war because of the Amistad situation, it reinforces that the South was already becoming unhappy with actions in the North at this time. -Maddie Shiflett
+**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, the Amistad case or events of the 1830's-early 1840's are mentioned with less frequency despite their contribution to the building tension. By including John Calhoun and his talk of a possible civil war because of the Amistad situation, it reinforces that the South was already becoming unhappy with actions in the North at this time. -Maddie Shiflett
 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 130: / 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
-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. **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)
 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.  –Sky Horne
-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. **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.****Bold Text** --Sam Hartz