| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| 329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments-2020 [2020/09/24 08:28] – daniel_walker | 329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments-2020 [2020/09/24 13:27] (current) – [IV.How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers?] janis_shurtleff |
|---|
| |
| Amistad shows that Steven Spielberg did have fairly good intentions with the creation of the movie, however, **it still falls into the "white savior" movie category.** I thought the movie did a good job of sharing many of the horrors of slavery that not many other films take on or sugar coat, however, it lacked nuance in many of the historical figures. **The movie was eye-opening, but still made the white characters the center of the movie.** I thought that it was also interesting where the director chose to put subtitles, I think it was definitely important to emphasize the language barrier so the audience could get an idea of the situation the characters were in, but it also felt at times we did not get to fully empathize with the Mende characters. A**lso, I felt a lot of the white characters were reduced to either the good guy or the evil guy** and they lacked the nuance that the historical figures really had, because even though yes, **many of these men did agree the institution of slavery was bad- did not mean they viewed black people as equal, leaving this out makes it easier to sort out who is a good character and who is a bad character. The movie overall shows that filmmaking in the late 90s was trying to reckon with race and trying to show the horrors of slavery, however they still went in with the intention to show "oh not all white people were bad" while leaving out the faults of the white people they were trying to portray as good.** --Helen Dhue | Amistad shows that Steven Spielberg did have fairly good intentions with the creation of the movie, however, **it still falls into the "white savior" movie category.** I thought the movie did a good job of sharing many of the horrors of slavery that not many other films take on or sugar coat, however, it lacked nuance in many of the historical figures. **The movie was eye-opening, but still made the white characters the center of the movie.** I thought that it was also interesting where the director chose to put subtitles, I think it was definitely important to emphasize the language barrier so the audience could get an idea of the situation the characters were in, but it also felt at times we did not get to fully empathize with the Mende characters. A**lso, I felt a lot of the white characters were reduced to either the good guy or the evil guy** and they lacked the nuance that the historical figures really had, because even though yes, **many of these men did agree the institution of slavery was bad- did not mean they viewed black people as equal, leaving this out makes it easier to sort out who is a good character and who is a bad character. The movie overall shows that filmmaking in the late 90s was trying to reckon with race and trying to show the horrors of slavery, however they still went in with the intention to show "oh not all white people were bad" while leaving out the faults of the white people they were trying to portray as good.** --Helen Dhue |
| | |
| | I think this film shows that Spielberg had a stronger ambition than most directors to be historically accurate. Seemingly, this movie appears to be far more historically accurate than the other movies we have watched so far. Additionally, Spielberg did more to portray the Mende and middle passage than many other directors would have. He tried to make it very real and force the audience to see how horrifying the treatment of the Mende and slaves was. I believe that the Mende and Cinque were portrayed as smart, powerful people. They were not simply static characters. Oftentimes, with a movie like this, even though it is about the Mende, it would largely focus on people other than them. While the film does still do this to an extent, it does still spend a lot of time developing Cinque's character. From his story of the lion, his freedom chant in the courthouse, and his numerous questions to JQA, Cinque is portrayed as a devoted and intelligent man. These factors demonstrate Spielberg's commitment to tell Cinque and the Mende's story, not just the story of the Amistad and court case alone. -Daniel Walker |
| |
| This film works as an excellent source about the 1990s, and more importantly about Steven Spielberg as a director and Debbie Allen as the producer of the film. For 13 years, Debbie Allen worked to get this movie made. Starting in 1984, Allen's Amistad project was rejected time and time again. It was not until 1993 when she watched Spielberg's //Schindler's List//, in which Spielberg had been repeatedly told not to make a film about the Holocaust, that Allen thought she had a chance to make the movie happen. //Amistad// and the making of it is an exceptional primary source about what the movie making industry was like in the 80s and 90s, and in particular what it was like for African American women and African American stories in the industry. | This film works as an excellent source about the 1990s, and more importantly about Steven Spielberg as a director and Debbie Allen as the producer of the film. For 13 years, Debbie Allen worked to get this movie made. Starting in 1984, Allen's Amistad project was rejected time and time again. It was not until 1993 when she watched Spielberg's //Schindler's List//, in which Spielberg had been repeatedly told not to make a film about the Holocaust, that Allen thought she had a chance to make the movie happen. //Amistad// and the making of it is an exceptional primary source about what the movie making industry was like in the 80s and 90s, and in particular what it was like for African American women and African American stories in the industry. |
| I think that this movie works well as a primary source for its time period and as a Spielberg. It has the big names and the intensity that are expected to come from Spielberg at this point. It brings the somewhat happy and moments of connection between characters also expected from both the time period and Spielberg. **I think it is a good comparison to Spielberg's other films such as Schindler's List, it tells a hard story with an intense nature to allow for the viewer to feel everything that the characters are feeling or at least feel extreme discomfort or anticipation where the situation calls for it**. In terms of the time period it is a good look into the tone of African American history films which were starting to pop up in the 90s, specifically in the late 90s, films that told of the tough history of African Americans both focusing on individuals and the subject as a whole. I think the directing and casting choices speak widely of the 90s and of Spielberg's signature. --Kimberly Sak | I think that this movie works well as a primary source for its time period and as a Spielberg. It has the big names and the intensity that are expected to come from Spielberg at this point. It brings the somewhat happy and moments of connection between characters also expected from both the time period and Spielberg. **I think it is a good comparison to Spielberg's other films such as Schindler's List, it tells a hard story with an intense nature to allow for the viewer to feel everything that the characters are feeling or at least feel extreme discomfort or anticipation where the situation calls for it**. In terms of the time period it is a good look into the tone of African American history films which were starting to pop up in the 90s, specifically in the late 90s, films that told of the tough history of African Americans both focusing on individuals and the subject as a whole. I think the directing and casting choices speak widely of the 90s and of Spielberg's signature. --Kimberly Sak |
| |
| | This film tells a lot about 1990s Hollywood and the gray area of creating a historic film that is still meant to be a blockbuster and its subsequent racial relation in film. Because of this, the movie’s intention is tainted to become a form of entertainment not education. I’m sure for many viewers this movie is seen as being more progressive than others for being “more open and honest” about the treatment of slaves, but this actually further lends to the problematic nature of this film. It is a white savior film (the cast it is alarmingly white for a story centered around a slave rebellion) and it prides itself on notions of humility and sympathy. The entire storyline of this script takes place after the rebellion. We do not see any of the real planning or conversations of the Mendi before the mutiny, but there is of course the inclusion of brutal violence against black people. (To show a mother getting thrown overboard, or fifty human beings tied down to drown, should not be how you connect history and entertainment) We see why the Mendi revolt and partially how, in the opening scene, but we don’t get to know them, we don’t even get to have subtitles on their dialogue. This is a huge failure in this film, the Mendi truly are background characters apart from Cinque. Cinque himself is also failed by the fact that he is constantly being told that he needs to help his people and that the white characters are the ones guiding him to this realization. - Janis Shurtleff |
| ====== V. The "So, what?" question ====== | ====== V. The "So, what?" question ====== |
| I think what makes //Amistad// so important is that** it tells a story that many are not very familiar with**. The Amistad case isn't really something that is generally discussed, and after watching the movie, I was surprised that it isn't discussed more often. I also think that its importance, especially for a film made in 1997, is that it does a fair job in putting African Americans at the forefront of the story, especially Cinque. -- Jordan Petty | I think what makes //Amistad// so important is that** it tells a story that many are not very familiar with**. The Amistad case isn't really something that is generally discussed, and after watching the movie, I was surprised that it isn't discussed more often. I also think that its importance, especially for a film made in 1997, is that it does a fair job in putting African Americans at the forefront of the story, especially Cinque. -- Jordan Petty |
| I think this film is important for the powerful image it creates of this time period. There were some Americans who were idealized in a sense, but many others and their opinions on slaves weren't downplayed. The way the enslaved Africans were treated on the boat and the way they were leered at while in prison, they're both experiences that aren't talked about too often. Even when they are, it's hard to understand the gravity of the situation until it's shown right in front of your eyes. Furthermore, there is a struggle when trying to integrate into a foreign society, especially one you didn't enter by choice, that isn't always discussed in school but this movie shows it. The movie humanizes the enslaved Africans and made them more than just another history lesson. But it does also show the unfortunate reality that often times people have a hard time understanding particularly cruel aspects of history until they are shown traumatic events in a brutal visual manner. It highlights Hollywood's continuous obsession with performing trauma. -Purnaja Podduturi | I think this film is important for the powerful image it creates of this time period. There were some Americans who were idealized in a sense, but many others and their opinions on slaves weren't downplayed. The way the enslaved Africans were treated on the boat and the way they were leered at while in prison, they're both experiences that aren't talked about too often. Even when they are, it's hard to understand the gravity of the situation until it's shown right in front of your eyes. Furthermore, there is a struggle when trying to integrate into a foreign society, especially one you didn't enter by choice, that isn't always discussed in school but this movie shows it. The movie humanizes the enslaved Africans and made them more than just another history lesson. But it does also show the unfortunate reality that often times people have a hard time understanding particularly cruel aspects of history until they are shown traumatic events in a brutal visual manner. It highlights Hollywood's continuous obsession with performing trauma. -Purnaja Podduturi |
| |
| | I really want to like a movie in this class and Amistad was promising, but in the end I found it to be factual but with fictional and misleading portrayals. For instance, names, places, appearances and demographics were accurate, such as the presence of slave owners in the court. Small things were pleasantly surprising such as the use of Mendi numbers to recruit a translator and the locations of the Amistad’s journey. However, these were all lost by the screenplay that would leave viewers feeling this case was much briefer and more progressive than it actually was. The sense of predetermination plagues this film from the constant reminding Cinque that he is destined to help his people to the looming mentions of civil war. It fails to capture the suspense, fear, confusion and uncertainty of this case. In over two hours the whole case somehow still felt rushed and flat. -Janis Shurtleff |
