Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments-2022 [2022/09/21 22:26] – 76.78.226.25
+++ 329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments-2022 [2022/10/29 16:05] (current) – [I.How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?] 76.78.225.92
@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ====== I.	How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?  ======
+This movie was devastatingly accurate to the horrors of enslavement and the sheer degradation of the middle passage on the human psyche. Think about it this way, while it was extremely gory, this depiction still wasn’t as horrific as the real deal was. Even rated R movies can only show but so much. The emotion that this film conveys is that of deepest sorrow and torment. Something that these people lived in their entire time during this incident, and even after returning home. I believe that this film is an outstanding source for historical accuracy regarding the depiction of enslavement. Some of the court room scenes, and other related points are dramatized, but to the best of my personal knowledge, the depiction of enslavement practices were not exaggerated. -Michaela Fontenot
 I was shocked by the historical accuracy of this film. While I cannot speak to the material realism of such things as clothing or ships, I was astounded by how closely the film stuck to the real history of the events. From details like how the abolitionists found an interpreter, to the way the Mende’s were tricked by their Spanish captors by sailing east at day and northwest at night. In addition to small details such as those above, the film followed the course of the actual historical events and legal proceedings with surprising accuracy and faithfulness. --Lucca Crowe
@@ Line 15: / Line 19: @@
 In all honesty this movie surprised me with how historically accurate it was comparatively to the past couple of movies we’ve watched. It included the shouting of the numbers on the dock to find an interpreter. It showed the confusion of the situation and all the claims made upon the Amistad and its loot by the sailors aboard the USS Washington, the Spanish government, Ruiz and Montes, and the claim that the Mendi were free people. -Teresa Felipe
+I found this film to be very historically accurate. The movie followed and explained the history of the Amistad and the Mende very well. Most if not all of what was shown in the film was just what we had gone over in class on Tuesday. The part that I felt was the most important to be accurate was the portrayal of the ship that transported the captured people from Africa to Cuba. It was quite horrific to watch on screen, which is unfortunately the reality of the journey for those who were taken. I think that it is really important for people to understand the gravity of the bad parts of history, and I think that this film did so accurately. -Margaret Jones
+I had very low expectations for this film’s historical accuracy, but I was pleasantly surprised with the job that Spielberg did, and I think that this film could be a secondary source in some aspects. I did have some problems with the film, but in general I did find that this film did its best to be accurate, unlike most of the other films we have watched. Amistad does a good job with the American judicial system at the time, as well as the brutal treatment of the slaves aboard the transport ships. In addition, the landscape, clothing, and overall depiction of the time is well done by the filmmakers. -Burke Steifman
+I feel that the film was a fairly accurate secondary source because it portrayed the horrible acts the the enslaved people had to endure during their passages. Secondly, it showed the racism even in people who may have appeared as “anti-slavery” supporters such as people using religion to “save the people”. Lastly, the entire court system seemed fairly accurate as well, especially in regards to the actual court course, the translation done, etc. - Erika Lambert
+Question I: Steam-powered vehicles actually existed when //Amistad// takes place. By the late 1830s, people had been experimenting with steam engines for over a hundred years. Steam-powered vehicles were still fairly experimental though. The experiments were mainly in Britain. It’s very possible that influential Americans, like Van Buren, would’ve had access to steam-powered vehicles for things like campaigning, but everything I could find only mentioned the British experiments with steam engines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_steam_road_vehicles. https://sites.google.com/site/motormiscellany/cars-other-vehicles/the-steam-century-2. -Katherine Rayhart
+The film was able to get a decent amount the of history correct, which was more than I was expecting. Having the characters speak their accurate languages was a huge deal to me. It showed that they wanted to keep the story true and portray these people as accurately as possible. Which allowed for the film to be both entertaining and authentic. - Neonya Garner
+This film was fairly accurate as a secondary source. Like all other movies, if you were to use this as a source you would have to verify everything and back it up with other texts. Many times filmmakers will dramatize or "jazz" up scenes so that they will fit with their narrative. However, in this film, the story was already so heartwrenching. Scenes like the suicide of the boat were both real and heartbreaking, likewise, the scene where the character is going around the dock trying to find someone who will speak the language, is also surprisingly accurate. -Annika
 ====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
@@ Line 28: / Line 44: @@
 Although the movie seemed to get a good amount right, there were still some historical inaccuracies. One example of this can be seen at the first portrayal of Josiah Gibbs. When he was first seen in the movie he obviously did not know or speak the language and could not help Baldwin communicate with the Africans. However, in reality he was a talented student of language and was also the one to find the sailor on the dock that spoke both English and Mende to translate before the end of the second trial. -Teresa Felipe
+Though I think the film is historically accurate for the most part, there are some errors in the fact. While I was reading the Wikipedia page on the film, there was this source: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74/, a website article by Eric Foner, a Columbia professor at the time of its writing. He points out a small inaccuracy that I did not realize is that in the film it shows Van Buren campaigning and as Foner points out, candidates did not campaign. More importantly though, the talk of Civil War in the film is not a truly accurate representation of attitudes at the time. Yes, there was no doubt tension in the states, but it was definitely not to the degree portrayed in the film. The film also portrays the Amistad case as a more domestic issue than it really was, it more about the international slave trade than anything else. Another thing that I found interesting in Foner’s article is that the film was distributing educational materials to schools. The education guide, as Foner states, encourages students to study Black abolitionism through the film’s fictional character, Theordore Joadson. This is problematic, because if you were to study Black abolitionism why not do it through real people such as Frederick Douglass. A real-life man who was a former slave and was the founder of an anti-slavery newspaper, The North Star. If you are going to teach students about Black abolitionism, use a real person, not a fictional character. Foner also states that the guide suggests that the Amistad case was a turning point in the struggle to end slavery, despite the case being more about international matters than domestic ones. - Taylor Coleman
+Question II: This is nitpicky, but I want to talk about it anyways. //Amistad// treats the Civil War like it was a possibility at the forefront of everyone’s mind in 1839-1842. When in reality, almost everyone didn’t start worrying about a possible civil war until the late 1840s at the earliest, and the mid-1850s at the latest. Yes, tensions over slavery were a thing when the movie takes place. However, they were //nowhere// near as bad as they would be, almost twenty years later. -Katherine Rayhart
 ====== III.	How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======
@@ Line 39: / Line 59: @@
 I was quite shocked at the level of accuracy in the scenes depicting the Middle Passage, especially after watching the Patriot, which essentially pretended slavery didn’t exist. This speaks to the director’s view that depicting slavery accurately was important and that a film like this could be made. However, there is still a theme of American patriotism and modern values imposed on many of the scenes that take place in the US. It fits within the general theme we’ve witnessed in all the movies we have seen so far: a handful of clear villainous, racist characters, and everyone else being totally fine with peaceful coexistence between different racial groups. Love and understanding triumph and the racist guys lose, which is not how it actually works most of the time. Even the lawyer, Baldwin, who at first was solely focused on the property aspect of the case, has a moment of bonding with Cinque. The shift from the case being won because the Mende were legally not slaves to the triumph of Adams’ speech appealing to the judges is a testament to the movie’s themes of “America is so great.” I was very impressed with Spielberg’s dedication to depicting the Africans’ experiences coming to the US, but once they got there things definitely deteriorated. I guess the moral is that you can’t have it all. (Also, what was with John Quincy Adams openly criticizing the Declaration of Independence and pretending to tear it up? Because somehow I doubt he would have done something like that in real life). — Sasha Poletes
+I think that this film works somewhat well as a primary source about the time in which it was made. As I think it demonstrates a time period where people were fully understanding the gravity of past (and also current) actions rooted in racism. Amistad provides a look into how people understood the weight of slavery and all that it consisted of, as seen in the accuracy of how the events of the Mende were portrayed. -Margaret Jones
+Although I found the film more historically accurate than I anticipated, I still found that it showed the faults of 1990’s historical films just like the others we have discussed this semester. There are a few glaring inaccuracies that prove that although Spielberg created a somewhat historically accurate film, **he still painted the Americans in far too innocent a light. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the slaves because of an international law—it was not a stand against slavery as a whole. The white lawyers and politicians were still depicted as the saviors of the slaves, making them heroes in the film.** In addition, the character Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) was completely fictional, and in fact no black man would have been allowed to be present in the courtroom at this time in history. The film was successful in not dramatizing the story to the extreme. However, it does fall into the trap of portraying the Americans as heroes and saviors, attempting to downplay the racism that was present. -Burke Steifman
 ====== V. The "So, what?" question	======
+This film is set apart from all others that we have seen so far. This film is a grim masterpiece, one that should be praised in depth for its depictions. This is one of the rare times where I will say that the film makers needed to be hold responsibility for their actions, and it is wonderful that they did. This topic is extremely important and something that isn’t always freely spoken about. This film has power, end statement. This was not a film for entertainment in what we consider it, I believe this film is a statement, and very important one at that.
+This story matters, and this movie portrayed it shockingly well. -Michaela Fontenot
@@ Line 50: / Line 78: @@
 This movie walks a weird line between sanitizing and vividly portraying slavery. Some parts of the movie, such as the scenes depicting the Middle Passage, are incredibly raw and emotional, while in others slavery and racism are almost glossed over, like with Joadson’s character, as was mentioned above. (Something that I picked up that I was confused about was that John Quincy Adams referred to the Africans as Black — was the term Black used in the 19th century, or was it more a product of the Civil Rights Movement? Did they use Black as opposed to other words to make Adams seem more acceptable to contemporary audiences? Because his whole anti-slavery speech about the equality of men did not seem historically accurate… But that is somewhat irrelevant to my point.) Watching a movie like this can be especially moving for (White) audiences who probably did not learn much about slavery in school, and certainly were not exposed to the horrors of it. It is incredibly important to portray the full extent of the Mende’s journey because sanitizing it for audiences would be untruthful and incredibly unjust. However, the focus of the trial shifts from being strictly property related into a debate on the morals of slavery, which is not historically accurate. Many of the people helping the Mende appeared much less racist than they would have been in real life, though I did appreciate Tappan’s line about how as good, Christian people it was their duty to “save” the Africans, which touched on but did not necessary delve into some of the overarching “white savior” themes in the movie, of which there were a lot. Overall, **this movie can be incredibly useful to watch, though its educational merits lie more within the experiences of the Africans’ journey than in the parts that focus on the American characters, since those are more sanitized for White audiences.** There is a certain level almost of allowing other characters to be racist and openly pro-slavery, like the Spanish queen, while the American characters are portrayed as much more progressive than in reality. - Sasha Poletes
+I think that this film gives a really important look into an event in history that isn’t always at the forefront of history classes. And I think it does so in a very effective and realistic way as well. A lot of this movie is quite hard to watch because of experience of enslaved people, but I think that it is also so important to watch because of the weight of our past. -Margaret Jones
+Amistad was a tough watch, but I would say it is also a necessary watch. The film depicts the slave trade that is meant to make you uncomfortable. You are meant to feel uncomfortable watching this film and I think that is a good thing. Unlike The Patriot, this film actually addresses slavery and the horror of it. Compared to The Patriot, this film depicts what Americans are not proud of. For a long time, we did not want to acknowledge the horrors of slavery, but this film makes me you think about, makes you understand, and makes you feel uneasy about it. The problems of the film are valid and do need to be addressed, but I also think it is worth noting that the way Spielberg depicted slavery is harsh, but it is one of the most accurate portrayals of the time. Comparatively, The Patriot seems like a major step backwards considering slavery is ignored. - Taylor Coleman
+Overall, I very much enjoyed this movie’s portrayal of history and found it the most accurate out of all the films we watched. The film was very difficult to watch and I found myself having to stop it because it was so intense at times…. particularly the scenes on the ship. I do think this movie can teach many people about how horrendous slavery was but also how it created so much corruption and problems in the United States. - Erika Lambert
+Like all Hollywood films, Amistad did not hit every detail on the head. However, the amount of accuracies that were able to be put in the film made it all the more impactful. It is important for a history such as this one (lesser known) to be portrayed as correctly as possible, and I believe Stephen Spielberg was able to do that while still having an entertaining film. - Neonya Garner
+I think this film was able to vividly display the hardship of being a slave. At times the movie seemed very performative and dramatic, but for the most part, it was able to portray slaves in an authentic way we haven’t seen in other movies. The hurt, confusion, sadness, and anger were almost palpable. The film took an important topic and did not shy away from the brutality of it like some films would because it might make their audience uncomfortable. -Annika Sypher