Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments-2022 [2022/09/22 00:30] – jones_margaret
+++ 329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments-2022 [2026/10/01 14:03] (current) – 186.247.173.21
@@ Line 2: / Line 2: @@
 ====== I.	How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?  ======
+I think it works well as a secondary source. According to the primary sources given to us, as well as what we'd learned during class discussions, the visceral brutality and cruelty of what enslaved people went through in the trans-Atlantic trade was very well exemplified during this film. It was also said during I believe the first hearing that, within the slavery system in Africa, while it was still filled with human rights violations and misery, it was no where near as cruel and inhumane as what the enslaved people had to go through at the hands of the Spaniards on the le Armistad. This is supported by Equiano's publication of his experience in which he discusses the differences in the treatment of enslaved people between African and white slaveholders. - Leo Tooks
+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 9: / Line 15: @@
 Based on what we had learned in class, I thought this movie was accurate to the actual history. They depicted the events accurately and in order of what happened. I thought it was obviously a bit dramatized but was impressed with the accuracy throughout. I think it could work well as a secondary source and as a way to get people interested in history. -Sophie Weber
+The film depicts a brutality that is shocking to the audience. I think it portrays an effective visual of slavery and the Middle Passage in a way that I don't think I've seen before. We've all read about or learned about slavery in classes, but seeing portrayed with what I would call an accuracy of a kind, it made it real. There was a level of dramatization that comes from a partial goal of entertainment value, but as a secondary source, I think there was also a very deliberate goal of accuracy in terms of how the horrific suffering of the Middle Passage was shown. -Leah Boucher
 The brutality of the Middle Passage seemed to ring particularly true to me. The way slaves were treated and how they often died on the journey was treated as seriously as it was in reality. Some of the most harrowing images in the film come from that section, and I felt like it was really effective in portraying this brutal history in a way that made it feel immediate and real. The way slaves were kept in the ship, how some committed suicide or died on the journey, and how slavers would throw slaves overboard if they did not have enough provisions were all accurately portrayed here. I thought it was somewhat of a bold choice to show so much accuracy in these scenes; it was probably something most American audiences had not seen in a mainstream film before. - Maris Tiller
@@ Line 17: / Line 25: @@
 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 30: / Line 48: @@
 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 37: / Line 59: @@
 The readings from abolitionist viewpoints, specifically //An Abolitionist Defends..,// describes the Mende as they are in prison, and it differs greatly from the film. Many are described as cheerful and "full of hilarity," and most importantly, as orderly. In the film's version of their time in the New Haven prison, there was chaos and hostility at times when the abolitionists visited, and **though it was definitely just to dramatize and emphasize the language barrier, it felt like it was doing a disservice to a people who were already being stereotyped as "savage."** -- Jane Michael
 ====== IV.	How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ======
+Despite its many well-researched aspects and bold depictions of the brutal conditions enslaved people were forced to go through in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, it still has elements of overly-optimistic 90s American nationalism and white savior themes. There was also just some classic 90s American movie structure elements such as the heroic plot-line, a happy and triumphant ending, fairly clear good and bad guys, and American patriotism.- Leo Tooks
 Based on an article by the Baltimore Sun, producer Debbie Allen was adamant about wanting to get this movie made but was met with backlash from studios and directors as they did not want to make a movie based on a slave boat. **It discusses how Spielberg depicts gruesome scenes instead of just implying them to get the audience to understand what happened.**(https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1997-11-30-1997334068-story.html) -Sophie Weber
@@ Line 44: / Line 68: @@
 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
+I think this film shows a really important piece of history in a way that forces the audience to confront the violence and horrors of slavery as a part of our history as a nation. Film makers didn't shy away from depicting an event and a practice that many historical films of the era sidestep or downplay. It's an important visual and one that stays with you in a way that is painfully necessary. -Leah Boucher
 I think this film has a lot more going for it than many we have already seen in this class. In addition to the moving performances by the actors, the fantastic score provided by John Williams, and the fantastic visuals and directing of Spielberg, the film got a lot right in terms of history. I think it is important as Americans that we examine our nation’s history, our nation’s crimes, our sins. While a little gratuitous at times, Spielberg’s film presents a viscerally real and painful reminder of the way enslaved Africans were treated, and the way white Americans and Europeans viewed them. The film does have some issues, however. Many of the figures depicted in the film talk about the threat of a civil war between North and South. This is most certainly a result of our position in history. We see conflict between abolitionists and slave holding southerners and conclude that this was obviously another steppingstone in the long path to the Civil War and eventual emancipation. But to the people who actually lived during this time, that idea could be nothing further from the truth. The Civil War would not take place for another twenty years, and many of the abolitionist leaders portrayed in the film were anything but “woke” as we would put it today. While I don’t think this is a bad film, we should always be careful of imposing our own understanding of the past on to the people who actually lived it. –Lucca Crowe
@@ Line 57: / Line 86: @@
 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