Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments-2024 [2024/09/26 06:40] – [The "So What" Question] 76.78.172.114
+++ 329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments-2024 [2024/09/30 21:34] (current) – 76.78.172.116
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 This movie works relatively well for me as a secondary source. As far as telling the story of Cinque and the slave trade in general (especially the progression of slave laws before the Civil War broke out) the movie does a really good job. Anyone beginning to learn about this topic in school or just clueless in general would be able to gain a pretty good understanding. However, some of the courtroom scenes were a little exaggerated and maybe not as accurate as the other parts of the movie. --Emma F.
+In terms of accuracy, the Amistad does far better in that regard than
+the other films we've watched so far this semester. It works as a secondary source due to the fact that it stuck fairly close to the accuracy of the events that transpired, from the horrors of the Middle Passage, the insurrection of the Mende on the Amistad, their capture and imprisonment in the US, and the later court trials they had to go through to achieve freedom. A big thing that I thought the movie did especially well with was in depicting the language barrier that existed and how frustrating it would have been trying to fight for your freedom but not being understand due to a difference in language.-Vumiliya V.
+One facet of history that Amistad gets right was the transatlantic journey undertaken by slave ships known as the Middle Passage, and the indescribable horror that awaited those being transported within the timbers of those aforementioned vessels. Depictions of the Middle Passage were not unheard of in American media by 1997, though they were undoubtedly uncommon (Roots, which came out in 1977, is the only prior depiction that comes to mind as being widely-viewed). Not only is it important for depictions of the Middle Passage to be spread by films like Amistad, it is crucial that they actually be ACCURATE. Based on the autobiography of Olaudah Equiano, it seems safe to suggest that the depiction of what occurred on ships like the Tecora was an accurate one, and portrays the inhuman manner in which Africans being transported were treated with, as well as the high mortality rate amongst the enslaved. -John M.
+I think that Amistad works very well as a secondary source. Maybe some viewers actually were led to believe the filmmakers got every single detail right, but for the most I would assume they know the filmmakers are going to take creative liberties. Even if they exaggerated the characters and scenes, it is still a very valuable film in bringing awareness to this compelling story. It may not have been able to capture all the complexities and brutality of what happened, but it gave the viewer some insight into what the slaves had to go through. Amistad was able to do that as well with detailed contexts and scenes to get a feel for what the atmosphere was like. One of the smaller details I noticed during one of the courtroom scenes was Cinque starting to sweat and even freak out during the session. This seemed to me signs of PTSD, most likely from all the white men around him, reminding him of the terrible things that he had to go through. Seeing that showed me that the makers of this film did give a lot of effort into trying to get the story right. While they weren’t perfect, overall Amistad is a great secondary source for people to have to introduce them to this part of history. -Matt S.
+I think that the Amistad movie portrayed a lot of the history accurately. Most of the characters were real and did things that the real character would have done. It also shined light on the court scenes that transpired after what had happened on the Amistad. I think that they did what they could, while taking some liberties to try and make the movie more exciting or interesting when they thought they had to. - Kazu Ferris
 ====== Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
@@ Line 37: / Line 49: @@
 The overall story of the Amistad is quite accurate, however, the film takes liberties by misleading the direction of the case, falsely representing African culture, and focusing too much on white abolitionists. Firstly, the film gives the impression that the Supreme Court's ruling on the Amistad case was a major step toward abolishing slavery, but in reality, the case was about the Atlantic slave trade and property rights. Secondly, the film portrays the Africans in ways that falsify their experiences, such as by making Christianity a positive force in their lives. Finally, the film focuses on a group mostly composed of white abolitionists with one token black abolitionist who is unimportant to the film’s plot. The story of the Amistad was updated and told through the perspective of morality instead of legality. - Sam B
+A big thing that I noticed while watching this film was that it seriously overestimated the impact the Amistad would have in the continuance of slavery in America. While it's true that the case gained national attention due to the nature of it, there was little to no fear of civil war erupting within the states because of the case. In the movie however, there are constant mentions of the fear of civil war. Another thing was the character of Theodore Joadson who was one that was completely made up for the film.In this way, the film does a poor job of depicting race relations due to the fact that Joadson, and other black people excluding the Mende, were seen within the courtroom when it's all too likely that they would have been kept out of court proceedings. Another thing that stuck out to me was the campaigning of Martin Van Buren for president early on in the movie. While I'm not quite sure when exactly this change took place, I do know that during this time period in question openly/publicly campaigning was something that wasn't done by candidates due to the fact that it looked bad. -Vumiliya V.
+One of the biggest historical inaccuracies I saw in La Amistad is the amount of women and children on the ship. Historically it was mainly men who were brought over since they were valued higher since they would be stronger workers. I think they did this to make the audience more invested in the atrocities that were happening since having families strikes closer to home. This aligns with the film’s general tendency to exaggerate the moral emotional stakes of the story. Doing things like condensing and simplifying the legal battles. And creating a main protagonist out of Cinque to make the audience have someone to focus on. -Ryan K.
+Amistad seemed to me the most historically accurate films out of the ones we watched so far. That being said, it still had its inaccuracies and exaggerations. For starters, Cinque was shown in the movie as the strong leader who gave tons of hope and ideas of freedom to the rest of the people there with him. While this was partially true, it is known from accounts that his traits were exaggerated to portray him as one of if not the protagonist in the film. Another inaccuracy was Joadson, the character played by Morgan Freeman. Joadson was a fictional character used in the film. He was used to represent all the black abolitionists back when this happened. Furthermore, the way Spielberg showed their victory in court made it seem as though this was a major stepping stone in stopping slavery in the U.S. It was a big help in stopping the slave trade and giving help to the abolitionist movement. However, it didn't do anything in stopping slavery domestically. -Matt S.
+The movie portrays Cinque as a sort of character that many people might have believed him to be. However, it is not known if he was truly like this or not. I am sure they did this to make the movie more entertaining in some way, but it is not truly historically accurate in this sense. -Kazu Ferris
 ====== How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======
 I think that this movie, in its effort to remain as true to the original tale as possible, did not miss the mark too heavily. To speak more to the specific sources assigned, the creators of the movie made up Morgan Freeman's character, Joadson, but I felt that they emulated the role that Black Abolitionists played in the overall setting of the abolitionist movement. This is shown in the source about David Walker, who was a Black abolitionist at the time and though he did not mention the Amistad directly (this excerpt was before the case), the points he makes and his feelings about slavery is something Joadson's character emulates. Everything else regarding this case seemed to be on-point, save for the translator. In the sources, it mentions that the interpreter did not actually speak Mende, but a version of the overarching language. This meant that the on-point, completely accurate translations happening in the movie was not what actually happened in real life, but rather a romanticized version of it. - Caty
-The film takes liberties in the portrayal of the Mende people and especially Joseph Cinque for dramatic effect. For example, he is shown with a very exaggerated and intensely aggressive personality and we have no idea if he had any of the characteristics or outbursts depicted in the movie. This portrayal is not based on fact, and not much is even known about Cinque. These choices cause the Mende people as a whole to appear wild and somewhat uncivilized. The film also shows President Van Buren almost non-autonomous and not able to make his own decisions. His advisor is played up as the villain who directs him on how to proceed. This removes the responsibility off of Van Buren, who in actuality, made these decision and chose to pursue this path. -Jennifer
+The film takes liberties in the portrayal of the Mende people and especially Joseph Cinque for dramatic effect. For example, he is shown with a very exaggerated and intensely aggressive personality and we have no idea if he had any of the characteristics or outbursts depicted in the movie. This portrayal is not based on fact, and not much is even known about Cinque. These choices cause the Mende people as a whole to appear wild and somewhat uncivilized. The film also shows President Van Buren almost non-autonomous and not able to make his own decisions. His advisor is played up as the villain who directs him on how to proceed. This removes the responsibility off of Van Buren, who in actuality, made these decisions and chose to pursue this path. -Jennifer
+Amistad seems to be a film that takes certain liberties pertaining to the facts of the events surrounding the case on which the movie is based, though whether or not these diversions from the truth are justified or not is a different matter. For instance, in the Tappan letter, the abolitionists states that the Africans had not been shackled (‘manacled’, as he puts it in archaic terms) since their being placed in American custody. However, throughout the movie, Spielberg depicts the Africans in chains and ragged clothing; a depiction that is contrary to Tappan’s firsthand account. That being said, I believe that this is an inaccuracy that is perfectly reasonable, and had a particular use for its inclusion. The utilization of chains provides a more striking visual representation for the lack of freedoms that the Africans had, making it all the more powerful for the audience when they are finally unshackled. An instance where certain historical liberties being taken might have been detrimental to the surrounding historical narrative comes from the film’s rather obvious utilization of the well-documented “white savior” trope. The film places an excessive emphasis on the fictionalized version of Baldwin. For instance, it portrays him as the one who reached out to John Quincy Adams, rather than the Africans themselves. This distortion of the facts of the case takes the initiative away from the Africans in freeing themselves - an initiative which they very much possessed and utilized. - John M.
 ====== How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made? ======
-This film shows the increased focus on race relation.Rodney King was badly beaten by LA police which then caused riots in the early 90s.Films like Amistad reflected a growinginterest in confronting slavery and racial injustice. This time period also showed us diversity in films. There was an increase in telling stories that are just not about white people. Black stories and films were more cretaed to raise awareness to the racial injustice in the country.
+This film shows the increased focus on race relation.Rodney King was badly beaten by LA police which then caused riots in the early 90s.Films like Amistad reflected a growinginterest in confronting slavery and racial injustice. This time period also showed us diversity in films. There was an increase in telling stories that are just not about white people. Black stories and films were more cretaed to raise awareness to the racial injustice in the country. - Jedidia
 The fact that this movie was made only a few years before The Patriot comes through in its similar treatment of a messy, extended historical process as a neat and satisfyingly climactic event. Both possess a hopeful theme of freedom as an American ideal. It feels very patriotic, despite the subject matter. The 1990s saw many of these sorts of epic historical dramas being made, such as Last of the Mohicans, Braveheart, or Saving Private Ryan. The fact that such a movie was made about this specific case, which is perhaps not known to the average person, shows that this genre was having a good run and doing very well for itself. Doubly so that it was made by a major studio and directed by arguably one of the most well-known modern filmmakers. — Claire
@@ Line 62: / Line 89: @@
 I think this film is important in terms of history and history in film. It teaches people about an unknown event, while also alluding to the fact that slavery, was in fact, this brutal and inhumane. While this story is relatively unknown, it has a well known director that probably drew people into see the film. They went to see it for the name, and hopefully stayed because it taught them something new. I personally have never heard of this event in history before, and as someone who likes history, I am always interested to learn about something new. Even if the movie ends up not being accurate, I still find myself researching what it's trying to depict to depart fact from fiction. While this film is mostly accurate, that is not the case for all films. Even so, it introduces the concept to an audience that otherwise was not being taught or talked about. - Emma Galvin
+There are few movies like this that show the realities of suffering. Twelve Years a Slave comes to mind, but I can’t think of any others that really get into the dehumanizing experience of slavery: especially on the slave passage. Having the actors be nude brings another level of humanity to it because it’s a bit shocking. Into the 20th and 21st centuries, people have become immune and callous to the experience of slavery because it was so long ago, that it has now been reduced to lines in a textbook. We all know about slavery, but often don’t stop to truly have empathy for their position. Sitting through what feels like an eternity of agonizing scenes is nothing compared to what these people’s lives were like. Its important to understand it, and though its hard to watch media like this, it remains one of the only ways to grab people’s attention and to preserve these emotional stories.
+ -Jennifer
+This movie is important because it shows the brutality while also showing the legal side of history. It tells a story of human rights and the battle for it. Also, it shows how it was about whether they were acquired legally or illegally, taking away from other important things like their human rights. It also shows how important legal battles such as these, and other such big cases, can affect history up and down the country. Ultimately, *La Amistad* highlights the power of the legal system to both challenge and uphold justice in pivotal moments of history.-Ryan K.