Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace:
329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments-2026

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments-2026 [2026/10/01 01:27] – 199.111.65.35329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments-2026 [2026/10/01 14:35] (current) – 199.111.65.11
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 As with all historical films, there is always an aspect of surrealism embedded within the narrative, and in the case of Spielberg’s Amistad, I’d argue that it remains historically true, with its embellishments—that being its dialogue and generated characters, such as Morgan Freeman’s Theodore Joadson—emphasizing the movie's messaging, rather than hindering it. First, while a great portion of the film delves into the Amistad case in a judicial setting, I want to reflect back on the film’s depiction of the voyage of the enslaved Mende people and its correlation to an excerpt from The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, specifically the portrayal of the voyage itself. Olaudah Equiano retells how he, and many other such enslaved people, were confined within the ship’s cargo hold, only perpetuating their poor conditions with “the heat of the climate, added to the number on the ship, which was crowded…almost suffocated us.” Cinque’s owns summary of the Middle Passage is a near replica of this exact scenario, and it's visually portrayed with a deep, unsettling poignancy as they suffer under the abuse of their Spanish captors upon the La Amistad. - Bailee E.  As with all historical films, there is always an aspect of surrealism embedded within the narrative, and in the case of Spielberg’s Amistad, I’d argue that it remains historically true, with its embellishments—that being its dialogue and generated characters, such as Morgan Freeman’s Theodore Joadson—emphasizing the movie's messaging, rather than hindering it. First, while a great portion of the film delves into the Amistad case in a judicial setting, I want to reflect back on the film’s depiction of the voyage of the enslaved Mende people and its correlation to an excerpt from The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, specifically the portrayal of the voyage itself. Olaudah Equiano retells how he, and many other such enslaved people, were confined within the ship’s cargo hold, only perpetuating their poor conditions with “the heat of the climate, added to the number on the ship, which was crowded…almost suffocated us.” Cinque’s owns summary of the Middle Passage is a near replica of this exact scenario, and it's visually portrayed with a deep, unsettling poignancy as they suffer under the abuse of their Spanish captors upon the La Amistad. - Bailee E. 
 +
 +I think the movie gets the revolt right and that it really happened. African americans did  board the spanish ship and then took control of the ship during the course of it's journey. I believe the film also delievered the questions of if these african americans were legally captured or if they were free in nature who was kidnapped inappropriately. It also suggest supreme court actions of ruling in favor of those slaves and allowed for them to later gain freedom. Equallity of all people was not suported by the white man and  thought they were inferior. When calhoun gave his speech he used biblical gorundings for justification. The case was placed appropriately against slavery continuing and highlighted the large conflicts of slavery and abolotion. ---jess. C. 
  
 This movie gets a lot right about the story of La Amistad. It gets right that it was often Africans kidnapping other Africans to then sell to European traders for hard to obtain goods like guns. The scenes showing the middle passage are also incredibly and terrifyingly accurate, showing the true brutality of the process, as well as the odd mix of Christianity (when they get on the boat, there is a priest there). The story of these specific captives is also told truthfully; they are first sold in Havana by Portuguese slave traders to Spanish ones who plan to take them to another part of Cuba, but when the captives revolt, they keep two enslavers alive to get them back to Africa however secretly direct the ship to America where the situation immediately plays out in the courts. This movie too considers the U.S. political system and the political intrigue that would play into the case’s appeal to the Supreme Court. We are also shown the appeals of Spanish Queen Isabella II, even if they are a little exaggerated (example being when she is shown jumping up and down on a bed). One other truth that is very rarely shown in similar films is the cultural divide of the different groups, there are three languages that are being thrown around here — English, Spanish, and Mende. Of course, there would be difficulty in understanding the captives and of course it would be hard finding a translator. Similarly, the cultural practices of the African captives and Americans feel so alien to each group. The scene where Baldwin is trying to explain to Cinque that they must try the case again and Cinque’s confusion over how one can simply get rid of a “chief” drives this point home, the two parties are coming from such different political and cultural understandings. While the movie does take some fictional liberties — like in the amalgamation character of Joadson — the movie remains astoundingly accurate.  – Nora M. This movie gets a lot right about the story of La Amistad. It gets right that it was often Africans kidnapping other Africans to then sell to European traders for hard to obtain goods like guns. The scenes showing the middle passage are also incredibly and terrifyingly accurate, showing the true brutality of the process, as well as the odd mix of Christianity (when they get on the boat, there is a priest there). The story of these specific captives is also told truthfully; they are first sold in Havana by Portuguese slave traders to Spanish ones who plan to take them to another part of Cuba, but when the captives revolt, they keep two enslavers alive to get them back to Africa however secretly direct the ship to America where the situation immediately plays out in the courts. This movie too considers the U.S. political system and the political intrigue that would play into the case’s appeal to the Supreme Court. We are also shown the appeals of Spanish Queen Isabella II, even if they are a little exaggerated (example being when she is shown jumping up and down on a bed). One other truth that is very rarely shown in similar films is the cultural divide of the different groups, there are three languages that are being thrown around here — English, Spanish, and Mende. Of course, there would be difficulty in understanding the captives and of course it would be hard finding a translator. Similarly, the cultural practices of the African captives and Americans feel so alien to each group. The scene where Baldwin is trying to explain to Cinque that they must try the case again and Cinque’s confusion over how one can simply get rid of a “chief” drives this point home, the two parties are coming from such different political and cultural understandings. While the movie does take some fictional liberties — like in the amalgamation character of Joadson — the movie remains astoundingly accurate.  – Nora M.
 +
 +This movie is effective at showing the language barrier between the Mende captives, their Spanish captors, and the Americans involved in the court case. The movie shows the lawyer and abolitionists searching widely for someone who might be able to translate in Mende language for their testimony. There was great diversity in the languages of people in Africa that could have made this difficult. It showcases the distinct cultural differences among slaves that were being held captive, which is historically significant to appreciate that slavery was a massively destructive force to these differences. -Kendall 
  
 The film does a good job of showcasing a reconstruction of the Middle Passage, prioritizing historical gravity and the scale of brutality over audience comfort. One example that stood out to me was the inclusion of the Lomboko slave fortress, in which the film strips away the romanticism often associated with historical dramas, grounding the narrative in the systemic betrayal of Africans by both local tribes and European enslavers. The inclusion of specific  details such as the forced dancing with the crewmen and exercise to maintain muscle mass, the starvation-level rations, and the acts of captives throwing themselves overboard, showcasing their last bit of agency, serves to confront the audience with a small taste of the dehumanizing nature of the centuries-long transatlantic slave trade. These sometimes fleeting moments of historical fact are essential to the film's integrity, serving as testimonies to the suffering endured by real individuals. These moments collectively dismantle the sanitized version of history that we are so often fed in mass media. The film captures how these individuals were reduced to cargo and trapped in a horrific liminal space where their humanity and agency was systematically stripped from them. The film also focused on the linguistic divide that highlighted the deep, intentional divide between the captors and the captive. By emphasizing this barrier, the film illustrates how language was weaponized to strip the captives of their identity, ensuring they remained "others" in the eyes of their oppressors in a very dehumanizing way. - Izabella M The film does a good job of showcasing a reconstruction of the Middle Passage, prioritizing historical gravity and the scale of brutality over audience comfort. One example that stood out to me was the inclusion of the Lomboko slave fortress, in which the film strips away the romanticism often associated with historical dramas, grounding the narrative in the systemic betrayal of Africans by both local tribes and European enslavers. The inclusion of specific  details such as the forced dancing with the crewmen and exercise to maintain muscle mass, the starvation-level rations, and the acts of captives throwing themselves overboard, showcasing their last bit of agency, serves to confront the audience with a small taste of the dehumanizing nature of the centuries-long transatlantic slave trade. These sometimes fleeting moments of historical fact are essential to the film's integrity, serving as testimonies to the suffering endured by real individuals. These moments collectively dismantle the sanitized version of history that we are so often fed in mass media. The film captures how these individuals were reduced to cargo and trapped in a horrific liminal space where their humanity and agency was systematically stripped from them. The film also focused on the linguistic divide that highlighted the deep, intentional divide between the captors and the captive. By emphasizing this barrier, the film illustrates how language was weaponized to strip the captives of their identity, ensuring they remained "others" in the eyes of their oppressors in a very dehumanizing way. - Izabella M
Line 19: Line 23:
  
 This movie depicts the events of what had happened on the La Amistad pretty accurately. Most movies don't go as far to show the brutality, but this movie did. It showed the accuracy of slave ships as they would be 'stacked' and compacted within the lower levels of the ship. Hearing about an event and seeing an event makes a completely different experience for the viewer. This is a graphic movie that portrays this experience rather well when it came to the transatlantic slave trade. -- Shelby Hawley This movie depicts the events of what had happened on the La Amistad pretty accurately. Most movies don't go as far to show the brutality, but this movie did. It showed the accuracy of slave ships as they would be 'stacked' and compacted within the lower levels of the ship. Hearing about an event and seeing an event makes a completely different experience for the viewer. This is a graphic movie that portrays this experience rather well when it came to the transatlantic slave trade. -- Shelby Hawley
 +
 +Despite its narrative embellishments, the film accurately captures several fundamental historical events and milestones. Most notably, it offers a brutal and historically grounded depiction of the middle passage, depicting the extreme overcrowding, forced feeding, brutal floggings, and the practice of drowning chained captives to preserve rations or collect insurance. The film also accurately portrays the core 1839 uprising aboard La Amistad, where West African captives led by Sengbe Pieh unshackled themselves, seized sugar cane knives, and took control of the vessel after killing the captain and cook. Furthermore, it faithfully shows how the Spanish navigators, Pedro Montez and Jose Ruiz, tricked the captives by steering east toward Africa during the day while sailing northwest at night, which ultimately brought the vessel to Long Island. The movie also correctly details the pivotal linguistic breakthrough and final legal victory. It depicts how abolitionists located James Covey, a Mende-speaking sailor, after Yale linguist Josiah Gibbs learned to count aloud to ten in Mende along the eastern docks, finally enabling the captives to tell their own story in court. Lastly, the overarching legal trajectory remains historically accurate: attorney Roger Sherman Baldwin and former President John Quincy Adams defended the Africans before the U.S. Supreme Court, successfully securing a ruling that affirmed they were free, illegally trafficked individuals rather than lawful property, which ultimately allowed the survivors to return home to Sierra Leone. - Tyler J.
 +
 +I think the film gets a lot more right than wrong. Especially compared to other movies we discussed. The depicts how Africans would sell other Africans to colonists for weapons and goods. The film also does not shy away from the brutality of slavery, and the conditions of the ships. The film depicts slaves being  brutalized and whipped, how they killed slaves they deemed as “sick” . I also think the film depicts the language barrier well. The barrier between the slaves and slavers enhances the confusion and terror the slaves must have been feeling. I think the language barrier between Joseph Ciniqué and Roger Baldwin was another standout for me. The scene where they meet in particular is very strong, you can feel the confusion and the attempt to communicate. Especially through the use of trial and error. Overall the depiction of the language barrier felt very accurate to me, especially the work arounds that were used, such as having translators
 +
 +-Ellie Irwin 
 +
 +Amistad gets the basic historical story remarkably right. The Africans were kidnapped illegally, revolted aboard the ship, were captured in American waters, and then became the center of a legal battle over whether they were people entitled to freedom or property belonging to Spanish slaveholders. The film also accurately shows the involvement of abolitionists, the Van Buren administration's opposition, John Quincy Adams's appearance before the Supreme Court, and the eventual ruling that the Africans were free. Where the film becomes more problematic is in making that victory seem like a broader triumph over American slavery, when the actual ruling was much narrower and did little to challenge slavery itself. - Todd H.
  
 ======Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact?====== ======Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact?======
Line 24: Line 36:
 Now, although I previously stated that I believe Spielberg’s embellishments of the narrative enhance the film’s messaging, that does not directly imply that all are intrinsically accurate, or that the film aims to pretend to be so. One such case is the letter addressed to John Quincy Adams. In the film, Roger Sherman Baldwin, the lawyer presiding over the Aimstad case and the 32nd governor of Connecticut, writes it as he pleads for Adams to support their case as it ascends to the Supreme Court. However, the original letter—referenced, but not accurately depicted in the film—was written by a young boy named Kale (https://www.masshist.org/database/16 Now, although I previously stated that I believe Spielberg’s embellishments of the narrative enhance the film’s messaging, that does not directly imply that all are intrinsically accurate, or that the film aims to pretend to be so. One such case is the letter addressed to John Quincy Adams. In the film, Roger Sherman Baldwin, the lawyer presiding over the Aimstad case and the 32nd governor of Connecticut, writes it as he pleads for Adams to support their case as it ascends to the Supreme Court. However, the original letter—referenced, but not accurately depicted in the film—was written by a young boy named Kale (https://www.masshist.org/database/16
 ), one of the defendants, who appeals to Adams' “love (of the) Mendi people.” In the original document, there is a distinct lack of classical recall, or a Ciceronian quotation, but a simple question: “We want you to ask the Court what we have done wrong.” - Bailee E. ), one of the defendants, who appeals to Adams' “love (of the) Mendi people.” In the original document, there is a distinct lack of classical recall, or a Ciceronian quotation, but a simple question: “We want you to ask the Court what we have done wrong.” - Bailee E.
 +
 +The legal, courtroom, procedural, and criminal justice history of the actual United States v. The Amistad case is highly inaccurate and dramatized at times. John Quincy Adam’s “speech” took seven or eight hours and lasted over two days.  The film sidelined the legal minutiae surrounding the case that actually carried the day in the courtroom. Nonetheless, film primarily uses the historical and topical events of this time to explore the contradictions between the reality of our nation’s past and its founding ideals with its democratic, Enlightenment, and Christian theological influences, symbolized in large part by the elder Adams (literal child of the American Revolution). I think this raises some key questions. What purpose can dramatization and inaccuracies serve in a historical film? Can historical accuracy or true representation of events be justifiably sacrificed for a greater purpose? Can they give way to larger, more general historical truths? I usually watch such films with a very critical eye towards inaccuracy, but this film has made me reconsider that, sometimes, it can work in a way that honors the spirit and message of a film. - Charles Salcedo
  
 The historical inaccuracies of this movie, while present, are thankfully less vivid than in other films. The story is obviously dramatized, but still reflects historical accounts of the transatlantic journey, and pretty accurately depicts the conditions on the ship, and how people end up being captured by slavers. And while I understand the need to simplify a story enough to fit onto a screen for under three hours, a blaring error was a generalization of the Africans being transported. In the film, they were all of the Mende people. They could speak the same language, had the same traditions, and dressed similarly. But in reality, there were multiple cultures represented. A lot from the Mende, but also from the Congo and other Central African regions. -Katie D. The historical inaccuracies of this movie, while present, are thankfully less vivid than in other films. The story is obviously dramatized, but still reflects historical accounts of the transatlantic journey, and pretty accurately depicts the conditions on the ship, and how people end up being captured by slavers. And while I understand the need to simplify a story enough to fit onto a screen for under three hours, a blaring error was a generalization of the Africans being transported. In the film, they were all of the Mende people. They could speak the same language, had the same traditions, and dressed similarly. But in reality, there were multiple cultures represented. A lot from the Mende, but also from the Congo and other Central African regions. -Katie D.
 +
 +The biggest inaccuracies in Amistad come from Hollywood simplifying a complicated legal and political case. Theodore Joadson is fictional, Baldwin's role is altered, Van Buren is made into a more direct villain, and John Quincy Adams's importance is exaggerated to give the movie a dramatic climax. The Middle Passage sequence is historically representative, but we cannot assume everything shown happened exactly that way to Cinqué. My biggest problem is that the film begins as the Africans' story of freeing themselves, but gradually turns into an American story in which abolitionists, lawyers, the Founding Fathers, and especially John Quincy Adams become responsible for giving them freedom. Historically, the Africans had already taken the first and most dangerous step toward freedom themselves when they seized the ship. - Todd H.
 ======How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources (as presented in class)?====== ======How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources (as presented in class)?======
  
 This movie placed a heavy emphasis on the moral questions of slavery and put that into the arguments made by the lawyers who were representing the captured from La Amistad. John Quincy Adams gives a rousing speech to the Supreme Court full of references to American founding fathers and documents as well as to the natural state of man — that of course being that all men are and should be free. By placing these arguments at the end of the movie, ultimately being one of the last arguments we hear, the audience may assume that this is ultimately what won the case. However, the case was really won on technicalities — the captives were born in Africa and were illegally transported, the Treaty of San Lorenzo did not apply to human beings, and the mutiny was an act of self-defense. The beginning of the movie does emphasize these original points and technicalities, but by leaving the audience with moral questions about the basis of the nation, it is trying to connect with an American audience and demonstrate that ultimately our belief in freedom will win. This interpretation does leave the audience with lots to think about, however, it may deceive the audience into believing this total win of American morals. – Nora M. This movie placed a heavy emphasis on the moral questions of slavery and put that into the arguments made by the lawyers who were representing the captured from La Amistad. John Quincy Adams gives a rousing speech to the Supreme Court full of references to American founding fathers and documents as well as to the natural state of man — that of course being that all men are and should be free. By placing these arguments at the end of the movie, ultimately being one of the last arguments we hear, the audience may assume that this is ultimately what won the case. However, the case was really won on technicalities — the captives were born in Africa and were illegally transported, the Treaty of San Lorenzo did not apply to human beings, and the mutiny was an act of self-defense. The beginning of the movie does emphasize these original points and technicalities, but by leaving the audience with moral questions about the basis of the nation, it is trying to connect with an American audience and demonstrate that ultimately our belief in freedom will win. This interpretation does leave the audience with lots to think about, however, it may deceive the audience into believing this total win of American morals. – Nora M.
 +
 +In contrast to the historical record, this film reframes a complex dispute over international maritime law into a monumental moral trial on the legitimacy of domestic American slavery. Historians note that the actual 1839–1841 court proceedings centered on specific questions of Admiralty law, salvage claims, executive authority, and international treaties, namely Pinckney's Treaty of 1795 and anti-slave trade agreements between Britain and Spain. To fit traditional Hollywood trial tropes, the film shifts the primary legal debate to whether the captives were born in Cuba or illegally kidnapped in West Africa, transforming the narrative into an uplifting celebration of universal liberty. Furthermore, the film exaggerates the historical impact of the verdict by presenting it as a direct catalyst for the American Civil War. In contrast, scholars emphasize that the ruling set minimal domestic legal precedent against American slavery, which persisted for another twenty years. To generate artificial character arcs and commercial appeal, the film significantly alters the real-life historical figures involved in the defense. Roger Sherman Baldwin is depicted as an opportunist, property attorney who undergoes a gradual moral awakening. In reality, Baldwin was already a prominent Connecticut politician, the grandson of a Founding Father, and a deeply committed abolitionist recruited specifically by Lewis Tappan. - Tyler J.
 +
 ======How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made?====== ======How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made?======
  
Line 42: Line 61:
  
 This movie came out at a similar time that "The Patriot" did so it shares similarities. It reflects the idea of dramatized storytelling, especially in the court room scene. While it was intense, the writers wanted to appeal to their audience, so they made it incredibly dramatic. --Shelby Hawley This movie came out at a similar time that "The Patriot" did so it shares similarities. It reflects the idea of dramatized storytelling, especially in the court room scene. While it was intense, the writers wanted to appeal to their audience, so they made it incredibly dramatic. --Shelby Hawley
 +
 +The film also reveals the specific commercial considerations and audience expectations that dictated 1990s studio productions. To provide box-office insurance for a major historical drama, the producers relied on bankable stars including Matthew McConaughey, Anthony Hopkins, and Morgan Freeman. Because Morgan Freeman was a well-established star in 1997 while lead actor Djimon Hounsou was relatively unknown, the filmmakers created and inserted the fictional Black abolitionist Theodore Joadson to boost audience interest and depict 19th-century Black abolitionists, despite the character having no historical counterpart or distinct narrative function. Additionally, while Spielberg chose to have the captives speak Mende for linguistic authenticity, concerns over 1990s American moviegoers' resistance to subtitled films led him to severely minimize subtitles, leaving most of the Mende dialogue untranslated. Finally, Amistad serves as a primary document illustrating late-20th-century ideological frameworks and cinematic storytelling conventions surrounding race. Rather than structuring the film around the complex international treaties and Admiralty law that dominated the actual 1839 proceedings, the screenwriters adapted the story into a standard Hollywood trial drama centered on an uplifting narrative of American freedom. Through editing and narrative choices, the production transformed a historical story of African self-emancipation into a typical 1990s Hollywood arc where white lawyers graciously rescue Black captives, who are framed as passive beneficiaries of American benevolence. In doing so, the movie demonstrates how mainstream 1990s cinema grappled with historical injustice by processing it through reassuring themes of institutional redemption and universal liberty. - Tyler J.
 +
 +I think the movie is a product of an era where intense violence is becoming expected and palatable in film at increasing levels. Thinking of the global reality at the time of brutality in things like the Rwandan genocide, Bosnian war, the LA riots coupled with the prevalence of a constant TV based news cycle that leaves nothing to the Americans imagination. To compete for attention, it seems that film is increasingly brutal. In this particular movie, the violence is used very effectively to blatantly confront the violence of the Middle Passage, the transatlantic slave trade, and American slavery in the 1800s.  -Kendall
 +
 +This movie works as a primary source because it's a very original film. The film was obviously very planned out and had a nice budget to include the multiple lifelike ship as well as 19th century dress. It uses a lot of direct evidence of a real multi murder and stealing incident that was brought to court once it was discovered. The slaves that committed the case were put in jail and fought for their rights in court. An incident where this movie got the historical aspect correct was when the slaves first arrived off the ship. They were very confused coming to a land where they were imprisoned by a bunch of white men. Something that caught my attention was when one of the slaves tried to communicate with an obviously either freed slave or working colored man. The slave called him brother just due to his skin-color. I found it fascinating that even in a new land these slaves saw brotherhood in similarities immediately and tried to ask for help when he as well as his people were being taken away to be jailed. -- Autumn Morris
 +
  
 ======The "So What" Question -- Why should we care about the movie and its version of history?====== ======The "So What" Question -- Why should we care about the movie and its version of history?======
Line 59: Line 85:
  
 We should care about Amistad and the version of history it presents because films like this actively shape how people understand the past, especially topics as complicated and painful as slavery. Most viewers will never read court transcripts or archival documents, so the movie becomes the story they carry with them. That means its choices, what it emphasizes, what it softens, who it centers, and how it frames justice, directly influence public memory. Amistad doesn’t just retell history; it interprets it through the values of the era in which it was made, offering a version of the past that feels morally clear and emotionally uplifting. Caring about that version matters because it affects how we talk about slavery today, how we imagine the nation’s relationship to racial injustice, and how we understand the difference between historical reality and the stories we create to make that reality easier to face.-Alyssa Gomez We should care about Amistad and the version of history it presents because films like this actively shape how people understand the past, especially topics as complicated and painful as slavery. Most viewers will never read court transcripts or archival documents, so the movie becomes the story they carry with them. That means its choices, what it emphasizes, what it softens, who it centers, and how it frames justice, directly influence public memory. Amistad doesn’t just retell history; it interprets it through the values of the era in which it was made, offering a version of the past that feels morally clear and emotionally uplifting. Caring about that version matters because it affects how we talk about slavery today, how we imagine the nation’s relationship to racial injustice, and how we understand the difference between historical reality and the stories we create to make that reality easier to face.-Alyssa Gomez
 +
 +I think we should care because it puts into perspective the lives of african americans and how personal it can be for some people. It focuses on expeirence and lives of those individuals and how they were permanently affected. It shows that those people were engaged in their own freedom and the fight to gain it. We should also care about how how much history in chaned in the film industry especially in hollywood. Movies strongly influence human rights, who they are(identity) and maybe who is going to be protected. -jess C.
 +
 +I’ll be honest and say that I was completely unprepared for the film’s sudden shift to depicting the transatlantic slave trade in significant and brutal detail, and, in fact, it somehow never occurred to me that this film would even attempt to broach this subject. But, it did and I’m glad it did. This is film was THE first major depiction of the transatlantic slave trade in a big-budget Hollywood blockbuster, even if the 1977 miniseries Roots and Rodney King 1991 capture broke ground beforehand. While how history is taught in schools today gives greater space to the brutal historical treatment of blacks, slavery, and the transatlantic slave trade has improved markedly over the years, this was certainly not the case then. This meant for many avid movie goers and Steven Spielberg fans this was their first visual encounter with the barbaric practice, likely with little prior knowledge. - Charles Salcedo
 +
 +I care about this version of history in this film because it shows the struggle. It shows the blood, the tears, and the brutal resentment to the captors of the slaves. The beginning of the film especially does a great job of showing just how desperate these slaves were to get out of their current situation of imprisonment on that ship. I’ve seen that same desperation in different films that involve slave labor due to the same look in their eyes. This movie matters because it makes you feel the emotion that these slaves were feeling in their rough moments. Of course on a smaller scale but you still feel the impact. I also like how they depicted Martin van Buren because his life was of course way different from the slaves. The difference between skin color at this time is prominently clear but I care about it because it shows us just how far we have come in history compared to now. This version of history is hard but the Amistad shows it well. -- Autumn Morris
 +
 +I think Amistad matters as it depicts the middle passage and slavery without shying away from the brutality of these events. So many films try to focus on the comfort of the white audience, especially when it comes to depicting racial injustices. Amistad pushes away that comfort and forces the audience the face the brutality of history. You see the pain and suffering in this film, the whipping, the torture, the killing, and what happened to the women. Nothing is shyed  away from, no matter how discomforting. Because this era of history is not comfortable, why should we sugar coat it? This is a sharp contrast the the last movie we discussed the Patriot which hardly discussed slavery at all, with the main characters having black servants who worked willingly. Again, an example of films catering to a white audience and white comfort to show that there are still “good” white people. And while Amistad suffers slightly with the latter by having a bit of the White Savior trope with Roger Sherman Baldwin I do not find it nearly as egregious as other white savior films. The movie at  least shows the full extent of the brutality of slavery, and it gives agency to the black characters through the mutiny that occurred.
 +-Ellie Irwin 
 +
329/question/329--week_5_questions_comments-2026.1790818074.txt.gz · Last modified: by 199.111.65.35