Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • 329--week_5_questions_comments-2026
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 13:35] – 199.111.65.11329:question:329--week_5_questions_comments-2026 [2026/10/01 14:35] (current) – 199.111.65.11
Line 11: Line 11:
  
 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 34: 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.
Line 59: Line 63:
  
 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. 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 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
Line 79: 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 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
329/question/329--week_5_questions_comments-2026.1790861741.txt.gz · Last modified: by 199.111.65.11