329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments
Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision | ||
| 329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments [2016/10/13 13:57] – [2 Things the Movie got right] nmilroy | 329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments [2016/10/13 14:45] (current) – [4 Movie as a Primary Source about the time in which it was made] lfrey | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 54: | Line 54: | ||
| As we had talked about in class, the Union army seemed to have a way with words and finding loopholes. This was seen when Shaw said that he did not have to follow the rules because he was not a commissioned officer after he refused pay with his men. --- // | As we had talked about in class, the Union army seemed to have a way with words and finding loopholes. This was seen when Shaw said that he did not have to follow the rules because he was not a commissioned officer after he refused pay with his men. --- // | ||
| - | //Glory// succeeds in conveying the freedmen' | + | **//Glory// succeeds in conveying the freedmen' |
| The film showed a lot of tension between not only whites and African Americans during the war, but also tension between members of the 54th regiment. There was also more focus on how battle worked with the speed of reloading and the importance of the right shoes when compared to some other films like The Patriot. The film also showed the effects of PTSD on people like Shaw, where films like The Patriot, which was made much later than Glory, did not make it a significant point. | The film showed a lot of tension between not only whites and African Americans during the war, but also tension between members of the 54th regiment. There was also more focus on how battle worked with the speed of reloading and the importance of the right shoes when compared to some other films like The Patriot. The film also showed the effects of PTSD on people like Shaw, where films like The Patriot, which was made much later than Glory, did not make it a significant point. | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
| ====== 3 Questions about interpretation ====== | ====== 3 Questions about interpretation ====== | ||
| - | Frequently through the film there is a valorization of Shaw and his actions, especially in the later half of the film. The dramatic yet inspiring theme music plays behind him as he sends out orders. In class we even discussed how Shaw’s death was actually valorized and turned him into a martyr for a cause. Despite that the film does have moments where Shaw is portrayed as colder and unsure of himself. The scenes where he distances himself from Thomas or orders whipping on Trip are examples of this other side. Does the film use these moments then to show the flaws in Shaw’s own character or are they to further glorify his later change in leadership? As a character we view him most positively in the beginning and then in the end of the film. While the middle section creates a grey area. Ultimately did this film intend to valorize Shaw in the way that it did? --- // | + | **Frequently through the film there is a valorization of Shaw and his actions, especially in the later half of the film. The dramatic yet inspiring theme music plays behind him as he sends out orders. In class we even discussed how Shaw’s death was actually valorized and turned him into a martyr for a cause.** Despite that the film does have moments where Shaw is portrayed as colder and unsure of himself. The scenes where he distances himself from Thomas or orders whipping on Trip are examples of this other side. Does the film use these moments then to show the flaws in Shaw’s own character or are they to further glorify his later change in leadership? |
| - | I agree with Catherine, romanticizing Shaw bothered me. Throughout the movie, although there was black soldiers’ character development Shaw’s transformation was paramount. The film developed like Trip, Thomas, and John Rawlins however my question is why not make the movie from their point of view? Why does the story have to be told by Shaw? I see this trend, where a white character tells the story of people of color and I have to ask why. While Shaw is memorialized by many, most of the black characters in the film are fictional. I understand that we have a collection of Shaw’s letters, but why are all the characters of color fictionalized? | + | I agree with Catherine, romanticizing Shaw bothered me. Throughout the movie, although there was black soldiers’ character development Shaw’s transformation was paramount. The film developed like Trip, Thomas, and John Rawlins however my question is why not make the movie from their point of view? **Why does the story have to be told by Shaw? I see this trend, where a white character tells the story of people of color and I have to ask why. While Shaw is memorialized by many, most of the black characters in the film are fictional. I understand that we have a collection of Shaw’s letters, but why are all the characters of color fictionalized? |
| - | The mute drummer boy was an interesting addition, and since he didn't get a name or obviously any dialogue, it makes me think that he may have been a characterization of a bigger theme, idea, or symbolically placed by the directors to provoke further thought. What might he have been a symbol of? Did he draw any thoughts from you as a viewer, historian, or both? Why was he mute? Also going off of Emily' | + | The mute drummer boy was an interesting addition, and since he didn't get a name or obviously any dialogue, it makes me think that he may have been a characterization of a bigger theme, idea, or symbolically placed by the directors to provoke further thought. What might he have been a symbol of? Did he draw any thoughts from you as a viewer, historian, or both? Why was he mute? Also going off of Emily' |
| Did the whipping actually happen ? When the 54th marches into South Carolina, they encounter another black regiment led by Colonel James Montgomery. What do you make of this controversial scene, and why do you think Zwick included it? --- // | Did the whipping actually happen ? When the 54th marches into South Carolina, they encounter another black regiment led by Colonel James Montgomery. What do you make of this controversial scene, and why do you think Zwick included it? --- // | ||
| - | I was upset by the fact that this film, about a black regiment during the Civil War, was from the point of view of their white captain. This is disappointing because of the lost opportunities of having it be from the POV of one of the black soldiers. Like Emily wrote above, it also would have been nice for there to have been included more depictions of actual soldiers rather than so many fictional characters. As we learned in class, there were prominent members of the 54th regiment, such as Frederick Douglass’ sons that this film could have touched on. As we discussed with The Patriot, did this use of mostly fictional characters provide the filmmakers with more leeway on historical accuracy? Was the use of fictional characters to help show the range in backgrounds that the soldiers came from? --- // | + | I was upset by the fact that this film, about a black regiment during the Civil War, was from the point of view of their white captain. This is disappointing because of the lost opportunities of having it be from the POV of one of the black soldiers. Like Emily wrote above, it also would have been nice for there to have been included more depictions of actual soldiers rather than so many fictional characters. |
| A lot of the choices in choosing, training, and deploying the regiment were much more deliberate than depicted in the film. For instance, the troops in the actual 54th regiment were actually mostly elite, not as mixed with. Shaw was very aware of the significance of training black troops. They were preparing for this before they were formed instead of gathering a group seemingly last minute. While this is inaccurate to the actual facts, the mix of the troops is very representative of the actual makeup of black soldiers across the country at that time--- many if which were runaway slaves from border states and in the south and free black men. I think this reality justifies the inaccuracy, because although not true to that particular regiment, it depicts the general reality of black soldiers (the make up as well as other characteristics).--Julia Peterson | A lot of the choices in choosing, training, and deploying the regiment were much more deliberate than depicted in the film. For instance, the troops in the actual 54th regiment were actually mostly elite, not as mixed with. Shaw was very aware of the significance of training black troops. They were preparing for this before they were formed instead of gathering a group seemingly last minute. While this is inaccurate to the actual facts, the mix of the troops is very representative of the actual makeup of black soldiers across the country at that time--- many if which were runaway slaves from border states and in the south and free black men. I think this reality justifies the inaccuracy, because although not true to that particular regiment, it depicts the general reality of black soldiers (the make up as well as other characteristics).--Julia Peterson | ||
| Line 80: | Line 80: | ||
| I noticed both in Glory and in Amistad, there were abolitionists who did and said things that seemed to go against the ideas they were for. In Amistad it was the whole “making the Africans into martyrs” idea, in Glory it was Shaw allowing for the whipping of the soldiers. While I can kind of understand why he would allow it as a way to treat them equally, it still doesn’t seem right. Do any of you have an idea of why these film makers decided to make the abolitionist say and do things that seemed so out of character? --- // | I noticed both in Glory and in Amistad, there were abolitionists who did and said things that seemed to go against the ideas they were for. In Amistad it was the whole “making the Africans into martyrs” idea, in Glory it was Shaw allowing for the whipping of the soldiers. While I can kind of understand why he would allow it as a way to treat them equally, it still doesn’t seem right. Do any of you have an idea of why these film makers decided to make the abolitionist say and do things that seemed so out of character? --- // | ||
| - | The filmmakers appeared to favor tempering reality with a flair for the dramatic. The regiment under Col. Montgomery that pillaged a town, acting as raiders stealing valuables for a greedy Gen. Harker. While I do not doubt that there were in fact regiments that would pillage captured towns, I do question whether they consisted of painfully stereotypical depictions of uneducated, savage black men ready to rape and pillage at the drop of a hat. In the process of showing how disciplined the 54th were, the filmmakers end up comparing them to an exceedingly racist stereotype. Whether this is anachronistic for the time period or not, I cannot say. --- // | + | The filmmakers appeared to favor tempering reality with a flair for the dramatic. The regiment under Col. Montgomery that pillaged a town, acting as raiders stealing valuables for a greedy Gen. Harker. |
| - | Something that I noticed about a lot of the films we’ve watched so far is that, while they are war films, a lot of them are more violent than what might be necessary. I understand the filmmakers want to show the reality of war and how horrible it is, but I feel that filmmakers of American history tend to make films only about war. When you look up films about American history, you find mostly movies like Glory, Gone With the Wind, Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, and the Patriot. For most of American history, the country has been at war, but I feel like filmmakers do not see history the way most modern historians do. The Civil War especially is something that touched all Americans and defined this country, but I wonder why filmmakers focus so much on war in American history instead of other events or trends like the invention of the light bulb or the immigration waves around 1900? | + | Something that I noticed about a lot of the films we’ve watched so far is that, while they are war films, a lot of them are more violent than what might be necessary. I understand the filmmakers want to show the reality of war and how horrible it is, but I feel that filmmakers of American history tend to make films only about war. When you look up films about American history, you find mostly movies like Glory, Gone With the Wind, Saving Private Ryan, Black Hawk Down, and the Patriot. For most of American history, the country has been at war, but I feel like filmmakers do not see history the way most modern historians do. **The Civil War especially is something that touched all Americans and defined this country, but I wonder why filmmakers focus so much on war in American history instead of other events or trends like the invention of the light bulb or the immigration waves around 1900?** |
| --- // | --- // | ||
| ====== 4 Movie as a Primary Source about the time in which it was made ====== | ====== 4 Movie as a Primary Source about the time in which it was made ====== | ||
| - | This movie shows progression towards a more tolerant America, as some of the actors in the movie would have been old enough to participate in the Civil Rights movement. | + | **This movie shows progression towards a more tolerant America, as some of the actors in the movie would have been old enough to participate in the Civil Rights movement. |
| - | I agree that this film shows how the United States had become more tolerant. Having this film accurately portray the will and heart of the African-Americans who fought, while acknowledging that they faced racism from Union soldiers, is a great way to honor and commemorate the actual 54th regiment and what they did in advancing the rights of other African-Americans to fight. --- // | + | I agree that this film shows how the United States had become more tolerant. |
| - | I believe this movie is a primary source of its time because it showed PTSD caused by war. This was a common showing in movies after Vietnam, as it became more public to the United States that PTSD was a serious issue among soldiers. It also is a primary source for its time because of the amount of diversity. It was becoming more common for movies to involve more people of color, and this movie perfectly showcases that with the majority of its cast being black. --- // | + | I believe this movie is a **primary source of its time because it showed PTSD caused by war. This was a common showing in movies after Vietnam, as it became more public to the United States that PTSD was a serious issue among soldiers.** It also is a primary source for its time because of the amount of diversity. It was becoming more common for movies to involve more people of color, and this movie perfectly showcases that with the majority of its cast being black. --- // |
| The movie showcases the diversity of African Americans throughout the nation rather effectively, | The movie showcases the diversity of African Americans throughout the nation rather effectively, | ||
| - | Even though it was made in 1989, Glory was pretty progressive film and reflected changing racial attitudes in the United States. I grew up watching Glory every now and then, and the impression that I got from my family was that the film actually changed the landscape for African American actors in Hollywood. It also portrayed the African American characters in the film as complex human beings and as people who played an important part in changing history, instead of letting white characters take the lead. This helped to address decades of misrepresentation and/or underrepresentation in American film and to pave the way for future American history films focusing on African Americans. | + | Even though it was made in 1989, Glory was pretty progressive film and reflected changing racial attitudes in the United States. |
| --- // | --- // | ||
| --- // | --- // | ||
| ====== 5 Comparing the reading to the movie ====== | ====== 5 Comparing the reading to the movie ====== | ||
| - | While watching the film, I didn’t think much of the burning of the town of Darien. I had assumed that that was probably a made-up or composite town and mission. But, this act and the controversy surrounding it is written about by James Henry Gooding, a member of the 54th, in On the Altar of Freedom. The people were upset not only because their small town was burned down but because of the fact that it was done by black soldiers. | + | **While watching the film, I didn’t think much of the burning of the town of Darien. I had assumed that that was probably a made-up or composite town and mission. But, this act and the controversy surrounding it is written about by James Henry Gooding, a member of the 54th, in On the Altar of Freedom. The people were upset not only because their small town was burned down but because of the fact that it was done by black soldiers.** --- // |
| - | In the film, the 54th Massachusetts is shown protesting their wages. In the letter by James Henry Gooding, his 54th Massachusetts (which came later), also protested their wages, with Gooding writing to Abraham Lincoln directly. During the war, wages were 13 dollars for whites, and 10 dollars for blacks. In the pretext, it is written that Congress didn’t equalize pay until the tail end of the war. --- // | + | In the film, the 54th Massachusetts is shown protesting their wages. |
| Certain aspects of the James Henry Gooding reading were shown in the film, such as his behavior towards the African Americans. | Certain aspects of the James Henry Gooding reading were shown in the film, such as his behavior towards the African Americans. | ||
| - | I had read Susie King Taylor' | + | **I had read Susie King Taylor' |
| ====== 6 The "So, what?" question ====== | ====== 6 The "So, what?" question ====== | ||
| - | So why make a movie? Well I think it is important in terms of the idea of how the Civil War is taught. To be completely honest, until high school, I was under the impression that the Civil War was mainly white men fighting other white men for the emancipation of slaves. It never actually occurred to me that other people other than white people fought in this war. That came out super racists and I apologize but that is the truth. In many high schools, we are given the white man’s history. The history of victory, not defeat and this part of history clearly shows not only how we interpret history but also how we portray it. Therefore, this movie is needed for people like me, who honestly fall into the trap of a white man’s victorious history. | + | So why make a movie? Well I think it is important in terms of the idea of how the Civil War is taught. |
| Maggie, you are right and shouldn' | Maggie, you are right and shouldn' | ||
| - | We don't get the view of the minority, Its good to get a different view than what is normally taught. Its also good to have a different perceptive of race and how it affected the blacks view of race, especially of the union (South slave owners sending in their slaves for them).The film proves to be a truly uplifting experience and an important history lesson, a valuable reminder that despite what the history books say (or, more precisely, what they do not say), blacks played a critically important role in the North' | + | We don't get the view of the minority, Its good to get a different view than what is normally taught. |
| - | I believe that this is a very important movie about African-American struggle during the Civil War. As the three people above me have mentioned, the usual suspicion of Virginian-schooled kids is that the war was white vs white and the slaves just sat there waiting to be liberated. But they did so much more than that and this movie shows that. Even though that slaves sat and waited might be the usual assumption by people like me, I also would have said something like "yeah, ok that makes sense" if someone told me runaway slaves joined the Union army. But for the time, that idea would have been crazy to many northerners, | + | I believe that this is a very important movie about African-American struggle during the Civil War. **As the three people above me have mentioned, the usual suspicion of Virginian-schooled kids is that the war was white vs white and the slaves just sat there waiting to be liberated.** But they did so much more than that and this movie shows that. Even though that slaves sat and waited might be the usual assumption by people like me, I also would have said something like "yeah, ok that makes sense" if someone told me runaway slaves joined the Union army. But for the time, that idea would have been crazy to many northerners, |
| - | I think this movie was significant in several ways. One was showing an important part of Civil War era history. Another was having a movie where the heroes don’t exactly prevail, but they show an immense amount of courage. My only problem with the movie is that at the end all of the white soldiers from various units seem willing and proud to serve with African Americans which wasn’t a reality. | + | I think this movie was significant in several ways. One was showing an important part of Civil War era history. |
| - | When we watched the Patriot a few weeks ago, I asked what the point was in remaking a story about a war that happened centuries ago. This movie is one of the exceptions. Instead of repeating the story that we already know, this movie talks about a regiment that isn’t common knowledge and knowing about its existence is a vital part of understanding the true story of the Civil War. For so long, the history of the war was white washed, so understanding the complex nature of the war is critical to getting the full picture. Movies have the ability to convey a story that isn’t expressed in high school textbooks. | + | When we watched the Patriot a few weeks ago, I asked what the point was in remaking a story about a war that happened centuries ago. This movie is one of the exceptions. |
329/question/329--week_7_questions_comments.1476367033.txt.gz · Last modified: 2016/10/13 13:57 by nmilroy