Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments-2018 [2018/10/25 04:51] – [Things the Movie got right] 69.250.147.205
+++ 329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments-2018 [2018/10/25 13:33] (current) – [Errors in fact] 192.65.245.79
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 ====== Errors in fact ======
-The movie gets a lot right historically with the liberties mostly for characters. One minor thing about Robert Gould Shaw's depiction is that historically he initially rejected the offer to command the 54th Massachusetts the first time, and a few days later changed his mind. While in the movie he accepts the offer the day he was given it. Historically he was given the offer by a letter delivered by his father, while in the movie he was asked in person by Governor Andrew and Frederick Douglas. [[https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Gould-Shaw]]
+The movie gets a lot right historically with the liberties mostly for characters. One minor thing about Robert Gould Shaw's depiction is that historically he initially rejected the offer to command the 54th Massachusetts the first time, and a few days later changed his mind. While in the movie he accepts the offer the day he was given it. Historically he was given the offer by a letter delivered by his father, while in the movie he was asked in person by Governor Andrew and Frederick Douglas. [[https://www.britannica.com/biography/Robert-Gould-Shaw]] -Kyle Moore
 In this film, Robert Gould Shaw's second-in-command was Major Cabot Forbes, Robert's friend and essentially a brother in arms. In reality, Cabot Forbes wasn't a real soldier during the Civil War, much less the battle at Fort Wagner. Robert Gould Shaw's real second-in-command was a man named Edward Needles Hallowell. Forbes acts as the Hallowell of this film, and apparently his name is a fusion of the names of two of Shaw's friends of the same last names. Also, it is important to know that Hallowell didn't die at Fort Wagner; while he was fatally wounded, he would escape along with the other half of the regiment that managed to make it out. I point this out because it is heavily implied in the final charge that Hallowell's character in the film (Forbes) died alongside the other major characters (in particular, Morgan Freeman's character). You can take it with a pinch of salt though, since the only confirmed kills we see post-battle are Malcom X and Ferris Bueller. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/12926/edward-needles-hallowell --Robert Dallas
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 ====== Things the Movie got right ======
-I think the movie did a good job of showing the complexity of race relations in the North, and especially in the military. None of the white characters given screen time were 100% non-racist, except for maybe Forbes/Cary Elwes/The Dread Pirate Roberts. Shaw was not always kind to the soldiers, but had more of a practical officer-subordinate relationship with them. The Irish officer was flat out racist. I also liked that this film showed various black perspectives that were not overly stereotyped, much unlike Gone With the Wind. It was also quite true to the readings from Gooding, who described the high morale of the troops and willingness to fight for the Union. --Erin Shaw
+I think the movie did a good job of showing the complexity of race relations in the North, and especially in the military. None of the white characters given screen time were 100% non-racist, except for maybe Forbes/Cary Elwes/The Dread Pirate Roberts. Shaw was not always kind to the soldiers, but **had more of a practical officer-subordinate relationship with them.** The Irish officer was flat out racist. I also liked that this film showed various black perspectives that were not overly stereotyped, much unlike Gone With the Wind. It was also quite true to the readings from Gooding, who described the high morale of the troops and willingness to fight for the Union. --Erin Shaw
 The movie did a really good job of showing the final battle. While the first scene depicting the battle of Antietam is best described by a New York Times film review by Vincent Canby where he says "'Glory' begins in the manner of one of those re-enactments one sees at battlefields where, in cause of tourism on summer weekends, local citizens put on period costumes and play at history." But when you get to Fort Wagner the director did a good job of showing the confusion and desperation of battle. There was a mix of hand to hand combat as well as with weapons which was very common during the Civil War. The battle scene comes across as men fighting to just survive and out of pure desperation which is interesting and does not always come across in battle scenes. https://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/14/movies/review-film-black-combat-bravery-in-the-civil-war.html  --Ellora Larsen
@@ Line 32: / Line 32: @@
 Going off of Grace, I do think the movie did a good job showing the struggle the 54th regiment went through. It showed the complexity of the differentiation of between the African American soldiers and white commanding officers. --Caroline Collier
-The movie really got how Shaw was as a colonel for the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment. He fought along side African American soldiers and even sought out to make sure they got what they deserved as soldiers, such as the equal pay. Another thing the film got right was the final scene when the Confederates were burying the fallen Union; they buried Shaw with the other fallen 54th soldiers as an insult, when his family saw it as an honor. --Alyx Wilson
+The movie really got how Shaw was as a colonel for the 54th Massachusetts Infantry Regiment. He fought along side African American soldiers and even sought out to make sure they got what they deserved as soldiers, such as the equal pay. **Another thing the film got right was the final scene when the Confederates were burying the fallen Union; they buried Shaw with the other fallen 54th soldiers as an insult, when his family saw it as an honor.** --Alyx Wilson
 I agree with Erin’s comment about the different perspective of black soldiers. I think the film reflects what black soldiers felt while they were in the regiment, although all wished to join they began realizing that they weren’t being given the same rights and opportunities as the white soldiers. Also, one of the scenes I thought to be quite powerful is when Colonel Shaw tears his check in two. He actually did refuse his check because the pay for black soldiers was not equal to the pay of white soldiers. Also, the battles were quite graphic and believable, it conveys the disorientation and fear of the soldiers. The scene where the 54th regiment believed they defeated a group of Confederates and began cheering only to realize how wrong they were, clearly depicts how different they expected a battle to be. When they see many more Confederate soldiers headed their they had “oh $%@#” written all over their faces.
 https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/robert-gould-shaw  - Johana Colchado
+The movie was very true in the beginning to the facial hair presented by the men. The movie also did a good job of showing the brutality of the war through the amputations and the screaming of the wounded. They also showed sanitation standards that would have been similar such as not cleaning instruments in clean water. The doctors would use the same materials to amputate all of the limbs in a day. There was also an accurate reference to contraband, being runaway slaves from slave states. The film also accurately portrayed how there was an order about POW's concerning black regiments as well as white commanders of black regiments. --Jack Hagn
+Upon the 54th's arrival in the South, just before Shaw meets Montgomery, two Union soldiers unfurled a variant of the U.S. flag on which the stars are arrayed in a flower pattern. This variant of the flag, known as the "Great Flower flag", was commonly used during the time of the Civil War. Source: https://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/us-1861.html ~Will Everett
+**I think that this movie was one of the most accurate historically that we’ve watched this year. The way it handled race relations and included the perspectives of the black characters is especially noticeable in comparison to Gone With the Wind.** - Sam Hartz
 ====== Questions about interpretation ======
@@ Line 51: / Line 58: @@
 I'm curious about the hostile relationship between Trip and Thomas. Why did the film makers decide to pit these two against one another (Trip being the instigator). What message were they trying to convey about a runaway slave fighting and a man who was always free fighting. That they were all fighting for the same cause. I was just wondering about that story line in the movie in general. -Amiti Colson
-====== The movie as a primary source of its time ======
- In a post-Vietnam society, audiences were likely more open to experiencing the horrors of war on screen in 1989. It reminded me of The Patriot in that it did not shy away from showing how brutal war really is, especially when cannons can blow someone's head off. The 80s and 90s were also a great time for action movies, so adding in the battle scenes likely resonated with audiences. --Erin Shawe
-Like //Amistad//, it seems like this movie takes pretty famous actors and places them into the story to make a rough story more palatable and encourage people to come to see the movie. Mathew Broderick was well known due to //Ferris Bueler's Day Off//. Denzel Washington was just coming off of a well-known medical drama from the 1980s, //St. Elsewhere//, so he had his own critical appeal. Cary Elwes was coming from playing Westley in //The Princess Bride// ( I spent the whole movie trying to figure out why he looked so familiar). Finally, Morgan Freeman had a long career in T.V. and film before this movie. Was this a directorial choice to get more people into the movie with the amount of star power that the cast had? -- Ellora Larsen
+Upon conducting further research, I was surprised to learn that Shaw was actually married, and that his marriage took place less than a month prior to the 54th's deployment. Why wasn't this shown--or at least mentioned--in the film? Source: https://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/robert-gould-shaw  ~Will Everett
-The movie represents a very 20th-century debate using the conflict between Dezel Washington’s Tripp and Andre Braugher’s Thomas. Tripp represents a more radical approach to combatting racism; he rails against the system. Thomas comes down on the side of respectability politics (although in the eighties they did not yet have that terminology). The movie shows later on just what state race relations were in the eighties when Morgan Freeman steps in and gives his “If you’re not careful, that’s all you’ll ever be” speech to Denzel, suggesting that the movie as a whole comes down on the side of respectability politics, since M.F. ultimately gets the last word. This was a pretty common sentiment in the late eighties after the more radical elements of the Civil Rights movement had died down. (Justin Curtis)
+====== The movie as a primary source of its time ======
+ In a post-Vietnam society, audiences were likely** more open to experiencing the horrors of war on screen in 1989.** It reminded me of The Patriot in that it did not shy away from showing how brutal war really is, especially when cannons can blow someone's head off. The 80s and 90s were also a great time for action movies, so adding in the battle scenes likely resonated with audiences. --Erin Shawe
-I'm curious as to why Kevin Jarre decided to write this movie from a white colonel's perspective on the history of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry. This seems to be a story that could be told from an African American soldier's point of view. It could have given more background stories of the soldiers. It makes sense I guess that this movie released in the late 80's cast a famous white male actor as its lead. There is more that can be done with this story though, so opportunity remains for another movie on the 54th Infantry. -Amiti Colson
+Like //Amistad//,** it seems like this movie takes pretty famous actors and places them into the story to make a rough story more palatable and encourage people to come to see the movie.** Mathew Broderick was well known due to //Ferris Bueler's Day Off//. Denzel Washington was just coming off of a well-known medical drama from the 1980s, //St. Elsewhere//, so he had his own critical appeal. Cary Elwes was coming from playing Westley in //The Princess Bride// ( I spent the whole movie trying to figure out why he looked so familiar). Finally, Morgan Freeman had a long career in T.V. and film before this movie. Was this a directorial choice to get more people into the movie with the amount of star power that the cast had? -- Ellora Larsen
-Comparing this movie to the other movie we watched about the Civil War helps to say a lot about this movie. These movies told not only different stories but fundamentally different narratives of each time period. Both movie tell a story of the losing side, but do so in very different ways. During a more inherently prejudice time, Gone With the Wind tells the story perpetuating the cult of the lost cause. Fifty years later, follow the civil rights era, the late 80’s is definitely a more racially conscious time than the 40’s and the filmmakers choose to tell a story highlighting the Union and real African American soldiers who fought and lost. -Erin Andrewlevich
+**The movie represents a very 20th-century debate using the conflict between Dezel Washington’s Tripp and Andre Braugher’s Thomas. Tripp represents a more radical approach to combatting racism; he rails against the system.** Thomas comes down on the side of respectability politics (although in the eighties they did not yet have that terminology). The movie shows later on just what state race relations were in the eighties when Morgan Freeman steps in and gives his “If you’re not careful, that’s all you’ll ever be” speech to Denzel, suggesting that the movie as a whole comes down on the side of respectability politics, since M.F. ultimately gets the last word. This was a pretty common sentiment in the late eighties after the more radical elements of the Civil Rights movement had died down. (Justin Curtis)
-I agree with Ellora, the movie most likely wouldn’t have been as successful without these well-known actors from popular films. I think this movie is a good general representation of the treatment and struggle of blacks during the civil war, specifically about them trying to become part of the military. The film also makes sure to reflect the brutality of war and the misconceptions the soldiers who had never been in battle had (this was when Shaw observed his regiment playing with the guns and pretending to kill each other). - Johana Colchado
+I'm curious as to why Kevin Jarre decided to write this movie from** a white colonel's perspective on the history of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry.** **This seems to be a story that could be told from an African American soldier's point of view.** It could have given more background stories of the soldiers. It makes sense I guess that this movie released in the late 80's cast a famous white male actor as its lead. There is more that can be done with this story though, so opportunity remains for another movie on the 54th Infantry. -Amiti Colson
-	Glory serves as an example of the desire to solidify a strong national identity during the 80s. With the Cold War still going on and Reagan pushing harder for American values, the American identity was being pushed for more and more. Glory recognizes this as it attempts to put forward a unified look at the Civil War, with the 54th as the ideal of a US identity. The movie even points out how while this unit was the ideal of all units as it was disciplined, but still was able to hold personal identities. Even for the rest of the troops, they are shown to have grown as they cheer for the 54th on their last mission. –Sky Horne
+Comparing this movie to the other movie we watched about the Civil War helps to say a lot about this movie. **These movies told not only different stories but fundamentally different narratives of each time period.** Both movie tell a story of the losing side, but do so in very different ways. During a more inherently prejudice time, Gone With the Wind tells the story perpetuating the cult of the lost cause. Fifty years later, follow the civil rights era, th**e late 80’s is definitely a more racially conscious time than the 40’s and the filmmakers choose to tell a story highlighting the Union and real African American soldiers who fought and lost**. -Erin Andrewlevich
+I agree with Ellora, **the movie most likely wouldn’t have been as successful without these well-known actors from** popular films. I think this movie is a good general representation of the treatment and struggle of blacks during the civil war, specifically about them trying to become part of the military. The film also makes sure to reflect the brutality of war and the misconceptions the soldiers who had never been in battle had (this was when Shaw observed his regiment playing with the guns and pretending to kill each other). - Johana Colchado
+Glory serves as an example of the desire to solidify **a strong national identity during the 80s.** With the Cold War still going on and Reagan pushing harder for American values, the American identity was being pushed for more and more. Glory recognizes this as it attempts to put forward a unified look at the Civil War, with the 54th as the ideal of a US identity. T**he movie even points out how while this unit was the ideal of all units** as it was disciplined, but still was able to hold personal identities. Even for the rest of the troops, they are shown to have grown as they cheer for the 54th on their last mission. –Sky Horne
 ====== Comparing the reading to the movie ======
 I'm assuming Gooding's accounts of the experiences of the 54th regiment were used as references for this film, because they were very similar. A lot of detail on the lives of the troops were provided that coincided with the movie, like the high morale and Shaw protesting the low pay of the soldiers. It also discusses Shaw being buried in a trench with everyone else, which was something that surprised me in the film. However, I thought the final scene of Shaw being buried alongside Trip and the other soldiers was a symbol for racial equality, which was not the goal of the confederates who actually buried Shaw in the ditch. --Erin Shaw
@@ Line 86: / Line 94: @@
 This movie is very important because it is not only an entertaining movie that will draw various audiences in, it is a rather accurate movie. While watching this movie, viewers can obtain quality content on what this time period was like visually and physically, as well as what it was like for the experiences and struggles of black Americans who fought in the Civil War. -Erin Andrewlevich
-The film works to tell the story of the heroic African Americans who fought during the Civil War, and for the most part it does this successfully. It does a good job of showing that even though the North is typically associated with abolitionism, there was still racism among the soldiers and commanding officers. However, even this was lessened by the seeming acceptance of the soldiers close to the end. It also showed how the treatment of African Americans changed based on how well they were educated with the way Thomas was treated particularly at the beginning.  –Sky Horne
+The film works to tell the story of the heroic African Americans who fought during the Civil War, and for the most part it does this successfully.** It does a good job of showing that even though the North is typically associated with abolitionism, there was still racism among the soldiers and commanding officers**. However, even this was lessened by the seeming acceptance of the soldiers close to the end. It also showed how the treatment of African Americans changed based on how well they were educated with the way Thomas was treated particularly at the beginning.  –Sky Horne
 "What's the point. Ain't nobody gonna win. It's just gonna go on and on," Private Trip. "It can't go on forever," Shaw. "Yeah, but ain't nobody gonna win," Trip. "Somebody's gonna win," Shaw. "Well you, you get to go on back to Boston, live in a big house and all that. What about us? What do we get?" Trip. This scene of the movie where Shaw and Trip exchange words for the first time is a pivotal moment in the movie. It contributes to that so what question of what are the creators of this film trying to convey to us through this story. This movie portrays the African American soldiers' contributions to the war effort, but it also displayed the reality of the times, that when the war ended, it didn't mean there would be a happy ending for all African Americans, it was only the beginning of a long road to true freedom and equality. -Amiti Colson
+The movie shows how complicated war really is and how many things about war tear apart people but also bring them together. The movie took a very important part of American Civil War history that is more unknown than known. The complex views of of whites about slaves and freed blacks are represented well in all of the aspects we talked about in class. The movie shows what life was like for all walks of life for black men. Edward Zwick does a good job of representing the history of the 54th Massachusetts and providing a entertaining movie to watch. This shows a very positive example for historical films. **This movie is not a monument to southern pride like "Gone with the Wind" but it shows the good and bad of the north in a realistic way.** This movie provides a historical and entertaining accurate portrayal of African American soldiers in the Civil War. --Jack Hagn
+**The movie shows the Civil War in an accurate way while also doing a good job of handling complexities around race and society in that time period.** This sets it apart from the other movies that we have discussed up until now. I think that it was a pretty honest portrayal, and didn’t have one of those overly optimistic post-racial endings like in the way that The Patriot did. It did all this while still being a fun movie to watch. - Sam Hartz