| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| 329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments-2020 [2020/10/08 05:33] – 76.78.226.93 | 329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments-2020 [2020/10/08 10:47] (current) – daniel_walker |
|---|
| |
| Watching this movie directly after watching GWTW is a stark difference. Although it has problems of it's own, compared to GWTW, this movie is leaps and bounds more accurate about the Civil War. Glory shows the racial hardships black soldiers had to deal with during the war, and although the end of the movie makes it seem like those hardships ended with the war (which they did not) at least there is somewhat accurate depiction of what that struggle to be recognized was like. --Cat Kinde | Watching this movie directly after watching GWTW is a stark difference. Although it has problems of it's own, compared to GWTW, this movie is leaps and bounds more accurate about the Civil War. Glory shows the racial hardships black soldiers had to deal with during the war, and although the end of the movie makes it seem like those hardships ended with the war (which they did not) at least there is somewhat accurate depiction of what that struggle to be recognized was like. --Cat Kinde |
| | |
| | One of the main things that the movie gets right about the time period is that almost everybody is racist. When most people think about the Civil War, they think it was about slavery, so therefore, the North was all abolitionist and wanted to save all the slaves so they could be free. In other words, people think the South was racist and the North was not. The movie shows that even when African-Americans were laying down their life for the Union as soldiers, they were still called racial slurs, disrespected, and inadequately treated. It is important to remember that even though the war came to be about slavery, African-Americans were not treated well. -Daniel Walker |
| |
| Of all the films we have seen so far this semester I believe that Glory has best shown the realities of warfare in the era it placed itself. The soldiers took to form battle lines with the front-line kneeling for those in the back to present a full volley. Furthermore, it went further to show a handful of volleys followed by a quick melee that was brutal. The initial battle in which Shaw is presented is strong as it presents many examples that conform to actual battles with wounded stumbling off the field long after its conclusion. Some of the film’s events are pulled from the historical record with the protest over the issues of pay and Shaw’s decision to refuse pay with his regiment. Another event was the burning of Darien in which Shaw witnessed brutality and violence that did not sit well with him under the order of Montgomery over the difference in tactics of war. The finale of the film with the Fort Wagner pulled from various records as it showed the realities of death faced by the regiment, the death and ultimate disrespect by the Confederates of Colonel Shaw, and the lack of sleep by which the regiment had endured in arriving at Fort Wagner. The use of the film as a secondary source despite all its adherences to the historical record is something I could not fully support. It lightens many of the racist views of the time and while it follows Shaw for a decent amount of the film it still does not include enough for a strong understanding of the colonel. To begin diving into the subject of the 54th Massachusetts and colonel Shaw it is a strong source but lacks enough to be useful as a source. -Robert Keitz | Of all the films we have seen so far this semester I believe that Glory has best shown the realities of warfare in the era it placed itself. The soldiers took to form battle lines with the front-line kneeling for those in the back to present a full volley. Furthermore, it went further to show a handful of volleys followed by a quick melee that was brutal. The initial battle in which Shaw is presented is strong as it presents many examples that conform to actual battles with wounded stumbling off the field long after its conclusion. Some of the film’s events are pulled from the historical record with the protest over the issues of pay and Shaw’s decision to refuse pay with his regiment. Another event was the burning of Darien in which Shaw witnessed brutality and violence that did not sit well with him under the order of Montgomery over the difference in tactics of war. The finale of the film with the Fort Wagner pulled from various records as it showed the realities of death faced by the regiment, the death and ultimate disrespect by the Confederates of Colonel Shaw, and the lack of sleep by which the regiment had endured in arriving at Fort Wagner. The use of the film as a secondary source despite all its adherences to the historical record is something I could not fully support. It lightens many of the racist views of the time and while it follows Shaw for a decent amount of the film it still does not include enough for a strong understanding of the colonel. To begin diving into the subject of the 54th Massachusetts and colonel Shaw it is a strong source but lacks enough to be useful as a source. -Robert Keitz |
| |
| I think this film works really well as a primary source for the 1980s-1990s. **This movie has a stacked cast: Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Cary Elwes, and Bueller himself. A cast like this makes me think that the directors were serious about making a film that portrayed the 54th Regiment as the heroic, groundbreaking idea that they were.** Additionally, //Glory// won three academy awards, with one of them going to Denzel Washington for best supporting actor. So clearly it did really well with the audience of the time as well. On the other side, the film also made a point to claim that most of the black soldiers were former slaves, when in reality most of them were actually free before joining the army. This ties into that subconscious obsession with black trauma we talked about in //Amistad//. It wasn't necessary that the black soldiers in //Glory// needed to be former slaves--however it probably fit with the idea most Americans had at the time about African Americans fighting during the war. So, although not a great thing overall, it is another indicator as to the mindset of Americans in the 1980s-1990s.--Cat Kinde | I think this film works really well as a primary source for the 1980s-1990s. **This movie has a stacked cast: Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, Cary Elwes, and Bueller himself. A cast like this makes me think that the directors were serious about making a film that portrayed the 54th Regiment as the heroic, groundbreaking idea that they were.** Additionally, //Glory// won three academy awards, with one of them going to Denzel Washington for best supporting actor. So clearly it did really well with the audience of the time as well. On the other side, the film also made a point to claim that most of the black soldiers were former slaves, when in reality most of them were actually free before joining the army. This ties into that subconscious obsession with black trauma we talked about in //Amistad//. It wasn't necessary that the black soldiers in //Glory// needed to be former slaves--however it probably fit with the idea most Americans had at the time about African Americans fighting during the war. So, although not a great thing overall, it is another indicator as to the mindset of Americans in the 1980s-1990s.--Cat Kinde |
| | |
| | There were many movies that came out about race around this time period. Driving Miss Daisy won best picture the year that glory was released. However, this film does more for portraying history in a way that empowers African-Americans. People can go to this movie and see the heroes of the Massachusetts 54th. It had a strong critical reception as proven by its Oscar winnings. An issue that many films have is that they end up only portraying white people as the main hero. While this film certainly portrays Shaw as a leader, I believe it also prtrays all the men of the division as heroes who are strong and brave in their own right. That aspect sets this movie apart from many other films with African-Americans around this general time period. -Daniel Walker |
| |
| I think the choice in having so many well-known actors of the time in this movie shows that the film makers really wanted people to know about this part of history. You might not have known anything about the Union side of the Civil War (especially if you've only seen Civil War movies like Gone with the Wind), but would still be drawn to the idea because you enjoy Morgan Freeman or Denzel Washington movies. I've watched plenty of movies just because I like one of the main actors, not necessarily because I was interested in the actual plot. Their use of Shaw's letters as a historical source throughout I think also shows how dedicated to being a serious source of information they were. -Madison Roberts | I think the choice in having so many well-known actors of the time in this movie shows that the film makers really wanted people to know about this part of history. You might not have known anything about the Union side of the Civil War (especially if you've only seen Civil War movies like Gone with the Wind), but would still be drawn to the idea because you enjoy Morgan Freeman or Denzel Washington movies. I've watched plenty of movies just because I like one of the main actors, not necessarily because I was interested in the actual plot. Their use of Shaw's letters as a historical source throughout I think also shows how dedicated to being a serious source of information they were. -Madison Roberts |
| | |
| |
| Glory is an interesting primary source for 1989 simply for the reason it was made. As someone who has lived in Fredericksburg Virginia (which is drenched in civil war history and “historians”) I had never heard of the 54th regiment. For many viewers this would have been the first time learning of the regiment and Glory did a decent job of introducing it. The characterization was not perfect, it still has rather stereotyped black characters (although Morgan Freeman as the wise older figure has almost become a trope in itself) and some misrepresentations, but it did show the strife and ultimate tragedy of the regiment. -Janis Shurtleff | Glory is an interesting primary source for 1989 simply for the reason it was made. As someone who has lived in Fredericksburg Virginia (which is drenched in civil war history and “historians”) I had never heard of the 54th regiment. For many viewers this would have been the first time learning of the regiment and Glory did a decent job of introducing it. The characterization was not perfect, it still has rather stereotyped black characters (although Morgan Freeman as the wise older figure has almost become a trope in itself) and some misrepresentations, but it did show the strife and ultimate tragedy of the regiment. -Janis Shurtleff |
| |
| For all of its *many* errors, I feel like Glory is about as close as it gets to filmmakers attempting to accurately portray the past. **And it seems to be one of the few movies that accurately captures the "spirit" of some aspect of the past by demonstrating the remarkable courage and resilience of African American Civil War soldiers fighting for a county that often treated them less than fairly against an enemy who saw them as less than human.** -Ethan | For all of its *many* errors, I feel like Glory is about as close as it gets to filmmakers attempting to accurately portray the past. **And it seems to be one of the few movies that accurately captures the "spirit" of some aspect of the past by demonstrating the remarkable courage and resilience of African American Civil War soldiers fighting for a county that often treated them less than fairly against an enemy who saw them as less than human.** -Ethan |
| | |
| | This movie is important for a number of reasons. One of them is that often there is a misconception that the only people who thought in the Civil War were white. This is of course not true as the movie shows. Not only is it not true, but a division like the Massachusetts 54th shows how strong African-Americans were as soldiers, but also how brave and committed they are. People who see this movie will remember the sacrifices that all people made during the Civil War, not just the sacrifice of white men. -Daniel Walker |
| |
| Glory has been the best blend of entertainment and history that we have seen so far. I appreciated the little details such as Thomas Searles trying to teach his comrades to read. And though these movies often become nothing more than white savior films I felt Shaw’s character was well written and played and not the focus. His contributions, including that of his life, to the 54th regiment were contrasted with his personal struggles such as his shellshock and racism. Glory took a very different approach then what we usually see in Civil War movies because it didn’t water down the horror, fear and tragedy of the past. -Janis Shurtleff | Glory has been the best blend of entertainment and history that we have seen so far. I appreciated the little details such as Thomas Searles trying to teach his comrades to read. And though these movies often become nothing more than white savior films I felt Shaw’s character was well written and played and not the focus. His contributions, including that of his life, to the 54th regiment were contrasted with his personal struggles such as his shellshock and racism. Glory took a very different approach then what we usually see in Civil War movies because it didn’t water down the horror, fear and tragedy of the past. -Janis Shurtleff |
