329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments-2022
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-2022 [2022/10/06 01:56] – [IV.How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers?] 76.78.226.119 | 329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments-2022 [2022/11/11 00:31] (current) – [IV.How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers?] 192.65.245.80 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| I feel like the movie is an accurate portrayal of how people viewed black soldiers at that time. We have talked about in class how different groups viewed them and treated them. The union army was not happy about the black soldiers joining. They were not fighting to free the enslaved people and they were not nice to the African American soldiers. There was also tension between the black soldiers and how they viewed each other. Soldiers who were enslaved looked down on free blacks and vice versa. -Sophie Weber | I feel like the movie is an accurate portrayal of how people viewed black soldiers at that time. We have talked about in class how different groups viewed them and treated them. The union army was not happy about the black soldiers joining. They were not fighting to free the enslaved people and they were not nice to the African American soldiers. There was also tension between the black soldiers and how they viewed each other. Soldiers who were enslaved looked down on free blacks and vice versa. -Sophie Weber | ||
| - | The film did an excellent job, I think, of presenting the discrimination faced by the black soldiers in the 54th regiment. It shows the hostility that many in the Union army had towards the concept of black soldiers. The film does not portray the cause of the Union fighting in the war as fighting to end slavery. I think the film pretty accurately portrays the history of the 54th regiment, exposing general audiences to history they may not have known about before. - Maris Tiller | + | The film did an excellent job, I think, of presenting the discrimination faced by the black soldiers in the 54th regiment. It shows the hostility that many in the Union army had towards the concept of black soldiers. The film does not portray the cause of the Union fighting in the war as fighting to end slavery. I think the film pretty accurately portrays the history of the 54th regiment, |
| I think this movie does a good job at portraying the racism and hardships that the 54th faced. At first they were not used for combat but for labor, and they were not welcomed by other soldiers or even northern civilians. Even though abolitionists may have been fighting for emancipation did not mean they weren’t racist. Furthermore, | I think this movie does a good job at portraying the racism and hardships that the 54th faced. At first they were not used for combat but for labor, and they were not welcomed by other soldiers or even northern civilians. Even though abolitionists may have been fighting for emancipation did not mean they weren’t racist. Furthermore, | ||
| - | One thing this movie portrayed well was the relationship between Black and White soldiers at the time, especially the fact that most White soldiers did not take the Black soldiers seriously and used them for labor instead of combat. This is especially poignant in the scene where the Black soldiers are doing manual labor as the White soldiers walk by and tensions are strong. It is also shown through how long it took for the Black soldiers to receive shoes, uniforms, and supplies, as well as the inclusion of their pay being $10 instead of $13. I looked it up, and Shaw did in fact lead a boycott on all pay until the situation was changed, something I thought was fictitious when watching the movie. https:// | + | One thing this movie portrayed well was the relationship between Black and White soldiers at the time, especially the fact that most White soldiers did not take the Black soldiers seriously and used them for labor instead of combat. This is especially poignant in the scene where the Black soldiers are doing manual labor as the White soldiers walk by and tensions are strong. It is also shown through how long it took for the Black soldiers to receive shoes, uniforms, and supplies, as well as the inclusion of their pay being $10 instead of $13. I looked it up, and Shaw did in fact lead a boycott on all pay until the situation was changed, something I thought was fictitious when watching the movie. https:// |
| The films depiction was better then expected specifically to how black soldiers were treated in the war. The thing we went over in class like how most soldiers didn’t get official uniforms until later. I was also surprised that Shaw refused his own pay in the film. I didn’t know if that was true or not so I looked it up and it was from the quick sources I looked at. (https:// | The films depiction was better then expected specifically to how black soldiers were treated in the war. The thing we went over in class like how most soldiers didn’t get official uniforms until later. I was also surprised that Shaw refused his own pay in the film. I didn’t know if that was true or not so I looked it up and it was from the quick sources I looked at. (https:// | ||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
| This movie works really well as a secondary source. Two scenes that stand as examples that work well as secondary sources are the Darien raid and the pay strike. Both of these could have been fabricated to make Shaw seem like a righteous character, however knowing those things actually happened and are portrayed accurately, makes the movie good as a source. In the Darien raid in the movie, Shaw does not agree with Montgomery’s actions. This scene is backed up by James Henry Gooding’s //On the Altar of Freedom// which states that Shaw felt as though the raid was vandalism based on personal gains and not military necessity. Shaw’s distaste for the action in the film is clearly seen, so filmmakers did right in that. Regarding the pay strike, the soldiers immediately protested the $7 pay. The film portrays this well, with soldiers refusing to go to the pay tables and with the White commissioned officers also refusing pay. I think these scenes are especially important to depict (especially the pay strike) because it is something that impacted the soldiers and was an example of their unfair treatment while fighting in the war. - Taylor Coleman | This movie works really well as a secondary source. Two scenes that stand as examples that work well as secondary sources are the Darien raid and the pay strike. Both of these could have been fabricated to make Shaw seem like a righteous character, however knowing those things actually happened and are portrayed accurately, makes the movie good as a source. In the Darien raid in the movie, Shaw does not agree with Montgomery’s actions. This scene is backed up by James Henry Gooding’s //On the Altar of Freedom// which states that Shaw felt as though the raid was vandalism based on personal gains and not military necessity. Shaw’s distaste for the action in the film is clearly seen, so filmmakers did right in that. Regarding the pay strike, the soldiers immediately protested the $7 pay. The film portrays this well, with soldiers refusing to go to the pay tables and with the White commissioned officers also refusing pay. I think these scenes are especially important to depict (especially the pay strike) because it is something that impacted the soldiers and was an example of their unfair treatment while fighting in the war. - Taylor Coleman | ||
| + | |||
| + | I believe that this film worked very well as a secondary source from my understandings from our class lecture on Tuesday. Specially, | ||
| + | |||
| + | This movie works well as a secondary source. It looks as though the movie gets the discrimination the Mass. 54th faces correct. They are constantly beat upon or verbally abused because they are black and they are defying the image of black people that society had at that time. Another reason is because the actual battle scenes were shot well. They felt very chaotic, like a battle would be, while still maintaining enough to be understood. The historical accuracy of Colonel Shaw is also doe relatively well, which is not always seen in movies about the American Civil War. - Sarah Moore | ||
| + | |||
| + | It is interesting because I feel as if this movie is more accurate than others we have watched, but it still wasn’t quite there yet in the way it should. Once again, I feel like this movie falls into the narrative of the hero white man. Something that we haven’t be able to get away from yet in all of these movies. There is always some white person depicted as a hero, such as in Amistad or The Patriot. Why is that the case for this time period? Why don’t they (the film makers) let people of color into these rolls. It is something that I’ve thought a lot about. **Why must there be a white person who is the fixer or protagonist.** Just something to think about. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think that this film is a good secondary source. From what we discussed in class about history, the Black soldiers were shown fairly well. In the movie, we get to see the discrimination and how the soldiers were treated differently. How they were abused both verbally and physically. The bravery that these men showed during the wars clearly demonstrated why they became a phenomenon. -Annika Sypher | ||
| ====== II. Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ====== | ====== II. Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ====== | ||
| Line 31: | Line 39: | ||
| A scene I was confused about was the Battle of Fort Wagner. The movie implies that everyone was killed at the end, as those who did not die getting to the fort were all killed by the confederates within the fort itself. Though the text at the end clears it up, I think the movie overly dramaticizes the last scene, especially since we talked about in class how a 50% casualty rate was not unusual. I think in general the ending seemed rushed and simplified, though I can understand why for purposes of running time they decided to end the movie with Fort Wagner. I think it would have been useful to explicitly show the effects of the battle on northern views about Black soldiers, even if was just a short clip of the journalist writing an article or something like that. Maybe this is an unfair criticism, but the ending seemed misrepresented to me — Sasha Poletes | A scene I was confused about was the Battle of Fort Wagner. The movie implies that everyone was killed at the end, as those who did not die getting to the fort were all killed by the confederates within the fort itself. Though the text at the end clears it up, I think the movie overly dramaticizes the last scene, especially since we talked about in class how a 50% casualty rate was not unusual. I think in general the ending seemed rushed and simplified, though I can understand why for purposes of running time they decided to end the movie with Fort Wagner. I think it would have been useful to explicitly show the effects of the battle on northern views about Black soldiers, even if was just a short clip of the journalist writing an article or something like that. Maybe this is an unfair criticism, but the ending seemed misrepresented to me — Sasha Poletes | ||
| + | |||
| + | This film was really good at its historical accuracy, with only a few parts that were inaccurate. One part I really liked about the film was its depiction of Camp Meigs as a cold, wet, and muddy place. A few parts I could nit-pick about would be the men’s housing, which in the film are depicted as tents, but according to the letters we read in class, were described as large wooden barracks. The terrain of the final battle, while admittedly difficult, did not look unusual for a fortress. There were sand dunes they had to run up, dry and wet ditches they had to cross, spikes to avoid, all while not getting blasted by cannons. The terrain of the actual Fort Wagner was described as particularly difficult, owing to the marshy land and narrow causeways they had to ford, bridges consisting of small planks with no handles or guard rails. I also seem to remember reading that Shaw took up the flag after it had fallen, I could be wrong here but I don’t remember that actually happening in the film, which I was surprised by. Aside from small inaccuracies like these, the film was remarkably historically accurate. –Lucca Crowe | ||
| + | |||
| ====== III. How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ====== | ====== III. How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ====== | ||
| Line 36: | Line 47: | ||
| ====== IV. How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ====== | ====== IV. How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ====== | ||
| - | This film actually seemed pretty historically accurate, although it definitely suffers from the casting of so many rising stars. The time period is reflected in the narrative, as it does often tell the story of the 54th from the perspective of Shaw. Obviously he was a large figure in the story, but the "white savior" | + | This film actually seemed pretty historically accurate, although it definitely suffers from the casting of so many rising stars. The time period is reflected in the narrative, as it does often tell the story of the 54th from the perspective of Shaw. Obviously he was a large figure in the story, but the "white savior" |
| - | Even though the film shows some awareness about the racism the 54th regiment of Massachusetts faced, it seemed very willing to favor the story of the white man, Shaw, who led the regiment rather than the story of the soldiers themselves. His death was very important to the regiment and the war after the attack on Fort Wagner, but I feel the film sidelines the black characters in favor of the white ones. This shows the bias of the time. Centering white characters in black stories was extremely common, and I do think this film does a better job with exploring the lives of the black characters than other films at the time. I think it was probably just a decision to appeal to wider audiences - Maris Tiller | + | Even though the film shows some awareness about the racism the 54th regiment of Massachusetts faced, it seemed very willing to favor the story of the white man, Shaw, who led the regiment rather than the story of the soldiers themselves. His death was very important to the regiment and the war after the attack on Fort Wagner, but I feel **the film sidelines the black characters in favor of the white ones.** This shows the bias of the time. Centering white characters in black stories was extremely common, and I do think this film does a better job with exploring the lives of the black characters than other films at the time. I think it was probably just a decision to appeal to wider audiences - Maris Tiller |
| The movie had an incredible cast of all star actors such as Morgan Freeman, Matthew Broderick, and Denzel Washington, which definitely propelled this movie to more popularity than other historic films, and unfortunately I believe that without the star cast that many people would not have gone out of their way to see this pretty awesome film. Denzel Washington won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, as well as Cinematography and Sound awards. While it does explore the stories of the characters, it does focus in on a white character which I do not believe would be the direction today. However, in an article with the director, it was revealed that the movie was able to be made because of Matthew Broderick' | The movie had an incredible cast of all star actors such as Morgan Freeman, Matthew Broderick, and Denzel Washington, which definitely propelled this movie to more popularity than other historic films, and unfortunately I believe that without the star cast that many people would not have gone out of their way to see this pretty awesome film. Denzel Washington won an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor, as well as Cinematography and Sound awards. While it does explore the stories of the characters, it does focus in on a white character which I do not believe would be the direction today. However, in an article with the director, it was revealed that the movie was able to be made because of Matthew Broderick' | ||
| + | |||
| + | I feel that this film is in alignment with it’s time period that it was created. I liked that the film gave a lot of credit to the African Americans and felt that it was not completely focused on a white person as in other films. Of course the film made moments with Shaw evident but I believe he deserved this for his bravery as well. - Erika Lambert | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think the sensitivity around the movie shows a lot about the social climate during the time. The late 80s and early 90s show a big change in what is an acceptable way to treat others. I think this movie does a great job showcasing the true diversity of the population at the time. While things weren’t perfect, (and they still aren’t now) it was definitely a well-made movie - Michaela Fontenot | ||
| + | |||
| + | Glory was a good example of the time period it was made because it showed who the rising stars of the time are and what to expect from different roles. I think the movie split up time between Denzel Washington’s character and Matthew Broderick’s character exceedingly well. It showed the perspectives of two different types of people and therefore showcased the more progressive leading nature of the filmmakers. They are showing more of the story from the Black perspective and less of a story from a White soldier in power. -Annika | ||
| ====== V. The "So, what?" question ====== | ====== V. The "So, what?" question ====== | ||
| Line 52: | Line 69: | ||
| I think that this movie is a really important story to tell. As the black experience during the Civil War hadn’t really been shown before this, and I think a star-studded cast such as this brings a lot of attention to this lesser talked about aspect of history. This story of the 54th Mass. is a very interesting one, despite the loss that they face, but I think the fact that the lose also demonstrates the realities of war in a way that not a lot of war movies show. These reasons among others make Glory an important film for people to watch. -Margaret Jones | I think that this movie is a really important story to tell. As the black experience during the Civil War hadn’t really been shown before this, and I think a star-studded cast such as this brings a lot of attention to this lesser talked about aspect of history. This story of the 54th Mass. is a very interesting one, despite the loss that they face, but I think the fact that the lose also demonstrates the realities of war in a way that not a lot of war movies show. These reasons among others make Glory an important film for people to watch. -Margaret Jones | ||
| - | Although I thought this was a great film, the celebrity actors did make the story slightly less believable. From his opening narration, I could not get over the fact that Ferris Bueller was the colonel. In addition, Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington just made me think of their other, more notable roles. However, I do think this movie was very important to be made, and impressive that it was done all the way back in 1989. The famous actors (although some weren’t as famous at the time) helped to draw interest to the movie and get this important story more publicity. The 54th regiment is an key part to American history, and I am glad that this movie exists and did the regiment justice. -Burke Steifman | + | Although I thought this was a great film, **the celebrity actors did make the story slightly less believable**. From his opening narration, I could not get over the fact that Ferris Bueller was the colonel. In addition, Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington just made me think of their other, more notable roles. However, I do think this movie was very important to be made, and impressive that it was done all the way back in 1989. The famous actors (although some weren’t as famous at the time) helped to draw interest to the movie and get this important story more publicity. The 54th regiment is an key part to American history, and I am glad that this movie exists and did the regiment justice. -Burke Steifman |
| Something I learned in high school about this movie was that Denzel Washington was actually whipped for the scene. I did my own research as well, it was with a whip that wouldn' | Something I learned in high school about this movie was that Denzel Washington was actually whipped for the scene. I did my own research as well, it was with a whip that wouldn' | ||
| This movie is something that I think serves well in depicting the lives and events of the 54th Regiment. It is a well-made movie that gets attitudes and events right. With that being said, there are some things this movie, and many others, suffer from when taking a historical event and making it for the box office. The soldiers were portrayed as dumb, when in actuality they were the best of the best. To make the soldiers dumb, undermines the real people’s intelligence but also furthers a popular attitude that all enslaved people were illiterate and need White people to make themselves better. I understand completely why the soldiers were portrayed in this way, because everyone loves an underdog story. This movie also suffers from just making up people when real people exist. I found this website, https:// | This movie is something that I think serves well in depicting the lives and events of the 54th Regiment. It is a well-made movie that gets attitudes and events right. With that being said, there are some things this movie, and many others, suffer from when taking a historical event and making it for the box office. The soldiers were portrayed as dumb, when in actuality they were the best of the best. To make the soldiers dumb, undermines the real people’s intelligence but also furthers a popular attitude that all enslaved people were illiterate and need White people to make themselves better. I understand completely why the soldiers were portrayed in this way, because everyone loves an underdog story. This movie also suffers from just making up people when real people exist. I found this website, https:// | ||
| + | |||
| + | This film was by far one of my favorite movies we have watched so far. Many moments of the film gave me chills and it gave me a real idea of how these soldiers were trained and the struggles they faced. It specifically helped me understand that there were many quarrels even in the Union soldiers themselves regarding their treatment of African Americans, what they wanted to win the war for, and even between the African Americans there were quarrels and judgement on one’s history. | ||
| + | |||
| + | This movie is important for our viewing because it is the only movie about the American Civil War that I can think of that centers black people in any capacity. In other films, it seems as though they want to blame free and enslaved black people for the Civil War. It is important to acknowledge that black people played a large part in the success of the war and that they had to fight hard to gain any ounce of respect. Because of the lack of resources that portray the American Civil War in this light, there are many people who forget the severity of slavery and discrimination that black people, free or enslaved, faced during the time of the Civil War and forward. - Sarah Moore | ||
| + | |||
| + | I agree with Miss Olivia Foster in that the star-studded cast adds something to the film perhaps not originally intended. While many of the performances were extremely moving, particularly the work of Denzel Washington as Private Silas Trip, seeing these familiar faces did take away from the story. Morgan Freeman’s performance was amazing as usual, but as I was watching it, I couldn’t help but feeling like I was watching God cosplaying his favorite human OC, Morgan Freeman. All I saw was Morgan Freeman playing one of his stereotypical roles, a wise old black man, tired out by a long life of hardship, but still fighting on. I cannot imagine that was the original intention for the character when the film was first being written. Sergeant Major John Rawlins was a character of great import, and he was perfectly cast, he was exactly the kind of character Freeman is known for playing, he has gotten a name for himself because Freeman is so damn good at playing those kinds of roles; but the moment Freeman was cast in the role, the uniqueness was lost, John Rawlins was lost, consumed by the reputation of Freeman. If a less recognizable actor had been cast, maybe the performance wouldn’t have been as great, but the character certainly would have felt a hole hell of a lot more unique. –Lucca Crowe | ||
329/question/329--week_7_questions_comments-2022.1665021365.txt.gz · Last modified: 2022/10/06 01:56 by 76.78.226.119