Differences

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

--- 329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments-2022 [2022/10/06 02:40] – crowe_lucca
+++ 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
-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, **exposing general audiences to history they may not have known about before.** - Maris Tiller
 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, a lot of the union soldiers entered the war under the impression that it was to reunite the union, and not for emancipation. Therefore, the extreme racism and the rather liberal use of the n-word were pretty historically accurate. -Teresa Felipe
-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://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/robert-gould-shaw#:~:text=When%20he%20learned%20that%20black,for%20service%20in%20South%20Carolina. The movie also kept to the fact that most of the White characters were still very racist, even if they were working with Black characters. Previous movies we have watched have avoided using language accurate to the time to portray the White characters in a better light, so it was nice to see there was less sanitization of racism. — Sasha Poletes
+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://www.battlefields.org/learn/biographies/robert-gould-shaw#:~:text=When%20he%20learned%20that%20black,for%20service%20in%20South%20Carolina. The movie also kept to the fact that most of the White characters were still very racist, even if they were working with Black characters. Previous movies we have watched have avoided using language accurate to the time to portray the White characters in a better light, so it was nice to see there was **less sanitization of racism**. — Sasha Poletes
 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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Gould_Shaw) (https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/the-54th-massachusetts-infantry) I don’t know why I expected it to be untrue but maybe it was because its one of those moments that you want to believe happened, like if there was some good with the actions during the war and everything that happened after with the treatment of people of color. It was interesting. - Paula Perez
@@ Line 25: / Line 25: @@
 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.  -Michaela Fontenot
+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? ======
@@ Line 43: / Line 47: @@
 ====== 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" narrative did seem a bit like it bled through in some places, especially in the scene where he demands shoes from the quartermaster - an event that most likely did not occur. It very much reflects the filmmakers feeling that Matthew Broderick's screen time would make the most profit, and that the white savior route, no matter how subtle, was a safer option to appeal to audiences of the time. -- Jane Michael
+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" narrative did seem a bit like it bled through in some places, especially in the scene where he demands shoes from the quartermaster - an event that most likely did not occur. It very much reflects the filmmakers feeling that Matthew Broderick's screen time would make the most profit, and that **the white savior route, no matter how subtle, was a safer option to appeal to audiences of the time.** -- Jane Michael
-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's involvement "In the particular case, of Glory, the studio made the movie because Matthew Broderick, who was coming off of Ferris Bueller, was willing to do it, and basically they said, “'Well, you can cast the other parts if you want'" (https://deadline.com/2019/07/glory-at-30-director-edward-zwick-reflects-on-his-civil-war-epic-1202651440/). -- Logan Kurtz
 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	======
@@ Line 61: / 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
-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't leave cuts on his back but would sting. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/trivia/ I think knowing this made the movie more enjoyable. I could tell that at the very least put thought and effort into the authenticity of the movie. - Neonya Garner