Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

User Tools

Site Tools

Trace: • week_11_questions_comments-325_19 • week_4_questions_comments-325_17 • 329--week_15_questions_comments-2024 • week_4_questions_comments-325_19 • week_9_questions_comments-325_17 • week_5_questions_comments-325_19 • week_10_questions_comments-325_17 • week_13_questions_comments-325_19 • week_3_questions_comments-325_19 • week_6_questions_comments-325_19
329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments-2024

Differences

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

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments-2024 [2024/10/10 04:59] – 76.78.172.21329:question:329--week_7_questions_comments-2024 [2024/10/10 16:42] (current) – 199.111.65.11
Line 7: Line 7:
  
 With regards to historical accuracy, the film Glory is unusual in some of the decisions that were made. It seems that quite a few of the more extremely historically accurate bits and pieces are not of particularly excessive importance to the plot at large. The example that came to mind was the hyper-specific fact that in the movie, the soldiers of the 54th are armed with 1853 Enfield Rifles instead of Springfield Model 1861 rifles. This, according to the writings of 54th soldier Cpl. James H. Gooding, is accurate. Whilst this detail might be of some interest to massive Civil War nerds, it doesn’t really do much for the plot at large. Of course, some of the historically accurate pieces of the movie are important for the message the film is trying to convey. For instance, it is true that Colored soldiers were paid $3 less than their white counterparts, and it seems, according to a letter from Gooding, that the men of the 54th weren’t particularly happy with that fact. That being said, there isn’t any evidence that the men at Camp Meigs defiantly tore up their paychecks, and there isn’t any evidence that Col. Shaw refused to take pay in support of his men (likely because Shaw had perished at Fort Wagner, months before Gooding lodged his complaint to President Lincoln). Of course, the general plot points are accurate enough, which might just be good enough for a film trying to tell the story of a unit that has not received its due credit outside of Massachusetts. - John M. With regards to historical accuracy, the film Glory is unusual in some of the decisions that were made. It seems that quite a few of the more extremely historically accurate bits and pieces are not of particularly excessive importance to the plot at large. The example that came to mind was the hyper-specific fact that in the movie, the soldiers of the 54th are armed with 1853 Enfield Rifles instead of Springfield Model 1861 rifles. This, according to the writings of 54th soldier Cpl. James H. Gooding, is accurate. Whilst this detail might be of some interest to massive Civil War nerds, it doesn’t really do much for the plot at large. Of course, some of the historically accurate pieces of the movie are important for the message the film is trying to convey. For instance, it is true that Colored soldiers were paid $3 less than their white counterparts, and it seems, according to a letter from Gooding, that the men of the 54th weren’t particularly happy with that fact. That being said, there isn’t any evidence that the men at Camp Meigs defiantly tore up their paychecks, and there isn’t any evidence that Col. Shaw refused to take pay in support of his men (likely because Shaw had perished at Fort Wagner, months before Gooding lodged his complaint to President Lincoln). Of course, the general plot points are accurate enough, which might just be good enough for a film trying to tell the story of a unit that has not received its due credit outside of Massachusetts. - John M.
 +
 +The film accurately shows the regiment’s formation, the leadership of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw, and key events. It shows the discrimination faced by Black soldiers in the Union Army, However, the movie simplifies some historical complexities and uses fictional characters like to represent broader experiences. the film also focuses heavily on Shaw’s perspective which can overshadow the voices of the Black soldiers. Despite that, i think this film makes a great secondary source. 
  
 This film does a decent job overall when it comes to historical accuracy. Early on, details like the discussion of Antietam as a “great and terrible day” accurately represent how bloody the victory was. The pay differential for black soldiers was also accounted for. The patronizing, racist attitude of many white northerners and southerners was captured. Through Shaw’s conversation with Trip, we get a sense that at the time it wasn’t quite clear what a northern victory would mean for black people in America. Shaw’s death was also portrayed accurately, with him dying in the assault and getting thrown in a ditch later, as in Gooding’s account. I also thought the brutality of the battle scenes, especially the close combat, was close to how fighting would have been. Additionally, small things like the mention of the enfield muskets help to paint an increasingly accurate picture of the civil war era. - Owen This film does a decent job overall when it comes to historical accuracy. Early on, details like the discussion of Antietam as a “great and terrible day” accurately represent how bloody the victory was. The pay differential for black soldiers was also accounted for. The patronizing, racist attitude of many white northerners and southerners was captured. Through Shaw’s conversation with Trip, we get a sense that at the time it wasn’t quite clear what a northern victory would mean for black people in America. Shaw’s death was also portrayed accurately, with him dying in the assault and getting thrown in a ditch later, as in Gooding’s account. I also thought the brutality of the battle scenes, especially the close combat, was close to how fighting would have been. Additionally, small things like the mention of the enfield muskets help to paint an increasingly accurate picture of the civil war era. - Owen
Line 19: Line 21:
  
 Glory is one of the more accurate films we’ve seen so far this semester. You can tell the filmmakers spent time going through Shaw's letters of his time leading the regiment. They also did a good job at portraying the unequal treatment and inequality many black soldiers faced. While some of that was dramatized, such as Montgomery’s harsh and racist ideology that seemed over dramatic compared to his real life counterpart, they have to cram 4 years of civil war opinions and ideations into a story about one regiment’s select months of service. As someone else pointed out, a lot of Shaw's soldiers weren’t actually formerly enslaved, but that wasn’t the case for all black regiments and the filmmakers did what they could to try and portray the attitudes and the actuality of that time. I also like that they depicted events as they happened. The battle at Fort Wagner wasn’t a victory and heavy losses were felt on the Union side, especially within the 54th. Shaw was killed and was in fact buried in a mass grave like they depicted. While most officers were to be honored, on either side, because of who Shaw was an officer to, deemed him as not honorable and unworthy in the eyes of the Confederate Soldiers.- Emma Galvin Glory is one of the more accurate films we’ve seen so far this semester. You can tell the filmmakers spent time going through Shaw's letters of his time leading the regiment. They also did a good job at portraying the unequal treatment and inequality many black soldiers faced. While some of that was dramatized, such as Montgomery’s harsh and racist ideology that seemed over dramatic compared to his real life counterpart, they have to cram 4 years of civil war opinions and ideations into a story about one regiment’s select months of service. As someone else pointed out, a lot of Shaw's soldiers weren’t actually formerly enslaved, but that wasn’t the case for all black regiments and the filmmakers did what they could to try and portray the attitudes and the actuality of that time. I also like that they depicted events as they happened. The battle at Fort Wagner wasn’t a victory and heavy losses were felt on the Union side, especially within the 54th. Shaw was killed and was in fact buried in a mass grave like they depicted. While most officers were to be honored, on either side, because of who Shaw was an officer to, deemed him as not honorable and unworthy in the eyes of the Confederate Soldiers.- Emma Galvin
 +
 +As others have said, this film depicts the frequent poor treatment of Black soldiers, but specifically, the film included actual racist quotes from the time period. For example, in class, Dr. McClurken read a quote that I recognized when I heard it repeated verbatim in the film, which I'd rather not repeat again here, but the fact that they included it in dialogue shows that the filmmakers did their research and looked at primary sources in order to set an historically accurate atmosphere. It also touched on the fact that these soldiers were paid less than their white counterparts ($10 per month instead of $13) due to discrimination. -Jennifer 
 +
 +Although this movie used fictional characters, it did so not to take away from the film, but to add to it's messages. It also had many historically accurate parts, and so I think this movie is a good secondary source. -Kazu Ferris
  
 ====== Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ====== ====== Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======
Line 25: Line 31:
  
 One particular historical inaccuracy with which I took excessive issue was the portrayal of Col. James Montgomery, commander of the all-Black 2nd South Carolina Volunteers. In the film, Montgomery is portrayed as a racist who formerly owned slaves, sees his Black soldiers as inhuman (even going so far as to summarily execute one and use racial slurs against the others), and serves as a lapdog to the also poorly-portrayed General Harker. The only reason that this was added in seems to be Col. Shaw’s documented discomfort and disapproval with Montgomery’s burning of Darien, GA, and perhaps to make the film more appealing to Southern audiences who may have still disapproved of the actions of men like Col. Montgomery and General Sherman, who fought a total war against slave-owning populations in the South. In reality, the reason for Montgomery’s willingness to torch a town full of Southerners stemmed from the fact that he was an unbelievably fanatical abolitionist for the vast majority of his life, following in the footsteps of men like John Brown, and perhaps even out-doing Col. Shaw himself in his devotion to the cause. He never owned slaves, saw his men as equals and heroes who had a right to destroy those who had oppressed them, and even went so far as to state to Col. Shaw that “We (all-Black Union regiments) are outlawed (by the Confederacy), and therefore not bound by the rules of regular warfare”. The fact that Montgomery is one of the only characters who was a real person, and that Glory is likely the only time he will be portrayed to a large public audience, makes this falsified depiction nothing short of a cheap and despicable alteration of the facts for the sake of giving the movie another villain it didn't need. - John M. One particular historical inaccuracy with which I took excessive issue was the portrayal of Col. James Montgomery, commander of the all-Black 2nd South Carolina Volunteers. In the film, Montgomery is portrayed as a racist who formerly owned slaves, sees his Black soldiers as inhuman (even going so far as to summarily execute one and use racial slurs against the others), and serves as a lapdog to the also poorly-portrayed General Harker. The only reason that this was added in seems to be Col. Shaw’s documented discomfort and disapproval with Montgomery’s burning of Darien, GA, and perhaps to make the film more appealing to Southern audiences who may have still disapproved of the actions of men like Col. Montgomery and General Sherman, who fought a total war against slave-owning populations in the South. In reality, the reason for Montgomery’s willingness to torch a town full of Southerners stemmed from the fact that he was an unbelievably fanatical abolitionist for the vast majority of his life, following in the footsteps of men like John Brown, and perhaps even out-doing Col. Shaw himself in his devotion to the cause. He never owned slaves, saw his men as equals and heroes who had a right to destroy those who had oppressed them, and even went so far as to state to Col. Shaw that “We (all-Black Union regiments) are outlawed (by the Confederacy), and therefore not bound by the rules of regular warfare”. The fact that Montgomery is one of the only characters who was a real person, and that Glory is likely the only time he will be portrayed to a large public audience, makes this falsified depiction nothing short of a cheap and despicable alteration of the facts for the sake of giving the movie another villain it didn't need. - John M.
- 
  
  
Line 35: Line 40:
  
 While Glory is historically accurate in many areas, it does contain several inaccuracies and dramatizations. The portrayal of Colonel Shaw tends to present him as more progressive and sympathetic than some historical accounts suggest, simplifying his complex views of race. Additionally, the film dramatizes certain events and interactions among soldiers, which leads to an oversimplified depiction of relationships within the regiment. Casualty numbers at the Battle of Fort Wagner are also exaggerated, suggesting higher losses than historical records indicate. Furthermore, while the film highlights the bravery of the 54th Massachusetts, it underrepresents the contributions of other African American units in the Civil War. Lastly, some interactions between white soldiers and the 54th portray a level of hostility that wasn't universally applicable to all Union troops. Despite these inaccuracies, Glory remains a powerful portrayal of the experiences of African American soldiers during the Civil War. -Sam B While Glory is historically accurate in many areas, it does contain several inaccuracies and dramatizations. The portrayal of Colonel Shaw tends to present him as more progressive and sympathetic than some historical accounts suggest, simplifying his complex views of race. Additionally, the film dramatizes certain events and interactions among soldiers, which leads to an oversimplified depiction of relationships within the regiment. Casualty numbers at the Battle of Fort Wagner are also exaggerated, suggesting higher losses than historical records indicate. Furthermore, while the film highlights the bravery of the 54th Massachusetts, it underrepresents the contributions of other African American units in the Civil War. Lastly, some interactions between white soldiers and the 54th portray a level of hostility that wasn't universally applicable to all Union troops. Despite these inaccuracies, Glory remains a powerful portrayal of the experiences of African American soldiers during the Civil War. -Sam B
 +
 +
 +The depiction of the Black soldiers' level of skill and competency was inaccurate. It was problematic that while they were learning to march, the majority of them said that they literally did not know their right from their left. It made many of these men seem incompetent and childlike, when in reality, this was an elite group of fierce soldiers. They were also dramatized as wanting to fight in an idealistic manner, like they didn't really know what they had gotten into. These elements were hard to believe because it oversimplified and showed some of the soldiers as being too naïve, which was a stretch considering that a Black soldier was risking a lot to sign up for battle and would've been aware of what that entailed.- Jennifer
 +
 +Despite my enjoyment of this movie, it’s not without its flaws. For one, the makeup of the regiment being comprised of former slaves is not true to reality. The 54th Regiment was an “elite” regiment of Massachusetts society and was mainly freedmen. I’m sure the filmmakers did this to educate the American public about how all black regiments “generally” worked (and to highlight the tension between certain characters, namely Trip and Thomas). However, it changed many of the interactions with the 54th and I wonder how it would have played out if it were changed to a more accurate representation. -Allie
 +
 +Glory did an amazing job of cementing the 54th regiment’s bravery into history, but it still had its inaccuracies. One of them that I noticed was in the movie they flogged Private Trip (Denzel Washington) for the reason of them thinking he deserted. This apparently had never happened in the 54th, and was only tried once by another colonel in a different regiment, which caused his regiment to mutiny. It didn’t make much sense to me for them to add that when it never happened, especially knowing what it meant to be whipped to the black soldiers. Furthermore, most of the soldiers were depicted as runaway slaves, when in reality this was a regiment that was hand picked by Frederick Douglas made up of free African Americans. They only made one soldier seem educated from the North, while purposely making a lot of the others seem dumb. Overall, I thought the 54th’s regiments story was told pretty well, but there were a couple additions to this story that were definitely unnecessary for the makers to add. -Matt S. 
 +
 +I think that the fictional characters added were obviously inaccurate, but I do not think that they took away from the film as much as it could have. -Kazu Ferris
 +
 +
 ====== How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ====== ====== How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======
  
Line 40: Line 56:
  
 ====== How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made? ====== ====== How does this movie work as a primary source about the time in which it was made? ======
 +
 +The 1980s were a period of reflection on american history which marked by a wave of historical films that explored the nation's past with more nuance. Glory examines the complexities of heroism, race, and sacrifice during the Civil War. this era was also the post Vietnam war era. - Jedidia
  
 As we have learned from many of the movies that we have seen so far, the 1980s and 90s loved their historical movies – this week was no different. But, one of the things I noticed about Glory compared to some of the others like The Patriot or The Last of the Mohicans was it was VERY accurate. There were a couple small mistakes, but those mistakes really aren’t that noticeable or important to the plot. So I think as a primary source, this movie shows that people are starting to look for more accurate historical representations of the past – even with some difficult subjects. Not only did the movie do well but even before it was released it showed signs of this shift towards the truth – the cast is STACKED. Even actors were wanting to get onboard with this trend. --Emma F. As we have learned from many of the movies that we have seen so far, the 1980s and 90s loved their historical movies – this week was no different. But, one of the things I noticed about Glory compared to some of the others like The Patriot or The Last of the Mohicans was it was VERY accurate. There were a couple small mistakes, but those mistakes really aren’t that noticeable or important to the plot. So I think as a primary source, this movie shows that people are starting to look for more accurate historical representations of the past – even with some difficult subjects. Not only did the movie do well but even before it was released it showed signs of this shift towards the truth – the cast is STACKED. Even actors were wanting to get onboard with this trend. --Emma F.
Line 46: Line 64:
  
 This movie was made around the same time as Last of the Mohicans, and Pocahontas - both of which came later. What surprises me about this is how wrong those movies were in comparison to Glory. Additionally, Amistad was a Spielberg film, and I felt that this movie was leagues better in accuracy than that movie was. What strikes me about this is how Glory came first in the lineup and was better (I would argue). I find this particularly interesting as a primary source of the time in which it was made, because in the previous movies we've watched, we've discussed how inaccurate they were, whereas this one, made in an earlier year, is largely much better. I'm not entirely sure what that says about the 1990s, but I do think it's especially compelling that films almost went down in historical accuracy while promoting themselves to be more the opposite. - Caty This movie was made around the same time as Last of the Mohicans, and Pocahontas - both of which came later. What surprises me about this is how wrong those movies were in comparison to Glory. Additionally, Amistad was a Spielberg film, and I felt that this movie was leagues better in accuracy than that movie was. What strikes me about this is how Glory came first in the lineup and was better (I would argue). I find this particularly interesting as a primary source of the time in which it was made, because in the previous movies we've watched, we've discussed how inaccurate they were, whereas this one, made in an earlier year, is largely much better. I'm not entirely sure what that says about the 1990s, but I do think it's especially compelling that films almost went down in historical accuracy while promoting themselves to be more the opposite. - Caty
 +
 +Glory, made in 1989, reflects the social issues of its time, such as racial inequality and the renewed interest in diverse historical narratives. By focusing on African American soldiers and the complexities of racism within the Union, the film mirrors the late '80s cultural conversations about race and history in America.-Ryan K
  
 ====== The "So What" Question ====== ====== The "So What" Question ======
Line 63: Line 83:
  
 I believe this movie did a better job than most movies during this time period of highlighting african american’s effort in the Civil War. I also think it did a good job at showing the racism that they had to endure, like having to prove their abilities, putting up with racist comments, and being underpaid. This movie did very well for the time, making millions of dollars and winning awards, while also spreading a fairly accurate story of the 54th Regiment that probably isn’t taught about in primary school (at least I didn’t learn about it in primary school).  Leah B I believe this movie did a better job than most movies during this time period of highlighting african american’s effort in the Civil War. I also think it did a good job at showing the racism that they had to endure, like having to prove their abilities, putting up with racist comments, and being underpaid. This movie did very well for the time, making millions of dollars and winning awards, while also spreading a fairly accurate story of the 54th Regiment that probably isn’t taught about in primary school (at least I didn’t learn about it in primary school).  Leah B
 +
 +This movie had a profound impact on the audience when it came out, and still impacts many decades later. Before Glory was made, I would bet most people believed that the war was won completely by white soldiers. Portraying the 54th regiment’s bravery in battle, especially in their attempt to take over Fort Wagner, proved to the audience how important this regiment was for  the war. Sure, there was still 2 years worth of bloodshed after them, but it showed the audience why so many more black soldiers decided to enlist because of them. Even if they exaggerated some parts of this film, they didn’t take lightly the discrimination that these black soldiers had to face (manual labor, verbal or physical abuse, and unequal pay). Adding a big emphasis on that made their story resonate with audiences more, showing how resilient and brave these people really were. -Matt S. 
  
 I think this movie is extremely important as far as historically based films go. It is fairly accurate, and while there are dramatizations and exaggerations of some characters' attitudes, it give the feeling of how african american soldiers were treated throughout the war. I think this is not only a captivating and interesting story in terms of film, but also in history. This would be a great film to introduce to someone who doesn't know a ton about history. It highlights a regiment not widely talked about in school and their role in the war. This movie is also relatively short compared to other war movies making it far more digestible. Along with that, they had fairly well known actors for 1989 with Cary Elwes known for the Princess Bride at the time and Matthew Broderick from Ferris Bueller. There was also Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington. This draws people to see the movie and teaches them about something new. I think this movie is one of the better examples of history depicted in film and why period films can be so important. -Emma Galvin  I think this movie is extremely important as far as historically based films go. It is fairly accurate, and while there are dramatizations and exaggerations of some characters' attitudes, it give the feeling of how african american soldiers were treated throughout the war. I think this is not only a captivating and interesting story in terms of film, but also in history. This would be a great film to introduce to someone who doesn't know a ton about history. It highlights a regiment not widely talked about in school and their role in the war. This movie is also relatively short compared to other war movies making it far more digestible. Along with that, they had fairly well known actors for 1989 with Cary Elwes known for the Princess Bride at the time and Matthew Broderick from Ferris Bueller. There was also Morgan Freeman and Denzel Washington. This draws people to see the movie and teaches them about something new. I think this movie is one of the better examples of history depicted in film and why period films can be so important. -Emma Galvin 
 +
 +Glory changes how we see the Civil War by showing the North's own struggles with racism. It challenges the simple idea that the North was just fighting to free the slaves. Unlike "Gone with the Wind," it focuses on the Union and the real human cost of war. This movie makes us look at history more honestly and ensures the stories of the oppressed are remembered. -Ryan K
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +Why do we care?
 +Like all historical movies, they matter because they are hugely influential in shaping people’s perceptions of historical events. While it’s probably not ideal to picture a famous abolitionist-turned-colonel as Ferris Bueller, this film did a wonderful job of depicting the broad ideas of the 54th Regiment in an entertaining, thoughtful, and emotional way. The way many Americans are taught about the Civil War (and slavery in general, to be fair) is deeply simplified and flawed. (i.e. Racism is a Southern Confederate thing, and it went away after the Civil War! Yay!) I think showing the inequality between the 54th Regiment and traditional white regiments is a good way for many viewers to think critically about their education on this topic and learn more. -Allie 
 +
329/question/329--week_7_questions_comments-2024.1728536359.txt.gz · Last modified: 2024/10/10 04:59 by 76.78.172.21