Wiki for Dr. McClurkens Courses

You've loaded an old revision of the document! If you save it, you will create a new version with this data.

You should do a total of 2-3 comments/questions/observations this week.  You do not need to post to all areas. Please do include links to sources, clips, images that are relevant to your point. -- Dr. McClurken

====== I.	How does this movie work as a secondary source? What does the movie get right about history?  ======

I was shocked by the historical accuracy of this film. While I cannot speak to the material realism of such things as clothing or ships, I was astounded by how closely the film stuck to the real history of the events. From details like how the abolitionists found an interpreter, to the way the Mende’s were tricked by their Spanish captors by sailing east at day and northwest at night. In addition to small details such as those above, the film followed the course of the actual historical events and legal proceedings with surprising accuracy and faithfulness. --Lucca Crowe

One thing that the film accurately depicts is how people on the ship did commit suicide due to their horrific suffering. The movie shows the horrible conditions that they were faced with and shows exactly how people were pushed to their breaking point. While I do not know too much about this case besides what we discussed in class, it definitely seemed to be a loyal adaptation. -- Logan Kurtz

Based on what we had learned in class, I thought this movie was accurate to the actual history. They depicted the events accurately and in order of what happened. I thought it was obviously a bit dramatized but was impressed with the accuracy throughout. I think it could work well as a secondary source and as a way to get people interested in history. -Sophie Weber

The brutality of the Middle Passage seemed to ring particularly true to me. The way slaves were treated and how they often died on the journey was treated as seriously as it was in reality. Some of the most harrowing images in the film come from that section, and I felt like it was really effective in portraying this brutal history in a way that made it feel immediate and real. The way slaves were kept in the ship, how some committed suicide or died on the journey, and how slavers would throw slaves overboard if they did not have enough provisions were all accurately portrayed here. I thought it was somewhat of a bold choice to show so much accuracy in these scenes; it was probably something most American audiences had not seen in a mainstream film before. - Maris Tiller

When I first started watching the film I started it before we had class so I was surprised how gruesome it was in the very beginning and then later paused it to come back to it later. Now from what I learned in class and rewatched it, it sadly made total sense. The brutality of what these individuals went through was portrayed to what I believe is the fullest extent a film maker can do in a film. The film portrayed the way these individuals could be capture from their homes, where one minute they feel safe till the next minute they’re being brutally beaten to get on board a ship where to their knowledge is unknown. Once they aboard both women and men suffered by beatings, whether they would be fed or not based on health, and then to be thrown overboard when deemed useless. This film made sure to include the reality of things, even the suicide attempts. - Paula Perez

In all honesty this movie surprised me with how historically accurate it was comparatively to the past couple of movies we’ve watched. It included the shouting of the numbers on the dock to find an interpreter. It showed the confusion of the situation and all the claims made upon the Amistad and its loot by the sailors aboard the USS Washington, the Spanish government, Ruiz and Montes, and the claim that the Mendi were free people. -Teresa Felipe

I found this film to be very historically accurate. The movie followed and explained the history of the Amistad and the Mende very well. Most if not all of what was shown in the film was just what we had gone over in class on Tuesday. The part that I felt was the most important to be accurate was the portrayal of the ship that transported the captured people from Africa to Cuba. It was quite horrific to watch on screen, which is unfortunately the reality of the journey for those who were taken. I think that it is really important for people to understand the gravity of the bad parts of history, and I think that this film did so accurately. -Margaret Jones

I had very low expectations for this film’s historical accuracy, but I was pleasantly surprised with the job that Spielberg did, and I think that this film could be a secondary source in some aspects. I did have some problems with the film, but in general I did find that this film did its best to be accurate, unlike most of the other films we have watched. Amistad does a good job with the American judicial system at the time, as well as the brutal treatment of the slaves aboard the transport ships. In addition, the landscape, clothing, and overall depiction of the time is well done by the filmmakers. -Burke Steifman

I feel that the film was a fairly accurate secondary source because it portrayed the horrible acts the the enslaved people had to endure during their passages. Secondly, it showed the racism even in people who may have appeared as “anti-slavery” supporters such as people using religion to “save the people”. Lastly, the entire court system seemed fairly accurate as well, especially in regards to the actual court course, the translation done, etc. - Erika Lambert

Question I: Steam-powered vehicles actually existed when //Amistad// takes place. By the late 1830s, people had been experimenting with steam engines for over a hundred years. Steam-powered vehicles were still fairly experimental though. The experiments were mainly in Britain. It’s very possible that influential Americans, like Van Buren, would’ve had access to steam-powered vehicles for things like campaigning, but everything I could find only mentioned the British experiments with steam engines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_steam_road_vehicles. https://sites.google.com/site/motormiscellany/cars-other-vehicles/the-steam-century-2. -Katherine Rayhart

The film was able to get a decent amount the of history correct, which was more than I was expecting. Having the characters speak their accurate languages was a huge deal to me. It showed that they wanted to keep the story true and portray these people as accurately as possible. Which allowed for the film to be both entertaining and authentic. - Neonya Garner

====== II.	Problems with historical accuracy? Errors in fact? ======

There most certainly were some lapses in historical accuracy or creative liberties taken with the film. I think that if Sengbe Pieh (aka Joseph Cinque) had been able to tell by the stars that the Spanish were misleading them then many of the events of the film would not have taken place, but I do see why this section was included in order to underline what the Spanish were doing.
I cannot find any evidence of it happening, so I cannot state definitively, but I wasn’t able to find any evidence that President Martin Van Buren replaced the first judge on the case with Andrew T. Judson (definitely a real person). The abolitionists request for John Quincy Adams to work for them early in the proceedings seems a little farfetched, though I fully understand Spielberg’s intention of introducing the figure early so that he did not seem like a deus ex machina at the end of the film. The character of Theodore Joadson, played by Morgan Freeman, is entirely fictional and takes up much of the role originally played by Lewis Tappan. Mercifully perhaps, John Quincy Adams’ speech before the Supreme Court was not eight hours long, and did not include his mention of the US Navy ships dispatched by Van Buren regardless of the court proceedings. –Lucca Crowe

**The character of Theodore Joadson was one of the only characters that was fictional, although he mentioned having a newspaper, The Emancipator, which was real. I'm sure many directors would write a role specifically for Morgan Freeman if he would agree to be in their movie, but this character created a false sense of relations between Black and white abolitionists, especially Black abolitionists who were former slaves.** Joadson worked closely with Tappan and Baldwin and was never seen with any other Black abolitionists either, so it made it seem like he was more of a token character. Realistically, if a man like Joadson had been involved, it would have been with his own peers, and most likely abolitionists like Tappan and John Quincy Adams for that matter, wouldn't have given him the time of day. -- Jane Michael

I think a big problem is how it portrays this event as a way that people started to question slavery or that it led to the civil war. **At the end of the movie when John Quincy Adams was doing his speech, he said that this will lead to a war that will finally end the revolution. I don't think he actually predicted the civil war happening.** -Sophie Weber

The primary issue with accuracy that I noticed in this film was how the story implied that the Amistad case was highly significant in the nation’s change of opinion on slavery. The way the film tells the story of the case points to a change in public opinion and foreshadows the Civil War (I’m thinking specifically of John Quincy Adams’ comment during his speech). In reality the case did not seem to add to the fire of the abolitionist movement. **It was not like this case was witnessed by people not concerned with fighting slavery and convinced them to do otherwise. However, the way the film presents the narrative of the trial, it comes across as if this were the case, especially with the destruction of the slave trading fort (which, I should note, did happen) that gives the film such a solid conclusion that it implies that slavery is on its way out internationally as well as in the United States.** - Maris Tiller

Although the movie seemed to get a good amount right, there were still some historical inaccuracies. One example of this can be seen at the first portrayal of Josiah Gibbs. When he was first seen in the movie he obviously did not know or speak the language and could not help Baldwin communicate with the Africans. However, in reality he was a talented student of language and was also the one to find the sailor on the dock that spoke both English and Mende to translate before the end of the second trial. -Teresa Felipe

Though I think the film is historically accurate for the most part, there are some errors in the fact. While I was reading the Wikipedia page on the film, there was this source: http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74/, a website article by Eric Foner, a Columbia professor at the time of its writing. He points out a small inaccuracy that I did not realize is that in the film it shows Van Buren campaigning and as Foner points out, candidates did not campaign. More importantly though, the talk of Civil War in the film is not a truly accurate representation of attitudes at the time. Yes, there was no doubt tension in the states, but it was definitely not to the degree portrayed in the film. The film also portrays the Amistad case as a more domestic issue than it really was, it more about the international slave trade than anything else. Another thing that I found interesting in Foner’s article is that the film was distributing educational materials to schools. The education guide, as Foner states, encourages students to study Black abolitionism through the film’s fictional character, Theordore Joadson. This is problematic, because if you were to study Black abolitionism why not do it through real people such as Frederick Douglass. A real-life man who was a former slave and was the founder of an anti-slavery newspaper, The North Star. If you are going to teach students about Black abolitionism, use a real person, not a fictional character. Foner also states that the guide suggests that the Amistad case was a turning point in the struggle to end slavery, despite the case being more about international matters than domestic ones. - Taylor Coleman

Question II: This is nitpicky, but I want to talk about it anyways. //Amistad// treats the Civil War like it was a possibility at the forefront of everyone’s mind in 1839-1842. When in reality, almost everyone didn’t start worrying about a possible civil war until the late 1840s at the earliest, and the mid-1850s at the latest. Yes, tensions over slavery were a thing when the movie takes place. However, they were //nowhere// near as bad as they would be, almost twenty years later. -Katherine Rayhart

====== III.	How does the film’s overall interpretation(s) deviate from scholarly historical sources? ======

The reading, //The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano//, or Gustavus Vassa, The African, showed the enslavement of Africans by other Africans, which is also depicted in the film. This was unfortunately historically accurate as people were enslaved by other tribes due to a desire for European raw materials and guns, as well as a continuation of pre-existing issues with other tribes. -- Logan Kurtz

The readings from abolitionist viewpoints, specifically //An Abolitionist Defends..,// describes the Mende as they are in prison, and it differs greatly from the film. Many are described as cheerful and "full of hilarity," and most importantly, as orderly. In the film's version of their time in the New Haven prison, there was chaos and hostility at times when the abolitionists visited, and **though it was definitely just to dramatize and emphasize the language barrier, it felt like it was doing a disservice to a people who were already being stereotyped as "savage."** -- Jane Michael
====== IV.	How does this movie work as a primary source about the time period in which it was made or the filmmakers? ======

Based on an article by the Baltimore Sun, producer Debbie Allen was adamant about wanting to get this movie made but was met with backlash from studios and directors as they did not want to make a movie based on a slave boat. **It discusses how Spielberg depicts gruesome scenes instead of just implying them to get the audience to understand what happened.**(https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1997-11-30-1997334068-story.html) -Sophie Weber

I was quite shocked at the level of accuracy in the scenes depicting the Middle Passage, especially after watching the Patriot, which essentially pretended slavery didn’t exist. This speaks to the director’s view that depicting slavery accurately was important and that a film like this could be made. However, there is still a theme of American patriotism and modern values imposed on many of the scenes that take place in the US. It fits within the general theme we’ve witnessed in all the movies we have seen so far: a handful of clear villainous, racist characters, and everyone else being totally fine with peaceful coexistence between different racial groups. Love and understanding triumph and the racist guys lose, which is not how it actually works most of the time. Even the lawyer, Baldwin, who at first was solely focused on the property aspect of the case, has a moment of bonding with Cinque. The shift from the case being won because the Mende were legally not slaves to the triumph of Adams’ speech appealing to the judges is a testament to the movie’s themes of “America is so great.” I was very impressed with Spielberg’s dedication to depicting the Africans’ experiences coming to the US, but once they got there things definitely deteriorated. I guess the moral is that you can’t have it all. (Also, what was with John Quincy Adams openly criticizing the Declaration of Independence and pretending to tear it up? Because somehow I doubt he would have done something like that in real life). — Sasha Poletes

I think that this film works somewhat well as a primary source about the time in which it was made. As I think it demonstrates a time period where people were fully understanding the gravity of past (and also current) actions rooted in racism. Amistad provides a look into how people understood the weight of slavery and all that it consisted of, as seen in the accuracy of how the events of the Mende were portrayed. -Margaret Jones

Although I found the film more historically accurate than I anticipated, I still found that it showed the faults of 1990’s historical films just like the others we have discussed this semester. There are a few glaring inaccuracies that prove that although Spielberg created a somewhat historically accurate film, **he still painted the Americans in far too innocent a light. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the slaves because of an international law—it was not a stand against slavery as a whole. The white lawyers and politicians were still depicted as the saviors of the slaves, making them heroes in the film.** In addition, the character Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) was completely fictional, and in fact no black man would have been allowed to be present in the courtroom at this time in history. The film was successful in not dramatizing the story to the extreme. However, it does fall into the trap of portraying the Americans as heroes and saviors, attempting to downplay the racism that was present. -Burke Steifman
====== V. The "So, what?" question	======

I think this film has a lot more going for it than many we have already seen in this class. In addition to the moving performances by the actors, the fantastic score provided by John Williams, and the fantastic visuals and directing of Spielberg, the film got a lot right in terms of history. I think it is important as Americans that we examine our nation’s history, our nation’s crimes, our sins. While a little gratuitous at times, Spielberg’s film presents a viscerally real and painful reminder of the way enslaved Africans were treated, and the way white Americans and Europeans viewed them. The film does have some issues, however. Many of the figures depicted in the film talk about the threat of a civil war between North and South. This is most certainly a result of our position in history. We see conflict between abolitionists and slave holding southerners and conclude that this was obviously another steppingstone in the long path to the Civil War and eventual emancipation. But to the people who actually lived during this time, that idea could be nothing further from the truth. The Civil War would not take place for another twenty years, and many of the abolitionist leaders portrayed in the film were anything but “woke” as we would put it today. While I don’t think this is a bad film, we should always be careful of imposing our own understanding of the past on to the people who actually lived it. –Lucca Crowe

I believe that it is important that slavery is shown in a much more realistic way. Comparing this to The Patriot (even though this one came out 3 years before The Patriot) shows that movies like The Patriot were definitely able to tackle complex issues as successful movies in the past had been much more upfront about the issue of slavery. While The Patriot was a gory film that was definitely more of a “Yay America!” feel good movie, this movie was horrific and was very uncomfortable to watch. However, this history is important to know, and many would never have heard of this without this movie.-- Logan Kurtz
 
One of the scenes in the film that stuck out to me the most was **when Theodore Joadson boarded the ship to help Baldwin look for documents. Joadson had a moment of PTSD  that helps the viewer understand the level of fear and the motion of memory where he is reliving one of the worst things he went through.** We don’t necessarily need flashbacks ignorer to understand the significance of the chains onboard. Those chains triggered Joadson and the viewer can perfectly infer why it affected him so much. 
When it came to how others viewed Cinque, the movie made sure to focus on him as he was the leader of the group that was captured. That being said, its why Baldwin mostly tried to communicate with him. Although, Cinque doesn’t consider himself a leader, he believes it was luck or just something he had to do went he went through all that he went through on the journey. I think its important to look at that because of how raw his character was. The whole movie I believe was raw which is what made me feel the emotion and why I believe its rawness is what contributes to its accuracy. - Paula Perez

This movie walks a weird line between sanitizing and vividly portraying slavery. Some parts of the movie, such as the scenes depicting the Middle Passage, are incredibly raw and emotional, while in others slavery and racism are almost glossed over, like with Joadson’s character, as was mentioned above. (Something that I picked up that I was confused about was that John Quincy Adams referred to the Africans as Black — was the term Black used in the 19th century, or was it more a product of the Civil Rights Movement? Did they use Black as opposed to other words to make Adams seem more acceptable to contemporary audiences? Because his whole anti-slavery speech about the equality of men did not seem historically accurate… But that is somewhat irrelevant to my point.) Watching a movie like this can be especially moving for (White) audiences who probably did not learn much about slavery in school, and certainly were not exposed to the horrors of it. It is incredibly important to portray the full extent of the Mende’s journey because sanitizing it for audiences would be untruthful and incredibly unjust. However, the focus of the trial shifts from being strictly property related into a debate on the morals of slavery, which is not historically accurate. Many of the people helping the Mende appeared much less racist than they would have been in real life, though I did appreciate Tappan’s line about how as good, Christian people it was their duty to “save” the Africans, which touched on but did not necessary delve into some of the overarching “white savior” themes in the movie, of which there were a lot. Overall, **this movie can be incredibly useful to watch, though its educational merits lie more within the experiences of the Africans’ journey than in the parts that focus on the American characters, since those are more sanitized for White audiences.** There is a certain level almost of allowing other characters to be racist and openly pro-slavery, like the Spanish queen, while the American characters are portrayed as much more progressive than in reality. - Sasha Poletes

I think that this film gives a really important look into an event in history that isn’t always at the forefront of history classes. And I think it does so in a very effective and realistic way as well. A lot of this movie is quite hard to watch because of experience of enslaved people, but I think that it is also so important to watch because of the weight of our past. -Margaret Jones

Amistad was a tough watch, but I would say it is also a necessary watch. The film depicts the slave trade that is meant to make you uncomfortable. You are meant to feel uncomfortable watching this film and I think that is a good thing. Unlike The Patriot, this film actually addresses slavery and the horror of it. Compared to The Patriot, this film depicts what Americans are not proud of. For a long time, we did not want to acknowledge the horrors of slavery, but this film makes me you think about, makes you understand, and makes you feel uneasy about it. The problems of the film are valid and do need to be addressed, but I also think it is worth noting that the way Spielberg depicted slavery is harsh, but it is one of the most accurate portrayals of the time. Comparatively, The Patriot seems like a major step backwards considering slavery is ignored. - Taylor Coleman

Overall, I very much enjoyed this movie’s portrayal of history and found it the most accurate out of all the films we watched. The film was very difficult to watch and I found myself having to stop it because it was so intense at times…. particularly the scenes on the ship. I do think this movie can teach many people about how horrendous slavery was but also how it created so much corruption and problems in the United States. - Erika Lambert

Like all Hollywood films, Amistad did not hit every detail on the head. However, the amount of accuracies that were able to be put in the film made it all the more impactful. It is important for a history such as this one (lesser known) to be portrayed as correctly as possible, and I believe Stephen Spielberg was able to do that while still having an entertaining film. - Neonya Garner

Edit summary

Note: By editing this page you agree to license your content under the following license: CC Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International