This is an old revision of the document!
The movie worked as a good primary source in my opinion because it portrayed both sides lining up to shoot each other, the discrimination but also incentives for African Americans to fight in the war, the brutality of the war, and the reasons for the Neutrals to turn to Patriots. I also feel that the movie properly shared perspectives of civilians and colonists towards the British during this time period. The biggest historical inaccuracy that I can think of is the fact that the movie did not portray the importance of African Americans during this time, for both sides of the war but also it did not show the abuse towards them during this time. I think the movie works as a good secondary source because it portrays how in the time period the movie was created, there was not much awareness of the importance of African Americans during this time period and even if there was, it was “sugar coated” as we see when the African Americans say that they are “free” throughout most the fim (rather than the director showing the brutal honesty of how many were enslaved). Overall, I did enjoy the film and found it to be the most historically accurate film from what I have seen in this class so far. Erika Lambert.
This has definitely been said before, but the portrayal of slavery was terrible. It felt as if the writers wanted the main character to be seen as a morally upright patriotic man. Therefore, they made it seem like the enslaved people wanted to be working there rather than being forced. Obviously, that is not at all how slavery worked. - Neonya
I have to agree with Neonya, the portrayal of slavery was off. First, all of the Black people living on the main plantation were “free”… in South Carolina… during the civil war. It was most definitely a ploy/plot hole made by the writers, just like the heartfelt scene at the end where the newly freed slave stayed to fight and the farmer who had been harassing him the whole movie got emotional. Also, I do not know how legal it would have been for the Aunt to own her own plantation. That seems like something that would have to be owned by a husband. I did however appreciate the little historical realism when after Anne was married she wore a wedding hairpiece to signify she was taken. -Annika
The movie definitely works as a primary source for the time period it was made. You can see this in its view of Women (the aunt being a landowner) and Slaves (freemen working on plantations in the deep south). But it was also patriotic and strangely anti-war. It seems strange to say it, because the movie is a war movie, but throughout the film, there were many themes of anti-war. The alluding to war becoming too bloody with us needing to stay our hand for injured enemies, the speech at the beginning saying how he didn't want to join the war, the whole thing with the sons. -Annika