Historical records confirm that slaves onboard La Amistad were never actually thrown overboard — Natalie Sciadini 2016/09/25 4:13

The film does correctly address all the different groups who issued legal cases in the Amistad, however how and when they issued those claims is incorrect. All of the different parties are shown coming together at the first trial as a surprising turn with each announced party. In reality the claims did not all come together in the same moment of time, as movie shortcuts go it is not a particularly offensive jump for the sake of time. There are far many more other errors that come about in the film that actually impact a change in message. However in thinking about the actual events of the trials it is important to remember that not all groups were represented in the way that the film would leave you to believe. — Liberty, Catherine A. 2016/09/27 19:58

In the film, John Quincy Adams’ argument is central to the outcome of the Supreme Court case. However, the judges relied more on Baldwin’s evidence than his testimony. The film emphasized Adams’ involvement in the case as essential and the whole movie led up to Adams’ time in court. However, the Mendes petitioned for Adams’ help instead of Baldwin. Baldwin’s evidence weighed more heavily on the judge’s outcome. — James, Emily B. 2016/09/28 09:06

John Quincy Adams was shown as a reluctant hero in this movie who basically gets to work and does everything in the very last trial scene. His speech lasted about twenty minutes, and in the end the Supreme Court rules with only 1 dissention (no mention of 1 abstained) that the Mende are free. In class, we mentioned that Adams talked for eight and a half hours and focused on morality. The movie Adams does mention morality and even the constitution, but he also focuses on Cinque's story as the central point of his argument. He is also the one who mentions the Civil War four out of the five times it was mentioned. — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/09/28 14:59

This film, though taking place in 1839, mentions the inevitable Civil War several times, though this is not something that would have been said or even thought of. Characters also make comments about a divide between the North and the South on this issue even though in class we talked about how slavery was still legal in most states (in the North and the South) at this time. — Callie Morgan 2016/09/28 13:41

I agree with this comment, I believe the exact terminology used by a southern senator was that no United States president, “wanted to be responsible for the match that created a firestorm.” — Trout, Christian C. 2016/09/28 21:13

In the film, the court case involving the Mende focused mainly on slavery in the United States and helped lead to the Civil War. In the actual court case, slavery in the United States was hardly mentioned, the argument focused mainly around the International Slave Trade and how it had been abolished. — Fanning Neal R. 2016/09/28 18:11

As far as inaccuracies go, based on the readings, the film made quite a few. The film depicts Joseph Cinque as being alone in his own cell in most parts of the film, whereas Lewis Tappan’s letter claims he was celled with his fellow countrymen. Tappan also says that the prisoners were wearing pin-striped clothing, whereas the film has them wearing plain, white-colored clothes (symbolism?). The film shows there being only one interpreter, when there were actually two. — Gaddie, Jason 2016/09/28 19:13

Can’t really have an eight-hour long speech in a movie, but I will say that it would have been nice to attempt to show the time lapse in that twenty-minute scene via jump-cuts or changing the lighting to show that the sun was setting. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/09/28 20:38

This movie actually did a lot of things right about the interpretation of its history. However, I want to call into question the interpretation of Cinque. Throughout most of the movie he seemed very aggressive and not subdued. These are understandable reactions considering his circumstance obviously, but I believe in class that he was considered charming and not as upfront as they portrayed. I may be wrong, but that is something we were told to look for and I think it is a good discussion question. — Houff, Nicholas T. 2016/09/28 21:58

There were a few things that I found inaccurate about the film, even though it seemed overall fairly accurate. As some people have already said, the different parties who made claims to the slaves did not all show up at the same exact time, which was probably for dramatic effect, but was not how the events played out. John Quincy Adams' speech, as some others have said, was actually eight and a half hours, and was not really the basis for why the court made their decision. The other major error I noticed probably plays into interpretation too, but I noticed there were several times where the characters mentioned the possibility of civil war. Since the North had slaves at this time, and since abolitionists who wanted to get rid of slavery completely were still not taken as seriously as they were later in time, it seems like this was something added by the filmmakers to give the case more gravity and significance in the historical long term. — Carey Megan A. 2016/09/28 23:18

Theodore Joadson did not exist in real life, nor would he have been allowed to interact as freely with the white members of the court as depicted in the film. — Cooney, Corey R. 2016/09/29 00:32

I second Carey's claim. I felt throughout the movie, the filmmakers used the “inevitably” of the civil war as an overarching pressence. While the north and south had much to dispute and eventually lead to a civil war, but I very much doubt that a trial about the Mende had a big impact on the course of all out war. There could have been political pressures for the case to go one way but I don't think people were thinking this case was going to bring the country to its n Knees. — Robert Pratt 2016/09/29 04:44

Joseph Cinque, who was originally named Singbe Pieht. The movie painfully and realistically shows the trauma the slaves went through while aboard La Amstad for a few brief moments. — Natalie Sciadini 2016/09/25 6:20

The film does show accurately that there were some people on the slave boats that did commit suicide because of the suffering and abuse. The woman that jumped overboard saw witnessed the violence around her and realized that there was no hope for her and the baby’s future which encouraged her to end it. It portrays the conditions that people were faced with as accurate and shows that a few people were pushed to their breaking point due to the trauma they faced on the voyage. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/09/27 19:55

The film certainly got the characters right, Cinque, Tappan, Baldwin, Holabird, Quincy Adams, and Covey just to name a few. Baldwin was portrayed and characterized particularly well in the details, because he did view the case as purely a property issue rather than a morality and rights issue. The film portrayed specific events and occurrences fairly well, too, such as when Baldwin went to the docks counting in Mende to try and find a translator. And overall, I got a good impression from the movie the stark, vast differences between enslaved Africans through the Mende prisoners, and those in indentured servitude, which we got a glimpse of at the paper press. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/28 07:50

The movie does a good job with the general story of the Amistad and the Mende. Such as the Mende getting captured and being put aboard the Portuguese slave Tecora, being taken to Cuba, the Mende staging a mutiny on the Amistad, going to the United States, and the court case involving the Naval officers, Spain, and John Quincy Adams. — Fanning Neal R. 2016/09/28 18:07

In comparison to the previous films we have watched and studied, I believe this movie has done the greatest in portraying the history; its people and its occurrences thus far (granted the bar was not set high). From the lead characters on the numerous sides of the story to the well dressed and cultured insights to the locality of the people and their many origins. From Baldwin's argumental structures to the tension that would have been amidst the people of the the Northern and Southern influences. — Baker, Jonathon A. 2016/09/28 19:04

Seeing as how in Last of the Mohicans and The Patriot people were able to load their weapons within a few nano-seconds, it was nice to see the captain of the ship in the beginning have to go through the motions of trying to reload. I also thought that the portrayals of the cast, Cinque and John Quincy Adams in particular were done very well and accurately. The way the slaves (in particular the women) were treated aboard the ship was accurate as well. I will also say that I fully expected the film to show Cinque’s family to be waiting for him in Africa, so it was nice to see the added the tagline explaining that there was civil war there, and that his family was gone. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/09/28 20:38

I think this movie was a drastic step up from the others we watched in terms of historical accuracy and realism. I think I enjoyed it more because of this fact. It got many of the characters and the overall story of the Amistad correct. It portrayed the slave trade in the negative light I think it should have. At times it was graphic, but that's how terrible it actually was. It's hollywood so they did not get everything right, but overall I was impressed. I really liked the language barrier was kept intact and a simple linguist was not able to conquer that barrier. Also, most of the attire was correct for the time period I believe. — Houff, Nicholas T. 2016/09/28 22:12

The film does a good job depicting just how confusing the trial of the Mende would have been. The language barrier doesn’t disappear after someone ‘listens to the color of the wind.’ The trial is conflicted between deciding to whom the Mende belong while also trying to decide if they belong to anyone at all. Everyone seems to have their own personal motive in freeing or capturing the Mende, whether for the sake of Christianity, wealth, or property. — Rainford, Lauren E. 2016/09/28 23:05

Overall, I thought Amistad did a great job of remaining true to the story in the movie. In class, we had learned that the Mende’s “team” of Americans had learned Mende and went around, yelling numbers in Mende to find an interpreter so I really liked seeing that in the film. The fear of the majority of the Supreme Court being in favor of slavery was also mentioned in the movie as the case was being brought before the nine judges. — Haynes, Kelly E. 2016/09/28 21:45

In regards to film accuracy, I believe this is the most proficient portrayal of history (in the semester) thus far. The film’s overall accuracy can most likely be attributed for two reasons. Stephen Spielberg directed it who does not spare audiences from historic atrocities (as seen in 1993 Schindler’s list), and anyone attempting to recreate such delicate subject matter, should do so with the utmost care. With the exception of some (probable) character flaws that depict the abolitionists with more passivity and heroism than their advantageous investment in the case to further promote their cause, I believe he did so as truthfully as documented history would allow. As expected, all of the broad content is present throughout the film regarding key figures and dates which include (but not exclusive to) the presence of all parties concerned with the trial’s outcome, including Adams’ alliance to the abolitionists, despite his indifference towards the active movement (discussed in class). Naturally, the premise of the film revolved around an initial and appealed hearing, where proof of falsified documents (origin of defendants) would negate the charges of piracy and murder and of course, the events that lead to such a trial following La Amistad’s interception by the U.S. brig Washington. Although I am uncertain of the facts, I do question Cinque’s inquisitive nature and his familiarity with John Quincy Adams in the third act of the film. Overall, I base my contrast my research only on the primary source readings. — Blount, David M. 2016/09/28 23:58

As others have said, the creators of this film clearly paid more attention to historical accuracy than most of what we have seen so far. While some minor characters were made up from composites, and some characters (like John Quincy Adams) given questionably over-important roles, the film shows how the slave trade was still active illegally between some West African peoples and Europeans/Euro-Americans and the lengths slave traders would go to buy and sell human beings to support a larger slave society. The film portrayed both the brutal and cruel treatment of slaves on slave ships as well as the uprooting of identity that came with being sold into a different form of slavery than what many Africans knew. While the end of the film stretched the effects of JQA's argument on the Supreme Court, it generally did a good job, I felt, of showing how moral arguments supplemented Baldwin's legalistic case that ultimately returned the Mende and Cinque to freedom. — Hawkins Daniel C. 2016/09/29 05:03

Why would Spielberg include the violent scenes on La Amistad if, historically, they didn't occur on that ship? — Natalie Sciadini 2016/09/25 6:20

It was interesting to see that in the beginning of the film (mainly that first scene) there were Spanish subtitles, but not African subtitles. And when there were, they were crude and read “Native language”, “shouting angrily“ or “shouting in Native”. Maybe it was just because I felt so lost, but I was indignant that there were not also African subtitles throughout. However, towards the middle of the film, they then began translating more of the Mende language (though still not all of it). I did find that a specific scene around 1:15 that took care to translate did have a tremendous impact on me, which may have been diminished had they been translating everything. And perhaps it required time and money that the budget didn’t allow to translate every Mende moment. But why do the filmmakers get to decide which parts are and aren't important for viewers to understand when, in my opinion, all aspects of the Amistad Africans’ story is important to understand? (I literally didn't know about it until this class) To be making a narrative about such an important and real occurrence in history, and for this film to hold an extra bit of influence being made by Steven Spielberg, I think the whole narrative deserved to be told. In my opinion, they cared to tell the story, just not as much as they could have. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/28 07:48

Van-Buren made various appearances throughout the movie and his story operated as a subplot. Calhoun, who was Adams’ vice president during his time in office, served as a bug in the president’s ear about the importance of the Amistad case. However, Calhoun warns that Van-Buren could lose the South because of the outcome of the case. While it was an election year, as the movie pointed out, I’m not sure Calhoun would be such a main player. Calhoun even interrupts Van Buren's dinner to deliver a grim warning on the president's failure to shut down the case. Calhoun warns that the abolitionists were a threat to the Southern 'way of life.' While the abolitionists were present in the northern states, most northerners were fine with slavery. Calhoun foreshadows the Civil War during that same dinner, which I'm not sure would be accurate. Adams’ in the courtroom hints that a civil war is brimming, I’m not completely sure this was on everyone’s radar. While abolitionists were present in the northern states, they were a minority; they weren’t as big of a threat as Calhoun made them out to be. The Civil War, which is the elephant in the room the entire movie wasn’t even a blip on the national radar until later. The Dred Scott decision in 1857 played a larger role in the build up to the Civil War. — James, Emily B. 2016/09/28 09:15

In the film, John Quincy Adams is portrayed as a savior of the Supreme Court case and the Mende people. Adams’ eloquence and craft win over the Supreme Court and stupefy the opposing arguments. This representation of Adams makes me question his influence on the case in reality. In the film, although lawyer Roger Baldwin is portrayed as charismatic and competent, winning the first two cases, he writes to Adams requesting his aid (the film's ignoring of Mende outreach to Adams, such as Kalito's letter, is a separate issue). Did Adams have as much influence in reality as he does in the film? If so, was this influence based on his past presidential status or was his argument in the case that compelling? — Milroy, Nancy E. 2016/09/28 13:26

We didn't talk much about Joadson in class, but his character in the movie got me thinking about what the actual Joadson was doing throughout the case. In the movie, he's usually accompanying Baldwin, Tappan, or Adams. He does very little and almost never goes on his own. His role in the movie is entirely supportive. What did the real Joadson do throughout the case? It's significant that he's an African American fighting for the freedom of Africans, but the movie uses this more or less as a contrasting point between the Americans and Africans. They don't use him as a magical relay point between the white Americans and Africans, which was a relief, but even then Cinque talks to him a great deal and seems to challenge his heritage and culture. Additionally, Joadson is identified primarily as an ex-slave and an abolitionist who wants to free others who have suffered through slavery. That's pretty much where his character contribution ends, though. As a person, he offers a thought now and again and carries messages between the other main characters. I'd like to think that, in the real event, he was a bit more important that this. Or at least he had more control. — Lindsey McCuistion 2016/09/28 15:04

When looking at the characters, John Quincy Adams really took a large role. From my understanding, which might be wrong, he played a role in the trial but not quite as large as the movie portrays. Is John Quincy Adams’s role in the movie enhanced because he was former president? Or was it simply easier to write for his character? — Brooks Anna R. 2016/09/28 20:24

Anna Paquin as Queen Isabella, really…? I realize that obviously Spain was involved in this, but I don’t understand why it was necessary to include the scenes with the queen. And as Natalie pointed out, while there were suicides, there was never an instance of the crew deliberately chaining the slaves to a net of rocks to throw them overboard. I’m leaning toward Steven Spielberg wanted to up the horror of what the slaves on the Amistad went through. And while I thought he did a fine job (as he always does) Morgan Freeman’s character was fictional. I know that he couldn’t have played David Walker, as he died before the events of the Amistad, but why not James W. Pennington? — Frey Lauren E. 2016/09/28 20:39

I thought it seemed a little odd that there was a baby born during the voyage. Wouldn’t the slave traders not want to “deal” with a newborn? It seems like it would’ve been obvious that she was pregnant before the ship sailed so I thought that was kind of odd. Or maybe the producers thought it would be a powerful scene to have a woman commit suicide as well as kill the baby when she went overboard? Why did the opening scene have to be so bloody? Weren’t there only four crew members and the captain? How much blood could a few people lose? It seemed a little overkill on the goriness. Also, was Queen Isabella a child during this? She’s seen with a doll and jumping on her bed. What was the purpose of that presentation? Was she supposed to be oblivious to the importance of the Amistad case? — Haynes, Kelly E. 2016/09/28 21:47

The majority of the film focused on the white politicians in the United States fighting to “save” slaves by fighting to prove their value as humans. This ignores how the slaves portrayed in the film actually spent the bulk of two years in an American prison. Or how the film radically distorts race relations into this anachronistic discussion of equality, when in reality the issue was less about equal human rights and more about economics. I am unsure if Spielberg set out to create a historically accurate film, but his efforts would have been for naught as historic fact undermines the idea that race relations were as clear cut as abolitionists being pro-African. — Cooney, Corey R. 2016/09/29 00:29

The film for the most past was pretty historically accurate. My question is, how accurate was the portrayal of the Mende in this movie? How much research went into portraying them? Did the filmmakers, potentially, make a guess off how they imagined Africans in 1839? — Robert Pratt 2016/09/29 04:37

Religion played an interesting if secondary role in the film. Throughout the film, there are references peppered throughout to Christianity and its presence in the United States, whether it was the traveling choir coming to pray at the jail or Tappan's references to equality before God. Without much resolution, the film portrayed one of the Mende, Yamba, as intensely interested in the Bible and Christianity. Given that Christianity had deep ties both to the case for and against slavery in the antebellum US, do you think the film should have delved deeper into this topic, should it have cut these aspects out, or is the ambiguity fitting? — Hawkins Daniel C. 2016/09/29 04:57

If one wanted to understand the topic of ‘transatlantic slave trade’, this film is valuable because it depicts the horrors that went on ships carrying slaves during the time of Middle Passage. — Natalie Sciadini 2016/09/25 6:20

The film shows the attitudes that America had during race in the late twentieth century. If this film had been made in the early twentieth century, then the African Americans would have been portrayed as more beastly and savage-like because that was view during that time period. However, this film accurately shows that America has come a long way on how they view race and acknowledges that slavery was a terrible and that everyone, no matter their race, should be viewed as equals. — Kacoyanis, Leah F. 2016/09/27 19:55

I definitely agree about the treatment of race in this movie. The time in which this film was made, created a huge difference in the depiction of African Slaves at the time. Most of the actors used to portray the main Mende people were actually from Africa or at least one generation removed. This says a lot about the time in which the film was made because if it had been made sooner, there would most definitely have been a lot more problems. — Callie Morgan 2016/09/28 13:42

There is a common theme throughout movies of the main character/hero is a white man who ends up saving the day, which makes this movie very interesting because the main character/hero is an African man. While it is eventually the white males who are saving them from slavery or death, the focus is more on how these people are the heroes in their story and saved themselves from slavery originally. This can be seen especially in the end scene, where we see Cinque in a similar outfit and stance as we see with the pictures of Jesus in the bible shown in the movie. While Spielberg falls into the trap other movies do, he is still showing the push during the 90s from what had become the traditional idea of a hero. — Lindsey, Megan E. 2016/09/28 22:02

In our readings for this week one of the chosen was a letter from the Mende pleading for John Quincey Adams to assist in their court trial. In the film however everyone else goes to Adams to ask for his assistance however the Mende never actually contact him. It might have been interesting to actually include that scene in a film as it would have given more agency to the Mende as people. Perhaps though it purposely was not included because the agency in the film wanted to stay with the white men as they work to free the African men. It would have also had to admit that the Mende had started to learn to speak and write some English over their very long trial process. The film keeps all the Mende men as illiterate and unable to understand English, with the notable few words that Cinque learns. The real Mende then in the court trial seem to have had a more active role in trying to be heard unlike those same men portrayed in the film. — Liberty, Catherine A. 2016/09/27 20:05

Callie, I agree that there was definitely a lack of agency to the Mende people. Especially when we learned in class that they charged Ruiz and Martin for false imprisonment etc, I was amazed to hear that, and I realized that the movie often portrayed the Mende as less than capable and only able to enact change with the whites at their side. Had the movie given the Mende more agency, I believe it would have made the movie that much more accurate. — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/28 07:29

Theodore Joadson’s character was one of the few in the movie who didn't seem to be based on an actual historical figure. I got the feeling that he was a composite character, largely inspired by David Walker, whose letter we read, as well as Reverend James Pennington. With a similar backstory to both of these figures, Joadson was “an ex slave from Georgia devoted to abolitionism”, and still subject to much prejudice simply for being black. This made that scene in the Amistad’s cargo hold all the more powerful for sure… — Fanghella, Amy E. 2016/09/28 07:29

In A Black Abolitionist Speaks Out, David Walker, an African American abolitionist, explicitly writes of an impending social and political upheaval in America rooted in the issue of slavery. He argues that “slavery, which is ten thousand times more injurious to this country than all the other evils put together…will be the final overthrow of its government, unless something is very speedily done; for their cup is nearly full. Perhaps they will laugh at or make light of this; but I tell you Americans! that unless you speedily alter your course, you and your Country are gone!!!!!…” (347). While this consciousness, written in 1829, may seem radical for its time, the film portrays John Quincy Adams as also having this consciousness. In the film, Adams hints several times at a future civil war, calling it “the last battle of the American Revolution.” Adams also says that this Supreme Court case (1839) is “rooted in the fear of civil war,” and will “rip the country in two.” These statements in the film, and the reading, seem premature for the time. Let’s explore this idea? — Milroy, Nancy E. 2016/09/28 13:57

The reading, The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano, depicts the enslavement of black Africans by black Africans. Joseph Cinque was likewise captured by his fellow Africans, also depicted in the film. This was not uncommon, as the tribes did this to one another because they were either at war, or were used a barter for goods and services. There are many similarities shared between Olaudah Equiano and Joseph Cinque, especially in experiences. Specifically, the experience of continuous movement from master to master. — Gaddie, Jason 2016/09/28 19:46

Our primary source of Olaudah Equiano gives weight to Spielberg’s telling of the Transatlantic Slave trade via Middle Passage and the arduous journey taken by its unwilling capture’s (legally or otherwise), including the West Indies destination prior to sailing north to the American colonies with its remaining cargo (unsold slaves). Although Equiano was only 11 when he was captured, the horrors conveyed by these survivors share a disturbing commonality (minus the rebellion). From both sources, it doesn’t appear that Spanish slave traders are better or worse than the Dutch. Additionally, both portrayals express the language barriers between the abducted, increasing the hardships through miscommunication. Despite this, Lewis Tappan’s document reflect the film’s notion of the prisoners being unified and “peaceable” over the course of the trial. Unlike the primary source readings, there was never a mention of any “official” Amistad committee though unofficially, such a mention seems irrelevant in expressing the film’s overall intention. — Blount, David M. 2016/09/27 23:56

The movie explicitly shows the horrors that went on during Middle Passage.This film genuinely made me uncomfortable and also knowing that this movie was loosely based off of real events didn't help .I think that that was the goal all along; forcing Americans to watch a disturbing time in history. . The Amistad case was important in history because it made people realize that slaves could not simply be treated as cargo. It was therefore a major milestone in the development of the Abolition movement. — Natalie Sciadini 2016/09/25 6:20

In response to the beginning questions and comments (in this section) on the beginning of the film and its lack of translation. I too at first was confused and lost in the narrative of the story on the ship. I even went as far as pausing the movie putting on subtitles and rewinding. After watching the film though I think that this was not a due by accident or in correlation to funding. Rather I think this method of story telling allowed the audience to shockingly jump into the movie, the characters, and the atmosphere that was… “La Amistad”. As the movie goes on the audience grows in comfortability and understanding of the Mende as individuals just as the people of the time had to. I think this movie was unbelievably directed and incredibly captivating.

So am I the only one who wondered if Matthew McConaughey’s victorious leap had to be done in more than one take because he crashed into his chair? I did like how the translation between the Mendes and Americans was shown as very difficult (no magic leaves) and Covey told Baldwin that “shouldn’t” wasn’t a word in the Mende language. I can’t say that I know for a fact that that is accurate, but it certainly seems so. — Frey Lauren E. 2016/09/28 20:39

I feel like it is important to watch Amistad because I feel like it’s a part of history that is forgotten or at the very least not talked about. All the previous movies you learn before in as far back as elementary school, but before Tuesday I had never even heard of the Amistad. We could’ve watched any other movie about the slavery we are taught, but instead we watched a movie about a real event that is not. This movie is important because instead of watching something we already know about, we are actually caught into the history. — Lindsey, Megan E. 2016/09/28 21:14

As a historian, what would you change about them movie? Would taking out some of the scenes of the slavery aboard the ship change the overall message and theme of the movie? Doesn’t the fact that 50 slaves drowned give the movie much more power? — Trout, Christian C. 2016/09/28 21:20

The film seemed to be almost a complete reversal of what American cinema was like in its early days in regards to the history of race relations in the United States. Whereas older films either vilified Africans and African-Americans or ignored the brutality of slavery, this film does not shy away from it. Spielberg, who is not really known as an especially violent director, recreates at least some of the gory, disturbing elements that were the foundation of the slave trade. By forcing the audience to watch it, the film takes us one step closer to understanding, in our own small way, the reality of what people went through. — Carey Megan A. 2016/09/28 23:12