I think the movie works well in that it focuses on a time that is not really discussed in the average history class. It focuses on the actual Amistad case and the main individuals involved, with a majority of individuals being actual individuals. They emphasized the importance of some of these individuals to the case, such as Sinque, Baldwin, and even James Covey. Overall, I think it works as an exceptional secondary source, especially when used alongside other sources about the subject. Like most historical movies, it helps to provide a visual representation of the subject. – Jordan Petty

This film works very well if one wants to visit a scarcely discussed time period and concept in American History. The film focuses on the period between the American Revolution and Civil war, and focuses on the concept of illegal slave trading at the time. The film does an excellent job of portraying attitudes, social climate, politics, culture, law and other concepts accurately. The way the Africans are portrayed is not with a stereotypical lens, and it feels like Spielberg and the other filmmakers attempted to portray the events of the film in the most accurate way possible. Despite a few characters that did not exist and were created for the sake of the film's story, this film is one of the more historically accurate ones we have been able to view so far – AJ DeGeorge

This film appears to actually be fairly historically accurate. Many of the details of the film line up with what actually happened. It does a good job highlighting the language barrier that made representing the Mende in court difficult. Baldwin's property based argument and JQA's morality based argument are both correct. The scene of the initial trial where everyone claims ownership of the Mende with different documentation is accurate. As we learned, there was the USS Washinton, Spanish, and people from New York who all claimed they owned the Mende. Beyond historical facts the movie gets right, it also likely accurately captures the moods of the time. The confusion that Cinque and the Mende must have felt when they had to continually go to court after winning their case must have been incredibly frustrating and infuriating. The movie does a good job of showing Cinque's confusion and anger that he likely had. Its portrayal of slavery captures the raw emotions that slaves probably had. The audience can see the fear in the slaves' eyes on the boat. The audience is forced to see how awful the middle passage was. Overall, the film does a very good job of telling the story of the Amistad. -Daniel Walker

I think that this movie works very well as a secondary source. It seems as though this has been one of the most fact-based films that we have watched so far. The filmmakers stayed true to the historical evidence that is available and told the story of the slaves in a way that shows the raw emotion and feelings involved in the story. I think that this movie goes beyond the readings to provide visual interpretation in a way that works very well. – Mariah Morton

I think this movie works well as a secondary source. Before taking this class I had never heard of the movie nor the supreme court case, which is really disappointing because it seems like such a major breakthrough in American history. Judging from what we talked about in class relating to the case and the readings, this movie appears to have made the greatest effort out of the movies we've seen so far in order to maintain historical accuracy. I loved the attention to detail, specifically the problems with the language barrier and the motivations behind each of the parties involved in the case. Moreover, I believe the movie does an excellent job of portraying just how traumatic of an experience this was for the Mende people. There appears to be a slight issue with the timing of events, though this is understandable because a movie cannot be expected to last forever and get every single detail right. Despite that I think this movie is a great secondary source and could be used as a starting point to teach about such an important topic in U.S. history. – Lyndsey Clark

Based on the first reading, the way that Cinque was captured was pretty accurate. I also thought that Speilburg did a pretty good job of showing many of the horrors of slavery that we don't normally see in films. They seemed to have followed the events of the time (Van Burren's re-election campaign) fairly well, although for time limits sake much of the story felt very condensed.– Helen Dhue

I think this is a good secondary source. It touches on the fact that Africans were sold into slavery by other Africans, something I didn't learn about until high school. The relationships between the Africans and the whites they encountered I found to be very realistic, mostly the misunderstandings. Of course, a lot of events had to be condensed or skipped over for time reasons, so you can't take all of it as factually. -Madison Roberts

I think as a secondary source, this movie works well in many ways. Like others have already written, I had neither heard of the actual events that took place in history, nor seen the film. The film is incredibly passionate and engaging, helping to create a visual representation of historical events that in some ways helps to understand what happened better than actual historical sources. However, that can also be a problem in it's own right. One particular issue I had with this movie as a secondary source, is that by the end of the movie I was left with a feeling that slavery as a whole was soon coming to an end, not just the slavery of these specific people. When in reality, the Africans on the Amistad were allowed to go free purely on legal reasons, not moral ones, and it would be several more decades before slavery was ended in America. -Cat Kinde

I think the film works as a pretty good secondary source for the period. While not 100% accurate, I think Spielberg tried to capture the broad themes of the era which can be difficult given the nuanced history. One interesting aspect of the film was the talk and threat of an eminent civil war. While nobody in the story really knew if there would in fact be a civil war, this threat was ever-present in early-mid 19th century politics and even resulted in instances such as the Nullification Crisis in the 30's, as well as the threat of South Carolina's succession and Bleeding Kansas in the 50's. The threat of civil war influenced many aspects of 19th century American politics, especially regarding the issue of slavery; and while characters in the movie weren't referencing THE Civil War, their comments about A civil war were extremely accurate regarding the political ramifications of the Amistad case. - Wilson LeCount

I think Amistad is an incredible secondary source because it provides a great visual representation of the events that happened in 1839-1841 around the captured Africans. To be honest I had never heard of the events surrounding the Amistad so I watched this movie in complete shock and amazement! Like Madison said it shows the willingness of other Africans to sell other Africans into slavery. It shows the graphic details of being on a slave ship. It shows how people were willing to break international law to make money by selling and exploiting others. Additionally, I feel like the film does a good job of establishing the main players involved in this event. Another thing I would like to mention is before watching this film I had no idea that John Quincy Adams was still active in politics after being President. -Megan Williams

I think what this movie does a decent of portraying is how the Mendi people started to become followers of the Bible and Jesus Christ. While watching the movie I thought the involvement of the bible was just something the writers/directors threw in to westernize the Mendi once they got to America. While reading the letters from Kali to John Quincy Adams I was surprised to see how much Kali spoke of god and stated things like “God punishes liars”. Not knowing who Kali was (If he was in the movie I must've missed him) I looked him up. I found more letters from the Mendi to John Quincy Adams which I will link below. In these letters the Mendi said things like, “Mendi hope the great God will send down His Holy Spirit upon you and have mercy upon you & that our dear savior Jesus Christ will bless you and give you a new heart.”. Right there they identify Jesus Christ as their savior which indicates they most certainly had taken up Christianity at some point during their time in America. If anything the movies underrepresents the Mendi's turn towards Christianity when I originally thought it was just filler content. -Dan Dilks Link: https://digitallibrary.tulane.edu/islandora/object/tulane%3A53601 - Dan Dilks

I think that as a secondary source this could work fairly well to tell the basic story of the Amistad men as well as the treatment of Africans when they were captured and brought on slave ships to whatever country had captured them. There are a large number of errors with this movie, both in the historical context and the story itself, including the timeline and some other minor details but it was a basic summary of the story and gave a visual and emotional take on how some of the men must have been feeling. The portrayal of how the African people were treated on the slave ships is most definitely a glimpse into what it was actually like as well as the lengths the Europeans went to to cover up their illegal activity. I think this was also a good look into how the men from the Amistad came to Christianity, reading and understanding the Bible through pictures and relating to their own lives. I think the movie as fact for the story is a little bit of a stretch, however, as a secondary source for the emotion and struggle, and the concept of the slave trade conditions (legal and illegal) it is viable. Regardless of what details it got wrong or right, I think that this movie has gotten more right about the story than many other historically based films.–Kimberly Sak

This movie was an incredibly impactful one, if for nothing else than because of the court case and events that it is highlighting. While I had heard of this case before, I did not know many of the specific details and people that were involved. While this movie is not 100% historically accurate, it doesn’t hide the horrors of the slave trade in this time period. Amistad not only highlights the key players in the case as well as the key issues and ideologies surrounding it. It touches on the United States’ relationship with Spain and the idea that the final decision of this case would create a major precedent for future court cases involving slavery. The movie also highlights how the Mende people were introduced to Christianity and that many began to practice Chritisninty as thier religion. While again this movie should not be taken solely at face value, as it clearly as some problems such as referencing this event causing the Civil War which is not entirely accurate. I think it can serve as a valuable secondary source for a little more in-depth introduction to the topic of the court case involving the Amistad. -Morgan Gilbert

The film’s portrayal of the interested parties in the fate of the illegally acquired enslaved Africans was interesting. I think the film was rather good when it showcased the white abolitionist as more interested in the abolitionist movement rather than the fate of the Africans. As many within the abolitionist cause saw slavery as an immoral institution but also were racist in that they believed that the slaves should be sent back to African as not to interfere with white society. Though not entirely connected to the film the fact that the filmmakers did not make the abolitionists all good, seemed to be a more accurate look at the abolitionists. The politics of the case and the setbacks fit with the nature of such a case and implications for the nation and its foreign connections. The turbulent times in which the nation was existing made any act which could be a challenge to slavery a difficult case indeed. The film’s portrayal of the conditions of the transatlantic journey for slaves was brutal and included many points which can be compared to with the historical record. The cramped and inhospitable conditions that the slaves were forced to endure, the constant fear and wanton punishments, and the means by which slaves jumped from the ship to spare themselves from the cruel fate awaiting them were all so much more than a reading can invoke. The film has captured many aspects that fit with the historical record and while I would not dare claim it as a secondary source for the Amistad case I do believe that the ideas it explores and points it presents can add to anyone’s study of said case. -Robert Keitz

I think this film works really well as a secondary source. I knew that enslaved Africans were treated very poorly but I didn't know about this exact case in history. Based on what we learned in class, the film does follow the historical storyline pretty well. It doesn't glamorize any of the history or change events in a major way in order to make certain characters or plot points more interesting. The very prominent language and culture barrier was something they portrayed accurately. The perception and treatment of the Mende tribe was also portrayed pretty honestly, the way they were talked about and viewed as some form of entertainment or some commodity waiting for their owner. -Purnaja Podduturi

This week’s film did get a lot of the little details correct, for example, most of the clothing seemed to be within the correct era, as well as the hairstyles and wigs. But, there are some things the movie did seem to get wrong, for example, in the movie the timeline appears to be fairly fast, but in reality, a court case like this would take a couple of years, if not longer. The Amistad also leaves out the social code, or segregation of African Americans within the courthouse, and especially in the Supreme Court. - Kaylee Williams

The Number 1 problem with historical accuracy is that I feel as if the film overstates how into abolitionism the people in the north were in 1839. So many of the characters seem so uncool with slavery, except Matthew McConaughey's character who seems to see the slaves as property in the beginning but grows out of that mentality rather quickly. It also seems to mess up the age of Queen Isabella II at the time, by saying she was 11 when in reality she was 9 during the events of this film. However this film, unlike Pocahontas and The Patriot, was much more faithful and respectful to the primary source material and was probably the most accurate film we have viewed so far. But this film does add some clearly movie moments that are meant to be entertaining, such as little things like Morgan Freeman's character, who along with not existing interacts with white abolitionists way more than a black free man would in New England at the time. – AJ DeGeorge

The movie, Amistad, got a lot of things right within the context of the film such as the characters that were influential to the release of the African Americans such as Roger Baldwin, Lewis Tappan, and John Q. Adams but didn't mention other historical figures within the case. They also added fictional characters to help move the plot. The movie sheds some light on the bloody slave mutiny led by Cinque, but the majority is dedicated to the jumbled system of the United States Judicial system where white lawyers defend poor Africans. These complex white historic figures are seen as noble men who are interested in the welfare of African Americans. The movie also distorts race relations as well in the 19th century. This distortion is brought on by fictional character Theodore Joadson, played by Morgan Freeman. He is supposed to represent the composite black folks in New England during this time. Joadson freely associates with white abolitionists, which is something that was not done under New England's strict racial codes. -Lauren Simpson

While the film does work well for the most part and succeeds in focusing on a lot of key details, there still are some problems regarding its accuracy, as with any historical film. The one problem that seemed to stick with me personally was the movie's emphasis on the importance of the court case. There is no question that the Amistad case was an extremely important one in American history, especially related to the issue of slavery and race in the early nineteenth century. The problem I had is how the movie seemed to make this case directly related to the American Civil War. Watching the movie, it made it seem like the decision of the case was a direct cause of the Civil War, but the case took place two decades before the war even started. – Jordan Petty

Although of the movies we have watched in the class so far, I do believe this one has done the best job and found it the most interesting, it still has plenty of faults. I noticed the film had the feeling that the process was not all that long, and they left out things that would make the white heroes of the film look bad. We discussed in class that about 5,000 people a day would come in to visit the jail to look at the Mende people, like they were animals, and charged the onlookers money to do so, which wouldn't make the white abolitionist characters look very good, so that was left out. Also in the end the movie made it seem like the Mende people were sent back to Africa right after the case, they left out everything about being converted to Christianity, I believe it was because to get into this subject matter would be complicated and not shed a favorable light onto the “good” white characters. Imposing religion on other people in movies is normally not a good look. The movie did leave out a lot of the nuances of the characters, at first I thought they were doing a good job with JQA, but by the end, they make him out to be this very wise man without any faults. I do think it is fair to make out some of these characters to be progressive for their era and place, however, potraying them as people who are progressive with todays values is unfair to the telling of history. –Helen Dhue

I found this to be probably the most factually correct of the movies we've watched so far. The only thing that threw me off was the seemingly fluid integration of freed blacks with the rest of New England society. I understand that their existence in northern society wasn't unheard of, but to the point it was portrayed here seemed more wishful than anything else. There wasn't even segregation within the courthouses. -Madison Roberts

One thing that stood out after reading Tappan's letter was the portrayal of the jail the Mende were kept in. Tappan's letter seems to suggest the cells or rooms of the jail weren't too bad, unlike the dungeon like conditions of the jail in the movie. This could of be relative, and maybe Tappan was used to seeing even worse prisons, but he also mentioned that Cinqez was held in a cell with other white and black prisoners which wasn't shown. Tappan's account also states that he believed the Mende prisoner's death was caused by lack of outdoor space and exercise, but in the movie it seemed like the Mende spent most of their time outside in some sort of courtyard. That probably wasn't the real cause of death, but he did mention a specific lack of any outdoor activity. - Wilson

Like Kaylee said the timeline of this film felt fast even though it was spread out over a longer period. With this distortion it made it seem that as soon as the Africans won their court case they were on a boat back to African. When in reality it took some time and some exploration of them on Lewis Tappan’s side. Another, the movie didn’t show was the fact that Jose Ruiz and Pedro Montes were arrested, and released on bail to escape back to Cuba. Also, like others were saying the film distorts race relations during this period. Society almost seemed too integrated. Another, the film does in downplay JQA’s 8 1/2 hour speech but again that's because they need to fight the story within a specific timeframe. -Megan Williams

A small note that I wanted to add involves the presence of John Quincy Adams in the house of Representatives as the film ignores the gag rule. In his protests the institution of slavery the gag rule was often applied to the ex-president while the film presented a calm assembly with a sleeping president. I think it was a failed moment that could have presented a prevalent issue of the time in which the Amistad case took place. -Robert Keitz

I noticed an occasionally re-appearing theme in the film that seemed to contradict the primary source account of Tappan, which we were assigned. Tappan was struck by the causal humor and orderly quietude of the prisoners. However, the film frequently portrayed the Mende as stereotypically rowdy and “tribal” by having the characters engage in frequent guttural hollering, etc. In one scene, they are even playing bongo-like drums. (Where did they get those in a prison?) Of course, I'm sure Tappan's narrative has issues as well, but I feel like the film went out of it's way to portray the Mende as a western stereotype of “old timey-times” Africans. -Ethan

The reading “An Abolitionist Defends the Amistad Mutineers” by Lewis Tappan noted some of the details he encountered while engaged in the Amistad case that seem counter to the film’s portrayal. Tappan described the Africans as much calmer than the film’s overall depiction and that the prison kept them separated. Furthermore, Tappan noted that they brought in a group of translators with only one being able to communicate rather than the film’s presentation of one and done. Furthermore, within Tappan’s writing he noted that the abolitionists formed the Amistad community while the film only showed us two abolitionists who were used to represent all. A film is limited by time in what it can show and I am not familiar enough with geography to deny the film’s portrayal but Equiano’s autobiography noted his 6 month journey to the coast from his home and the many hands that traded him. Equiano also noted that the finally group that acquired him dressed in European dress and carried European weapons as they would have directly bartered with the Europeans while the film presented Cinque’s sellers as no different in dress or presentation. -Robert Keitz

The film The Amistad has some aspects it that are very accurate and credible. The majority of the movie is loosely based on true events, but should not be seen as the most historically accurate rendition of the events that did take place. The Amistad was made to entertain, so most of the movie is fictional with aspects that are true. Due to this, this is a movie that could be seen as educational, but should not be used as a sole primary source. - Kaylee Williams

Amistad does have some aspects of being a primary source for the time period that is accurate and reliable. The movie presents an accurate depiction of the powerful and unforgettable horrors that come with the voyage through the Middle Passage for enslaves Africans. The movie is loosely based on the true events of the Mende people from Sierra Leone that were taken from their villages and sold illegally in Cuba to landowners. The story in the movie is true in part that during this time in America, Spain and Cuba, slavery was legal and more enslaved individuals were being brought from Africa. The Amistad case helped to propel the country toward abolishing slavery in the U.S. with the looming of the Civil War and the emergence of the Abolitionist Movement. This movie should be seen as a somewhat primary source for the subject of slavery but it should be used as more of an educational tool. -Lauren Simpson

I think this film serves as an exceptional addition to Steven Spielberg's impressive resume. Watching the movie, the viewer can clearly see this was directed by someone of Spielberg's caliber. This is a director that has, since the 1970s, created stunning visual effects in order to convey compelling stories. Unlike his fictional work like Jaws or Jurassic Park, Amistad is a testament to what Spielberg with a historical account, using these visual effects to convey history in an impactful way, just as he did with Schindler's List or even Saving Private Ryan. His successful career is the reason why he is still one of the greatest and most popular directors today, and even a lesser-known film like Amistad is evidence of that.

A side note that I thought was interesting was in regards to the film deciding to cast Matthew McConaughey as Roger Sherman Baldwin. I can't help but think that his role in A Time to Kill, in which he plays a white lawyer defending an African American in a murder case, helped Spielberg make the decision to cast him in Amistad – Jordan Petty

Amistad shows that Steven Spielberg did have fairly good intentions with the creation of the movie, however, it still falls into the “white savior” movie category. I thought the movie did a good job of sharing many of the horrors of slavery that not many other films take on or sugar coat, however, it lacked nuance in many of the historical figures. The movie was eye-opening, but still made the white characters the center of the movie. I thought that it was also interesting where the director chose to put subtitles, I think it was definitely important to emphasize the language barrier so the audience could get an idea of the situation the characters were in, but it also felt at times we did not get to fully empathize with the Mende characters. Also, I felt a lot of the white characters were reduced to either the good guy or the evil guy and they lacked the nuance that the historical figures really had, because even though yes, many of these men did agree the institution of slavery was bad- did not mean they viewed black people as equal, leaving this out makes it easier to sort out who is a good character and who is a bad character. The movie overall shows that filmmaking in the late 90s was trying to reckon with race and trying to show the horrors of slavery, however they still went in with the intention to show “oh not all white people were bad” while leaving out the faults of the white people they were trying to portray as good. –Helen Dhue

I think this film shows that Spielberg had a stronger ambition than most directors to be historically accurate. Seemingly, this movie appears to be far more historically accurate than the other movies we have watched so far. Additionally, Spielberg did more to portray the Mende and middle passage than many other directors would have. He tried to make it very real and force the audience to see how horrifying the treatment of the Mende and slaves was. I believe that the Mende and Cinque were portrayed as smart, powerful people. They were not simply static characters. Oftentimes, with a movie like this, even though it is about the Mende, it would largely focus on people other than them. While the film does still do this to an extent, it does still spend a lot of time developing Cinque's character. From his story of the lion, his freedom chant in the courthouse, and his numerous questions to JQA, Cinque is portrayed as a devoted and intelligent man. These factors demonstrate Spielberg's commitment to tell Cinque and the Mende's story, not just the story of the Amistad and court case alone. -Daniel Walker

This film works as an excellent source about the 1990s, and more importantly about Steven Spielberg as a director and Debbie Allen as the producer of the film. For 13 years, Debbie Allen worked to get this movie made. Starting in 1984, Allen's Amistad project was rejected time and time again. It was not until 1993 when she watched Spielberg's Schindler's List, in which Spielberg had been repeatedly told not to make a film about the Holocaust, that Allen thought she had a chance to make the movie happen. Amistad and the making of it is an exceptional primary source about what the movie making industry was like in the 80s and 90s, and in particular what it was like for African American women and African American stories in the industry.

Information taken from: https://www.mcall.com/news/mc-xpm-1997-12-07-3169319-story.html -Cat Kinde

This is a great primary source when looking at Steven Spielberg’s career. This film came out in 1997 five years after Schindler’s List and four years after he won his first two Oscars. Something I had not realized was that after this win he took a hiatus. He came in 1997 and Amistad was the second film to come out after his hiatus and Oscar wins. A big reason why he took the hiatus was to spend more time with his family. From the interview, I got the impression that he was a family man. This is why I don’t find it surprising when he said that Amistad was the most important film he had ever made in relation to his family. When he said this he was referring to his two adopted African American children. Another that is important to note is that this was the first film Spielberg made with Dreamworks. Another thing I want to point out is that this film came out seven months before Saving Private Ryan. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZbHml-4Pvk https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/life-of-steven-spielberg-Megan Williams

I think that this movie works well as a primary source for its time period and as a Spielberg. It has the big names and the intensity that are expected to come from Spielberg at this point. It brings the somewhat happy and moments of connection between characters also expected from both the time period and Spielberg. I think it is a good comparison to Spielberg's other films such as Schindler's List, it tells a hard story with an intense nature to allow for the viewer to feel everything that the characters are feeling or at least feel extreme discomfort or anticipation where the situation calls for it. In terms of the time period it is a good look into the tone of African American history films which were starting to pop up in the 90s, specifically in the late 90s, films that told of the tough history of African Americans both focusing on individuals and the subject as a whole. I think the directing and casting choices speak widely of the 90s and of Spielberg's signature. –Kimberly Sak

I think what makes Amistad so important is that it tells a story that many are not very familiar with. The Amistad case isn't really something that is generally discussed, and after watching the movie, I was surprised that it isn't discussed more often. I also think that its importance, especially for a film made in 1997, is that it does a fair job in putting African Americans at the forefront of the story, especially Cinque. – Jordan Petty

Amistad is a film that for many might be their first chance at learning about the story of the Amistad, and with that being said, I think that it does a great job at telling the story. I think that for many it explains the case from beginning to end and the impact that it made in the lives of the people involved. I think the film also shows the importance that this case holds in the course of history. I believe it is important that more people learn about cases such as the Amistad case, because it provides more depth and understanding into the historical events in our country's past. – Mariah Morton

This film gave me a stronger reaction to any portrayal of slavery than any other movie I have seen. There are many movies I have seen about slavery, but this one gave me an incredibly strong reaction. The flashback to Cinque's road from being with his family in Africa to being a slave in America is haunting. The scenes showing the beating with the blood hitting him in the face, the mother and baby committing suicide, and the fifty people being forcibly drowned are only a few of the most horrifying scenes frim his flashback. While slavery is no longer a debate of morality in the US, everyone knows it is immoral, people too often forget about how truly evil it was. In their minds, it happened too long ago to really think about what it would have been like. Amistad did an incredible job of showing what slavery could really be like. History is important to remember. It is important to know what people of the past went through. This film does a better job than any of portraying slavery in a way to give the strongest reaction from the audience. I personally was left almost in tears after watching how brutal the middle passage was. -Daniel Walker

I think Amistad is an important film for the overall impression it leaves with the viewer. Looking at this case from a historical perspective is not the same as viewing it on screen. This was the first time I've ever encountered this information, which makes me more than a little disappointed in my history classes from high school that focused on important cases related to African Americans during this time period. I'm not saying those other cases aren't important, but this case was groundbreaking during its day. I never would have thought a case would have concluded like this one did in the years leading up to the Civil War. This case also plays a vital part in history due to it indubitably being one instance that increased tensions. The fact that it went all the way to the supreme court and received a 7:1:1 vote in the 1840s, where the majority of justices were white slaveholders, is unheard of. I will admit that I didn't think much going into this film, but the powerful portrayal of the conflict, hope, and struggle each of these people went through is something you don't receive from a textbook. I found myself horrified by several scenes, specifically those related to the deaths of the Mende despite already knowing such atrocious events did happen. For me, it was the difference of seeing versus knowing. We may know something, but until you see an event first hand it can be easy to underestimate its significance. – Lyndsey Clark

The portrayal of the slave trade I think means a lot. The inhumane-ness of it is something that is extremely watered down in history classes. A high school teacher had us watched the flashback scenes on the ship one time and I remember being so horrified. Reading about something like this and then watching a portrayal of it are two completely different things. There are no rose colored glasses for those scenes and I think it's really important that someone like Spielberg gave it this kind of attention. -Madison Roberts

Film is a visual slap in the face. Reading about painful historical events can be impactful in it's own way, but there is something visceral about Amistad, that says “look at this. This happened. And you need to acknowledge it.“There is no off screen violence that is left to your imagination, the audience is not spared, just like the Africans on the ship were not spared. In an exceptionally small way, it's penance for a shamefully overlooked part of history that should be paid more attention to. –Cat Kinde

The scenes in this movie depicting the treatment of slaves make you feel uncomfortable. They make you angry and they make your stomach turn. If the scene with the baby on the ship doesn't make you feel something, I'd be surprised. If the scene with the slaves being chained and drowned one by one doesn't make you feel helpless, I'd be surprised. This movie brings to life things we've only read about and have seen in books. We've seen the infamous photograph of the former slave with scars caked on his back, watching someone get lashed to death on screen is a whole different experience.-Dan Dilks

I think Amistad is an extremely important movie, it tells a story that not many know, about a time that not many are willing to acknowledge. I think it certainly is important because it is one of the few films about the time that tells it how it is without and omissions and shows you as well, the purpose is to make you uncomfortable so that you understand. It also uses the names like John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren to remind you that this was real, this is not a story that Hollywood crafted to create a reaction or to get ratings, regardless of how much they changed it to do this, it is still a true circumstance, the cases happened. I think one of the biggest so whats of this movie is the treatment of the Africans, on the ships, in Cuba, in Europe, and in America, these visuals are not at all exaggerations, if nothing else this movie tells a story that needed to be told in a way that it needed to be told because it is what people need to see to understand the gravity of the situations you read about in books and hear about in media. It will never be easy to face the history this way, but that is why it is important. –Kimberly Sak

Analyzing this film and its impacts on and reflections of society in 1997 is incredibly important. This film doesn’t hold much back in the treatment of enslaved peoples on illegal slave trade ships, from how they were kidnapped to their terrible journey to South or North America that few survived; everything was displayed. Not only did this case have massive impacts on the nation when it originally occurred, but it impacted society in 1997 as well. Visibly seeing the atrocities that people went through and survived is significantly more powerful than simply reading it. I think is very revealing that the movie constantly references the much later Civil War as almost inevitable because of this case in some way. The movie gives more moral credit to some historical figures, attempting to suggest the idea that more people thought slavery was immoral than they really did at this time period, while at this point in time slavery in America was still a widely accepted practice. The idea that a civil war would break out years later is not one that would have been common thinking at the time of this case. This shows that while yes this film does highlight some of the true atrocities of slavery, it also downplays the immoral common ideals of many Americans in power at this time. -Morgan Gilbert

I think this film is important for the powerful image it creates of this time period. There were some Americans who were idealized in a sense, but many others and their opinions on slaves weren't downplayed. The way the enslaved Africans were treated on the boat and the way they were leered at while in prison, they're both experiences that aren't talked about too often. Even when they are, it's hard to understand the gravity of the situation until it's shown right in front of your eyes. Furthermore, there is a struggle when trying to integrate into a foreign society, especially one you didn't enter by choice, that isn't always discussed in school but this movie shows it. The movie humanizes the enslaved Africans and made them more than just another history lesson. But it does also show the unfortunate reality that often times people have a hard time understanding particularly cruel aspects of history until they are shown traumatic events in a brutal visual manner. It highlights Hollywood's continuous obsession with performing trauma. -Purnaja Podduturi

I really want to like a movie in this class and Amistad was promising, but in the end I found it to be factual but with fictional and misleading portrayals. For instance, names, places, appearances and demographics were accurate, such as the presence of slave owners in the court. Small things were pleasantly surprising such as the use of Mendi numbers to recruit a translator and the locations of the Amistad’s journey. However, these were all lost by the screenplay that would leave viewers feeling this case was much briefer and more progressive than it actually was. The sense of predetermination plagues this film from the constant reminding Cinque that he is destined to help his people to the looming mentions of civil war. It fails to capture the suspense, fear, confusion and uncertainty of this case. In over two hours the whole case somehow still felt rushed and flat. -Janis Shurtleff