Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=AbrudnoMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T19:11:25ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T07:15:50Z<p>Abrudno: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Deborah's point. One of the first things that the film got very right was the sense of chaos and disorder during the revolt on the ship. The sense of total lack of communication throughout the whole film was very well-done. I also liked the attention paid to the character with the sharpened teeth, which was mentioned in one of the readings. In addition, casting Djimon Hounsou as Cinque was a great choice. His magnetism and presence made him very interesting to watch, and I think this holds true to the real Cinque. I also think that the sequence showing Cinque's experience on the ship was fairly accurate. That whole sequence was harrowing and extremely hard to watch. I admire the filmmakers for not shying away from any of the horrors that the slaves experienced. - Celia<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In the film when Ruiz and Montes steer the ship they trick the Africans into thinking that they are sailing back to Africa by telling them that the sun is in the east, which is the direction of Africa. They began to sail at sunset, so they actually were sailing west towards America. In the morning, when the Africans wake up, the boat is facing the sun (the east). That little trick correlates to the map that Dr. McClurken showed in class about the zigzag course La Amistad took. The attitudes of the North and South were accurate, especially that of John Calhoun. He arrives (or crashes?) the presidential dinner and gives the Spanish Ambassador an earful about how if slavery is taken away from the South, that will put the standard of living of the South even further behind that of the North. He expresses similar views in The Executive Review that Adams references in the Supreme Court session. The movie also accurately portrays President Van Buren’s lack of interest in the Amistad matter at first because of his focus on re-election. Van Buren’s later challenge to the judgment does not really give him the full political support he desires, because he loses the 1840 election. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie portrayed Cinque as a strong leader. He is ripped physically and he learns English the quickest although that may not be true in real life it shows he is the leader. Also they did a great job showing the language barrier and how they were walking though the streets saying numbers in Mendee. I think they did a good job displaying the Spanish annoyance that things were not going their way. I loved the conversation they had at the dinner table between Van Buren and John Calhoun.I also think the movie did a good job displaying the violence the slaves experienced on the middle passage. I felt kind of sick when they pushed all those people off the boat. I also found it sad when they only gave some people food and not others. It shows the reality of a slaves life. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Cinque's story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie did many things right. One of the was the language barrier that others mentioned, I however liked that they did not always use subtitles for Cinque because it was easy to see how Baldwin and others would have felt when trying to understand Cinque's story and how Cinque would have felt when people were speaking to him in Spanish and English. Second thing was the treatment of the tribe during Cinque's description of his capture. I also appreciated that it was shown that not everyone in the North was for Abolition, like when Baldwin is attacked and when he tells Cinque that he has received death threats.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I think a lot of this movie was fairly accurate; at least more so than some of the other movies we have seen so far. Basic facts, such as going to the docks to look for a Mende translator or even giving most of the actors the correct names as they were in history. I think that the movie also accurately described the treatment of the slaves, at least in the prison. The scenes of the slaves on the ship did not accurately describe their treatment on the boat, but at the prison, I think it was clear that they were treated like animals. It just simply looked like it, the way they were almost "penned up." Also, when the one slave died while in prison, I think that scene of the other Mende slaves carrying around his nearly emaciated body sent a very clear message about the slaves' awful treatment. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
Overall I was really pleased with the film in it's accuracy. From what I could tell, they got all the main points down correctly, such as their trip across the Atlantic, the uprising, and consequently their arrival in the colonies. The trial scenes all seemed accurate and probable for the time period. I really appreciated the films attention to little details. They could have left out "The Emancipator" or the change of judges to make things more simple, but I'm glad they didn't. It rounded out the story well. Although it was one of the most depressing parts of the film, I thought the capture and shipment of the slaves was very well done. I was glad to see that they showed other African tribes capturing slaves in exchange for weapons. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I thought that for the most part, the film got a lot of the big ideas across very well. The one that stuck out to me the most was that the ruling for the Mende did not mean the end of slavery in the United States; I think it would have been a very easy connection for the film makers to play up, but I'm glad that they did not. I also thought that the clear language barrier, and how translation helped the Mende case was well done, but not beat into the audience repeatedly. -Meagan P<br />
<br />
This film was very accurate (especially comparing to the other films we have seen so far). I liked how they showed the difficulty with the language barrier. This was not like Pocahontas where one minute they can't understand each other, and then the next minute they could understand each other perfectly. The film showed very well the confrontation of people from different cultures. It was nice not always having subtitles because it was like we were in the position of the Americans. They are trying to understand what the Mende are saying, but they can't. It also shows well how complicated the American legal system and I think they portrayed the different trials very well. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I have to say, overall, I was much less disappointed with this film than with most historical films. The major points were accurate without being dumbed down, such as the serious language barriers, the intricacies of the court system, and the gruesome voyage itself. It would have been easy to make the film shorter, less violent, more palatable, by cutting things out or changing bits and pieces of the storyline. I'm very glad that didn't happen. Parts of this movie are disgusting, off-putting, and morally uncomfortable. As they should be. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
In the movie you saw President Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour. The problem? Well, in 1840 presidents did not campaign. In addition, the characters also talked about the impending Civil War. Well, being 20 years away, how would they know that was to happen? And finally, the film is all about the Atlantic slave trade, which was actually illegal in 1840. Rather, the film should have dealt with slavery as a domestic institution.-- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character. Additionally, I don't believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be. The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time. Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two). Also, it's unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars. Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing. The court scenes were tedious enough as it was. <br />
In our textbook, "Reel History," Robert Brent Toplin talks about how "tainted" the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film's integrity (69-78). <br />
I don't know if I would call this "wrong," but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified. The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque's ancestor worship.) Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he's the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn't support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins' believability.--- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie does a good job of portraying that only a few people where for the abolition of slavery. But, when they first went to ask John Q. Adams to back them in their pursuit of winning the trials he claims that he is neutral in the matters that came between the abolitionists and those that were pro-slavery. This implies that there is an equally back constituency on both sides which we learned in class is not true. In the movie it seems that those who were neutral were the smallest minority, when in fact the abolitionists were seen as extremist and were the true minorities in the subject of slavery. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American's view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams' plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American's view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan that they should have made Matthew McConaughey look older. He looked too young to be a lawyer to me.I also agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman's character. Not only is he fictional he does not say much during the movie. He just kind of stood around. Obviously he was going for the big actors names but if he is fictional why even cast it? - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan and LeAnn. Casting Matthew McConaughey seems like a really vain attempt to attract younger audience members. He didn't do a terrible job, but honestly, the star of "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" and "Failure to Launch" seemed just a tad bit out of place on screen with Anthony Hopkins and Morgan Freeman. He could have been worse, I guess, but I think he was woefully miscast. Maybe the filmmakers were trying to cast Baldwin as a young upstart with lots of spirit and passion to contrast against John Quincy Adams. Also, it annoyed me a lot that Baldwin said NOTHING at the final court scene. I guess this was just to give Adams the floor the whole time, but I think that's pretty unfair. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn<br />
<br />
I don't know if this something that the movie got wrong in the sense of a factual/ historical mistake but the Supreme Court scene and Adams speech makes it look like his moral speech is what causes the decision, but it was really Baldwin's property statements that was used in the decision. However the use of property claims is still used in the various trials.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
According to the timeline we talked about it class, the Mende would have made it to Connecticut sometime during the summer, not during the snowy winter as in the film. That was an interesting choice by the filmmakers, perhaps done to make the Mende's plight seem that much dramatic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I have two main contentions with this movie. The first is that I believe more than two crew members were killed during the opening mutiny scene. I also am not positive that they portrayed Cinque as the only one who killed the men. In this scene, the crewmen were also seen reloading their guns in the rain. Could that be done? In "The Last of the Mohicans" they couldn't reload under the waterfall, not that Mann's film is a standard for historical accuracy. The second atrocity is that the counter suit the Mende filed was never mentioned. In the film, we never find out what happened to Ruiz and Montes. While I'm on this rant, I would like to point out how strait and white Cinque's teeth were. I find it remarkable that he had time to brush his teeth during the middle passage. His pearly whites are especially noticeable when he was reprimanding Baldwin. How could you resist such a bright, shiny smile, Van Buren? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned the sort of fumbling with languages that happens throughout the film. While there is no glade plug in moment granting Cinque magical English language powers, he seems to understand what other people are saying in English just fine. Just consider his interaction with Baldwin in the cell. Baldwin attempts to ask where Cinque has come from, but due to the language barrier nothing gets across, yet mysteriously (through the gift of subtitles) Cinque responds to Baldwin in his native tongue as if the only problem was his lack of English. Is that a small discrepancy? Sure! But am I going to complain? Hell yeah. While it doesn't relate to history, I felt like the on again off again use of subtitles just did not work. We only got subtitles when Spielberg decided subtitles would either be heart warming or make a nice joke. --[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:53, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I was a little unsettled by Morgan Freeman's character. I understand it was to add to the nobility of the cause of abolition, but he seemed out of place. Also, what was with that ship full of diners the Amistad encounters while still at sea? I didn't know they had cruise ships in the 1840's! I also noticed that they left out the "non-human" cargo the men divided after the trial was over, a small aspect of the trial. Oh, and were there women and children involved in the real trial, because there were in the film? And I know there wasn't a "glade plug-in" moment like Pocohontas, but the one Africans understanding of the Bible was pretty impressive to say the least.- Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin. This case does not change anything with slavery in the United States. It only discusses the slave trade across the Atlantic. Of course they want to make it dramatic my making this seem like the turning point of slavery in the United States. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
After watching this movie, I definitely saw some things that were historically accurate. Some other things were definitely not or I just need clarification. In the part where Cinque met with Baldwin in the yard at the jail so Balwin could find out where the slaves were from, it seemed that Cinque could understand some of what Baldwin was saying, or at least the general idea. Did that all come from the drawings in the dirt Baldwin made? Or did Cinque suddenly understand English just for that brief period of time? Also, I felt that Lewis Tappan was not very involved in the movie. It mainly focused on Baldwin and Joadson, and even then, just as Deborah said above, I don't think that a Black man like Joadson would have been so well accepted. It was interesting because Baldwin was the one being attacked for defending the Mende slaves, whereas Joadson seemed quite accepted in the society. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
There were a few things I noticed in the movie that were inaccurate and the first the absence of the term “black Ladinos” which is what the Cubans called the slaves. I thought this could have been an important element in the few court cases regarding the slaves in the movie. Also, it seemed that Lewis Tappan was made to be a little less prominent than he was in reality. I thought he was more active in the case, and he seemed to take somewhat of a back seat in the movie. Another thing was what happened to Cinque after the final verdict of the Supreme Court. In the movie, they claimed he returned right away to Africa and back to his family, but he actually spent some time in Connecticut, and then later returned to Africa. -afrisk<br />
<br />
While it may be a minor detail, I thought that the scene before the ship arrives on land when they pass within 5 feet of a ship with wealthy, dining Americans was ridiculous. It might just be my opinion, but I think that had that actually occurred more would've happened than the orchestra stopping so the rich Americans could stare. I can't imagine that seeing a ship completely controlled by blacks in the 1840s was something that happened normally. While I think the film tried to use that scene as a way to transition from the ship to the mainland, it never actually happened and was just somewhat distracting. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One thing that really irritated me about this movie was, not just Morgan Freeman's character, but also the atmosphere of the movie itself. I really wish that the movie was centered more around the stories of the Mendi... and not of America. While there part in the was important too, I really think including the Mendi in the movie more would have made the movie more rounded and accurate to history. When the abolitionists brought the translators the point was to get their story, however the movie doesn't really show that. Sigh. Oh well. Even Spielberg isn't perfect. Also the fact that the movie didn't really stick to the whole slave trade being illegal thing was another annoying point. It is yet [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 another story] about the justification of the white man. -Jenn<br />
<br />
The illustrations in the Bible were made by Gustave Dore. He published his work on the Bible in 1866. It would be long after the court cases. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118607/goofs) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
Even though we think of the 90s as a politically correct time perhaps it was also a time when people were beginning to talk in a serious way about slavery and its film portrayal. I'm no film buff but I can't think of many (any?) films that place the issue of slavery as the central focus of the film. That being said it is clear that while we were beginning to talk about it we weren't ready for a full-blown discussion on the US participation (mostly in Southern Plantations). The Amistad case is a unique one and not representative of what was really going on during this time with regards to slavery. But ''Amistad'' provides a starting point where the issue of slavery is the focus without making Americans "feel bad" for those couple centuries of slavery. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:36, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Spielberg actually made an accompanying [http://www.filmeducation.org/pdf/film/Amistad.pdf study guide]to encourage teachers to show the film in the classroom and discuss the nature of slavery. The guide tries to communicate the horrors of slavery, its history and how the film should be accepted as a representation of said history. There are a couple of statements that I don't really agree with such as Spielberg's final notes that it takes in to account the perspectives of both white and black people, yet in all reality this case did not represent a win for abolitionists. If nothing else, maybe the film makers want to demonstrate that certain peoples in the US have a long history of fighting against slavery and oppression? Although people might be convicted by the terrible events, the film still has its (mostly) happy ending. On a separate note, I bumped into this [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 essay]by Eric Foner who digs into ''Amistad's''producer for, "castigating historians for suppressing the “real history” of African-Americans and slavery." If nothing else you can still see how hollywood is trying to one up historians.--[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:41, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the issue of slavery takes the foreground in this film, I think it is important to look at what this film is saying about the judicial system and its relation to American politics. The film, after all, falls into the court room drama genre, and it is therefore making certain claims about said system. The first thing that I noticed was the obvious hints at judicial corruption. Whether this commentary is solely focused on the 1800s or if this view is being placed on the system as a whole is unclear. Yet the film certainly makes claims that the American ideal of checks-and-balances in government is not as true as believed. Also, the makers of this film seem to believe in the idea of a close interpretation of established law, i.e. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (while not directly mentioned). Yet despite these claims of corruption and blurring of political lines the film suggests that the true American spirit (freedom and justice) will prevail no matter what. Like previous films watched in this class, <em>Amistad</em> seems to make the same statments about America: yeah we messed up and time were tough, but because we were just and wanted freedom we prevailed. A message that fits with the feelings of '90s American culture, one that triumphed in the Cold War and now was having a mostly successful economy.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While this may be a small point in the grand scheme of the movie, I feel it says a lot about the filmmakers. While Yamba's interpretation of the illustrated New Testament is touching, any religious conversion of the Mende would not have been so clearly independent and self-guided. As discussed in class on Tuesday, the Mende received religious education. Conversion to Christianity was the entire point. But as upstanding Americans who value religious freedom, we could never possibly force faith on others... at least we can't show it that way in the movies we make. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I was glad to see that there did not seem to be much of a bias in the accuracy of the plot and specifics regarding the story. It is interesting to note the representation of the abolitionist in the film. While blacks were free at that point in the Northern states, that doesn't mean that they were treated well or respected. Much of the Northern population did not want to have anything to do with the free black population. Now I know that some abolitionist were a little on the far side, but Morgan Freeman's character was well regarded everywhere he went and treated just the same as a white man. This may have been influenced with the time periods ideas about the noble North and their crusade against slavery. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Amistad came out only four years after Schindler's List. Maybe Steven Spielberg was just on a human rights movie kick? After all, the 1990s was the era of genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia. It would be understandable for people, on some level, to be grappling with massive moral questions about how the world deals with race/ethnicity/tribe and how we relate to each other as humans. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer. Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie. The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people. The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen. Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status. The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The David Walker reading, A Black Abolitionist Speaks Out, shows the extreme nature of their being. The reading displays a man that was shocked and "astonished" by the acts of an American, Christian nation. The talk of God and how he/she might look at the act of enslaving a man is brought up over and over in this piece. This is a stark contrast from the portrayal of the abolitionists in the movie. These characters were seen as well do and appeared to be excepted into the society in which they lived. They also seemed to be more gentlemen like than Walker, this may have something to do with them being white and him being the son of a former slave. Nonetheless, the reading gives a true portrayal of the intensity that was held about abolitionists on the topic, which was surely needed if one was to go against social norms in such a large way. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's seizure from his home jibes with Equiano's description of kidnapping practices in general. The brief shot of Cinque's son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving. The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque's wife. For them, as for Equiano's parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air. According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan's account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi's letter to John Quincy Adams was, "give us free". Cinque chanted "give us free" in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as "chief" and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn't a chief. He then went on to call him a "white man," probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman's character. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as "brother" and then said that he was a "white man" - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the scenes describing the capture and treatment of Cinque and the others was very similar to the Equiano's story. The kidnapping by other African tribes, being sold, and the horrors experienced on board ships like: people jumping overboard to escape, the rape of the women, and the violent whippings.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I really agree with Rachel, and to add on I thought how Equiano described how he was jealous of his countrymen who jumped off of the ship to be something that should of been emphasized. The people were taken away from everything and if they recieved a glimmer of hope by seeing a relative it was quickly taken from them. I also think how Equiano described his white captors to be equal to how Cinque and his people would of viewed them, they were essentially foreigners and ugly on the inside and out. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In both the readings and the film, the Africans begin picking up English and Christianity, but in the movie it seems almost accidental (as in, the Bible is stolen rather than given). In the readings though, it's quite clear that the Americans are actively seeking to teach the Mende. Lewis Tappan's letter mentions that he spent time working with them over religious texts, and the letter from Kalito Adams mentions a teacher that the group spoke with. Maybe the filmmakers wanted to avoid making it look as though the Americans were attempting to "Americanize" the Africans. They wanted to emphasize that being African, and preserving their culture, was perfectly legitimate, but that sounds to me like a fairly modern idea. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I felt that the letter to Adams had many of the same sentiments we witnessed in the movie. The Africans did not understand what they did wrong and just wanted their freedom. The desperation of the letter and the characters in the film is palpable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
David Walker mentions equal rights and the Declaration of Independence by saying, “Hear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776-‘We hold these truths to be self-evident-that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!! That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!!’ Compare your own language above…with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us.” This was the reality of the slaves' existence. They were not treated as humans and had zero rights whatsoever. In the film, John Adams refers to the Declaration in his address to the Supreme Court. He echoes the voice of David Walker (and obviously Cinque and all slaves) and the judges listen.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I wish Morgan Freeman’s character, Theodore Joadson, had a more prominent role in the movie. After doing the readings as well as watching the movie, I thought the narrative by David Walker could have been what Freeman brought to the screen. In Walker’s narrative, he speaks very strongly about the oppression of blacks and its tremendous conflict with morality and inalienable rights. While watching the movie, I could not help but wish Freeman’s character would kick it into gear and become a more open advocate for abolitionism. Clearly he is for the cause, but does so in a detached manner and I kept wishing his character would develop more instead of just pushing the plot along. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I thought that the readings coincided in a very meaningful way with the film, especially the letter from Kali to John Quincy Adams. The language barrier, which was portrayed consistently throughout the movie, shows as well in the letter, as well as the fact that the Mende relate themselves to the American people. There is also the clear recognition of the word "free" in both the letter and the movie- it is the first word that we see Cinque recognize when Baldwin is talking to him in the prison cell, and in the letter Kali states that "All we want is make us free." -Meagan P<br />
<br />
One thing that Equiano talks about in his autobiography is the confusion and terror that Africans possessed when they were put aboard the ships. I think that the one thing this movies depicts well is just that. One scene I vividly remember is the Africans being boarded onto a ship in chains and there is a man standing there with a whip in hand, I assume to keep them moving. There is even a part where somebody just fell over and died, or fainted. Equiano said in his autobiography that he saw a "multitude of black people of every description chained together, every one of their countenances expressing dejection and sorrow." So in this regard, the movie depicted the violence, death, close quarters and abuse on the Mid-Passage really well. -Jenn<br />
<br />
Kali's letter to John Quincy Adams was more inspiring than Roger Baldwin's letter. It was a plea by an enslaved person for a group that was going to be enslaved. Kali was begging John Quincy Adams to be involved in this court case. -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly. Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low. The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question. The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is "not a big man, but a lucky one," in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin or Adams. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I really admired John Quincy Adams’s explanation to Cinque about taking the case to the Supreme Court. He says to Cinque, “We’re battling a lion that’s threatening to tear our country apart. And all we have is a rock.” He does not talk down to him; he explains the situation in terms that Cinque understands. To a person who has never lived in a country with an intricate legal system, it would be very difficult to understand why a judgment does not stand without further challenge. During the Supreme Court session, Adams mentions Cinque’s invocation to his ancestors and that with them there, he will be saved. Adams then calls on America’s ancestors, our Founding Fathers. After the case is settled, Cinque asks Adams what he said to persuade them to rule in favor of the Africans. Adams replies, “Your words.” –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I understand what Mike was saying about making Baldwin or Adams look like the hero in the film because of Cinque's denial of leadership, but I don't agree with it completely. I do believe the film makes Baldwin (in particular) look like the hero, but I think Cinque's "humbleness" just adds to his majesty. He was still portrayed as a leader and as the strongest of the men (mentally and physically) and I think the viewers still see him as a strong hero who conquers the adversity he finds himself in. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I agree with Victoria. I was never unimpressed by Cinque's character - his story about what really happened with the lion only made me respect him more for admitting the truth. Obviously we feel sorry for Cinque and all of the captives, but it's the way Cinque carries himself that makes the audience respect him. From the moment Adams is introduced, he already seems like a hero, albeit a more unwilling one, but it's clear that he's to be respected. Baldwin is built up but he doesn't have a huge moment that changes the way the audience sees him. He starts the film as a noble lawyer and ends it as a noble lawyer. Baldwin may be a hero in this, but Cinque is THE hero. - Celia</div>Abrudnohttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T07:15:03Z<p>Abrudno: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Deborah's point. One of the first things that the film got very right was the sense of chaos and disorder during the revolt on the ship. The sense of total lack of communication throughout the whole film was very well-done. I also liked the attention paid to the character with the sharpened teeth, which was mentioned in one of the readings. In addition, casting Djimon Hounsou as Cinque was a great choice. His magnetism and presence made him very interesting to watch, and I think this holds true to the real Cinque. I also think that the sequence showing Cinque's experience on the ship was fairly accurate. That whole sequence was harrowing and extremely hard to watch. I admire the filmmakers for not shying away from any of the horrors that the slaves experienced. - Celia<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In the film when Ruiz and Montes steer the ship they trick the Africans into thinking that they are sailing back to Africa by telling them that the sun is in the east, which is the direction of Africa. They began to sail at sunset, so they actually were sailing west towards America. In the morning, when the Africans wake up, the boat is facing the sun (the east). That little trick correlates to the map that Dr. McClurken showed in class about the zigzag course La Amistad took. The attitudes of the North and South were accurate, especially that of John Calhoun. He arrives (or crashes?) the presidential dinner and gives the Spanish Ambassador an earful about how if slavery is taken away from the South, that will put the standard of living of the South even further behind that of the North. He expresses similar views in The Executive Review that Adams references in the Supreme Court session. The movie also accurately portrays President Van Buren’s lack of interest in the Amistad matter at first because of his focus on re-election. Van Buren’s later challenge to the judgment does not really give him the full political support he desires, because he loses the 1840 election. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie portrayed Cinque as a strong leader. He is ripped physically and he learns English the quickest although that may not be true in real life it shows he is the leader. Also they did a great job showing the language barrier and how they were walking though the streets saying numbers in Mendee. I think they did a good job displaying the Spanish annoyance that things were not going their way. I loved the conversation they had at the dinner table between Van Buren and John Calhoun.I also think the movie did a good job displaying the violence the slaves experienced on the middle passage. I felt kind of sick when they pushed all those people off the boat. I also found it sad when they only gave some people food and not others. It shows the reality of a slaves life. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Cinque's story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie did many things right. One of the was the language barrier that others mentioned, I however liked that they did not always use subtitles for Cinque because it was easy to see how Baldwin and others would have felt when trying to understand Cinque's story and how Cinque would have felt when people were speaking to him in Spanish and English. Second thing was the treatment of the tribe during Cinque's description of his capture. I also appreciated that it was shown that not everyone in the North was for Abolition, like when Baldwin is attacked and when he tells Cinque that he has received death threats.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I think a lot of this movie was fairly accurate; at least more so than some of the other movies we have seen so far. Basic facts, such as going to the docks to look for a Mende translator or even giving most of the actors the correct names as they were in history. I think that the movie also accurately described the treatment of the slaves, at least in the prison. The scenes of the slaves on the ship did not accurately describe their treatment on the boat, but at the prison, I think it was clear that they were treated like animals. It just simply looked like it, the way they were almost "penned up." Also, when the one slave died while in prison, I think that scene of the other Mende slaves carrying around his nearly emaciated body sent a very clear message about the slaves' awful treatment. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
Overall I was really pleased with the film in it's accuracy. From what I could tell, they got all the main points down correctly, such as their trip across the Atlantic, the uprising, and consequently their arrival in the colonies. The trial scenes all seemed accurate and probable for the time period. I really appreciated the films attention to little details. They could have left out "The Emancipator" or the change of judges to make things more simple, but I'm glad they didn't. It rounded out the story well. Although it was one of the most depressing parts of the film, I thought the capture and shipment of the slaves was very well done. I was glad to see that they showed other African tribes capturing slaves in exchange for weapons. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I thought that for the most part, the film got a lot of the big ideas across very well. The one that stuck out to me the most was that the ruling for the Mende did not mean the end of slavery in the United States; I think it would have been a very easy connection for the film makers to play up, but I'm glad that they did not. I also thought that the clear language barrier, and how translation helped the Mende case was well done, but not beat into the audience repeatedly. -Meagan P<br />
<br />
This film was very accurate (especially comparing to the other films we have seen so far). I liked how they showed the difficulty with the language barrier. This was not like Pocahontas where one minute they can't understand each other, and then the next minute they could understand each other perfectly. The film showed very well the confrontation of people from different cultures. It was nice not always having subtitles because it was like we were in the position of the Americans. They are trying to understand what the Mende are saying, but they can't. It also shows well how complicated the American legal system and I think they portrayed the different trials very well. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I have to say, overall, I was much less disappointed with this film than with most historical films. The major points were accurate without being dumbed down, such as the serious language barriers, the intricacies of the court system, and the gruesome voyage itself. It would have been easy to make the film shorter, less violent, more palatable, by cutting things out or changing bits and pieces of the storyline. I'm very glad that didn't happen. Parts of this movie are disgusting, off-putting, and morally uncomfortable. As they should be. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
In the movie you saw President Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour. The problem? Well, in 1840 presidents did not campaign. In addition, the characters also talked about the impending Civil War. Well, being 20 years away, how would they know that was to happen? And finally, the film is all about the Atlantic slave trade, which was actually illegal in 1840. Rather, the film should have dealt with slavery as a domestic institution.-- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character. Additionally, I don't believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be. The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time. Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two). Also, it's unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars. Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing. The court scenes were tedious enough as it was. <br />
In our textbook, "Reel History," Robert Brent Toplin talks about how "tainted" the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film's integrity (69-78). <br />
I don't know if I would call this "wrong," but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified. The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque's ancestor worship.) Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he's the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn't support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins' believability.--- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie does a good job of portraying that only a few people where for the abolition of slavery. But, when they first went to ask John Q. Adams to back them in their pursuit of winning the trials he claims that he is neutral in the matters that came between the abolitionists and those that were pro-slavery. This implies that there is an equally back constituency on both sides which we learned in class is not true. In the movie it seems that those who were neutral were the smallest minority, when in fact the abolitionists were seen as extremist and were the true minorities in the subject of slavery. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American's view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams' plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American's view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan that they should have made Matthew McConaughey look older. He looked too young to be a lawyer to me.I also agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman's character. Not only is he fictional he does not say much during the movie. He just kind of stood around. Obviously he was going for the big actors names but if he is fictional why even cast it? - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan and LeAnn. Casting Matthew McConaughey seems like a really vain attempt to attract younger audience members. He didn't do a terrible job, but honestly, the star of "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" and "Failure to Launch" seemed just a tad bit out of place on screen with Anthony Hopkins and Morgan Freeman. He could have been worse, I guess, but I think he was woefully miscast. Maybe the filmmakers were trying to cast Baldwin as a young upstart with lots of spirit and passion to contrast against John Quincy Adams. Also, it annoyed me a lot that Baldwin said NOTHING at the final court scene. I guess this was just to give Adams the floor the whole time, but I think that's pretty unfair. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn<br />
<br />
I don't know if this something that the movie got wrong in the sense of a factual/ historical mistake but the Supreme Court scene and Adams speech makes it look like his moral speech is what causes the decision, but it was really Baldwin's property statements that was used in the decision. However the use of property claims is still used in the various trials.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
According to the timeline we talked about it class, the Mende would have made it to Connecticut sometime during the summer, not during the snowy winter as in the film. That was an interesting choice by the filmmakers, perhaps done to make the Mende's plight seem that much dramatic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I have two main contentions with this movie. The first is that I believe more than two crew members were killed during the opening mutiny scene. I also am not positive that they portrayed Cinque as the only one who killed the men. In this scene, the crewmen were also seen reloading their guns in the rain. Could that be done? In "The Last of the Mohicans" they couldn't reload under the waterfall, not that Mann's film is a standard for historical accuracy. The second atrocity is that the counter suit the Mende filed was never mentioned. In the film, we never find out what happened to Ruiz and Montes. While I'm on this rant, I would like to point out how strait and white Cinque's teeth were. I find it remarkable that he had time to brush his teeth during the middle passage. His pearly whites are especially noticeable when he was reprimanding Baldwin. How could you resist such a bright, shiny smile, Van Buren? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned the sort of fumbling with languages that happens throughout the film. While there is no glade plug in moment granting Cinque magical English language powers, he seems to understand what other people are saying in English just fine. Just consider his interaction with Baldwin in the cell. Baldwin attempts to ask where Cinque has come from, but due to the language barrier nothing gets across, yet mysteriously (through the gift of subtitles) Cinque responds to Baldwin in his native tongue as if the only problem was his lack of English. Is that a small discrepancy? Sure! But am I going to complain? Hell yeah. While it doesn't relate to history, I felt like the on again off again use of subtitles just did not work. We only got subtitles when Spielberg decided subtitles would either be heart warming or make a nice joke. --[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:53, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I was a little unsettled by Morgan Freeman's character. I understand it was to add to the nobility of the cause of abolition, but he seemed out of place. Also, what was with that ship full of diners the Amistad encounters while still at sea? I didn't know they had cruise ships in the 1840's! I also noticed that they left out the "non-human" cargo the men divided after the trial was over, a small aspect of the trial. Oh, and were there women and children involved in the real trial, because there were in the film? And I know there wasn't a "glade plug-in" moment like Pocohontas, but the one Africans understanding of the Bible was pretty impressive to say the least.- Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin. This case does not change anything with slavery in the United States. It only discusses the slave trade across the Atlantic. Of course they want to make it dramatic my making this seem like the turning point of slavery in the United States. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
After watching this movie, I definitely saw some things that were historically accurate. Some other things were definitely not or I just need clarification. In the part where Cinque met with Baldwin in the yard at the jail so Balwin could find out where the slaves were from, it seemed that Cinque could understand some of what Baldwin was saying, or at least the general idea. Did that all come from the drawings in the dirt Baldwin made? Or did Cinque suddenly understand English just for that brief period of time? Also, I felt that Lewis Tappan was not very involved in the movie. It mainly focused on Baldwin and Joadson, and even then, just as Deborah said above, I don't think that a Black man like Joadson would have been so well accepted. It was interesting because Baldwin was the one being attacked for defending the Mende slaves, whereas Joadson seemed quite accepted in the society. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
There were a few things I noticed in the movie that were inaccurate and the first the absence of the term “black Ladinos” which is what the Cubans called the slaves. I thought this could have been an important element in the few court cases regarding the slaves in the movie. Also, it seemed that Lewis Tappan was made to be a little less prominent than he was in reality. I thought he was more active in the case, and he seemed to take somewhat of a back seat in the movie. Another thing was what happened to Cinque after the final verdict of the Supreme Court. In the movie, they claimed he returned right away to Africa and back to his family, but he actually spent some time in Connecticut, and then later returned to Africa. -afrisk<br />
<br />
While it may be a minor detail, I thought that the scene before the ship arrives on land when they pass within 5 feet of a ship with wealthy, dining Americans was ridiculous. It might just be my opinion, but I think that had that actually occurred more would've happened than the orchestra stopping so the rich Americans could stare. I can't imagine that seeing a ship completely controlled by blacks in the 1840s was something that happened normally. While I think the film tried to use that scene as a way to transition from the ship to the mainland, it never actually happened and was just somewhat distracting. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One thing that really irritated me about this movie was, not just Morgan Freeman's character, but also the atmosphere of the movie itself. I really wish that the movie was centered more around the stories of the Mendi... and not of America. While there part in the was important too, I really think including the Mendi in the movie more would have made the movie more rounded and accurate to history. When the abolitionists brought the translators the point was to get their story, however the movie doesn't really show that. Sigh. Oh well. Even Spielberg isn't perfect. Also the fact that the movie didn't really stick to the whole slave trade being illegal thing was another annoying point. It is yet [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 another story] about the justification of the white man. -Jenn<br />
<br />
The illustrations in the Bible were made by Gustave Dore. He published his work on the Bible in 1866. It would be long after the court cases. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118607/goofs) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
Even though we think of the 90s as a politically correct time perhaps it was also a time when people were beginning to talk in a serious way about slavery and its film portrayal. I'm no film buff but I can't think of many (any?) films that place the issue of slavery as the central focus of the film. That being said it is clear that while we were beginning to talk about it we weren't ready for a full-blown discussion on the US participation (mostly in Southern Plantations). The Amistad case is a unique one and not representative of what was really going on during this time with regards to slavery. But ''Amistad'' provides a starting point where the issue of slavery is the focus without making Americans "feel bad" for those couple centuries of slavery. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:36, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Spielberg actually made an accompanying [http://www.filmeducation.org/pdf/film/Amistad.pdf study guide]to encourage teachers to show the film in the classroom and discuss the nature of slavery. The guide tries to communicate the horrors of slavery, its history and how the film should be accepted as a representation of said history. There are a couple of statements that I don't really agree with such as Spielberg's final notes that it takes in to account the perspectives of both white and black people, yet in all reality this case did not represent a win for abolitionists. If nothing else, maybe the film makers want to demonstrate that certain peoples in the US have a long history of fighting against slavery and oppression? Although people might be convicted by the terrible events, the film still has its (mostly) happy ending. On a separate note, I bumped into this [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 essay]by Eric Foner who digs into ''Amistad's''producer for, "castigating historians for suppressing the “real history” of African-Americans and slavery." If nothing else you can still see how hollywood is trying to one up historians.--[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:41, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the issue of slavery takes the foreground in this film, I think it is important to look at what this film is saying about the judicial system and its relation to American politics. The film, after all, falls into the court room drama genre, and it is therefore making certain claims about said system. The first thing that I noticed was the obvious hints at judicial corruption. Whether this commentary is solely focused on the 1800s or if this view is being placed on the system as a whole is unclear. Yet the film certainly makes claims that the American ideal of checks-and-balances in government is not as true as believed. Also, the makers of this film seem to believe in the idea of a close interpretation of established law, i.e. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (while not directly mentioned). Yet despite these claims of corruption and blurring of political lines the film suggests that the true American spirit (freedom and justice) will prevail no matter what. Like previous films watched in this class, <em>Amistad</em> seems to make the same statments about America: yeah we messed up and time were tough, but because we were just and wanted freedom we prevailed. A message that fits with the feelings of '90s American culture, one that triumphed in the Cold War and now was having a mostly successful economy.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While this may be a small point in the grand scheme of the movie, I feel it says a lot about the filmmakers. While Yamba's interpretation of the illustrated New Testament is touching, any religious conversion of the Mende would not have been so clearly independent and self-guided. As discussed in class on Tuesday, the Mende received religious education. Conversion to Christianity was the entire point. But as upstanding Americans who value religious freedom, we could never possibly force faith on others... at least we can't show it that way in the movies we make. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I was glad to see that there did not seem to be much of a bias in the accuracy of the plot and specifics regarding the story. It is interesting to note the representation of the abolitionist in the film. While blacks were free at that point in the Northern states, that doesn't mean that they were treated well or respected. Much of the Northern population did not want to have anything to do with the free black population. Now I know that some abolitionist were a little on the far side, but Morgan Freeman's character was well regarded everywhere he went and treated just the same as a white man. This may have been influenced with the time periods ideas about the noble North and their crusade against slavery. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Amistad came out only four years after Schindler's List. Maybe Steven Spielberg was just on a human rights movie kick? After all, the 1990s was the era of genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia. It would be understandable for people, on some level, to be grappling with massive moral questions about how the world deals with race/ethnicity/tribe and how we relate to each other as humans. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer. Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie. The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people. The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen. Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status. The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The David Walker reading, A Black Abolitionist Speaks Out, shows the extreme nature of their being. The reading displays a man that was shocked and "astonished" by the acts of an American, Christian nation. The talk of God and how he/she might look at the act of enslaving a man is brought up over and over in this piece. This is a stark contrast from the portrayal of the abolitionists in the movie. These characters were seen as well do and appeared to be excepted into the society in which they lived. They also seemed to be more gentlemen like than Walker, this may have something to do with them being white and him being the son of a former slave. Nonetheless, the reading gives a true portrayal of the intensity that was held about abolitionists on the topic, which was surely needed if one was to go against social norms in such a large way. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's seizure from his home jibes with Equiano's description of kidnapping practices in general. The brief shot of Cinque's son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving. The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque's wife. For them, as for Equiano's parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air. According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan's account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi's letter to John Quincy Adams was, "give us free". Cinque chanted "give us free" in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as "chief" and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn't a chief. He then went on to call him a "white man," probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman's character. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as "brother" and then said that he was a "white man" - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the scenes describing the capture and treatment of Cinque and the others was very similar to the Equiano's story. The kidnapping by other African tribes, being sold, and the horrors experienced on board ships like: people jumping overboard to escape, the rape of the women, and the violent whippings.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I really agree with Rachel, and to add on I thought how Equiano described how he was jealous of his countrymen who jumped off of the ship to be something that should of been emphasized. The people were taken away from everything and if they recieved a glimmer of hope by seeing a relative it was quickly taken from them. I also think how Equiano described his white captors to be equal to how Cinque and his people would of viewed them, they were essentially foreigners and ugly on the inside and out. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In both the readings and the film, the Africans begin picking up English and Christianity, but in the movie it seems almost accidental (as in, the Bible is stolen rather than given). In the readings though, it's quite clear that the Americans are actively seeking to teach the Mende. Lewis Tappan's letter mentions that he spent time working with them over religious texts, and the letter from Kalito Adams mentions a teacher that the group spoke with. Maybe the filmmakers wanted to avoid making it look as though the Americans were attempting to "Americanize" the Africans. They wanted to emphasize that being African, and preserving their culture, was perfectly legitimate, but that sounds to me like a fairly modern idea. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I felt that the letter to Adams had many of the same sentiments we witnessed in the movie. The Africans did not understand what they did wrong and just wanted their freedom. The desperation of the letter and the characters in the film is palpable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
David Walker mentions equal rights and the Declaration of Independence by saying, “Hear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776-‘We hold these truths to be self-evident-that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!! That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!!’ Compare your own language above…with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us.” This was the reality of the slaves' existence. They were not treated as humans and had zero rights whatsoever. In the film, John Adams refers to the Declaration in his address to the Supreme Court. He echoes the voice of David Walker (and obviously Cinque and all slaves) and the judges listen.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I wish Morgan Freeman’s character, Theodore Joadson, had a more prominent role in the movie. After doing the readings as well as watching the movie, I thought the narrative by David Walker could have been what Freeman brought to the screen. In Walker’s narrative, he speaks very strongly about the oppression of blacks and its tremendous conflict with morality and inalienable rights. While watching the movie, I could not help but wish Freeman’s character would kick it into gear and become a more open advocate for abolitionism. Clearly he is for the cause, but does so in a detached manner and I kept wishing his character would develop more instead of just pushing the plot along. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I thought that the readings coincided in a very meaningful way with the film, especially the letter from Kali to John Quincy Adams. The language barrier, which was portrayed consistently throughout the movie, shows as well in the letter, as well as the fact that the Mende relate themselves to the American people. There is also the clear recognition of the word "free" in both the letter and the movie- it is the first word that we see Cinque recognize when Baldwin is talking to him in the prison cell, and in the letter Kali states that "All we want is make us free." -Meagan P<br />
<br />
One thing that Equiano talks about in his autobiography is the confusion and terror that Africans possessed when they were put aboard the ships. I think that the one thing this movies depicts well is just that. One scene I vividly remember is the Africans being boarded onto a ship in chains and there is a man standing there with a whip in hand, I assume to keep them moving. There is even a part where somebody just fell over and died, or fainted. Equiano said in his autobiography that he saw a "multitude of black people of every description chained together, every one of their countenances expressing dejection and sorrow." So in this regard, the movie depicted the violence, death, close quarters and abuse on the Mid-Passage really well. -Jenn<br />
<br />
Kali's letter to John Quincy Adams was more inspiring than Roger Baldwin's letter. It was a plea by an enslaved person for a group that was going to be enslaved. Kali was begging John Quincy Adams to be involved in this court case.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly. Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low. The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question. The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is "not a big man, but a lucky one," in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin or Adams. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I really admired John Quincy Adams’s explanation to Cinque about taking the case to the Supreme Court. He says to Cinque, “We’re battling a lion that’s threatening to tear our country apart. And all we have is a rock.” He does not talk down to him; he explains the situation in terms that Cinque understands. To a person who has never lived in a country with an intricate legal system, it would be very difficult to understand why a judgment does not stand without further challenge. During the Supreme Court session, Adams mentions Cinque’s invocation to his ancestors and that with them there, he will be saved. Adams then calls on America’s ancestors, our Founding Fathers. After the case is settled, Cinque asks Adams what he said to persuade them to rule in favor of the Africans. Adams replies, “Your words.” –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I understand what Mike was saying about making Baldwin or Adams look like the hero in the film because of Cinque's denial of leadership, but I don't agree with it completely. I do believe the film makes Baldwin (in particular) look like the hero, but I think Cinque's "humbleness" just adds to his majesty. He was still portrayed as a leader and as the strongest of the men (mentally and physically) and I think the viewers still see him as a strong hero who conquers the adversity he finds himself in. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I agree with Victoria. I was never unimpressed by Cinque's character - his story about what really happened with the lion only made me respect him more for admitting the truth. Obviously we feel sorry for Cinque and all of the captives, but it's the way Cinque carries himself that makes the audience respect him. From the moment Adams is introduced, he already seems like a hero, albeit a more unwilling one, but it's clear that he's to be respected. Baldwin is built up but he doesn't have a huge moment that changes the way the audience sees him. He starts the film as a noble lawyer and ends it as a noble lawyer. Baldwin may be a hero in this, but Cinque is THE hero. - Celia</div>Abrudnohttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T05:40:23Z<p>Abrudno: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Deborah's point. One of the first things that the film got very right was the sense of chaos and disorder during the revolt on the ship. The sense of total lack of communication throughout the whole film was very well-done. I also liked the attention paid to the character with the sharpened teeth, which was mentioned in one of the readings. In addition, casting Djimon Hounsou as Cinque was a great choice. His magnetism and presence made him very interesting to watch, and I think this holds true to the real Cinque. I also think that the sequence showing Cinque's experience on the ship was fairly accurate. That whole sequence was harrowing and extremely hard to watch. I admire the filmmakers for not shying away from any of the horrors that the slaves experienced. - Celia<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In the film when Ruiz and Montes steer the ship they trick the Africans into thinking that they are sailing back to Africa by telling them that the sun is in the east, which is the direction of Africa. They began to sail at sunset, so they actually were sailing west towards America. In the morning, when the Africans wake up, the boat is facing the sun (the east). That little trick correlates to the map that Dr. McClurken showed in class about the zigzag course La Amistad took. The attitudes of the North and South were accurate, especially that of John Calhoun. He arrives (or crashes?) the presidential dinner and gives the Spanish Ambassador an earful about how if slavery is taken away from the South, that will put the standard of living of the South even further behind that of the North. He expresses similar views in The Executive Review that Adams references in the Supreme Court session. The movie also accurately portrays President Van Buren’s lack of interest in the Amistad matter at first because of his focus on re-election. Van Buren’s later challenge to the judgment does not really give him the full political support he desires, because he loses the 1840 election. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie portrayed Cinque as a strong leader. He is ripped physically and he learns English the quickest although that may not be true in real life it shows he is the leader. Also they did a great job showing the language barrier and how they were walking though the streets saying numbers in Mendee. I think they did a good job displaying the Spanish annoyance that things were not going their way. I loved the conversation they had at the dinner table between Van Buren and John Calhoun.I also think the movie did a good job displaying the violence the slaves experienced on the middle passage. I felt kind of sick when they pushed all those people off the boat. I also found it sad when they only gave some people food and not others. It shows the reality of a slaves life. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Cinque's story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie did many things right. One of the was the language barrier that others mentioned, I however liked that they did not always use subtitles for Cinque because it was easy to see how Baldwin and others would have felt when trying to understand Cinque's story and how Cinque would have felt when people were speaking to him in Spanish and English. Second thing was the treatment of the tribe during Cinque's description of his capture. I also appreciated that it was shown that not everyone in the North was for Abolition, like when Baldwin is attacked and when he tells Cinque that he has received death threats.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I think a lot of this movie was fairly accurate; at least more so than some of the other movies we have seen so far. Basic facts, such as going to the docks to look for a Mende translator or even giving most of the actors the correct names as they were in history. I think that the movie also accurately described the treatment of the slaves, at least in the prison. The scenes of the slaves on the ship did not accurately describe their treatment on the boat, but at the prison, I think it was clear that they were treated like animals. It just simply looked like it, the way they were almost "penned up." Also, when the one slave died while in prison, I think that scene of the other Mende slaves carrying around his nearly emaciated body sent a very clear message about the slaves' awful treatment. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
Overall I was really pleased with the film in it's accuracy. From what I could tell, they got all the main points down correctly, such as their trip across the Atlantic, the uprising, and consequently their arrival in the colonies. The trial scenes all seemed accurate and probable for the time period. I really appreciated the films attention to little details. They could have left out "The Emancipator" or the change of judges to make things more simple, but I'm glad they didn't. It rounded out the story well. Although it was one of the most depressing parts of the film, I thought the capture and shipment of the slaves was very well done. I was glad to see that they showed other African tribes capturing slaves in exchange for weapons. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I thought that for the most part, the film got a lot of the big ideas across very well. The one that stuck out to me the most was that the ruling for the Mende did not mean the end of slavery in the United States; I think it would have been a very easy connection for the film makers to play up, but I'm glad that they did not. I also thought that the clear language barrier, and how translation helped the Mende case was well done, but not beat into the audience repeatedly. -Meagan P<br />
<br />
This film was very accurate (especially comparing to the other films we have seen so far). I liked how they showed the difficulty with the language barrier. This was not like Pocahontas where one minute they can't understand each other, and then the next minute they could understand each other perfectly. The film showed very well the confrontation of people from different cultures. It was nice not always having subtitles because it was like we were in the position of the Americans. They are trying to understand what the Mende are saying, but they can't. It also shows well how complicated the American legal system and I think they portrayed the different trials very well. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I have to say, overall, I was much less disappointed with this film than with most historical films. The major points were accurate without being dumbed down, such as the serious language barriers, the intricacies of the court system, and the gruesome voyage itself. It would have been easy to make the film shorter, less violent, more palatable, by cutting things out or changing bits and pieces of the storyline. I'm very glad that didn't happen. Parts of this movie are disgusting, off-putting, and morally uncomfortable. As they should be. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
In the movie you saw President Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour. The problem? Well, in 1840 presidents did not campaign. In addition, the characters also talked about the impending Civil War. Well, being 20 years away, how would they know that was to happen? And finally, the film is all about the Atlantic slave trade, which was actually illegal in 1840. Rather, the film should have dealt with slavery as a domestic institution.-- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character. Additionally, I don't believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be. The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time. Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two). Also, it's unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars. Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing. The court scenes were tedious enough as it was. <br />
In our textbook, "Reel History," Robert Brent Toplin talks about how "tainted" the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film's integrity (69-78). <br />
I don't know if I would call this "wrong," but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified. The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque's ancestor worship.) Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he's the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn't support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins' believability.--- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie does a good job of portraying that only a few people where for the abolition of slavery. But, when they first went to ask John Q. Adams to back them in their pursuit of winning the trials he claims that he is neutral in the matters that came between the abolitionists and those that were pro-slavery. This implies that there is an equally back constituency on both sides which we learned in class is not true. In the movie it seems that those who were neutral were the smallest minority, when in fact the abolitionists were seen as extremist and were the true minorities in the subject of slavery. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American's view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams' plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American's view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan that they should have made Matthew McConaughey look older. He looked too young to be a lawyer to me.I also agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman's character. Not only is he fictional he does not say much during the movie. He just kind of stood around. Obviously he was going for the big actors names but if he is fictional why even cast it? - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan and LeAnn. Casting Matthew McConaughey seems like a really vain attempt to attract younger audience members. He didn't do a terrible job, but honestly, the star of "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" and "Failure to Launch" seemed just a tad bit out of place on screen with Anthony Hopkins and Morgan Freeman. He could have been worse, I guess, but I think he was woefully miscast. Maybe the filmmakers were trying to cast Baldwin as a young upstart with lots of spirit and passion to contrast against John Quincy Adams. Also, it annoyed me a lot that Baldwin said NOTHING at the final court scene. I guess this was just to give Adams the floor the whole time, but I think that's pretty unfair. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn<br />
<br />
I don't know if this something that the movie got wrong in the sense of a factual/ historical mistake but the Supreme Court scene and Adams speech makes it look like his moral speech is what causes the decision, but it was really Baldwin's property statements that was used in the decision. However the use of property claims is still used in the various trials.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
According to the timeline we talked about it class, the Mende would have made it to Connecticut sometime during the summer, not during the snowy winter as in the film. That was an interesting choice by the filmmakers, perhaps done to make the Mende's plight seem that much dramatic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I have two main contentions with this movie. The first is that I believe more than two crew members were killed during the opening mutiny scene. I also am not positive that they portrayed Cinque as the only one who killed the men. In this scene, the crewmen were also seen reloading their guns in the rain. Could that be done? In "The Last of the Mohicans" they couldn't reload under the waterfall, not that Mann's film is a standard for historical accuracy. The second atrocity is that the counter suit the Mende filed was never mentioned. In the film, we never find out what happened to Ruiz and Montes. While I'm on this rant, I would like to point out how strait and white Cinque's teeth were. I find it remarkable that he had time to brush his teeth during the middle passage. His pearly whites are especially noticeable when he was reprimanding Baldwin. How could you resist such a bright, shiny smile, Van Buren? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned the sort of fumbling with languages that happens throughout the film. While there is no glade plug in moment granting Cinque magical English language powers, he seems to understand what other people are saying in English just fine. Just consider his interaction with Baldwin in the cell. Baldwin attempts to ask where Cinque has come from, but due to the language barrier nothing gets across, yet mysteriously (through the gift of subtitles) Cinque responds to Baldwin in his native tongue as if the only problem was his lack of English. Is that a small discrepancy? Sure! But am I going to complain? Hell yeah. While it doesn't relate to history, I felt like the on again off again use of subtitles just did not work. We only got subtitles when Spielberg decided subtitles would either be heart warming or make a nice joke. --[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:53, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I was a little unsettled by Morgan Freeman's character. I understand it was to add to the nobility of the cause of abolition, but he seemed out of place. Also, what was with that ship full of diners the Amistad encounters while still at sea? I didn't know they had cruise ships in the 1840's! I also noticed that they left out the "non-human" cargo the men divided after the trial was over, a small aspect of the trial. Oh, and were there women and children involved in the real trial, because there were in the film? And I know there wasn't a "glade plug-in" moment like Pocohontas, but the one Africans understanding of the Bible was pretty impressive to say the least.- Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin. This case does not change anything with slavery in the United States. It only discusses the slave trade across the Atlantic. Of course they want to make it dramatic my making this seem like the turning point of slavery in the United States. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
After watching this movie, I definitely saw some things that were historically accurate. Some other things were definitely not or I just need clarification. In the part where Cinque met with Baldwin in the yard at the jail so Balwin could find out where the slaves were from, it seemed that Cinque could understand some of what Baldwin was saying, or at least the general idea. Did that all come from the drawings in the dirt Baldwin made? Or did Cinque suddenly understand English just for that brief period of time? Also, I felt that Lewis Tappan was not very involved in the movie. It mainly focused on Baldwin and Joadson, and even then, just as Deborah said above, I don't think that a Black man like Joadson would have been so well accepted. It was interesting because Baldwin was the one being attacked for defending the Mende slaves, whereas Joadson seemed quite accepted in the society. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
There were a few things I noticed in the movie that were inaccurate and the first the absence of the term “black Ladinos” which is what the Cubans called the slaves. I thought this could have been an important element in the few court cases regarding the slaves in the movie. Also, it seemed that Lewis Tappan was made to be a little less prominent than he was in reality. I thought he was more active in the case, and he seemed to take somewhat of a back seat in the movie. Another thing was what happened to Cinque after the final verdict of the Supreme Court. In the movie, they claimed he returned right away to Africa and back to his family, but he actually spent some time in Connecticut, and then later returned to Africa. -afrisk<br />
<br />
While it may be a minor detail, I thought that the scene before the ship arrives on land when they pass within 5 feet of a ship with wealthy, dining Americans was ridiculous. It might just be my opinion, but I think that had that actually occurred more would've happened than the orchestra stopping so the rich Americans could stare. I can't imagine that seeing a ship completely controlled by blacks in the 1840s was something that happened normally. While I think the film tried to use that scene as a way to transition from the ship to the mainland, it never actually happened and was just somewhat distracting. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One thing that really irritated me about this movie was, not just Morgan Freeman's character, but also the atmosphere of the movie itself. I really wish that the movie was centered more around the stories of the Mendi... and not of America. While there part in the was important too, I really think including the Mendi in the movie more would have made the movie more rounded and accurate to history. When the abolitionists brought the translators the point was to get their story, however the movie doesn't really show that. Sigh. Oh well. Even Spielberg isn't perfect. Also the fact that the movie didn't really stick to the whole slave trade being illegal thing was another annoying point. It is yet [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 another story] about the justification of the white man. -Jenn<br />
<br />
The illustrations in the Bible were made by Gustave Dore. He published his work on the Bible in 1866. It would be long after the court cases. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118607/goofs) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
Even though we think of the 90s as a politically correct time perhaps it was also a time when people were beginning to talk in a serious way about slavery and its film portrayal. I'm no film buff but I can't think of many (any?) films that place the issue of slavery as the central focus of the film. That being said it is clear that while we were beginning to talk about it we weren't ready for a full-blown discussion on the US participation (mostly in Southern Plantations). The Amistad case is a unique one and not representative of what was really going on during this time with regards to slavery. But ''Amistad'' provides a starting point where the issue of slavery is the focus without making Americans "feel bad" for those couple centuries of slavery. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:36, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Spielberg actually made an accompanying [http://www.filmeducation.org/pdf/film/Amistad.pdf study guide]to encourage teachers to show the film in the classroom and discuss the nature of slavery. The guide tries to communicate the horrors of slavery, its history and how the film should be accepted as a representation of said history. There are a couple of statements that I don't really agree with such as Spielberg's final notes that it takes in to account the perspectives of both white and black people, yet in all reality this case did not represent a win for abolitionists. If nothing else, maybe the film makers want to demonstrate that certain peoples in the US have a long history of fighting against slavery and oppression? Although people might be convicted by the terrible events, the film still has its (mostly) happy ending. On a separate note, I bumped into this [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 essay]by Eric Foner who digs into ''Amistad's''producer for, "castigating historians for suppressing the “real history” of African-Americans and slavery." If nothing else you can still see how hollywood is trying to one up historians.--[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:41, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the issue of slavery takes the foreground in this film, I think it is important to look at what this film is saying about the judicial system and its relation to American politics. The film, after all, falls into the court room drama genre, and it is therefore making certain claims about said system. The first thing that I noticed was the obvious hints at judicial corruption. Whether this commentary is solely focused on the 1800s or if this view is being placed on the system as a whole is unclear. Yet the film certainly makes claims that the American ideal of checks-and-balances in government is not as true as believed. Also, the makers of this film seem to believe in the idea of a close interpretation of established law, i.e. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (while not directly mentioned). Yet despite these claims of corruption and blurring of political lines the film suggests that the true American spirit (freedom and justice) will prevail no matter what. Like previous films watched in this class, <em>Amistad</em> seems to make the same statments about America: yeah we messed up and time were tough, but because we were just and wanted freedom we prevailed. A message that fits with the feelings of '90s American culture, one that triumphed in the Cold War and now was having a mostly successful economy.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While this may be a small point in the grand scheme of the movie, I feel it says a lot about the filmmakers. While Yamba's interpretation of the illustrated New Testament is touching, any religious conversion of the Mende would not have been so clearly independent and self-guided. As discussed in class on Tuesday, the Mende received religious education. Conversion to Christianity was the entire point. But as upstanding Americans who value religious freedom, we could never possibly force faith on others... at least we can't show it that way in the movies we make. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I was glad to see that there did not seem to be much of a bias in the accuracy of the plot and specifics regarding the story. It is interesting to note the representation of the abolitionist in the film. While blacks were free at that point in the Northern states, that doesn't mean that they were treated well or respected. Much of the Northern population did not want to have anything to do with the free black population. Now I know that some abolitionist were a little on the far side, but Morgan Freeman's character was well regarded everywhere he went and treated just the same as a white man. This may have been influenced with the time periods ideas about the noble North and their crusade against slavery. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Amistad came out only four years after Schindler's List. Maybe Steven Spielberg was just on a human rights movie kick? After all, the 1990s was the era of genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia. It would be understandable for people, on some level, to be grappling with massive moral questions about how the world deals with race/ethnicity/tribe and how we relate to each other as humans. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer. Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie. The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people. The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen. Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status. The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The David Walker reading, A Black Abolitionist Speaks Out, shows the extreme nature of their being. The reading displays a man that was shocked and "astonished" by the acts of an American, Christian nation. The talk of God and how he/she might look at the act of enslaving a man is brought up over and over in this piece. This is a stark contrast from the portrayal of the abolitionists in the movie. These characters were seen as well do and appeared to be excepted into the society in which they lived. They also seemed to be more gentlemen like than Walker, this may have something to do with them being white and him being the son of a former slave. Nonetheless, the reading gives a true portrayal of the intensity that was held about abolitionists on the topic, which was surely needed if one was to go against social norms in such a large way. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's seizure from his home jibes with Equiano's description of kidnapping practices in general. The brief shot of Cinque's son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving. The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque's wife. For them, as for Equiano's parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air. According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan's account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi's letter to John Quincy Adams was, "give us free". Cinque chanted "give us free" in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as "chief" and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn't a chief. He then went on to call him a "white man," probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman's character. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as "brother" and then said that he was a "white man" - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the scenes describing the capture and treatment of Cinque and the others was very similar to the Equiano's story. The kidnapping by other African tribes, being sold, and the horrors experienced on board ships like: people jumping overboard to escape, the rape of the women, and the violent whippings.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I really agree with Rachel, and to add on I thought how Equiano described how he was jealous of his countrymen who jumped off of the ship to be something that should of been emphasized. The people were taken away from everything and if they recieved a glimmer of hope by seeing a relative it was quickly taken from them. I also think how Equiano described his white captors to be equal to how Cinque and his people would of viewed them, they were essentially foreigners and ugly on the inside and out. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In both the readings and the film, the Africans begin picking up English and Christianity, but in the movie it seems almost accidental (as in, the Bible is stolen rather than given). In the readings though, it's quite clear that the Americans are actively seeking to teach the Mende. Lewis Tappan's letter mentions that he spent time working with them over religious texts, and the letter from Kalito Adams mentions a teacher that the group spoke with. Maybe the filmmakers wanted to avoid making it look as though the Americans were attempting to "Americanize" the Africans. They wanted to emphasize that being African, and preserving their culture, was perfectly legitimate, but that sounds to me like a fairly modern idea. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I felt that the letter to Adams had many of the same sentiments we witnessed in the movie. The Africans did not understand what they did wrong and just wanted their freedom. The desperation of the letter and the characters in the film is palpable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
David Walker mentions equal rights and the Declaration of Independence by saying, “Hear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776-‘We hold these truths to be self-evident-that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!! That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!!’ Compare your own language above…with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us.” This was the reality of the slaves' existence. They were not treated as humans and had zero rights whatsoever. In the film, John Adams refers to the Declaration in his address to the Supreme Court. He echoes the voice of David Walker (and obviously Cinque and all slaves) and the judges listen.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I wish Morgan Freeman’s character, Theodore Joadson, had a more prominent role in the movie. After doing the readings as well as watching the movie, I thought the narrative by David Walker could have been what Freeman brought to the screen. In Walker’s narrative, he speaks very strongly about the oppression of blacks and its tremendous conflict with morality and inalienable rights. While watching the movie, I could not help but wish Freeman’s character would kick it into gear and become a more open advocate for abolitionism. Clearly he is for the cause, but does so in a detached manner and I kept wishing his character would develop more instead of just pushing the plot along. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I thought that the readings coincided in a very meaningful way with the film, especially the letter from Kali to John Quincy Adams. The language barrier, which was portrayed consistently throughout the movie, shows as well in the letter, as well as the fact that the Mende relate themselves to the American people. There is also the clear recognition of the word "free" in both the letter and the movie- it is the first word that we see Cinque recognize when Baldwin is talking to him in the prison cell, and in the letter Kali states that "All we want is make us free." -Meagan P<br />
<br />
One thing that Equiano talks about in his autobiography is the confusion and terror that Africans possessed when they were put aboard the ships. I think that the one thing this movies depicts well is just that. One scene I vividly remember is the Africans being boarded onto a ship in chains and there is a man standing there with a whip in hand, I assume to keep them moving. There is even a part where somebody just fell over and died, or fainted. Equiano said in his autobiography that he saw a "multitude of black people of every description chained together, every one of their countenances expressing dejection and sorrow." So in this regard, the movie depicted the violence, death, close quarters and abuse on the Mid-Passage really well. -Jenn<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly. Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low. The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question. The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is "not a big man, but a lucky one," in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin or Adams. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I really admired John Quincy Adams’s explanation to Cinque about taking the case to the Supreme Court. He says to Cinque, “We’re battling a lion that’s threatening to tear our country apart. And all we have is a rock.” He does not talk down to him; he explains the situation in terms that Cinque understands. To a person who has never lived in a country with an intricate legal system, it would be very difficult to understand why a judgment does not stand without further challenge. During the Supreme Court session, Adams mentions Cinque’s invocation to his ancestors and that with them there, he will be saved. Adams then calls on America’s ancestors, our Founding Fathers. After the case is settled, Cinque asks Adams what he said to persuade them to rule in favor of the Africans. Adams replies, “Your words.” –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I understand what Mike was saying about making Baldwin or Adams look like the hero in the film because of Cinque's denial of leadership, but I don't agree with it completely. I do believe the film makes Baldwin (in particular) look like the hero, but I think Cinque's "humbleness" just adds to his majesty. He was still portrayed as a leader and as the strongest of the men (mentally and physically) and I think the viewers still see him as a strong hero who conquers the adversity he finds himself in. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I agree with Victoria. I was never unimpressed by Cinque's character - his story about what really happened with the lion only made me respect him more for admitting the truth. Obviously we feel sorry for Cinque and all of the captives, but it's the way Cinque carries himself that makes the audience respect him. From the moment Adams is introduced, he already seems like a hero, albeit a more unwilling one, but it's clear that he's to be respected. Baldwin is built up but he doesn't have a huge moment that changes the way the audience sees him. He starts the film as a noble lawyer and ends it as a noble lawyer. Baldwin may be a hero in this, but Cinque is THE hero. - Celia</div>Abrudnohttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-16T06:39:10Z<p>Abrudno: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
There are a few things I believe ''The Patriot'' got right. The main one that stood out to me was in beginning at the town meeting, the loyalists did use the quote that was also stated in class, "I would rather have 1 tyrant than 3,000" showing the distinction between loyalist and patriot thought. The movie also depicted, through Mel Gibson's character, the change from a neutral colonist into a patriot and what a colonist did to prove themselves to be worthy of the patriots. I wonder did the colonists shift roles how Mel Gibson's character did, because of death in their family? Or destruction to their community? I also found the relationship between the African Americans and the families they lived with to be an important role and I appreciated how the children cared for the African Americans and treated them as someone they loved (equals) rather than judge based on skin color. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire. That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact. It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service. First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn't belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today's lecture. I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that's why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed. But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old "Wonderful World of Disney" TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes. "Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time? And will his brave son Gabriel's teeth ever turn white again? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'The Hatchet Chucker!' " Of course it wasn't a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal). The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things "The Patriot" got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson eventually leads his little troop in the guerrilla tactics. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
A lot of information is given at the meeting in the beginning of the movie. They talk about how some people do not want to be involved because it would involve everyone including families. Someone(it might have been Mel Gibson) said that the battles were in Massachusetts and Virginia and the battles shouldn't be brought to the South. They also mention Bunker Hill and how the British advanced three times even after a lot of their soldiers were killed. That battle and advancements were mentioned in one of the readings for this week. I also noticed that one of the men (the man who eventually burned the church)switched sides and became a Loyalist. I was wondering if he really did change his mind during the course of the war or if he was a spy from the beginning? -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the assembly meeting when the men are arguing about defending “the Cause” some of their dialogue exemplifies what Dr. McClurken taught in class about the split attitudes concerning independence. Examples: “What nation is that?” “An American nation.” “To speak of such a thing is treason.” The colonies really were not unified at this point in history. In regards to instances when the soldiers would continue to shoot without reloading each time, I believe that The Patriot made it more realistic than the Last of the Mohicans. <br />
The killing of the militia’s family is similar to the murders of the frontier families in Last of the Mohicans.<br />
I really liked the French leader Jean Villeneuve’s line right before the final battle after Martin gives him a puzzled look, “If I’m going to die, I’m going to die well dressed.” Oh, the French. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie did some to show that men who joined the fighting left behind families with no guarantee that their wives and children would be safe. There were probably many women like Aunt Charlotte, alone with five children. And like we learned in class, civilians feared the soldiers; they could be brutal to even women and children. The men walked a line between fighting for "The Cause," and by extension what they saw as the future good of their families, and providing for the very immediate security of those they loved still at home. It's difficult to imagine how many little kids watched their homes burn or had family killed right in front of them. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The things the movie got right was the brutality of war. Horrible things happen in war and I think the movie displayed that. I think they also did a good job showing how easily the British managed to piss off people into joining the other side. In the movie the "bad guy" basically tells the slaves that they can be free when he rides in on his horse. What a great way to piss off all the Southern elites. Another thing I thought was pretty good is when a colonial loyalist comes into talk to the British officers and says any neighbor of his that went to the Rebels was no longer his neighbor and should be hanged or something to that affect. Neighbors did hate each other and fought with each other. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn's point about the brutality in the film. The director didn't seem to shy away from the horrors of war, and I respect him for that. I think that the Revolutionary War is too often depicted in popular culture as simply a noble fight for independence against the evil, tyrannical Brits. While it may seem like the filmmakers are boiling down the entire Revolutionary War into one man's cause, I appreciate the focus on the home-front. The grisly image of bodies hanging from a tree and the frightening scene when the Redcoats burn down the church are two moments in particular that most likely would not have been shown in a typical historical fiction film fifty years ago. - Celia<br />
<br />
While a bit overdramatic, I felt like the opening meeting scene quickly established the complicated tension among colonists. Beyond the simple Loyalist/Patriot split, there were further divisions about how to handle the conflict, which I think adds a further dimension of realism to the situation. The movie also does little to disguise the brutality of war. As others have said here, people sometimes forget that the American Revolution was, in fact, a war. ''The Patriot'' leaves in all the blood, guts, and tragedy, both in the field and at home. - Cilla<br />
<br />
Another thing the movie got right was the fear of giving slaves guns. When the French guy gives Occam the musket saying “Here. A Proper Musket for you.” The character Dan Scott says, “I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't like the idea of giving muskets to slaves.” –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I thought that The Patriot's portrayal of the actual fighting was done relatively well. The soldiers did have to reload muskets and pistols, which clearly took time during the battle, and I thought that the way that it was portrayed was fairly accurate. The formation of the British troops, as well as their fighting style, was also done very well. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Celia and LeAnn's point about brutality in the movie, especially when it came to guerrilla warfare. But nevertheless, I thought it was well-done. It showed the importance, and effectiveness, of that tactic in the war. (He even convinced his littlest boys to do it and they were super successful, now weren't they?!) -- Kelly<br />
<br />
I think the movie definitely described the aspect of the slaves correctly. In the movie, it was said that any slaves who served with the Continental Army or the militia for 12 months would receive payment and their freedom. I originally thought this was false. But in the reading, on page 14, it talked about how South Carolina legislatures wanted to pass this as law. Another aspect the movie got correct was the British offering freedom to slaves who fought with them. Although in the movie, it seemed as though it was less of a choice and more of an order. Also, as I'm sure other people have stated, the brutality of the British officers was probably fairly accurate, especially with the idea of them pillaging houses and going after civilians. I'm sure the British army was intense in that respect. What struck me as odd was how some of the British lieutenants were reluctant when ordered to burn houses, or kill people. They seemed sympathetic and as if they realized what they were doing was so very wrong. I wonder if there were officers like that in the British army who felt sympathy and remorse for their actions? --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I am also going to comment on how well the movie shows the differences between the tactics of the standing armies and the militia. The act of war, and participating in battle itself, numerous times throughout the movie, was described as being "civilized." In a sense, for the Continental and British Armies, war was portrayed as a gentleman's sport, with specific rules and an etiquette to be followed. In contrast, the guerrilla warfare tactics of the militia completely goes against everything that the standing armies do. Numerous times throughout the movie the British officers make remarks on how uncivilized and dirty the fighting style of Mel Gibson's character's militia was because he would purposely kill the officers. Watching this movie, it definitely makes you think geez the Continental and British Armies look stupid fighting. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
Just like other people said, the town meeting was a good representation because it showed the Loyalists and the Patriots. It also shows how violent and terrible war is. War is not just fought on the battlefields and that is shown by the burning of the church and the burning of the Aunt's home. Also, the military tactics are well represented. It shows the difference in fighting in straight lines versus fighting behind trees and other ways. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
William Tavington was loosely based on the real-life Banastre Tarleton. Like Tavington in the movie, Tarleton was the commander of the Green Dragoons. Also, both Tavington and Tarleton wore a fluffy-crested leather helmet as part of their army uniform (http://home.golden.net/~marg/bansite/btbanvswill.html). - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I think one of the aspects that the movie did well in conveying was the "disconnectedness" of the war. First Benjamin is against the war, then for it, then against it, then for it again. Some are fighting for freedom, others for revenge. Some colonist are for the British while France is sending over help for the colonist. The movie really expressed the confusion of the whole war and definitely made it clear that it wasn't clear at all. It also did a good job with the attempts made by the British to break down the colonist which backfired on them. Overall, I think it did a good job getting the emotion of the war across. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel's girlfriend did in church? She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men. I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Here are a couple of items the movie did not necessarily get wrong, but flat out did not include them in the movie. This first has to do with the reasoning for going to war, the forced quartering of British soldiers. This element was not talked about, nor was a soldier seen amongst civilians prior to the war beginning. The second has to deal with the interior conflicts between the Loyalists and the Patriots. There were some different feelings about whether to stay loyal to the crown or not, but this was played out by a single character, not by the civil war in the South that raged between them. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I completely with Deborah's point. I was astonished as to how forceful she was. It seemed as though, speaking in those times, that she completely forgot her place in society and her role as a woman. On a separate note, perhaps a bit nit-picky, the kitchen that Charlotte and the children escaped to actually would've been outside in a different building rather than underneath the house. --Kelly<br />
<br />
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn't have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson's character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the "Redcoats" hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn't explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it's fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the "good guys"...but really? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna's point about the minister. That definitely bothered me, too, especially his line about a shepherd needing to tend his flock. It felt like it was written to make the minister seem like a bad-ass. While I liked his character (he was a bit of a bad-ass), I just didn't buy it. I also had to roll my eyes at Anne's impassioned speech in the church. If it had been a bit shorter, or maybe not accompanied by such epic music, it wouldn't have bothered me so much, but it just seemed so over-the-top. I think Anne's belief in the cause could have been expressed more realistically and just as effectively. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson's farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the "good guys," whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where "The Ghost" and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G<br />
<br />
I agree with Michael about the lack of portrayal of slavery. I think because Ben Martin is portrayed as an honorable and righteous man, character development would not have flowed as well if he had been a slave owner. The fact that those African Americans worked his fields and in his house of their own free will shows that they respected Ben and wanted to help him, especially since his wife died. It was apparent that they were not slaves when they are shown dressed nicely and sitting on the porch with the family. However I do find it interesting that the audience does not find out that they are freedmen until the British show up at the Martin farm.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I think the biggest thing that stood out to me which is totally wrong is when Gabriel and the black slave were talking and Gabriel reassured him that in the New World Slaves would be free. I do not know but I am pretty sure no South Carolina man would have said that to anyone because thats not how they thought about slavery. I also found the part where the English soldiers were taking the slaves away that they were not slaves they just worked the land. Once again I doubt they were getting paid so in affect were slaves. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Over the course of five years, the younger children basically never aged. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Let's just say that I don't believe a single bit of the lovely treatment of the incredible number of free blacks in South Carolina during the Revolution in this movie. I'll move onto the next obvious dramatic license: "The Ghost's" ambush. How exactly did Mel Gibson and his young sons manage to shoot every British soldier either in the heart or directly between the eyes while standing quite a distance away and hiding behind trees? Oh yeah, movie magic, that's how! I know it's impressive, but I feel like it loses some of its impact when it's just that unrealistic. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I think some people touched on this in their comments but I just can’t get over the fact that really the only African-Americans that are present in the film are Mel Gibson’s farm hands (freemen) and Occam who joined Mel Gibson’s militia in the stead of his master. I realize it is the South and as it was mentioned on Tuesday fewer African-Americans joined the ranks in the South than in the North but slaves and freed blacks made up a fair percentage of the population in the South and the number of African Americans in this movie just doesn’t work for me. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Maybe one important aspect was when member of the militia got his head knocked off by a cannonball? An actual thing I noticed that did not seem to be historically accurate was the role of the Continental Militia. In the movie, they are almost portrayed as immense heroes of the revolutionary war and in reality; I do not think this was true. They are portrayed as very important, especially in the final battle scene of the movie, where it appears that they saved the continental army from defeat by the British. Although there role is not as important as the movie leads us to believe, it is essential to the movie, because without it the character development would have been completely different. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I didn't get this out of my own watching of the film, but according to numerous news articles the burning of the church scene, while completely inaccurate, essentially maps a WWII atrocity on to the revolutionary war. While the scene is very dramatic and sets the stage for more pissed off running, gun totting and Gibson Fury, you basically have the film makers consciously deciding to depict the British as Nazis. That specific scene "closely resembles one of the most notorious Nazi war crimes of World War II -- the massacre of 642 people (including 205 children) in the French village of Oradour sur Glane on June 10, 1944." I wasn't aware of the connection myself, but I thought it worth putting up here for discussion. Connecting the British to the Nazis is a really big leap as the Nazi, through 40s propaganda and numerous video games, is America's most despicable foe (or so says my little nephew who has a thing for call for duty...). Mind you dropping Nazis or Hitler into any debate about something being evil is completely cheating.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:08, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Some other aspects of the movie that bothered me were how every single person who died in the movie, died as a result of violence. No one died from disease. This is a common theme in most war movies, no matter what the time period. Rarely do directors show that thousands of soldiers, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers died from malaria, dysentery, cholera, and other diseases. Clearly the reason they left it out was not out of fear that the audience would be too squeamish, as they were not too concerned about gore. As we talked about in class, many civilians fled from approaching armies out of fear of catching deadly diseases. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
@Michael G. re: diseases. A possible explanation might be that showing diseases in a war film just is not as compelling as having people beat down with a tomahawk. Although it would have been an easy addition, hell just give one of the Martin children dysentery, right? But in all seriousness, I believe illnesses just get passed over as a small, trivial matter compared to the war itself, regardless of what war it is. A war film is about blood and gore, not malaria. Disease in film tends to be "too boring" for most viewers...or maybe even less than satisfying and anti-climatic? --[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the issues that I had with the film was the lack of minorities that were shown. Supposedly, there were Native Americans fighting with the British, but they were nowhere to be seen in "The Patriot". I also wondered what happened to all of the Hessian mercenaries; they seemed rather conspicuously absent. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Although Professor McClurken did mention the existence of free black colonies that existed across the coastal areas of the south, I seriously doubt that rich, landowning whites would be able to successfully hide and be accepted into the colony. Charlotte and the rest of Benjamin's children remain there for an extended period of time and there is no racial tension shown at all. The servant who originally took care of the children in the beginning, and was captured by the British after Thomas was killed, was in the free black colony as well. If she had really been captured she would have been pressed into service for the British to support their efforts, rather than released to live as a free person. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Michael, slavery is not portrayed in this movie. Mel Gibson's character is seen as a very nice and caring person to his slaves or servants. But this would not be the case. Also, I agree with Deborah's point stating that the girl would not have spoken like that in church. These different social relations between people with different class, age, gender, and race, are not portrayed correctly in this movie. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I remember in class discussing the different regions that were primarily Patriots, or Loyalist, or neutrals and if I remember correctly, there was a section of the Carolinas that was loyalist. This section was primarily yeomen that were against the rich plantation owners in the rest of the region. If that is all correct, then it struck me as odd that the dirty, poor, yeomen in the tavern would have been on such a friendly basis with Benjamin (him being a weathly plantation owner who just happens to be a humanitarian as well). I suppose it was just to add to the nobleness of Benjamin's character. Also, the tomahawk that he uses so gruesomely throughout the movie looked like it was actually a pipe. Tomahawks were often works of art and made into things like pipes. If that was so, then the shaft would have been hollow and useless for the beatings that Benjamin deals out. I noticed too that the characters in this movie also use their guns for beating people, just like in The Last of the Mohicans. Again, seems unlikely that they would have risked the integrity of the gun, but it certainly is entertaining! Oh and one last thing, during Anne's speech in the church, she calls them Patriots instead of Whigs which I thought was interesting. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like "The Patriot," about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself. For instance, also in theaters that year were "Gladiator," "Erin Brokovich," and "The Perfect Storm." "The Patriot" fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America. That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush... It's also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia. "IN A WORLD" where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson's year to support revolutions. Remember "Chicken Run?" Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
To me this film seemed to define for its audience what it means to be a "true American" as well as suggest the revival of the American dream. When we first meet the protagonist his life is good and prosperous. He has a fully functional farm while only using about seven "slaves", children, and respect in the community. Yet when trouble arises, he slinks back from it due to past experiences with violence. Still when the chips are down he pushes through, and fights for what the film says is the true American spirit even though he has lost two sons and turned the last two into mild-sociopaths (evident when one says, "I'm glad I killed [those men]."). After some thought I began to see Mel Gibson's character as an analogy of America itself: mostly profitable, scared from past experiences, and lacking in overall national spirit. What this film says about early 2000 America then is that the American dream-the idea of getting more via sacrifice and hard-work-needed a wake up call. This view went over fairly well with public at the time, however in my own experience with the film interests spiked after the attacks of 9/11. As Deborah said in her post the American movie audiences of 2000 obviously were enjoying rooting for the little man, and <em>The Patriot</em> gave them just that and then some. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Frankly, the film demonstrates what it takes to get Americans into the box office for a revolutionary film: Mel Gibson. A number of film critics and hollywood "experts"in a New York Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/02/movies/film-the-revolutionary-war-is-lost-on-hollywood.html?scp=7&sq=&pagewanted=1 piece] mention that a movie about the Revolutionary War is destined to suck at the box office, but if you slap Mel Gibson on to the film, it seems as if you have a shot at making a film people will go to see. You say Patriot...people say Mel Gibson. Come on look at the movie cover: [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/The_Patriot.jpg The Patriot Cover] and [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Patriot_promo_poster.jpg here] Mel Gibson's name is maybe a little bit smaller than the actual title of the film. I am a little hard pressed to think of how this film fits into the context of early 2000s, but to me it is (for at least that screenwriter) just another series of American war movies to get that ole patriotic heart beatin'.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:52, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac that this movie was to build an attempt to build "patriotism" and to define the meaning of a "true american," I believe it was no accident it was released so close to the 4th of July. I am wondering if there was also some worries about 2000 being the end of the world, and Hollywood believed that America needed a movie to bring America together. It might have been another propaganda tool to remind America that the people built America, and America is supported by the people. So really it was just a grand scheme to get fellow Americans to vote in the upcoming election. Also in 2000, I believe there was a War in Kosovo, so that would be another reason to gain American support. -Jenn<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
A common theme I noticed in the readings and the movie was the brutality of this war. Granted, the readings expressed brutality in the Southern "Civil War" and the movie was mostly British/Colonial brutality, but this seemed to be a common tactic in the revolution overall, no matter what side you happened to be fighting for. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The thing I noticed about the movie and the reading was the horrors and brutal nature of war. The "Rise of Partisan Warfare" reading specifically references dragoons attacking Capt. Stokes. And in the movie the main antagonist is a dragoon that doesn't exactly act the gentleman he is supposed to be during war. -Rachael A.<br />
<br />
After watching some of the cruel endings that came to the Patriots while captives of the British, it is hard to believe that men who had groomed themselves for gentlemen like battle could commit such heinous war crimes against prisoners of war. After reading "The Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," it is evident that these acts against captured men was not such a stretch of the imagination. In fact, if the account are true, then scenes of killing the wounded and captives by the British in the movie were spot on. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The letter from the British prisoner proved that colonial soldiers were just as capable of being cruel in their treatment as British soldiers were, and the "description is not equal to their barbarity." While the movie wanted the Patriots to come across as "the good guys" it also emphasized their eagerness to seek revenge. I don't know what the specific letter writer or his fellow soldiers did when not engaged in direct combat, but it's not hard to imagine that the exceptional brutality of their captors may have stemmed from atrocities committed against families at home. Violence just fed more violence. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Additionally, the movie also references the stealing of the property from British officers after their defeat. True, it primarily has a comic effect in the movie, but we know from the reading as well as the movie that it seriously messed with British morale as well. - Cilla<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed in the reading that was never presented in the movie was the role of the British loyalists. According to “The Age of Revolution,” the British “had decided to concentrate its military efforts in the South because it believed it could count on significant support from southern loyalists. The British military however, failed to provide loyalists with effective protection.” This was very interesting to me because although the movie does focus on the war in the south, we can tell whether the loyalists are fighting for the British or not. Also, we never see the guerilla forces attack the loyalists which as this reading points happened often. In my opinion, this history of the war could have been left out because it would have weakened the focus on the Americans and their ultimate goal of winning the war as well as Mel Gibson and his ultimate goal of killing Colonel Tavington in order to avenge his son. -afrisk<br />
<br />
In the reading I found it was very valuable to read George Washington's letters from Valley Forge. He described the need for basic necessities and it was in the interest of the colonies (New Hampshire?) to supply their soldiers so they could continue the fight for indepedence. I know the movie focused on the southern portion of the colonies but would of thought it would have been a good twist to show how the leaders of the Continental Army, in the North and South, asked for the support of the colonies-they personally reached out to the colonists for help, showing it does not take one person to win a war but rather a whole community. * On a side note my brother attends Valley Forge and in the bookstore they have the picture of George Washington kneeling at Valley Forge, it is a highly valued item at the college and is given to those cadets who exemplify the values and traditions set forth by Washington and is currently hanging in our living room. But the portrait proves history lives on and is still teaching our future military leaders. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
What struck me especially about the second reading, in comparison to the movie, was the sheer brutality of it. In the first of the Brownfield, letters he goes through and vividly describes certain injuries which he saw or heard about. Now I am sure there was some embellishment added to this account but reading about Pearson being, "inhumanly mangled on on the face." And then going into a vivid account of how he was injured was almost to much. While reading I was once again confronted with the grotesque images of the movie. And even though I had seen the movie, and Dr. McClurken warned us about it being violent, I was still unprepared for it to be that brutal. It is really no wonder that soldiers today come back from war changed, even in the movie, Benjamin was changed from his experience in the French and Indian war. - Jenn<br />
<br />
Maybe it was just me, but I do not remember ever noticing loyalist vs patriot skirmishes in the movie. After reading "Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," I was surprised at all the casualties that occurred in these "skirmishes." I wonder what percent of the total dead/wounded in the Revolution came from those small skirmishes in the back country South. Also, I wonder how important these "skirmishes" were in relation to the larger picture of the Revolution. Did they really matter in the end? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
In "The Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," Brownfield's letter described how cruel Tarleton's men were toward their prisoners. The treatment of American prisoners at Waxhaws later provided the justification for the treatment of British prisoners at King's Mountain. -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class we were asked to watch how civilians and/or prisoners were treated in the Patriot. I thought it was grotesque how the British treated civilians-locking a group of people in a church, asking for information and in exchange offering a reward for anyone who came forward, and then broke the compromise by telling them they will be answering to God shortly after ordering the burning of the building. I felt that one of the British soldiers felt some sort of compasion but feared for his own life and did as he was told instead of trying to save the colonists. The movie depicted the British as people who disregarded humanity except for those who served the crown. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Go along with the civilian-soldier relationship, although the villain is depicted as being somewhat worse than the other British, he shoots Benjamin Martin's son and sort of laughs it off as a stupid civilian that got it coming to him. While the war was brutal, why shoot a civilian child? This is not exactly how the British (from my understanding) would interact with civilians, particularly those who are more or less loyalists. You would think that the director would have the British do something, still villainous, yet less drastic like maim him. What you really see in this film is the director playing with the soldiers to make them worse than they ought to be and raise Gibson as the brave hearted soldier who will strike down the senseless (and rather vague mind you!) evil of the British.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)</div>Abrudnohttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-16T06:10:09Z<p>Abrudno: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
There are a few things I believe ''The Patriot'' got right. The main one that stood out to me was in beginning at the town meeting, the loyalists did use the quote that was also stated in class, "I would rather have 1 tyrant than 3,000" showing the distinction between loyalist and patriot thought. The movie also depicted, through Mel Gibson's character, the change from a neutral colonist into a patriot and what a colonist did to prove themselves to be worthy of the patriots. I wonder did the colonists shift roles how Mel Gibson's character did, because of death in their family? Or destruction to their community? I also found the relationship between the African Americans and the families they lived with to be an important role and I appreciated how the children cared for the African Americans and treated them as someone they loved (equals) rather than judge based on skin color. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire. That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact. It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service. First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn't belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today's lecture. I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that's why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed. But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old "Wonderful World of Disney" TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes. "Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time? And will his brave son Gabriel's teeth ever turn white again? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'The Hatchet Chucker!' " Of course it wasn't a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal). The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things "The Patriot" got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson eventually leads his little troop in the guerrilla tactics. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
A lot of information is given at the meeting in the beginning of the movie. They talk about how some people do not want to be involved because it would involve everyone including families. Someone(it might have been Mel Gibson) said that the battles were in Massachusetts and Virginia and the battles shouldn't be brought to the South. They also mention Bunker Hill and how the British advanced three times even after a lot of their soldiers were killed. That battle and advancements were mentioned in one of the readings for this week. I also noticed that one of the men (the man who eventually burned the church)switched sides and became a Loyalist. I was wondering if he really did change his mind during the course of the war or if he was a spy from the beginning? -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the assembly meeting when the men are arguing about defending “the Cause” some of their dialogue exemplifies what Dr. McClurken taught in class about the split attitudes concerning independence. Examples: “What nation is that?” “An American nation.” “To speak of such a thing is treason.” The colonies really were not unified at this point in history. In regards to instances when the soldiers would continue to shoot without reloading each time, I believe that The Patriot made it more realistic than the Last of the Mohicans. <br />
The killing of the militia’s family is similar to the murders of the frontier families in Last of the Mohicans.<br />
I really liked the French leader Jean Villeneuve’s line right before the final battle after Martin gives him a puzzled look, “If I’m going to die, I’m going to die well dressed.” Oh, the French. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie did some to show that men who joined the fighting left behind families with no guarantee that their wives and children would be safe. There were probably many women like Aunt Charlotte, alone with five children. And like we learned in class, civilians feared the soldiers; they could be brutal to even women and children. The men walked a line between fighting for "The Cause," and by extension what they saw as the future good of their families, and providing for the very immediate security of those they loved still at home. It's difficult to imagine how many little kids watched their homes burn or had family killed right in front of them. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The things the movie got right was the brutality of war. Horrible things happen in war and I think the movie displayed that. I think they also did a good job showing how easily the British managed to piss off people into joining the other side. In the movie the "bad guy" basically tells the slaves that they can be free when he rides in on his horse. What a great way to piss off all the Southern elites. Another thing I thought was pretty good is when a colonial loyalist comes into talk to the British officers and says any neighbor of his that went to the Rebels was no longer his neighbor and should be hanged or something to that affect. Neighbors did hate each other and fought with each other. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn's point about the brutality in the film. The director didn't seem to shy away from the horrors of war, and I respect him for that. I think that the Revolutionary War is too often depicted in popular culture as simply a noble fight for independence against the evil, tyrannical Brits. While it may seem like the filmmakers are boiling down the entire Revolutionary War into one man's cause, I appreciate the focus on the home-front. The grisly image of bodies hanging from a tree and the frightening scene when the Redcoats burn down the church are two moments in particular that most likely would not have been shown in a typical historical fiction film fifty years ago. - Celia<br />
<br />
While a bit overdramatic, I felt like the opening meeting scene quickly established the complicated tension among colonists. Beyond the simple Loyalist/Patriot split, there were further divisions about how to handle the conflict, which I think adds a further dimension of realism to the situation. The movie also does little to disguise the brutality of war. As others have said here, people sometimes forget that the American Revolution was, in fact, a war. ''The Patriot'' leaves in all the blood, guts, and tragedy, both in the field and at home. - Cilla<br />
<br />
Another thing the movie got right was the fear of giving slaves guns. When the French guy gives Occam the musket saying “Here. A Proper Musket for you.” The character Dan Scott says, “I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't like the idea of giving muskets to slaves.” –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I thought that The Patriot's portrayal of the actual fighting was done relatively well. The soldiers did have to reload muskets and pistols, which clearly took time during the battle, and I thought that the way that it was portrayed was fairly accurate. The formation of the British troops, as well as their fighting style, was also done very well. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Celia and LeAnn's point about brutality in the movie, especially when it came to guerrilla warfare. But nevertheless, I thought it was well-done. It showed the importance, and effectiveness, of that tactic in the war. (He even convinced his littlest boys to do it and they were super successful, now weren't they?!) -- Kelly<br />
<br />
I think the movie definitely described the aspect of the slaves correctly. In the movie, it was said that any slaves who served with the Continental Army or the militia for 12 months would receive payment and their freedom. I originally thought this was false. But in the reading, on page 14, it talked about how South Carolina legislatures wanted to pass this as law. Another aspect the movie got correct was the British offering freedom to slaves who fought with them. Although in the movie, it seemed as though it was less of a choice and more of an order. Also, as I'm sure other people have stated, the brutality of the British officers was probably fairly accurate, especially with the idea of them pillaging houses and going after civilians. I'm sure the British army was intense in that respect. What struck me as odd was how some of the British lieutenants were reluctant when ordered to burn houses, or kill people. They seemed sympathetic and as if they realized what they were doing was so very wrong. I wonder if there were officers like that in the British army who felt sympathy and remorse for their actions? --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I am also going to comment on how well the movie shows the differences between the tactics of the standing armies and the militia. The act of war, and participating in battle itself, numerous times throughout the movie, was described as being "civilized." In a sense, for the Continental and British Armies, war was portrayed as a gentleman's sport, with specific rules and an etiquette to be followed. In contrast, the guerrilla warfare tactics of the militia completely goes against everything that the standing armies do. Numerous times throughout the movie the British officers make remarks on how uncivilized and dirty the fighting style of Mel Gibson's character's militia was because he would purposely kill the officers. Watching this movie, it definitely makes you think geez the Continental and British Armies look stupid fighting. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
Just like other people said, the town meeting was a good representation because it showed the Loyalists and the Patriots. It also shows how violent and terrible war is. War is not just fought on the battlefields and that is shown by the burning of the church and the burning of the Aunt's home. Also, the military tactics are well represented. It shows the difference in fighting in straight lines versus fighting behind trees and other ways. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
William Tavington was loosely based on the real-life Banastre Tarleton. Like Tavington in the movie, Tarleton was the commander of the Green Dragoons. Also, both Tavington and Tarleton wore a fluffy-crested leather helmet as part of their army uniform (http://home.golden.net/~marg/bansite/btbanvswill.html). - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel's girlfriend did in church? She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men. I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Here are a couple of items the movie did not necessarily get wrong, but flat out did not include them in the movie. This first has to do with the reasoning for going to war, the forced quartering of British soldiers. This element was not talked about, nor was a soldier seen amongst civilians prior to the war beginning. The second has to deal with the interior conflicts between the Loyalists and the Patriots. There were some different feelings about whether to stay loyal to the crown or not, but this was played out by a single character, not by the civil war in the South that raged between them. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I completely with Deborah's point. I was astonished as to how forceful she was. It seemed as though, speaking in those times, that she completely forgot her place in society and her role as a woman. On a separate note, perhaps a bit nit-picky, the kitchen that Charlotte and the children escaped to actually would've been outside in a different building rather than underneath the house. --Kelly<br />
<br />
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn't have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson's character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the "Redcoats" hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn't explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it's fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the "good guys"...but really? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna's point about the minister. That definitely bothered me, too, especially his line about a shepherd needing to tend his flock. It felt like it was written to make the minister seem like a bad-ass. While I liked his character (he was a bit of a bad-ass), I just didn't buy it. I also had to roll my eyes at Anne's impassioned speech in the church. If it had been a bit shorter, or maybe not accompanied by such epic music, it wouldn't have bothered me so much, but it just seemed so over-the-top. I think Anne's belief in the cause could have been expressed more realistically and just as effectively. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson's farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the "good guys," whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where "The Ghost" and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G<br />
<br />
I agree with Michael about the lack of portrayal of slavery. I think because Ben Martin is portrayed as an honorable and righteous man, character development would not have flowed as well if he had been a slave owner. The fact that those African Americans worked his fields and in his house of their own free will shows that they respected Ben and wanted to help him, especially since his wife died. It was apparent that they were not slaves when they are shown dressed nicely and sitting on the porch with the family. However I do find it interesting that the audience does not find out that they are freedmen until the British show up at the Martin farm.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I think the biggest thing that stood out to me which is totally wrong is when Gabriel and the black slave were talking and Gabriel reassured him that in the New World Slaves would be free. I do not know but I am pretty sure no South Carolina man would have said that to anyone because thats not how they thought about slavery. I also found the part where the English soldiers were taking the slaves away that they were not slaves they just worked the land. Once again I doubt they were getting paid so in affect were slaves. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Over the course of five years, the younger children basically never aged. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Let's just say that I don't believe a single bit of the lovely treatment of the incredible number of free blacks in South Carolina during the Revolution in this movie. I'll move onto the next obvious dramatic license: "The Ghost's" ambush. How exactly did Mel Gibson and his young sons manage to shoot every British soldier either in the heart or directly between the eyes while standing quite a distance away and hiding behind trees? Oh yeah, movie magic, that's how! I know it's impressive, but I feel like it loses some of its impact when it's just that unrealistic. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I think some people touched on this in their comments but I just can’t get over the fact that really the only African-Americans that are present in the film are Mel Gibson’s farm hands (freemen) and Occam who joined Mel Gibson’s militia in the stead of his master. I realize it is the South and as it was mentioned on Tuesday fewer African-Americans joined the ranks in the South than in the North but slaves and freed blacks made up a fair percentage of the population in the South and the number of African Americans in this movie just doesn’t work for me. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Maybe one important aspect was when member of the militia got his head knocked off by a cannonball? An actual thing I noticed that did not seem to be historically accurate was the role of the Continental Militia. In the movie, they are almost portrayed as immense heroes of the revolutionary war and in reality; I do not think this was true. They are portrayed as very important, especially in the final battle scene of the movie, where it appears that they saved the continental army from defeat by the British. Although there role is not as important as the movie leads us to believe, it is essential to the movie, because without it the character development would have been completely different. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I didn't get this out of my own watching of the film, but according to numerous news articles the burning of the church scene, while completely inaccurate, essentially maps a WWII atrocity on to the revolutionary war. While the scene is very dramatic and sets the stage for more pissed off running, gun totting and Gibson Fury, you basically have the film makers consciously deciding to depict the British as Nazis. That specific scene "closely resembles one of the most notorious Nazi war crimes of World War II -- the massacre of 642 people (including 205 children) in the French village of Oradour sur Glane on June 10, 1944." I wasn't aware of the connection myself, but I thought it worth putting up here for discussion. Connecting the British to the Nazis is a really big leap as the Nazi, through 40s propaganda and numerous video games, is America's most despicable foe (or so says my little nephew who has a thing for call for duty...). Mind you dropping Nazis or Hitler into any debate about something being evil is completely cheating.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:08, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Some other aspects of the movie that bothered me were how every single person who died in the movie, died as a result of violence. No one died from disease. This is a common theme in most war movies, no matter what the time period. Rarely do directors show that thousands of soldiers, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers died from malaria, dysentery, cholera, and other diseases. Clearly the reason they left it out was not out of fear that the audience would be too squeamish, as they were not too concerned about gore. As we talked about in class, many civilians fled from approaching armies out of fear of catching deadly diseases. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
@Michael G. re: diseases. A possible explanation might be that showing diseases in a war film just is not as compelling as having people beat down with a tomahawk. Although it would have been an easy addition, hell just give one of the Martin children dysentery, right? But in all seriousness, I believe illnesses just get passed over as a small, trivial matter compared to the war itself, regardless of what war it is. A war film is about blood and gore, not malaria. Disease in film tends to be "too boring" for most viewers...or maybe even less than satisfying and anti-climatic? --[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the issues that I had with the film was the lack of minorities that were shown. Supposedly, there were Native Americans fighting with the British, but they were nowhere to be seen in "The Patriot". I also wondered what happened to all of the Hessian mercenaries; they seemed rather conspicuously absent. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Although Professor McClurken did mention the existence of free black colonies that existed across the coastal areas of the south, I seriously doubt that rich, landowning whites would be able to successfully hide and be accepted into the colony. Charlotte and the rest of Benjamin's children remain there for an extended period of time and there is no racial tension shown at all. The servant who originally took care of the children in the beginning, and was captured by the British after Thomas was killed, was in the free black colony as well. If she had really been captured she would have been pressed into service for the British to support their efforts, rather than released to live as a free person. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Michael, slavery is not portrayed in this movie. Mel Gibson's character is seen as a very nice and caring person to his slaves or servants. But this would not be the case. Also, I agree with Deborah's point stating that the girl would not have spoken like that in church. These different social relations between people with different class, age, gender, and race, are not portrayed correctly in this movie. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like "The Patriot," about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself. For instance, also in theaters that year were "Gladiator," "Erin Brokovich," and "The Perfect Storm." "The Patriot" fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America. That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush... It's also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia. "IN A WORLD" where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson's year to support revolutions. Remember "Chicken Run?" Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
To me this film seemed to define for its audience what it means to be a "true American" as well as suggest the revival of the American dream. When we first meet the protagonist his life is good and prosperous. He has a fully functional farm while only using about seven "slaves", children, and respect in the community. Yet when trouble arises, he slinks back from it due to past experiences with violence. Still when the chips are down he pushes through, and fights for what the film says is the true American spirit even though he has lost two sons and turned the last two into mild-sociopaths (evident when one says, "I'm glad I killed [those men]."). After some thought I began to see Mel Gibson's character as an analogy of America itself: mostly profitable, scared from past experiences, and lacking in overall national spirit. What this film says about early 2000 America then is that the American dream-the idea of getting more via sacrifice and hard-work-needed a wake up call. This view went over fairly well with public at the time, however in my own experience with the film interests spiked after the attacks of 9/11. As Deborah said in her post the American movie audiences of 2000 obviously were enjoying rooting for the little man, and <em>The Patriot</em> gave them just that and then some. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Frankly, the film demonstrates what it takes to get Americans into the box office for a revolutionary film: Mel Gibson. A number of film critics and hollywood "experts"in a New York Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/02/movies/film-the-revolutionary-war-is-lost-on-hollywood.html?scp=7&sq=&pagewanted=1 piece] mention that a movie about the Revolutionary War is destined to suck at the box office, but if you slap Mel Gibson on to the film, it seems as if you have a shot at making a film people will go to see. You say Patriot...people say Mel Gibson. Come on look at the movie cover: [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/The_Patriot.jpg The Patriot Cover] and [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Patriot_promo_poster.jpg here] Mel Gibson's name is maybe a little bit smaller than the actual title of the film. I am a little hard pressed to think of how this film fits into the context of early 2000s, but to me it is (for at least that screenwriter) just another series of American war movies to get that ole patriotic heart beatin'.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:52, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac that this movie was to build an attempt to build "patriotism" and to define the meaning of a "true american," I believe it was no accident it was released so close to the 4th of July. I am wondering if there was also some worries about 2000 being the end of the world, and Hollywood believed that America needed a movie to bring America together. It might have been another propaganda tool to remind America that the people built America, and America is supported by the people. So really it was just a grand scheme to get fellow Americans to vote in the upcoming election. Also in 2000, I believe there was a War in Kosovo, so that would be another reason to gain American support. -Jenn<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
A common theme I noticed in the readings and the movie was the brutality of this war. Granted, the readings expressed brutality in the Southern "Civil War" and the movie was mostly British/Colonial brutality, but this seemed to be a common tactic in the revolution overall, no matter what side you happened to be fighting for. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The thing I noticed about the movie and the reading was the horrors and brutal nature of war. The "Rise of Partisan Warfare" reading specifically references dragoons attacking Capt. Stokes. And in the movie the main antagonist is a dragoon that doesn't exactly act the gentleman he is supposed to be during war. -Rachael A.<br />
<br />
After watching some of the cruel endings that came to the Patriots while captives of the British, it is hard to believe that men who had groomed themselves for gentlemen like battle could commit such heinous war crimes against prisoners of war. After reading "The Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," it is evident that these acts against captured men was not such a stretch of the imagination. In fact, if the account are true, then scenes of killing the wounded and captives by the British in the movie were spot on. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The letter from the British prisoner proved that colonial soldiers were just as capable of being cruel in their treatment as British soldiers were, and the "description is not equal to their barbarity." While the movie wanted the Patriots to come across as "the good guys" it also emphasized their eagerness to seek revenge. I don't know what the specific letter writer or his fellow soldiers did when not engaged in direct combat, but it's not hard to imagine that the exceptional brutality of their captors may have stemmed from atrocities committed against families at home. Violence just fed more violence. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Additionally, the movie also references the stealing of the property from British officers after their defeat. True, it primarily has a comic effect in the movie, but we know from the reading as well as the movie that it seriously messed with British morale as well. - Cilla<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed in the reading that was never presented in the movie was the role of the British loyalists. According to “The Age of Revolution,” the British “had decided to concentrate its military efforts in the South because it believed it could count on significant support from southern loyalists. The British military however, failed to provide loyalists with effective protection.” This was very interesting to me because although the movie does focus on the war in the south, we can tell whether the loyalists are fighting for the British or not. Also, we never see the guerilla forces attack the loyalists which as this reading points happened often. In my opinion, this history of the war could have been left out because it would have weakened the focus on the Americans and their ultimate goal of winning the war as well as Mel Gibson and his ultimate goal of killing Colonel Tavington in order to avenge his son. -afrisk<br />
<br />
In the reading I found it was very valuable to read George Washington's letters from Valley Forge. He described the need for basic necessities and it was in the interest of the colonies (New Hampshire?) to supply their soldiers so they could continue the fight for indepedence. I know the movie focused on the southern portion of the colonies but would of thought it would have been a good twist to show how the leaders of the Continental Army, in the North and South, asked for the support of the colonies-they personally reached out to the colonists for help, showing it does not take one person to win a war but rather a whole community. * On a side note my brother attends Valley Forge and in the bookstore they have the picture of George Washington kneeling at Valley Forge, it is a highly valued item at the college and is given to those cadets who exemplify the values and traditions set forth by Washington and is currently hanging in our living room. But the portrait proves history lives on and is still teaching our future military leaders. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
What struck me especially about the second reading, in comparison to the movie, was the sheer brutality of it. In the first of the Brownfield, letters he goes through and vividly describes certain injuries which he saw or heard about. Now I am sure there was some embellishment added to this account but reading about Pearson being, "inhumanly mangled on on the face." And then going into a vivid account of how he was injured was almost to much. While reading I was once again confronted with the grotesque images of the movie. And even though I had seen the movie, and Dr. McClurken warned us about it being violent, I was still unprepared for it to be that brutal. It is really no wonder that soldiers today come back from war changed, even in the movie, Benjamin was changed from his experience in the French and Indian war. - Jenn<br />
<br />
Maybe it was just me, but I do not remember ever noticing loyalist vs patriot skirmishes in the movie. After reading "Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," I was surprised at all the casualties that occurred in these "skirmishes." I wonder what percent of the total dead/wounded in the Revolution came from those small skirmishes in the back country South. Also, I wonder how important these "skirmishes" were in relation to the larger picture of the Revolution. Did they really matter in the end? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class we were asked to watch how civilians and/or prisoners were treated in the Patriot. I thought it was grotesque how the British treated civilians-locking a group of people in a church, asking for information and in exchange offering a reward for anyone who came forward, and then broke the compromise by telling them they will be answering to God shortly after ordering the burning of the building. I felt that one of the British soldiers felt some sort of compasion but feared for his own life and did as he was told instead of trying to save the colonists. The movie depicted the British as people who disregarded humanity except for those who served the crown. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Go along with the civilian-soldier relationship, although the villain is depicted as being somewhat worse than the other British, he shoots Benjamin Martin's son and sort of laughs it off as a stupid civilian that got it coming to him. While the war was brutal, why shoot a civilian child? This is not exactly how the British (from my understanding) would interact with civilians, particularly those who are more or less loyalists. You would think that the director would have the British do something, still villainous, yet less drastic like maim him. What you really see in this film is the director playing with the soldiers to make them worse than they ought to be and raise Gibson as the brave hearted soldier who will strike down the senseless (and rather vague mind you!) evil of the British.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)</div>Abrudnohttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-09-09T06:45:25Z<p>Abrudno: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The film shows how by the 1750s Native Americans had adapted British technology. This is shown by Native American use of the muskets in fighting and also the Mohicans wearing of colonial like clothing. Although the Hurons are depicted as still wearing more traditional(?) clothing I wonder if this is a way of showing them as more "savage" or maybe they still wore traditional clothing because they were from areas up north with less contact with settlers unlike a group like the Mohicans.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 12:56, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie did manage to get the Hawkeye's adoption correct. As mentioned in the reading "A Captivity Narrative" it said the natives would adopt their captives into their tribes and become pretty much family members. Hawkeye lost his parents and was raised by the Mohicans and saw them as his family and thought the native's life as a better life than the colonists' lives. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
The respect shown to Nathaniel by both whites and Indians seemed like a plot device to me, until I read "In a World of Warfare" that Phineas Stevens enjoyed the same kind of cross-cultural respect (pp. 126-127). --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Another aspect of the times that I think the movie captured is that neither European nor Indian, as individuals or as nations, were all good or all bad. The characters were complex---even the uber-villain Magua had reasons for his implacable hatred. An overall theme of the movie was the common brutality of man. The ruin that wars bring is epitomized by the "death of the innocents" Uncas and Alice. --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Deborah's point. Chingachgook and Uncas more or less played the part of the "noble savage" while Magua was more just...savage. But they took the pains to make him a more developed character by giving him a sad history. I did feel bad for Magua for one scene...and by the end, I really needed to see him get his. I think the scene with the Huron chief made it clear - that yes, Magua has a sad story, but what he does isn't okay. I also really enjoyed the fact that Chingachgook was the one to kill Magua. I was definitely expecting another slow-motion shot of Nathaniel running and attacking Magua in an epic battle, and I was really pleased to see Chingachgook avenge the death of his son. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with both Deborah's and Celia's points. Magua did have distinct reasons and motivations for the way he acted. I think that his extremeness was a bit overwhelming at times, but I suppose that was the point. That sense of deep hatred and anger was portrayed by all the characters involved, especially the British. And it was developed in such a way that you could physically see the consequences (a la Alice jumping off the cliff). -- Kelly<br />
<br />
This film showed correctly (generally) the difference of fighting and war tactics between the Native Americans and the British. It seemed like the British were not that smart by walking along a road because the Native Americans could and did attack them from both sides. The Native Americans used the trees to help them hide so they can have a surprise attack on the British. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The deaths of the Cameron family and the destruction of their cabin got across some of the terror that accompanied life on the frontier that Susanna Johnson describe in her description of the days leading up to her capture. Frontier families lived one day to the next not knowing if they would be suddenly victims of one conflict or another between any number of different actors. The sense of fear conveyed in the film's depiction of Indian attackers as often invisible in the woods until the moment they strike is a strong one, and one that I think matches well Susanna's account of near constant, almost paralyzing fear. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann. Susanna's account shows ambiguous fear - of never feeling totally safe or sure of what was going to happen next. The scenes of Native Americans rushing out and attacking from the woods are terrifying. The director does a good job of capturing the sense of chaos in those scenes. It's clear that the English were not used to that way of fighting. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Justine's comment on the portrayal of the different fighting tactics. Especially when the Munroe sister's are attacked in the beginning. The Native Americans were all hiding in the woods and the British soldiers were standing around waiting to be told to fire, which was insane. I wonder why it took so long for people to change their fighting and war tactics?-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
My favorite part about this movie is that no matter how much I disliked or liked a character, there was good and bad in each of them, making them realistic. No one is perfect, in one direction or another. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I also agree with Justines comment because the movie depicted the English tactics and Native Americans tactics in a pretty accurate way. The Native Americans were doing the "skulking way of war" when they were stalking the English after the surrender of the fort. I think it was interesting though that the Hurans did not have as many guns and many were using Tomahawks against guns. I also think they did a good job depicting the French tactics of trying to take the fort down and if you looked you did not see many Indians in that scene but you saw them after when the Marquis was in his tent. It also depicted the generousity of the French and the anger of the Native Americans over the way it was done. The difference there was that Magua wanted to kill Monro and the actual story is they wanted loot. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
There's a scene in the fort that I really appreciated. It shows Native American children singing in Latin (I'm fairly sure they're singing some setting of the Catholic mass), so they've obviously been converted. I just thought that was a great little touch on the director's part. - Celia<br />
<br />
To add to Megan mc's paragraph on Hawkeye's adoption: The film also captured the major cultural differences that Hawkeye experienced after being adopted. The director speaks specifically to the issue of language. Cora asks Hawkeye how he knows English, and of course that's when Eleazar Wheelocks' school comes into play. That moment is at least a nod to a small detail which lends a dash more historical credibility to the film. Mind you that it seems films and television shows tend to not make much out of language barriers, everyone is assumed to speak English. Like Susana's son, Hawkeye, having been separated off from "civilized" culture for so long and at such an early age, can speak a Native language (also probably a bit of French considering the fur traders), but he must learn English with his brother.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:41, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think that the movie represented what we had spoken about in class on Tuesday regarding the warfare, specifically the English vs the Native Americans. While the English are fighting in lines the Native Americans are wielding their fire power through Guerrilla type warfare behind the trees and through the forest. I bet it was very easy to anticipate what the English would do in a battle and act accordingly. -Caryn<br />
<br />
Another aspect the movie got right was when Magua and Nathaniel came to the Huron to offer gifts. In the readings and class we learned that exchanging gifts was an important part of the Indian culture. Magua offered the gifts of people and Nathanial offered some kind of wampum I think. From this week's readings, however, most Indian captives were not offered as gifts to be killed but most became adopted into families and treated fairly decently. Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got more facts right than Disney's Pocahontas! One thing the movie did well on was showing the Indian's dependence on European settlers. It was very easy to tell that the Huron Indians depended greatly on the French in 2 ways... a) Where else would the Indians have found weapons such as guns to fight with? b) The relationship between the Indians and the French. Both sides knew they could use the other to get what they want. The Hurons, especially Magua, wanted revenge on the English for killing their children and families through settlement. On the other hand, the French saw the Indians as excess manpower to fight off the English at Ft. William Henry. In both cases, the French got what they wanted as did the Hurons. Just as in the actual French & Indian War, the Indians and Europeans gambled/sided with one another in order to achieve their own agendas. I think the movie did a good job portraying the Indian/European relationship. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie did a good job portraying the relationship between the Colonists/British and Native Americans, like Alex said. I also think that the movie did a good job portraying how the British felt about the Native Americans who chose to help them by scouting for the British, they had very little respect and there was a lot of mistrust. - Jenn<br />
<br />
The movie definitely touched on the growing discord between the British (the officers in particular) and the colonists. The abuse of power on the part of the British officers was evident when Maj. Duncan Heyward and Col. Edmund Munro clearly broke the promise made to the colonists that they would be allowed to leave if their homes were being threatened. Col. Munro also states that the fate of the colonists is of no great interest to the crown, which shows that their motivations for fighting in this war were completely political and that they were solely focused on defeating the French. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One continually occurring theme throughout the movie was Hawkeye's amazing marksmanship and ability to shoot muskets from the hip, like a wild west gunslinger. Another major inaccuracy in the film was Magua cutting Colonel Monro's heart out. In fact Colonel Monro and other English officers were kept behind in the French Camp, and later safely escorted to Fort Edward by the French. (Starbuck, David R. ''Massacre at Fort William Henry''. Hanover, N. H.: University Press of New England, 2002, 25-35.) Michael G.<br />
<br />
The French did not actually occupy Fort William Henry. They deliberately demolished the already-damaged, wooden fort. Neither the British nor the Americans rebuilt it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_Henry) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One thing that is often inaccurate in movies like these is the reloading of the rifles and muskets. Most of the guns at the time, to my knowledge, were single shot meaning they'd need to reload after each shot and after an adventure to wikipedia it stated that the Long Rifle/Pennsylvania Rifle that Hawkeye used took a full minute to reload. Though if they showed him reloading every single shot it would make the already long movie even longer. In the movie's defense they did show him reloading it at least one time (while running) and then snatching the unused guns from the French that he killed. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
As said above, some of the types of guns do not exist at that time and they way they shoot them are not possible. It is hard to find more things the movie got wrong because this movie is not claiming to be historically accurate. I am not sure how similar this movie is to the book, because I did not read Cooper's book. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To me it seemed that the movie made at least <em>some</em> attempt at being accurate, but sacrificed a lot at the price of being dramatic. The thing that stuck out the most to me was that it seemed to imply that there are no more Mahicans left. Which I don't think is true[http://www.native-languages.org/mohican.htm].-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Overall, there are many elements of this movie that are correct such as make-up, hair styles and clothing. Even though, many elements were historically accurate I was able to find an interesting critique of the script that doesn’t just point out historical inaccuracies, but also things that could of made the movie better. One historical inaccuracy was the Bearskin miter caps worn by the Grenadiers. These were in fact not issued until 1768, and during the time period of the movie, the Grenadiers were in fact still wearing hard caps. Another historical miss-step which I found quite interesting was how Hawkeye handled his gun. He casually flipped it around to point it at Heyward’s chest. In reality, this would have been almost impossible because a British musket weighs about 11 pounds and has about a 42 inch barrel. Though incredibly small things, I thought they were very interesting. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think that one of the most important things that the movie got wrong was the role of the "bloodthirsty" natives like Magua. While there was certainly both violence and resentment present on both sides (white and Native American), we can see in the speeches given by the chiefs that more than anything, the Native Americans did want to continue to trade with the colonists, and be treated as equals. I don't really think that this came through in the film- we saw either the scalping, heart-eating savage like Magua, or the "noble" savage, like Nathaniel's adopted father and brother. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I don't care how historically inaccurate it is, dual wielding long rifles and shooting from the hips always score points in my book. To hell with it being unlikely! To respond to Isaac Whalen, I do recall even with the original book many of the surviving Mohicans being rather annoyed that a book would claim that there were essentially no Mohicans left. Not very nice Mr Cooper.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:51, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think one thing that the movie either got wrong or exaggerated was the relationship between the colonists and the Native Americans. In the very beginning of the movie, Native Americans and colonist comfortable intermixed with either other socially. This doesn't quite go along with the historical record which states that there was a lot of prejudice and conflict between the two parties. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This is a hard one because I didn't find any commentary about why they felt the need to do ''The Last of the Mohicans'' again but I can say that during 90s they did do a couple of remakes of older movies (see [http://childrenofthenineties.blogspot.com/2009/09/90s-movie-remakes.html this site] for some examples). Not sure if this was an emergent phenomenon during the time or something Hollywood has always done but, it is something I noticed.<br />
The only other connection I can make with is the fact that the Gulf War occurred in '90/'91 and this film version came out in '92. Perhaps Americans had a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war in general, so it would be advantageous to create a film that portrayed war. In addition, it would probably be a smart move to use a story that so many people familiar with (and holds such an important place in U.S. popular literature) to draw in a crowd (which goes back to my point about remakinges of older films). --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 13:28, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Responding to the comment by Shauser, the only option I can think of for a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war would be Operation Desert Storm, which occurred in 1990-1991. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There may have also been a renewed interest in Native American history as well. Congress established the National Museum of the American Indian in 1989, and as we talked about with Pocahontas, the 90s saw a growing awareness of the importance of diversity and the contributions of different ethnic groups. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments which state that due to Desert Storm Americans were becoming more interested in their own military exploits, but I do think that it goes farther than this. When I watched the film I got a sense that there was a <em>very</em> pro-America sense coming through the film. Multiple times the film depicted how the colonialists were different from the British, and how they longed for freedom. Also, there was mentioning of the manifest destiny[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h337.html], that is the believed desire of all American to push west and discover new things. Treating these themes as a commentary on the '90s, they suggest that in the United States at this time there was a growing cultural notion that the American dream/desire to discover is noble. <br />
Also, the character of Hawkeye (sp) seemed to me to come across as more of a colonial with Native American tendencies, rather than an adopted colonial. This shift in character could either be due to something lost in the numerous adaptations, or be a result of '90s culture. One that promotes the conglomeration of differences, rather than finding pride in being separate.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
As far as the movie being a primary source, I was specifically intrigued by the final statement about the "Last of the Mohicans" I have not read the book so I do not know if this is verbatim or not (if I am wrong, I apologize). "Chingachgook: The frontier moves with the sun and pushes the Red Man of these wilderness forests in front of it until one day there will be nowhere left. Then our race will be no more, or be not us.<br />
Hawkeye: That is my father's sadness talking.<br />
Chingachgook: No, it is true. The frontier place is for people like my white son and his woman and their children. And one day there will be no more frontier. And men like you will go too, like the Mohicans. And new people will come, work, struggle. Some will make their life. But once, we were here." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104691/quotes These final lines could also reflect the expanding frontier through clear cutting in both America and South America that was such a hot topic in 1992 the year the film was made. - Caryn<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
In the readings, speeches by the various chiefs plainly state truths, such as their unequal role in the fighting, and unfair trade practices. The movie doesn't go into this aspect, choosing instead to show the growing tension between Britain and the colonists. European arrogance plays a role in both situations, though. The Europeans could not hear the truth in the Indians' speeches for two reasons: first, because it came from the mouths of people the Europeans still regarded as inferior savages; and second, because the Europeans wouldn't let anything stand in the way of acquiring land. The Abenaki speaker Atiwaneto got it right when he said, "...your mouth is of sugar but your heart of gall" (''In a World of Warfare'', p. 127). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There’s a line from the Calloway reading pg. 170 that says, “Indians mourning relatives might vent their grief by demanding that a captive be tortured to death.” According to the reading this did not always happen, sometimes Indians took their captives in and incorporated them into native society. The movie did a good job of portraying the hatred some Indians felt toward the British.<br />
Magua desires vengeance against General Munro because he destroyed Magua’s family. Magua viciously kills Munro, rips his heart out, and then captures his daughters. The chief of his Huron tribe orders that Alice Munro marry Magua and that Cora Munro be burned to death. Cora was to be burned as retribution for her father’s actions against Magua. (However Duncan saves her; one of the few things he does right in the movie.) -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
In Calloway's, "First Peoples," there is talk about the some captives being adopted by the natives. Those not adopted, the elderly and crying infants, were often killed. Those who were seen fit as joining the tribe were painted to traditionally match others in the tribe. Soon, this person would grow to love the tribe as his/her own and if given the chance would not leave the tribe. This is what Calloway refers to as "Indianization" (p 170). This simulation into the native culture was evident in Nathaniel's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
One of the ways in which the readings ran parallel to the movie was the way in which some settlers adopted and retained the native characteristic of living on the frontier. Nathaniel is a great example in the way his character keeps his hair long, wears clothing such as natives wore, spoke the native language as well as lived among the natives who adopted him. In Calloway's writing, when Sylvanus Johnson was taken and adopted into his tribe, he also accepted and retained a number of native characteristics he was taught, even after rejoining the settlers. Another aspect that was similar was in the way Magua, from his first appearance, was totally cognizant of the way in which he knew he was being used and attempted to get the most out of the situation. Although he was influenced by the French more, it was obvious in the movie, the only people he trusted were his own, not the outsiders who killed his family. Within the character of Magua, viewers are able to understand just how upset the natives who wrote the "Onandogas and Cayugas" portion of the readings felt. The way in which the movie portrayed the Mohicans, I saw them as much tolerant and less angry as Magua's people, even though they were both losing their future to the settlers.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I saw a lot of parallels between the movie and the readings, particularly in the "In a World of Warfare" speeches. In the Delaware Indians' "Response to the Moravian ambassador" they say that war is clearly between the English and French, and ask, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" This is paralleled in the film by Nathaniel's early refusal to fight with the militia; he, like many natives, wishes to remain neutral in a fight which he does not feel belongs to him or his adopted family. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I like Meagan saw many parallels between the movie and the readings, especially through the "Speech to Alexander Henry." Chief Minavavana states, "[i]t is our custom to retaliate until such time as the spirits of the slain are satisfied." (136). I thought this directly paralleled how Magua felt towards General Munro and I do think he was satisfied with his brutal killing in the movie. I also thought the question raised in "Response to the Moravian Ambassador" was striking, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" (133). It is a direct question to the English and one I think all of the Native American nations wanted answered but were not given enough respect from either the French or English. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
While I did see many similarities between the movie and the readings, there were one or two things I noticed in the readings that didn't show up in the movie. In "A World Turned Upside Down," on page 144, an Indian's account states "I am now to tell you the cause of all disorder and quarreling between us and our white men. It is Rum." (144) The movie did not have any Indians dealing with other drunken Indians or Europeans, but I do remember hearing it mentioned in the film. It makes me wonder, how much of a problem was alcohol for the Indians and Europeans in the larger scheme of things? Another difference I saw when comparing the movie to the readings was Indian treatment of captives. From Susanna Johnson's account, she said the Indians were very kind and compassionate to her. But the Abenakis were attempting to replace lost family members. In the movie, the Hurons were looking to get revenge on the "white people" for the loss of their loved ones. Maybe compassion and kindness from Indians varied from tribe to tribe. ---Alex M.<br />
<br />
There are a good number of Indian tribes that wanted peace. In "Speech Resisting Colonial Expansion," the Abenakis wanted peace with the English in exchange that their lands were not encroached by white settlers. In "Response to the Moravian Ambassador," the Delaware Indians did realize, in 1758, that the French and Indian War was started by both the British and the French, not them. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
*How are the British colonists portrayed?<br />
*How did the movie portray the relations between the colonists and the British?<br />
*Which Natives take which sides in the movie, and what roles did they play?<br />
*How did Cooper’s dualist vision of Native Americans affects the movie, as well as both scholarly and popular perceptions of Native Americans?<br />
<br />
<br />
In the film the Mohawks and the Mohicans fought on the side of the English and the Huron and Ottawa fought with the French. However, as discussed in class, the Mohawks did not participate in the French and Indian War. The Huron played the largest role in the film, perpetrating the massacre at Fort William Henry by themselves, with apparent French consent. The divide amongst the Huron, as shown by the confrontation between the Sachem, Magua, and Nathaniel was a great example of how Native Americans were divided on how to deal with Europeans. Magua represents the "new" Indian that has been created by living alongside the colonists. He values gold above all else and seeks to defeat the Colonists at their own game. While Sachem desires to try and hold on to as much of the Native American lifestyle as possible. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
During the lecture and based off of these questions we were asked to discuss what role did Anglo-Americans play in the Native American communities in comparison to The Last of the Mohicans. I saw several roles they played and the beginning of an American identity through Jack Winthrop and his wanting to serve for the British but also the pull to protect his family and land. Through his anger with General Munro (Monroe?) he showed the beginning of revolt against the British and also a need for separation. Aside from that role Anglo-Americans changed how the Native Americans fought, because of their need for claim over territory they pushed the Native Americans to fight one another (Huron versus the Mohicans) instead of working together to defeat the whites. I found the Huron to be the tribe who may of worked against the English and ideally helped the French, but to be the tribe who attempted to look out for themselves. I think the movie was really well done and portrayed a good picture of what America was like throughout the 1770s. I did not know it was based off a book and question the authority of the orignial book since Cooper had never met a Native American. I found the character, Magua, to be the character that clearly stood out to me, aside from Hawkeye. Magua was our definition of two-faced and even with his reasons for it I am not sure I could call someone "Grey-hair" and tell them I was going to ruin their family line as I cut their heart out. I do wonder with this account- did many Native Americans turn on whites who hurt their families? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie gave an accurate portrayal of the relationship between the British and the colonists. Many of the colonists have established themselves and have begun to know the lay of the land and the customs of the Native Americans. The haughty British assumed they were experts on fighting the Native Americans, but really they were clueless. Their system of fighting, forming orderly lines, proved ineffective in the movie. They walked along the paths in their perfect straight lines and the Indians would emerge from the forests and ambush them. It reminded me of a quote from Lord of the Rings, “Stay off the road.” <br />
The colonists and Nathaniel even tried to persuade the British officers to take a particular military action and the British ignored them, saying they had no authority. When Duncan is asked by Munro about the military situations at hand, he lies in order to silence Nathaniel’s claims. Munro trusts Duncan’s opinions over Nathaniel’s because Duncan is a British officer. The British were very distrusting of Native Americans, even though they were allies. They believed their way was the right way and that the “Royal opinion” should not be questioned.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I found it disturbing how the Native Americans were portrayed either as blood-thirsty fiends who consistently looked out for their own interests,like Magua, or were "the good guys" who backed up the white men and selflessly pursued the cause, such as Hawkeye and his family. Is there no middle ground here? It seems that the Native Americans who actually lived during the conflict were haphazardly drawn into it by Europeans demanding they choose a side. Magua and Hawkeye are both depicted as being wholly devoted to the conflict. It was also mentioned during lecture that the Native Americans abandoned the French midway into the war. This only reinforces the point that Native Americans did not really want to engage in this war, and thus would not completely devote themselves to it. I found the movie to be misleading in accurately portraying this point. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I really like Anna's point. I hadn't really thought of it that way but I totally agree - the film only shows opposite ends of the spectrum for Native Americans. Nathaniel and his family don't seem to be that impressed with the British soldiers that they encounter, so the fact that they just whole-heartedly join in their fight seems odd. I guess "whole-heartedly" isn't the right word, because Nathaniel warns his friends at the fort to get out while they still can - he doesn't expect them to stay and fight for a noble cause. I suppose we're to assume that Nathaniel stays in the fight simply for Cora? I think the motives of Nathaniel and his family could have been more developed. - Celia<br />
I definitely agree with Anna in that I don't think the movie really portrayed the sense that most Native Americans felt they were caught in the middle rather than being fully devoted to one side or another as most seemed to be in the film. Many of the readings show the Indians as confused and betrayed by both the English's and the French's concept of friendship and alliance. Those that do join the war do so because they want protection for their people and enough food and land to survive, not because of any deep rooted allegiance to the causes the Europeans are fighting for. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Samantha W. mentions several points that I noticed about the narrow-mindedness of the British officers. Duncan's character in particular is a good example of a man who cannot adjust his worldview. To him, it is incomprehensible that a British subject would refuse to fight, and equally incomprehensible that a British officer would lie. After he has himself lied about what he saw at the cabin, he tells Cora that when they return to England nothing that has happened "over here" will matter at all. For him, the New World does not fit into neat categories and he cannot comprehend it, therefore it is as insubstantial as a dream. Really, for him, it is as frightening and disorienting as a nightmare. I can easily believe that many real people felt that way. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The British colonists are portrayed as arrogant people. They think they are above and better than everyone else. In the movie, it seems like they do not understand the entire picture and they are only seeing things from their point of view. The British also thought they were better than the colonists. As stated in class, Cooper never met a Native American, so he created an image of the Native Americans that could have been more stereotypical. This does show in the movie because some of the Native Americans are shown as "savage" and "war mongers". -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I thought that the way the British military officers treated the militia men was accurate considering what we discussed in class on Tuesday. The officers basically treated the militia men like slaves and did not care that they had homes and families to protect. The colonists also seemed to refer to themselves as British citizens and we upset when their rights were not respected by the British officers, possibly foreshadowing some of the reasoning behind the American Revolution-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The British military officers treated the militia men like crap. The officers told them they could not go home to protect their families and if they were caught trying to leave they would be hanged. The officers thought they were ignorant of the importance of what they were doing when in reality the colonists did know what they were doing. They would just rather protect their family then fight a losing battle at the fort. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
For me, Cooper’s portrayal of the Native Americans greatly affected the movie and he gives two vastly different portrayals of Native Americans. The Huron’s are portrayed as savages and terrible, while the Mohawks with Hawkeye are portrayed as civilized and reasonable. It causes this huge gap in how I felt regarding two different tribes, who are still Indian, yet they are portrayed as totally different. It seems easy for one to root for one group of Native Americans, yet root against another. Even though, Hawkeye and his brother and father have somewhat adopted themselves into white society, I find it interesting how they are portrayed as poles apart. Regarding popular perceptions of Native Americans, the movie can present some confusion. The Huron’s are incredibly destructive and violent and this image permeates throughout the movie and is difficult to get over. However, at the end when Mohawk and his father are standing at the edge of the cliff, he recovers the sense of passion and kindness for the Native Americans based on their portrayal in the movie. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The movie depicts the British officers as horrible, arrogant men. They treat the colonists as lesser people. - Cilla<br />
<br />
Although the British did treat the colonial militias badly during the war, the movie goes out of its way to point to how independent and rights loving the colonists are. Also let's not forget that Cora herself while talking to Munro states that the colonists would be better off if the English were essentially wiped from the colony. Here's the problem with that idea, it sets up a non-existent dichotomy between the British and the not-yet-Americans. While I am of the thought that the militias were probably very upset with the British, any British-colonist interaction had way too much revolutionary mindset injected into it.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:55, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
In my opinion, I thought the British were portrayed as ignorant and also arrogant like Cilla said above. Duncan symbolizes the British well. He always thought he knew what was right, whether it had to do with Cora or the decision to tell Munro that a war party did not attack the innocent people that lived in that house. The British officers, including Munro, hardly listened to Nathaniel even though he knew a lot more about how other Indians and tribes fought and how to properly go about dealing with the Huron and other enemies. The British continuously got ambushed by war parties, they trusted Magua even though he was a real enemy and wanted the colonists to help fight a losing battle instead of return to protect their homes and families. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
What struck me about the portrayal of the British is that at first they seemed to be admirable, but the longer they stayed the less admirable they became. They appeared to be self-centered by upholding the values of the British Crown. The colonists who had lived in the Americas began to realize that values that the British held were not fit for the colonists, so tensions began to flair. There was one scene in particular where the colonists argued against the British about whether to stay at the Fort to defend it, or go send some troops to the frontier to warn families about possible attack. For this issue they were clearly divided, and it was at this point where the movie clearly depicted the relations between the two groups. - Jenn<br />
<br />
Cooper's dualist depiction of the Native American's present throughout the story can clearly be seen in the course of the film. The two distinct personalities available to the Native American characters are that of a brutal savage, such as Magua, and the noble, but doomed native, in Uncas, Nathaniel's adopted brother. In the film, the Native Americans all fall into these characterizations, and it is implied that the Huron warriors are all blood-thirsty savages, styled after Magua, their leader. Although Magua's motivations for revenge are made clear, his desire to harm innocent women simply to get back at their father suggests that he is unable to overcome the brutality that supposedly came naturally in the Native Americans. - Melissa E.</div>Abrudnohttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-09-08T18:31:39Z<p>Abrudno: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One continually occurring theme throughout the movie was Hawkeye's amazing marksmanship and ability to shoot muskets from the hip, like a wild west gunslinger. Another major inaccuracy in the film was Magua cutting Colonel Monro's heart out. In fact Colonel Monro and other English officers were kept behind in the French Camp, and later safely escorted to Fort Edward by the French. Michael G.<br />
<br />
The French did not actually occupy Fort William Henry. They deliberately demolished the already-damaged, wooden fort. Neither the British nor the Americans rebuilt it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_Henry) -A. Brudno <br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
*How are the British colonists portrayed?<br />
*How did the movie portray the relations between the colonists and the British?<br />
*Which Natives take which sides in the movie, and what roles did they play?<br />
*How did Cooper’s dualist vision of Native Americans affects the movie, as well as both scholarly and popular perceptions of Native Americans?<br />
<br />
<br />
In the film the Mohawks and the Mohicans fought on the side of the English and the Huron and Ottawa fought with the French. However, as discussed in class, the Mohawks did not participate in the French and Indian War. The Huron played the largest role in the film, perpetrating the massacre at Fort William Henry by themselves, with apparent French consent. The divide amongst the Huron, as shown by the confrontation between the Sachem, Magua, and Nathaniel was a great example of how Native Americans were divided on how to deal with Europeans. Magua represents the "new" Indian that has been created by living alongside the colonists. He values gold above all else and seeks to defeat the Colonists at their own game. While Sachem desires to try and hold on to as much of the Native American lifestyle as possible. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
During the lecture and based off of these questions we were asked to discuss what role did Anglo-Americans play in the Native American communities in comparison to The Last of the Mohicans. I saw several roles they played and the beginning of an American identity through Jack Winthrop and his wanting to serve for the British but also the pull to protect his family and land. Through his anger with General Munro (Monroe?) he showed the beginning of revolt against the British and also a need for separation. Aside from that role Anglo-Americans changed how the Native Americans fought, because of their need for claim over territory they pushed the Native Americans to fight one another (Huron versus the Mohicans) instead of working together to defeat the whites. I found the Huron to be the tribe who may of worked against the English and ideally helped the French, but to be the tribe who attempted to look out for themselves. I think the movie was really well done and portrayed a good picture of what America was like throughout the 1770s. I did not know it was based off a book and question the authority of the orignial book since Cooper had never met a Native American. I found the character, Magua, to be the character that clearly stood out to me, aside from Hawkeye. Magua was our definition of two-faced and even with his reasons for it I am not sure I could call someone "Grey-hair" and tell them I was going to ruin their family line as I cut their heart out. I do wonder with this account- did many Native Americans turn on whites who hurt their families? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie gave an accurate portrayal of the relationship between the British and the colonists. Many of the colonists have established themselves and have begun to know the lay of the land and the customs of the Native Americans. The haughty British assumed they were experts on fighting the Native Americans, but really they were clueless. Their system of fighting, forming orderly lines, proved ineffective in the movie. They walked along the paths in their perfect straight lines and the Indians would emerge from the forests and ambush them. It reminded me of a quote from Lord of the Rings, “Stay off the road.” <br />
The colonists and Nathaniel even tried to persuade the British officers to take a particular military action and the British ignored them, saying they had no authority. When Duncan is asked by Munro about the military situations at hand, he lies in order to silence Nathaniel’s claims. Munro trusts Duncan’s opinions over Nathaniel’s because Duncan is a British officer. The British were very distrusting of Native Americans, even though they were allies. They believed their way was the right way and that the “Royal opinion” should not be questioned.<br />
–Samantha W.</div>Abrudnohttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-09-02T07:16:29Z<p>Abrudno: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is a test.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
First, how cool is it that Powhatan's people had a Universal Translator centuries before "Star Trek's" Federation invented one? Who knew...all we needed to do was listen to the trees! But about the movie itself, as people have already said, we can't expect anything from Disney but Disneyland: cute animals and at least one dead parent. So it's interesting to see what accuracies the film actually has. First, John Smith described the 10-year-old he met as "but for wit and spirit the only Nonpareil of his [Powhatan's] Country." ("Nonpareil" means "without equal.") The screen Pocahontas certainly was all that. Also, we know that the Native Americans and the Europeans regarded each other as savages, but for different reasons, and the movie gives us a flavor of that, too. Disney even added thievery, but blamed it on the raccoon and not the Native Americans, as Smith does. The movie gives one rather bizarre nod to actual history: Smith's account mentions a compass, which is highly symbolic in the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In general, when it comes down to the details the movie really is not that historically accurate. However, I think Disney did do a good job of capturing the overall historical generalities of the story. The movie accurately gives the reasons for why the English originally came to colonize the New World, for the sole prospect of finding gold like the Spanish did in South America. The movie also shows that the colonists came to the New World with an idealized view of what they would find and what would happen when they arrived. They viewed the Native Americans as savages and assumed that they would immediately become rich upon arriving. -- Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin's point. The very beginning (the people getting on the VA Company ship) did a great job giving a glorified view of the VA Company; the way many of the colonists probably saw it. The settlers original ideas compared to what they actually found was also very well done - one of them mentions that they don't have any food, although this is the only real reference to starvation in the film (I guess Disney tends to shy away from topics like starvation). I think Disney also got the colonists' view of the Native Americans right - Thomas's line, "If any Indian tries to stop me, I'll blast them." epitomizes how the English saw their situation. Also, John Smith's line to Pocahontas, "We'll show your people how to use this land properly," really got the English mind-set across. He tells her that she only thinks that they don't need help from the English "because you don't know any better". The English thought that the Native Americans were doing everything all wrong. - Celia<br />
<br />
To add to Celia's list of quotes, when the ship first arrives to the continent one sailor gasps in surprise stating that the land "is all ours!". In all reality the film deals fairly well with the English perspective of owning the land and taking its resources. To expand on the misconception of gold being in Virginia, you can tell just how ill-prepared the settlers are. Although the film does not explicitly show such, the men are mostly workers who have no specific skills, they aren't good shots (Thomas) and they tend to be rather lazy (everybody else). One point that the film may not do right, but at least represents well, is the effect of the English just being on the continent. While Pocahontas stands upon a large non-existent cliff, there is a distinct divide between the land "settled" by the English and those occupied by the natives. The settled land is practically barren and without a speck of green. I imagine that if you had an image of the work being done in the colonies you would see something very similar to that. Joe Calpin[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:10, 1 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with the points listed up above, the thing that Disney does really well is outline the differences between the two different cultures. And to add to Celia's list of quotes, I think Pocahontas's "You think you own whatever land you land on" is another good one to describe the situation. While the English believed they could control the land, the Native Americans really didn't understand the concept of land ownership. They do briefly mention starvation on the English side, but it wasn't really a focus in the story, other than the part where John Smith was trying to explain that the Native Americans had food. However, once you go any deeper into the context of this movie it starts to become less accurate. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
First of all, I do not believe that Kocoum was killed by Thomas Salvage, especially during the early settling years (1607 -1608). Furthermore, in the movie, Pocohantas was told that she must marry Kocoum, but as we learned on Tuesday, the entire tribe and the potential bride must consent to the marriage. As far as the terrain is concerned, the landscape of Jamestown portrayed in the movie looks more like the landscape of the Shenandoah Valley than the swampy beachy mess that they actually settled in. While we are on the subject of landscape, did anyone notice in the first scene that the Native Americans were farming in the English manner, with perfect rows of vegetables? I had learned in the past that Native American farming was and ingenuous mix of vegetables that worked in concert with each other, (ie the Tomato vine growing up the corn stalk).Throughout his account, John Smith was constantly questioning the motives of the Native Americans and attempting to bargain with them. He did not strike me as the open minded hopeless romantic that Disney portrays him as. Lastly, the final scene of the movie implies the English settlers left the colony when in fact we know this to be false. – Caryn<br />
<br />
One thing the movie glosses over is how desperate the situation in Jamestown was. Yes, the Native Americans bring baskets of food towards the end, but it's not because the colonists are starving. In his account, Smith makes no secret of how much corn the colonists got from the Native Americans (both given and stolen), and it seems quite clear that even fewer would have survived in the colony without that supply of food. Not a single man dies of disease or starvation in the movie, which could be because it is a children's move after all. The movie certainly oversimplifies the relationship between the two groups; it was ultimately a much more complicated situation than that the colonists and Native Americans simply needed to talk about their differences. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I'm slightly confused and maybe someone can answer this for me. Was there not already a "settlement" by the time Pocohontas was 10-11? I don't mean a fully functioning settlement, but in the movie, they arrive to absolutely nothing and I just thought there was at least some establishment by the time John Smith and Pocohontas get involved. Other than that and aside from the nit-picky things we all know were inaccurate, I didnt think there was an all out war between the Native Americans and the colonist at this point. It certainly didn't seem that way from Smith's journal. And how come we never hear about the journal in the film? After all, it's what got this whole story started! - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
This has bothered me since I was a nerdy child. Pocahontas was not an adult when she met John Smith, and they were not romantically involved! I know it makes for a lovely Disney Princess sort of story, but even THAT concept is misleading, as she was not in any close succession for leadership. The next Anglicization of Native American culture in this movie would definitely be the fields: nice, neat rows, separated by crop. English? Yes. Easier to animate? Perhaps. Historically accurate? Nope. And finally, the day that someone finds that waterfall in Jamestown, I will personally kayak off of it. I do not need to worry about this, because I know the area, and it is completely, utterly flat. There are a myriad of other inaccuracies, but these seem to be the most glaring. - Cilla<br />
<br />
This was the first time that I had seen Pocahontas so after listening to the lecture, I was stunned during the film showing. From the landscape details to the set up of the camp, I did not find anything to be the same. John Smith was referred to once as a captain and there not any other references to other captains, despite the fact that there were seven in the original colony. In the movie, Pocahontas never married Kocoum, despite her father's best attempts. And, of course, the driving force throughout the movie was the relationship between John Smith and Pocahontas (so intense, in fact, that she was willing to sacrifice her life to save his). In the same scene, the English people had an immediate change of heart in regards to their relations with the Natives. - Kelly R.<br />
<br />
One of the first inaccuracies that I noticed was John Smith as a legendary captain. Everyone apparently knows him and his stories, and they're eager to work with him again. I don't think that the real John Smith was such a romantic hero - he served time in a Turkish prison. Disney shows him as a hopeless adventurer, but the truth of it is that he most likely just wanted to get rich quick like everyone else. This movie shows him as a famous hunter of "savages", even though he completely misses Pocahontas when she is about three feet away from him in a bush. Also, he had no real English accent to speak of (it came and went), which was distracting and annoying. Another blatant inaccuracy was the portrayal of Pocahontas as: a) Powhatan's only child; b) a grown woman, more or less (or an outrageously mature pre-teen); and c) next in line to become the leader of the tribe. Would it have been so difficult to give her some siblings, as a general nod to the fact that she had about 30? Also, Powhatan is shown as a widower, not a man that had dozens of wives. Obviously, polygamy cannot exist in a Disney universe. Pocahontas's friendship with Meeko and Flit came off as rather demeaning and childlike - Native Americans are magical and can talk to animals, and silly white men can't. - Celia<br />
<br />
I believe the movie got everything right, but I will take a stab at some possible miscalculations anyway. I found some things that Disney portrayed incorrectly and one interesting thing was that Percy, Ratcliffe’s dog in the movie was actually George Percy, who was a colonist who followed Smith. Percy actually wrote two books about his time in the new world, and Disney chose this name, quite cleverly for the dog. Another interesting thing I discovered was that in the movie, Smith was portrayed as somewhat as a hopeless romantic and an adventurer. However, in reality, when the ship actually landed, Smith was in chains and was not released until about a month after landing at Jamestown. After he was released he did plenty of exploring and mapped out the area extensively, but he did not jump right off the boat and start looking around. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Perhaps one of the greatest discrepancies that I noticed between the film and Smith's accounts (as well as our lecture) was the lack of disease plaguing the Jamestown settlers during the film. Whereas in actuality they were camping and building rough houses in a virtual swampland and the majority of the men died of dysentery and malaria, these conditions were mysteriously absent in the film. Disney has included a lot of clever references in many other films, so I was a little disappointed at how healthy all of the colonists remained, as well as the natives (who should have been getting smallpox). -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
To be snarky, Disney makes me hate animals. It is always painful watching random, unnecessary animal interactions. Also the film is very harsh to Kocoum; just because she didn't marry him doesn't mean you have to haul off and shoot him, clearly over dramatic. The above entries cover the rest of the problems in the film very well, but I suppose one has to wonder how characters instantly fall in love, especially after a conversation about "savages". Going along with the first post here by Caryn, I had to shake my head when the film implies the colonists all took off without leaving a settlement there. It's an improbable ending...As a side note. The film could easily focus on Pocahontas's hair for a shampoo commercial. The Koreans managed to make a movie/shampoo [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um9KsrH377A commercial]just replace the girl with Pocahontas and you've got the movie.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:31, 1 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Movie as primary source ==<br />
<br />
Okay, okay, aside from tearing apart this movie because it makes me want to be my head against the wall from a historical standpoint, I think Pocahontas does something very important for the mid-1990s: it puts Native Americans on screen in a substantial, legitimate way. Yes, it's Disney, and it's a cartoon, but it's aimed at kids, so that makes sense. There are very few examples of Native Americans in lead roles of movies, animated or otherwise, and even fewer that show Native Americans as just as civilized and varied in their behavior as, in this case, the English. It's pretty fake, and it's pretty cheesy, but it's representation that is otherwise really hard to come by. Making the decision to broaden the ethnic focus of their human main characters says a lot about Disney's ideals at the time. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I think that Cilla put it perfectly in her last sentence. The fact that this film is (loosely) based on actual historic events shows that Disney was trying to tell a legitimate story. They decided to show this part of America's past to their extremely huge audience, and that says something about their integrity as storytellers. I'm sure that it got a whole generation of children interested - if only superficially or temporarily interested - in learning more about this story. If the film encouraged kids to learn more, it can't be completely without value. - Celia<br />
<br />
Although the representation is hard to come by, the film would hardly count as a legitimate primary source. However, as mentioned in class over and over again, films can act as both a primary and secondary source. In this case, we could easily look at Pocahontas and how the film fits as a primary source in regards to the 1990s views of Native Americans. To focus on Disney and its move to represent other ethnicities, Cilla's right that Disney really opened the floor by expanding the different ethnic groups discussed. Interestingly, there is a reference on the wikipedia article for the film to a native american website (please take with grain of salt), wherein they offered to provide Disney with information to make the film more culturally accurate, but Disney rejected their offer (see: [http://www.powhatan.org/pocc.html here]). Perhaps it could make an interesting study in Disney's continuation of factoring out the native's opinions? Certainly, a large jump for a conclusion, but the film points to Disney's ability to take up whatever mythos they want and twist it.<br />
<br />
== General comments for Pocahontas == <br />
<br />
Disney's perception of history is slightly different than the actual facts but does tell a more entertaining story with characters such as Meeko, the raccoon who steals biscuits (hard tack?) and Grandmother Willow. I discovered watching the movie now presented itself in a more comical fashion rather than reality. As a resident of Williamsburg and working with tourists I have discovered the impact a movie can have on people's perception of history, especially when asked "Where are the waterfalls and cliffs?" To a child it is hard to say the waterfalls nor Grandmother Willow exist but to an adult I want to ask if they have taken a history class but prefer to keep my job. In some ways I feel Disney does tell the story well, they include the correct characters, time in history, the rivers, a correct depiction of how many trees and types of wildlife surround Jamestown, the gender roles of Native American men and women, the colonists disgust with work, and how tribes worked together to fight an unknown enemy. On the other hand, Pocahontas's age, her romance with John Smith, and the colonists singing about their work are not historical facts. It is clear Disney attempted to include facts but in true Disney fashion turned Pocahontas into a Disney princess that falls in love with the hero. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I still love this movie although I am aware it is not exactly historically correct. At least in this movie John Smith and Pocahontas do not end up together. That is historically accurate granted they were never romantically involved because she was ten and he was thrity five but hey Disney was not all wrong. I think Disney did depict the correct gender roles such as when Pocahontas was prevented from discussing war and she was out farming with her friend. Also I think Disney got it right when John Smith was talking to Pocahones about how her people were savages. That was true, the European view of Native Americans was decidedly negative which was depicted in the movie. I do not think Disney did a good job depicting what life was really like in Jamestowne but it is a movie for children and they did get a few things right. - LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
As much as it pains me to say it, some people actually believe what they see in the movies. As the movie began, I was telling my girlfriend about how Pocahontas first met John Smith she was only 12 and he was 35, she looked at me with a crinkled face and said "eww." That's when I realized that she was still under the impression that Pocahontas and Smith were involved on an intimate level. This is the main problem that Disney movies present to children, telling a story that seems like the truth when the actual truth is not even known. Kids are not aware of what really happened, so it is up to classes like this one and other history classes in grade school to dispel such lies. Basically, these lies or misrepresentations, and form what we learned in class on Tuesday, they got just about every detail wrong, could have been easily fixed while maintaining an enjoyable movie. Whenever a historical movie is made the directors should be obligated to consult an expert on the topic. It would be one thing for them to leave certain elements out, but to create an entirely different story is misleading and wrong. The viewers should be made aware before viewing the movie that certain portions of the film are fictional and should be offered a more factual option if they so desire to learn more about the subject. The one good thing that I noticed from this film was the emphasis placed on having an appreciation for our planet. This message can still be useful today and I am glad that it is being presented to children in such a way that will interest them. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The portrayal of Pocahontas from a historical perspective and Disney’s perspective leaves one to believe that Pocahontas must have been the name of two totally different Native Americans. One of the first differences is the obvious age of Pocahontas when she first meets John Smith. Historically data from John Smith himself gives Pocahontas’ age as around 10 years old, much, much younger than how Disney portrays her as an adult. But, we must remember that Disney’s world is one of fantasy where anything can happen and loves to tell stories to children.<br />
<br />
Another historical difference is that in the Disney movie, Pocahontas can be believed to be an only child, when in historical accuracy she had dozens of siblings running around. Yet, Disney may have gotten it right when in the movie, she is portrayed as having a special attachment to her father in that he may have been inclined to listen and consider some of her thoughts.--Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that we can all agree that for the most part, Disney's "Pocahontas" is pretty historically inaccurate. There were no talking trees or animals, Pocahontas was not a grown woman when she met John Smith, she was not immediately blessed with the ability to speak English, and the list goes on. That being said, most of these false elements were put in place to entertain the audience: children. As a student of the education program, we regularly discuss the importance of keeping children engaged in a plot by using such elements, so this is a smart move on Disney's part. However, I don't think we're giving Disney enough credit. How can we expect them to portray a perfectly accurate story of Pocahontaas and John Smith when we don't even know the true story ourselves? If you consider that during the execution scene Disney is roughly following what Smith penned in his last memoirs, then Disney is portraying this correctly. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Pocahontas" is definitely not an accurate portrayal of history. Anyone who has taken a Virginia history class should know that. However, Disney is not a historical documentary production company. So it is harsh to say that Disney is completely wrong to create a fictional account of history when its audience is children, usually age 10 and under. Young children would not understand all of the historical aspects of the story which is probably why Disney created its own version. Disney tales are notorious for the “happily ever after” endings. Children are innocent and are not yet able to comprehend the harsh realities of the adult world. "Pocahontas" gives a much softer account of the first arrival of the English. It does not show the starvation and diseases which plagued the English settlements. It shows that if both sides are willing to talk about their problems and compromise they will usually avoid bloody battles.<br />
This goes back to a point last week that was mentioned in class, that movies do not always have to be accurate. If they make a person want to learn more about a topic he or she saw in a movie, then the filmmakers have achieved their purpose to entertain and influence their audience. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Yes, Disney's Pocahontas is historically inaccurate-not to mention that basic laws of physics are also suspended (i.e. diving off an water and living ect.). Yet what I find more interesting is what Toplin talked about in his work, what historians can learn about the socitety that made the film. More specifically, what can we learn by looking at what was left in the film despite its inaccuracies. The first thing that struck me was Disney portrayal of the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+Noble+savage&aq=0&aqi=l1g1&aql=&oq=noble+savage+def&gs_rfai=C8p770n5-TLvOD5aCywSwhb1oAAAAqgQFT9CIA1w&pbx=1 noble savage] idea through out the film. In the work there is almost constant imagery suggesting that the Native Americans are more in-tune with god, nature, and each other simply because they lack what the colonists have, advanced technology. The question is then, what outstanding events might have made the filmmakers more likely to put this idea in the film (I'm not arguing its wrong or right I'm looking at this objectively). In 1995 the begins of the Free Tibet movement were starting possibly generating a cultural desire to oppose more militaristic forces. Also, the film spends a lot of time attempting to educate its viewers about the negative connotations with using the word "savage." This prompted one of the most interesting historical inaccuracies I noticed, which is the John Smith himself attempts to dissuade his fellow colonists form using the word "savage", while in his memoirs make free use of this word. So, I believe the correct approach to viewing this film is the one Toplin outlines, by treating it as a primary source on the times that created it. Disney films are notorious for slipping in subliminal messaging, or Hollywoodizing stroies. If we go into the film knowing this we can learn much about modern history, -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While as mentioned by everyone else that "Pocahontas" is not a historically accurate, I agree with Samantha that when you take into account the age group that the film is intended for, Disney really could not produce a film filled with death and adult themes. The movie does however, provide a good overview of several important historical themes, for example, through the character of Governor Radcliffe represents the Virginia Company. At one point in the movie he describes the colonists as, "witless peasants to dig up my gold". He goes on to describe the English expectation of finding gold just as the Spanish had in the New World. <br />
<br />
My favorite quote in the movie was when Wiggins, in response to Governor Radcliffe asking why the Indians would be upset with them said, "Because we invaded their land, cut down their trees, and dug up their earth." The movie did a good job of portraying the overarching themes, through simplification, as well as frequently taking liberty with history. For example when both the Indians and English sing the song describing each other as savages, it shows how the different cultures viewed one another. Another example of the difference in cultures was when John Smith started talking about gold, and Pocahontas pulled out an ear of corn. While that is not what he meant, corn was the equivalent of gold to the Indians, further showing the differences in their societies. While Pocahontas instantaneously learning English, picking up bearcubs and talking with a tree is probably far fetched, all things considered the movie does a good job of being entertaing to its target audience and including the parts of history that a 7 year old could watch and understand. ~ Michael G.<br />
<br />
The flag that the English used in the film was not made in 1607. It was first created in 1801,after Ireland became part of the United Kingdom. The flag they could have used, in 1607, was the Flag of England. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac in that Pocahontas is good as a primary source for understanding the mid-1990s. With the 90s we see the rise of environmentalism and I think this is emphasized in the film when Native Americans are shown living in "harmony" with nature. Other films that came out around this time like Fern Gully (1992) and tv networks like Nickelodeon doing marathons like Big Help (although I believe this started in the 80s).<br />
At the same time Pocahontas is a so-so secondary source on historical Pocahontas. I'll try not to repeat the same things other have but there is the whole lie about Powhatan "strongly suggesting" Pocahontas marry Kocoum and Pocahontas resisting that because he is too serious. As we all know this isn't true and as Professor McClurken pointed out rarely in Native American societies did they force women to marry against their will. I'll stop here before I go on a rant :-) Edit: Ok one more thing. I understand Disney is under no obligation to be historically accurate but why do they have to base it off a historical character? They could easily make a film full of lies about Native Americans without having to butcher the truth about Pocahontas. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 11:50, 1 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think that my comments will basically mirror the ones above, in that Disney's Pocahontas is not very historically accurate. But Disney did do a decent job of describing why many people came over to the New World in the first place, which was primarily to find gold and silver. I think they were also accurate in how the Native Americans and English viewed each other, with fear. While people, mostly those who know their history make fun of the movie, I think that the film tried to show how ignorance and hatred of something unknown could lead to violence and because it is a Disney movie there has to be a positive moral message at the end and considering the intended audience I think that it is a good message to send.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
<br />
After watching the movie, reading the online source for this week, and being in class for lecture on Tuesday I can conclude that Disney's version of Pocahontas ''may'' have exaggerated the relationship and tale of John Smith and Pocahontas. The most striking difference between the reality and truth is the intimate relationship the two had. I think this is really what trips people up because the general public or Disney fans want to believe that the two were together in a romantic way. What I tend to think about is the fact that Disney did in fact use one of the versions of the tale of John Smith and Pocahontas, just the least likely one. Of course, they had good reason to. The other versions that John Smith or his friends told were kind of boring and would not have made for a good movie. On a positive note, the movie did incorporate some truth such as utilizing names of actual historical people or places e.g. Pocahontas, John Smith, Ratcliff, Kocuom, Jamestown. The Native Americans' use of canoes and the importance of corn are also historically accurate. I think while it's important for people to know the historically accurate account of Pocahontas, I really don't think Disney was really looking for the movie to be exactly like the true tale. They wanted to produce a story for entertainment purposes. Hopefully, those who don't know the truth will someday take a history class or after getting awful looks from historians or history majors will soon become enlightened. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
I like how Amy V. phrased her comment; Disney wasn't completely historically inaccurate. Yes, the major plot points, for the most part, were completely wrong. But if you look at many of the details of the film that Amy mentioned, Disney didn't completely get ''everything'' wrong. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As other people have mentioned, Disney's "Pocahontas" is not historically accurate. First, in real life there is no evidence that they were romantically involved because there was about a twenty year age gap. In the movie, it seems that Pocahontas and John Smith are both the same age. Actually, Pocahontas was around eleven years old when she met John Smith. Another issue that they did not emphasize in the movie was the language barrier. They show the Native Americans speaking a different language at first, but then they change to English. At first Pocahontas could not understand John Smith, but then she changed a few minutes later to speaking English. I understand that this movie is for entertainment and for children, but some people believe that most movies are historically accurate. The entire theme of the movie, I think, is a very good theme. Basically they are showing kids that these two groups are about to fight because they are just different. This pertains to many real situations throughout the world. In the end, John Smith and Pocahontas shows that they should not fight, but they should talk first. Of course, it does not mention what happens later with more fighting between the English and the Native Americans. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
My comments have been pretty much summed up by all the previous posts. Not historically accurate, but gives people an idea of the early settlements and the challenges that many of them faced. I think it is also a tool for getting younger children interested in history. While it's not completely true, at least they are getting them interested in something that they can fully understand later. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Although Disney's movie was not historically accurate in the traditional sense, I still believe that it does have historical value. Disney's movie reflects the change that John Smith's original story underwent over time. It morphed from a memoir into popular fairytale and that change gives insight into the social history at the time. -- Erin L.<br />
<br />
As much as I loved Pocahontas as a kid, being a history major has made the movie less enjoyable now because I know the real story. After reading John Smith's account and watching the movie, I am not sure where to begin. Almost everyone knows that Pocahontas and John Smith did not have a relationship in reality. From what I read in John Smith's papers, their meeting was very brief and to the point... she was there to retrieve the Indian prisoners the English held. In that brief meeting, she did not fall in love with him. I am sure this has already been stated above, but Disney made this movie with the clear intent of entertaining, not informing of a historical event/historical people. Honestly, if you were to think if the movie was made with 100% historical accuracy, it would be a pretty boring movie! Disney did get it right in one aspect, that at the end, the Indians and English were friends, just as John Smith's papers described. Oh, and the movie also showed John Smith wielding a compass, just like Smith wrote about giving at compass to the Indians. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Frankly, as much as we will mock the movie, John Smith's "True Relation" is hardly an honest narrative of what occurred either. It has the same sense of heroic man entering a brave new world and taking charge. Joe<br />
<br />
==John Smith (1608) reading==<br />
I was sort of confused by the John Smith reading. I thought it was interesting to see how his views of Native Americans changed quickly, at one point they were going to kill him and the settlers then the next moment they were bringing him corn, and venison. But I'm inclined to think that relations were probably similar to that, they had good times and bad times. Smith also seemed really full of himself, especially in the way he describes Powahttan's feelings toward himself. The other thing I noticed was the way he would sometimes refer to Powahattan as "Emperor", which I just thought was interesting.<br />
<br />
I found John Smith’s account of his early time in Virginia very interesting. I think what struck me the most was how Smith conceptualized the Native American settlements and “classes”. All Smith knew were Kingdoms, hamlets, countries, etc. so the only way he understood the social structure was the English way. He continued to refer to each new area that he was taken to as a new country with its own King, which all seemed, in his mind, to be ruled by Powhatan the “emperor” of the area. He also referred to Powhatans and other kings “subject” as nobles. - Caryn<br />
<br />
While reading his words, I was easily able to sympathize with the conditions that these men underwent. Also, it is not hard to understand while the acts of these men were glorified since they faced some horrifying conditions. On the contrary, such terrible events make you wonder how Disney came to the conclusions that they did about the Virginia Colony. How they got singing and beautiful landscapes and beautiful people is beyond me. Knowing that movies are made to entertain, perhaps another story or aspect of the story could have been focused on more so that their interpretation would not be as far off from the truth as this depiction seamlessly is. -Mike E. <br />
<br />
I was curious about how much Smith claims to have discussed with the Native Americans. I know from experience that creative acting can help to overcome language barriers, but he almost makes it seem as though Pocahontas's magic ability to speak English in the film is possible. Smith writes that he listened to stories of "the roundness of the earth, the course of the sun, moon, stars and planets" with one of the Native American leaders, which seems to be a very abstract topic for two groups only relatively recently acquainted and speaking very different languages. How much is Smith inferring in order to make his story seem more exciting. I mean, "and then we sat around and awkwardly tried to get the other person to figure out what I was saying" doesn't sound nearly as impressive. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed about Smith's journal was the overflowing of what almost seemed like poetry at the beginning. It was a bit frilly and less to the point, at least at the beginning. I did notice that by the end, the recollections were more straight to the point. It was also interesting to see Smith use European terms for the Native American tribes he encountered, such as kings, countries, etc. I wonder, though, how much of his journal is factual and how much of it was added by Smith for the "readers sake". - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I, as well as everyone above me, found Smith's narrative to be very interesting and one of the things that captivated me the most was his recollection of all the trade between the English and the Native Americans. The Native Americans probably found all of the tools, copper, beads, little trinkets, etc. to be new and exciting but my question would be did the Native Americans truly understand everything they were given? According to Smith's account the two people easily understood one another, but was a piece of copper really worth sustaining the Englishmen, did the Native Americans know what they were in for? Trade was clearly a way of life and according to Smith something that kept the colonists and himself alive. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found John Smith's papers interesting, just as everyone else above has said. With that said, there were many things about his papers that I question. He portrays his relationship with the Indians as one that was friendly and cordial. Whether or not that is true, one might never know. But Smith made it seem as though the Indians and him were best friends and that the Indian chiefs loved him. Also, the way he describes the Indian villages. He said the "kings" (or chiefs) lived in large houses. If by houses, he meant tepees, then that is understandable as well. I was actually surprised with all the corn the colonists received. It was funny because in Pocahontas, the colonists did not have the slightest idea of what corn was, yet in John Smith's account, they were collecting it in abundance. Another thing that surprised me was how Smith stated at the end of his paper that all the colonists were in good health. The colonists were lucky because I am sure sickness was a frequent occurrence for them. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
John Smith's account strongly highlighted the lack of understanding of the various Native American tribes. Throughout the journal Smith and his men depended heavily on the Native Americans for their food supply, yet Smith would talk about the trades and in the next sentence refer to some of his men engaging in a battle with the Native Americans. It seemed as if the colonists did not recognize the differences in the tribes and, in doing so, made surviving much more difficult. The relationships they created were filled with distrust and Smith's misunderstanding of their culture and tribal divisions only added to the problems and level of conflict between the two groups. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
Throughout John Smith's journal, he portrays himself as the central figure in a dangerous adventure, where the native americans can never be trusted, even though they continually show him great kindness and bestow gifts of food on him and his settlement. Even as they are continuosly showering him with gifts, he writes that he was very suspicious of Powhatan and other's true intentions. He makes himself appear as if he is almost omniscient, and can read their minds. Disney is not alone in their exaggeration of how great John Smith was. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
An extension of Mary Ann's discussion of language: John Smith writes of his interactions with the Native Americans without the slightest hint of a language barrier. While I do agree that just stating that there was random and ineffective pointing does not make for a riveting journal, one must wonder exactly how these two groups managed to communicate. This question becomes particularly complicated in relation to the deep level of conversation. Case in point, explaining that the earth is round without knowing the word for earth is more than a little difficult. John Smith also manages to demand that the natives send a letter to his camp and also explain the nature of sailing, or even noting that he would be released in four days. I now that the counter will be that perhaps the king raised up four fingers, however don't be so assured that using your hands to count is in a universal fashion! Or even worse on page ten "I told him being in fight with Spaniards our enemy, being overpowered, near put to retreat, and by extreme weather put to this shore..."These are not trivial or easy subject matters. Say what you will, but language barriers and diplomacy go hand and hand.-Joe<br />
<br />
If nothing else, John Smith's account exemplifies the ambiguous state of relations between the colonists and the Native Americans. It was either tenuous peace or warfare, and Smith shows that by constantly going back and forth in the way he depicts them - one paragraph, the Native Americans are endlessly benevolent and helpful, and in the next there is a brutal fight between the natives and the colonists. It shows the colonists' lives in America as unsettling and volatile - a constantly changing state. - Celia<br />
<br />
One of the interesting things from this account is Smith’s optimism upon the departure of Captain Newport. Smith stated that Captain Newport returned to England on June 22nd “leaving provision for 13 or 14 weeks” and that all of his men were “in good health and comfort, albeit, that through some discontented humors…” We can look back on this now because we know how badly things went for the colonists. They got short on supplies, relations with the Indians shifted constantly and they could not change their English customs to adapt to the new world. To me, it was just very curious to look back at these comments, knowing now that high morale and good fortune for the English did not last long. -afrisk<br />
<br />
While they were very interesting, I think that Smith's journals should be taken with more than just a grain of salt; since they were rewritten and republished several times, which fairly significant changes, they become a less reliable source. I also think that it is important to consider that Smith was writing to his superiors, so he was most likely trying to make himself look better, while simplifying what he knew of the Native American culture, such as describing their fascination with his glass beads and trinkets. However, Smith's journals do provide us with some insight into the power dynamics, at least from the English point of view, between Natives and colonists. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
<br />
I enjoyed reading John Smith's account of his interaction with the Native Americans and Powhatan's tribe. The way in which he described the land, the Indians, and the relationship between the two peoples was very detailed and interesting. I have to admit that I still can't help but visualize the animated versions of John Smith and the Native Americans when reading the letter. I guess it's fine as long as they are acting out the true events that took place. I also wondered after I read Smith's account about his third version he published in the 1620s. I felt this version which was written for his superiors back in England was very detailed, maybe even a little over the top, and placed him as the main "star" of the show. I wonder how overly exaggerated he made his third version, the one in which most people believe as the truth? -Amy V.<br />
<br />
One thing that struck me about this article was the apparent ease he talked with the Native Americans, I think Mary Ann pretty much voiced the same thoughts I had. As I was reading it, I actually thought there might have been a Grandmother Willow telling John Smith to "Listen with your heart Child!" Also he was talking and conferring with many different tribes, I feel like while the languages may have been similar there would have also been a lot of differences between the dialects. What this account also shows is that Smith had an abundance of self-confidence, which makes me wonder (like Meagan) how much is really accurate and how much is him trying to make himself appear to be the better person. - Jenn<br />
<br />
<br />
The John Smith reading is full of various adventures Smith has and all of the people he encounters. He does have some scuffles but a majority of the reading details friendly interactions between Smith and the Native Americans. That aspect is semi-depicted in the movie “Pocahontas.” However, after reading Smith’s account, there was no way for Disney to tell the story this accurately and not bore the children to death. It is interesting in the reading that Smith and Powhatan have so many meetings. They appear to be good friends and they try to smooth over the relations between their people. They even join forces in battle. I know it is difficult to take Smith’s word as pure history because there is nothing to contest it, but it is very descriptive and vivid. Things might not have happened exactly the way he said, but he provides a good enough context for the reader to understand the time period. It also is interesting to note how little Pocahontas appears in his account. I know she is only ten years old when they meet, but many still do not know that they never had a romantic relationship. So while Disney provides a nice historical fiction account of Jamestown, most of it is not accurate. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Pocahontas appeared only a few times in the reading. She could be found in the last third of the reading. She was mostly founded near the end of the story. - A. Brudno</div>Abrudnohttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-09-01T17:26:24Z<p>Abrudno: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is a test.<br />
<br />
==Pocahontas, Disney Movie== <br />
<br />
Disney's perception of history is slightly different than the actual facts but does tell a more entertaining story with characters such as Meeko, the raccoon who steals biscuits (hard tack?) and Grandmother Willow. I discovered watching the movie now presented itself in a more comical fashion rather than reality. As a resident of Williamsburg and working with tourists I have discovered the impact a movie can have on people's perception of history, especially when asked "Where are the waterfalls and cliffs?" To a child it is hard to say the waterfalls nor Grandmother Willow exist but to an adult I want to ask if they have taken a history class but prefer to keep my job. In some ways I feel Disney does tell the story well, they include the correct characters, time in history, the rivers, a correct depiction of how many trees and types of wildlife surround Jamestown, the gender roles of Native American men and women, the colonists disgust with work, and how tribes worked together to fight an unknown enemy. On the other hand, Pocahontas's age, her romance with John Smith, and the colonists singing about their work are not historical facts. It is clear Disney attempted to include facts but in true Disney fashion turned Pocahontas into a Disney princess that falls in love with the hero. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
As much as it pains me to say it, some people actually believe what they see in the movies. As the movie began, I was telling my girlfriend about how Pocahontas first met John Smith she was only 12 and he was 35, she looked at me with a crinkled face and said "eww." That's when I realized that she was still under the impression that Pocahontas and Smith were involved on an intimate level. This is the main problem that Disney movies present to children, telling a story that seems like the truth when the actual truth is not even known. Kids are not aware of what really happened, so it is up to classes like this one and other history classes in grade school to dispel such lies. Basically, these lies or misrepresentations, and form what we learned in class on Tuesday, they got just about every detail wrong, could have been easily fixed while maintaining an enjoyable movie. Whenever a historical movie is made the directors should be obligated to consult an expert on the topic. It would be one thing for them to leave certain elements out, but to create an entirely different story is misleading and wrong. The viewers should be made aware before viewing the movie that certain portions of the film are fictional and should be offered a more factual option if they so desire to learn more about the subject. The one good thing that I noticed from this film was the emphasis placed on having an appreciation for our planet. This message can still be useful today and I am glad that it is being presented to children in such a way that will interest them. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The portrayal of Pocahontas from a historical perspective and Disney’s perspective leaves one to believe that Pocahontas must have been the name of two totally different Native Americans. One of the first differences is the obvious age of Pocahontas when she first meets John Smith. Historically data from John Smith himself gives Pocahontas’ age as around 10 years old, much, much younger than how Disney portrays her as an adult. But, we must remember that Disney’s world is one of fantasy where anything can happen and loves to tell stories to children.<br />
<br />
Another historical difference is that in the Disney movie, Pocahontas can be believed to be an only child, when in historical accuracy she had dozens of siblings running around. Yet, Disney may have gotten it right when in the movie, she is portrayed as having a special attachment to her father in that he may have been inclined to listen and consider some of her thoughts.--Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that we can all agree that for the most part, Disney's "Pocahontas" is pretty historically inaccurate. There were no talking trees or animals, Pocahontas was not a grown woman when she met John Smith, she was not immediately blessed with the ability to speak English, and the list goes on. That being said, most of these false elements were put in place to entertain the audience: children. As a student of the education program, we regularly discuss the importance of keeping children engaged in a plot by using such elements, so this is a smart move on Disney's part. However, I don't think we're giving Disney enough credit. How can we expect them to portray a perfectly accurate story of Pocahontaas and John Smith when we don't even know the true story ourselves? If you consider that during the execution scene Disney is roughly following what Smith penned in his last memoirs, then Disney is portraying this correctly. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Pocahontas" is definitely not an accurate portrayal of history. Anyone who has taken a Virginia history class should know that. However, Disney is not a historical documentary production company. So it is harsh to say that Disney is completely wrong to create a fictional account of history when its audience is children, usually age 10 and under. Young children would not understand all of the historical aspects of the story which is probably why Disney created its own version. Disney tales are notorious for the “happily ever after” endings. Children are innocent and are not yet able to comprehend the harsh realities of the adult world. "Pocahontas" gives a much softer account of the first arrival of the English. It does not show the starvation and diseases which plagued the English settlements. It shows that if both sides are willing to talk about their problems and compromise they will usually avoid bloody battles.<br />
This goes back to a point last week that was mentioned in class, that movies do not always have to be accurate. If they make a person want to learn more about a topic he or she saw in a movie, then the filmmakers have achieved their purpose to entertain and influence their audience. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Yes, Disney's Pocahontas is historically inaccurate-not to mention that basic laws of physics are also suspended (i.e. diving off an water and living ect.). Yet what I find more interesting is what Toplin talked about in his work, what historians can learn about the socitety that made the film. More specifically, what can we learn by looking at what was left in the film despite its inaccuracies. The first thing that struck me was Disney portrayal of the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+Noble+savage&aq=0&aqi=l1g1&aql=&oq=noble+savage+def&gs_rfai=C8p770n5-TLvOD5aCywSwhb1oAAAAqgQFT9CIA1w&pbx=1 noble savage] idea through out the film. In the work there is almost constant imagery suggesting that the Native Americans are more in-tune with god, nature, and each other simply because they lack what the colonists have, advanced technology. The question is then, what outstanding events might have made the filmmakers more likely to put this idea in the film (I'm not arguing its wrong or right I'm looking at this objectively). In 1995 the begins of the Free Tibet movement were starting possibly generating a cultural desire to oppose more militaristic forces. Also, the film spends a lot of time attempting to educate its viewers about the negative connotations with using the word "savage." This prompted one of the most interesting historical inaccuracies I noticed, which is the John Smith himself attempts to dissuade his fellow colonists form using the word "savage", while in his memoirs make free use of this word. So, I believe the correct approach to viewing this film is the one Toplin outlines, by treating it as a primary source on the times that created it. Disney films are notorious for slipping in subliminal messaging, or Hollywoodizing stroies. If we go into the film knowing this we can learn much about modern history, -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While as mentioned by everyone else that "Pocahontas" is not a historically accurate, I agree with Samantha that when you take into account the age group that the film is intended for, Disney really could not produce a film filled with death and adult themes. The movie does however, provide a good overview of several important historical themes, for example, through the character of Governor Radcliffe represents the Virginia Company. At one point in the movie he describes the colonists as, "witless peasants to dig up my gold". He goes on to describe the English expectation of finding gold just as the Spanish had in the New World. <br />
<br />
My favorite quote in the movie was when Wiggins, in response to Governor Radcliffe asking why the Indians would be upset with them said, "Because we invaded their land, cut down their trees, and dug up their earth." The movie did a good job of portraying the overarching themes, through simplification, as well as frequently taking liberty with history. For example when both the Indians and English sing the song describing each other as savages, it shows how the different cultures viewed one another. Another example of the difference in cultures was when John Smith started talking about gold, and Pocahontas pulled out an ear of corn. While that is not what he meant, corn was the equivalent of gold to the Indians, further showing the differences in their societies. While Pocahontas instantaneously learning English, picking up bearcubs and talking with a tree is probably far fetched, all things considered the movie does a good job of being entertaing to its target audience and including the parts of history that a 7 year old could watch and understand. ~ Michael G.<br />
<br />
The flag that the English used in the film was not made in 1607. It was first created in 1801,after Ireland became part of the United Kingdom. The flag they could have used, in 1607, was the Flag of England. - A. Brudno</div>Abrudno Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38