McClurken Wiki

<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php</b> on line <b>195</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>571</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>585</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>578</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>603</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php</b> on line <b>553</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>186</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>203</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>196</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>212</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  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 <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php</b> on line <b>175</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php</b> on line <b>135</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php</b> on line <b>59</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php</b> on line <b>234</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php</b> on line <b>292</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php</b> on line <b>755</b><br />
<br />
<b>Warning</b>:  preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php</b> on line <b>907</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>627</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>629</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>630</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>631</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>633</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php</b> on line <b>634</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php</b> on line <b>402</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>505</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php</b> on line <b>661</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php</b> on line <b>51</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />
<?xml version="1.0"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/skins/common/feed.css?303"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xml:lang="en">
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Areed</id>
		<title>McClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]</title>
		<link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&amp;feedformat=atom&amp;user=Areed"/>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Areed"/>
		<updated>2026-09-18T19:11:16Z</updated>
		<subtitle>User contributions</subtitle>
		<generator>MediaWiki 1.22.0</generator>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 15 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-12-04T04:17:42Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m going to assume that all of the video clips and radio broadcasts were the originals, so showing the clips and audio clips of the time brings authenticity to the movie. Seeing as the movie was released only a few years after the scandal dissipated, and two years after Nixon&amp;#039;s resignation, it feels real. Nixon&amp;#039;s impeachment hearings made history back in the 1970s, and much like 9/11 was to us in 2003, people remember how they felt during that time. It&amp;#039;s akin to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in that it&amp;#039;s so close to the event. Unlike in the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039; where people were acting as people who lived two hundred years ago, these actors -remember-. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went.  The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film didn&amp;#039;t do a ton to explain this in detail, but through the newspaper headlines we see that Eagleton was picked as the original VP but then in other news snippets we see that McGovern is forced to be dropped from the ticket. Then in one of the planning meetings the editors joke over how nobody wants to take the now vacant VP spot, referencing the names mentioned in class. While this was something that fell outside of the focus of the film, it was nice to see that it was subtly worked into the story.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the women shown working in this movie were doing various types of secretarial work, and not working as say reporters.  I&amp;#039;m guessing this is an accurate portrayal of working women of this time, since this movie took place during the woman&amp;#039;s rights movement.  -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wondered for a while why &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; always introduced themselves as &amp;quot;Hi this is ____ from the Washington Post,&amp;quot; and then go on. But then I realized that it was important (at least back then) for reporters to identify themselves. I felt that the &amp;quot;on record&amp;quot; vs &amp;quot;off record&amp;quot; barriers were really clearly defined. Somehow I am a little skeptical that reporters today are so gracious and just, though I haven&amp;#039;t been interviewed by the Washington Post recently so how do I really know? - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kellye&amp;#039;s comment about Deep Throat, I thought his role in the movie was sufficient.  In the film, it seemed that Woodward only went to his source when he and Bernstein ran into a road-block during their investigation (which was often).  Furthermore, a lot of people thought DT wasn&amp;#039;t as helpful too Woodward, based on the movie.  I can only imagine the position DT was in, torn between compromising his position at the FBI and doing what is just and patriotic.  I also wondered why DT only met with Woodward and not Bernstein, but apparently DT was only Woodward&amp;#039;s source and DT never met Bernstein at all during the investigation.  This was key when Felt (DT) was asked if he ever leaked information to Woodward AND Bernstein.  According to the book, Woodward wondered if Felt denied this and got out of it b/c of a technicality (he only leaked info to Woodward).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt the movie did a pretty good job of portraying the relationship of Bernstein and Woodward. Though they worked together in the movie their were several signs that they didn&amp;#039;t particularly like each other since they would do things without telling each other about it and they were portrayed a bit competitive. This movie also does a good job at showing the depth and significance of CREEP in showing just how deep they were in the American government and talking about the various things they were involved in. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I think the movie was pretty accurate about describing the Watergate happenings and the people involved and their actions. Whether it was right about Woodstein’s investigative processes, I couldn’t really say since we didn’t go too deep on that in class, and I haven’t read Woodstein’s book. However, because the movie was based on their book, I’ll assume it was fairly accurate. Of course we also have to keep in mind that the book likely embellished a few things… for instance, it seems the supposed methods of communication with Deep Throat that Woodstein wrote about are factually questionable. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought they did a great job in using the proximity of the time the film was made to the actual events without abusing it. We could see clearly the disbelief of the general public (well not too much of that actually) and of the editors themselves (not only because of fear of risking journalistic integrity--but because generally people trusted that the government did not do sleazy, illegal stuff, at least not at the Presidential level). I thought the movie approached representing opinions and reasoning behind secrecy and such was really well done-- maybe, again, because the movie and the characters seemed so real, as it was made recently after the events.  --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Smoking in the newsroom, elevators, and just about everywhere else?  Must be the 1970s!  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps things have changed since the 70s, but how did Woodstein never get caught in traffic? I mean this is DC we are talking about here. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am curious as to whether the safety of Woodward and Bernstein was played up for the sake of the film? Certainly they were being spied on, but did they really have to fear their lives? That whole fear aspect seemed a bit awkward in the film and I am curious if it was a real fear or something played up to add tension in the film?- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Bryan-- I think that when a dude who works for the FBI makes you meet him in a parking garage in the middle of the night over a period of about 8 months and finally tells you that people in every part and in every level of the government are involved as conspirators to do illegal bidding for the President, anyone would get freaked out that he was being watched or bugged or possibly endangered. So even if Woodward and Burnstein weren&amp;#039;t being spied on--I think they at least had just cause to fear that they might be in the context of the movie.-- Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the book and in the movie, Woodward would put the flag up whenever he wanted to meet w/ Deep Throat, and DT would mark the NY Times in case he wanted to meet w/ Woodward.  However, the movie primarily showed Woodward making an effort to meet DT.  How often did DT request to meet w/ Woodward?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a hard time believing that it was so easy to get into contact with high ranking White House officials. I am fairly certain that White House security was not that lax. Woodward and Bernstein would need to get into contact with someone and could just call the direct lines to their secretaries. I may be wrong but this seems unrealistic to me. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Mallory, it concerned me how easily Woodstein was able to call and either get secretaries of very high ranking White House officials or even the officials themselves.  And the way people would just give up information on where someone was amazed me.  You would think that someone who was the Special Council to the President wouldn&amp;#039;t be able to be tracked down with the ease of just &amp;quot;oh he&amp;#039;s actually in this office right now, let me give you that number.&amp;quot;  It seems really odd to me. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My issue with the movie is that the film portrayed Woodward and Bernstein as the heroes of the investigation: the only guys willing to bring down the high-ranking bullies of the government.  Although the film alludes to the on-going special investigation by the Grand Jury, &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; seem to get all the credit for the discovery of the cover-up and the ultimate downfall of President Nixon.~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another issue I have with the film is the lack of mention by Woodward or Bernstein of Nixon&amp;#039;s involvement.  Their investigation seems to end when they finally get confirmation of Halderman.It doesn&amp;#039;t make sense to me that this ruthless reporting team would just stop at Halderman and not link the trail to Nixon. Since the legacy of Watergate is centered around President Nixon, why wouldn&amp;#039;t the movie at least allude to the President&amp;#039;s involvement? ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mallory sort of. It was surprising to me in the beginning that a librarian would be perfectly willing to look up and divulge the for any old person calling up on the phone the requested materials or checked out materials of patron of the library... and the White HOuse library! Really? She quickly gets intercepted and told to change her story but what was she doing giving that information in the first place. Even in regular old public libraries, personal check-out accounts are supposed to be private. Did people not care as much back then? Also in Juliann&amp;#039;s point about where the movie ends... I think it gets cut off there not to say that Woodstein stopped their investigation and journalism on the topic but that that was the key piece of the puzzle that lead to the house of cards falling down. Once they get the magnitude of the scandal revealed, other reporters, newspapers, and the public investigations are probably on equal footing with them and the movie can&amp;#039;t continue with them as the courageous, lone detectives. But I do find it interesting that, except for in the closing typewriting scene, they really don&amp;#039;t go as far as accusing Nixon of being a major conspirator or knowingly involved-- was it because the movie was made practically in the then-present day?--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think probably the biggest fault of the movie for me is how it ends. For one, it’s very abrupt. However, the largest issue is that there is no recognition of the other contributions made to the Watergate case. Of course the movie is about Woodstein investigating Watergate, so I expect it to be about them rather than other aspects of the investigation involving the courts and Congress and what not. I don’t even think the other investigations necessarily had to be mentioned during the movie itself. The problem comes with the ending where it’s not even acknowledged that there was more investigation going on other than Woodstein’s. The movie makes it appear that only the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Washington Post&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reports brought light to the corruption in the White House. All it would’ve taken was an informational card at the end to satisfy me. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
Would this movie really be a secondary source about the Watergate scandal? Dr. McClurken said that the filmmaker was thinking about making the movie as the scandal was happening and that the rights to make a movie out of the book was bought some time around then.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One revelation that the movie showed through Woodstein&amp;#039;s work that I think is important is how the dirty tricks had been going on since long before the Watergate break-in, back at least to the formation of CREEP.  At one point, Bradlee told Woodstein that only half the public polled had heard of the name Watergate.  We know that by the time Nixon resigned, the whole nation knew about it, but they may not have known just how far back it went.  With all Woodstein&amp;#039;s investigation and the stated realization of how much larger the issue was than the break-in, this shows that CREEP&amp;#039;s workings had been successfully kept secret for a long time. -Whitney Holcomb.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like it would be tough for this movie to be considered as a primary source on the scandal itself.  It was focused much more on Woodward and Bernstein, as we were warned, and although it did discuss the scandal, it didn&amp;#039;t really cover all of it.  A lot of it was based on the early findings and discoveries and how long it took Woodward and Bernstein to piece everything together and kind of breezed over everything that happened in about 30 seconds at the end of the movie.  But it could definitely be used as a source looking at Woodward and Bernstein and their interactions at the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Washington Post&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. But I think that the movie can also be worked into that &amp;quot;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;quot; genre in that it was made around the time of the actual event.  The clothes were authentic and it nearly killed me, as was Dustin Hoffman&amp;#039;s beautifully feathered hair.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely agree with Kelly (not about the clothing though because the 70s are totally back right now and Redford/Hoffman are dead sexy in this film) about what the film really focuses on. I think it is a really fascinating look at the Washington Post back then. I would be interested to read more about the changes in policy, tendencies of its editors, and its general reputation comparatively over time (they take a lot of heat in the film but it must have been pretty revolutionizing and aggrandizing for the Post&amp;#039;s future).--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Kellye, this movie may have definitely helped to push people over to Democrats in 1976 because they were reminded right before the election about the Watergate Scandal and that many Republicans tried to cover it up and lied about it.--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye and Ashley that this film probably had at least a small impact on the 1976 election.  After all, it showcases a corrupt government and intelligence system.  Not only was Jimmy Carter a Democrat, but he was also a &amp;quot;Beltway outsider.&amp;quot;  Just the type of candidate America tends to favor after a Watergate-esque scandal.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning, there was darkness and it was good; then there was a loud and jolting noise of a typewriter. I wonder if the filmmakers did that to convey how the American were in relation to knowing what was going on with President Nixon? The people were happy because they didn&amp;#039;t know what was happening, then Woodstein reported what their investigation had uncovered and since they wrote via the typewriter, that machine woke the population up with a startle.-Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tagging onto Christine&amp;#039;s comment, I think it was a very important preface to the movie that McClurken specified that it was a movie about the Washington Post breaking the story of Watergate. Part of me was like &amp;quot;what? we didn&amp;#039;t see what actually happens!&amp;quot; but we did see the Post succeed in cracking the story, and the trial and all those details were irrelevant to the Post story. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that it shows the half-legitimate ways Woodstein were &amp;quot;confirming&amp;quot; information from sources.  They could be very indirect, without making the people being questioned explicitly state an answer, effectively getting information from those who didn&amp;#039;t want to talk.  My favorite was when Bernstein counted to ten on the phone about Haldeman.  Also, there was getting the bookkeeper to nod at the initials L, M, and P.  Third, when they got Sloan to finally say that he &amp;quot;would not have a problem&amp;quot; with their accusatory article if they published it. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reference to Dr. M&amp;#039;s reference to the Orioles in lecture, I recognized the actor who played Rosenfeld, Jack Warden, as Juror 7 from 12 Angry Men. He was the guy who kept wanting to reach a verdict quickly because he had Yankees tickets and said the line which still resonates for dopes like me who still root for the O&amp;#039;s: &amp;quot;Baltimore? That&amp;#039;s like being hit in the head with a crow bar once a day. &amp;quot; Ugh. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too am a Baltimore sports fan! Baltimore Sports teams have been quite successful considering none of their franchises are ancient. The Colts were only in Baltimore for roughly 30 years yet had many championships to boast. They were also involved in some of the most pivotal games in NFL history: the 1958 Championship game versus the New York Giants which ushered in the era of televised football, Super Bowl III where the upstart New York Jets from the Mickey Mouse League (the AFL) beat the Colts in one of the biggest upsets leading to the merger in 1970, and &amp;quot;the ghost to the post&amp;quot; game in 1977 vs. the Raiders. The Orioles were a great team in the late &amp;#039;60s and early &amp;#039;70s and could have won even more championships. Cal Ripken will go down as one of the best and purest players in the game, now if he could just take over the team they could return to prominence. Now to my point, I think this is an important movie because without the Post article (or any other press investigation of the break-in) there is a good chance that the crimes of the Nixon administration would have gone unchecked. Movies like Stone&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Nixon&amp;#039;&amp;#039; do not place much emphasis on the Post article, but without Woodstein&amp;#039;s work would there have been a resignation? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of the methods of historical movies talked about in &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; are present in this movie. Historic TV clips were used throughout the movie and did a good job of helping contributing to the historic feel of the movie. They also follow the method of the protagonist character Bernstein and Woodward and villian character CREEP and those involved with the coverup. There is always a feeling of paranoia throughout the movie showed by the dark scenes and especially when Woodward meets with Bernstein to show the potential danger even when it never directly shows any characters planning to do anything against Woodward and Bernstein. There is also the resolution at the end of the movie that shows the success of the protagonists. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the way the filmmakers incorporated actual television and sound clips into the narrative.  They are interspersed throughout the film, giving the audience historical and political context, yet they are not the primary focus.  This is Woodward and Bernstein&amp;#039;s story, as Dr. McClurken mentioned in class.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall Comments on Movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I completely agree that this type of journalism is vital to preserving democracy, does anyone feel like in the post-Watergate world we are too quick in assuming the worst of our politicians (perhaps this is a bad question in the post Bush era)? This was a sentiment brought up in a book I had to read for another class which addressed declining voter turnout, and I was curious if anyone else felt that the media now perhaps tries too hard to uncover the next Watergate? The book (The Vanishing Voter) argues that the media has taken a &amp;quot;never again&amp;quot; type stance toward political corruption and that this has at times led to overly negative news coverage, which has in turn depressed voters into apathy towards the whole political process. Is this a change in the practices of the media, or has this simply been exacerbated by the 24/7 news hole? This is a tricky situation in that we need to be kept abreast of these types of abuses, but after a while every little lead on political corruption does take its toll.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It&amp;#039;s largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was more of a lecture thing, but I did not realize how popular Nixon was. “Nixon and the environment”, “Nixon and China”, even “Nixon and Vietnam” seemed to all be pluses for him- and his approval ratings showed it. Nixon was an effective President, but because of Watergate I suppose that effectiveness will always be suspect. Because of the aforementioned reasons I kept asking myself, why would Nixon do this? Why would he utterly destroy his opponents when he had achieved rather impressive political feats?(I guess that begs the question: did he only have successes because of the obliteration of his opponents?) Either way I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that Nixon was a man so fraught with insecurity that he could never be satisfied with his successes.  Nixon was so plagued by his past failures that he was determined to have as much power as possible. The Alger Hiss case and The Checkers Speech were our warnings, but alas!-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very glad that the -Gate phenomenon was referenced in lecture. That is something that seriously drives me nuts. Who decides what gets -Gate status anyway? Why is there a Troopergate and Cigargate, but other political scandals get off the -Gate hook, so to speak? Why wasn&amp;#039;t John Edwards&amp;#039; cheating scandal called Infidelity-gate, or Dick Cheney&amp;#039;s hunting incident a few years back Shot-in-the-face-gate? Is there some unwritten journalist code that determines this naming process? And just last year this practice made its way into the sports world with the Spygate scandal that tainted the Patriots&amp;#039; undefeated regular season. What happens if there is a scandal involving an American spy in the future? Does this theoretical incident then get dubbed Spygate II, or does it get a less cool sounding -Gate name, I mean shouldn&amp;#039;t real life spies get first dibs on the -Gate name? What happens when there is a political scandal on the Golden Gate Bridge, is it then called Golden Gate-Gate or is that too stupid? What if there is a scandal literally involving a gate? Does this bother anyone else? Is it sad that I can muster more vitriol over something trivial like a scandal naming process rather than the scandal that supplied the name in the first place? Can I fit any more questions into a wiki-post?- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So I did some research and apparently there are 3 (!) Troopergates, 2 Spygates (both of which were sports related, as real spies the world over are no doubt shaking their heads in dismay) and 2 Grannygates. Also, there is an Iguanagate, a Tasergate (Sweet), and even a Bingogate. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Niiiice. Well said.  And no, I don&amp;#039;t think it&amp;#039;s sad that you&amp;#039;ve mustered this much vitriol about a trivial aspect. I do the same thing sometimes.  However, that may mean I&amp;#039;m just a sad case, too. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of sad that the name combo has degenerated in much the same way as the -Gate phenomenon. Where Woodstein was a combo of two young journalists on the rise, now we are subjected to Bennifer, Branjelina and others. I blame Nixon.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised by how small a role Deep Throat seemed to play in the film. He is referenced so much in pop culture and has been parodied by The Simpsons AND Family Guy, so he seems like a big deal. In the movie, though, he didn&amp;#039;t really do much or even seem to help that much. I guess I was just surprised by the amount of controversy over DT contrasted with what seems to be the role he played. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I&amp;#039;m in the minority so far... I really didn&amp;#039;t like the movie, I kept staring at the time elapse to see how much time was left in the film.  I was hoping I would like it because it sounded similar to the film I did for my project, but I just couldn&amp;#039;t get into this one. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;All the President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; had an interesting way of telling the Watergate Scandal. As we learned about the scandal yesterday we went from the inside out, whereas in the film we go from the outside in. It definitely gives a different but very informative perspective. I also found it interesting how little of a part Nixon played. Aside from the various news clips, which did give the movie an accurate feel, his name was not mentioned as often as other White House names. The movie focused more on his lackeys. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the movie but absolutely hated how it ended.  You&amp;#039;re going to make me sit there for 2 1/2 hours to watch all the build up of the break on the scandal and then breeze over Nixon resigning and all of the repercussions?  I don&amp;#039;t think so.  If you&amp;#039;re going to build up to the scandal breaking, at least make the movie climactic.  Seriously. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a way, I think the movie was most accurate in that I had trouble following what exactly was going on when they were throwing out all the names and piecing things together. Usually, I like to know what’s happening in a movie, and I get annoyed when I don’t. However, considering this movie is about Watergate, it seems appropriate that the story is convoluted. I had trouble keeping track of everyone being mentioned in class on Tuesday, so it only makes sense that I have the same problem with the movie too. Watergate is simply not an easy topic to follow unless you want a headache. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as a side comment: it was a little distracting to see Dustin Hoffman turn around and suddenly look like a lady. It was probably the long hair and tiny, thin body. I think the flared pants also had a little to do with it, though they were accurate for the time period. And standing next to Robert Redford certainly didn’t help. Not at all. Poor guy. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on Reading in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; mentioned how the other important figures involved in uncovering Watergate are never really talked about in the movie. I think it is reasonable in this movie because the movie never shows what really happens to cause Nixon to resign and never shows anything of what happens in the courts. The movie really is not about the Watergate Scandal, but about the role of Bernstein and Woodward in investigating the scandal. I think the primary message the movie is presenting is that Bernstein and Woodward helped pave the way towards the exposure of Nixon even if they did not have the big role in the Nixon investigations. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say, I liked how Toplin commented, in &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; that even if a historical film is horrible there is usually something correct about it, Such as the clothing or the backdrop setting.  There are very few comprehensive failures.  I really liked that, because we&amp;#039;ve had a variety of films this semester, ones that have been fairly awesome to not so much... (i.e. Pocahontas), but all of them have had some resounding correctness to it... even if just the backdrop scenery. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Toplin&amp;#039;s criticism of the movie is that it portrays Woodstein as being solely responsible for investigating and uncovering the Watergate scandal. I actually think that the film spent a good amount of time on the Post editors, Sloan, Segretti, the woman in charge of the money, etc. It seemed to show that they didn&amp;#039;t do it all on their own, and they had a lot of help along the way. Maybe part of his criticism is the fact that, regardless of the other characters in the movie, society has remembered only Woodstein (when we&amp;#039;ve discussed all semester how historical films should convey actual history to people). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case of this movie, though applicable to many historical films, I don&amp;#039;t think that criticism of creative license is overly important. For example, I don&amp;#039;t care if the exchanges between Woodstein were word-for-word. What is important is conveying the big picture story. I will agree, as we have discussed all semester, that the addition of new things is often pointless and off-putting to historians; however, as Toplin says, historical evidence is so fragmented, it is impossible to convey all sides. George Kennan discusses this idea in an article we read in 299, where he says that a historian, at the time they are writing, can only see such a small portion of the historical truth, and always at an angle - it is impossible to see all evidence from all sides. We can&amp;#039;t deny that historical books face the same problems, but the movies sure do get more people excited and interested (esp for a movie like this - how many kids wanted to grow up and be Wash Post reporters??) -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wish we had read the middle section - pgs 90-138 - a little earlier in the semester. I really liked the idea of &amp;quot;faction.&amp;quot; I feel like we have addressed some of the ideas in this section in class already, but it was interesting that historical films revolving around fictional characters have a higher success rate of impressing critics concerned about historical accuracy. I personally have mentioned this on the wiki before - for example in the Long Walk Home, I was happy to NOT see Rosa Parks and MLK attempted to be portrayed - instead, fictional characters represented themes and general things that happened during that period. I agree with Toplin that this is a more effective, and often times less criticized, method of portraying history in film. - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout this class, we have evaluated the historical accuracies and inaccuracies in historical films.  At times, I feel as if our nitpicky attacks of historical inaccuracies as scholars might be too harsh. Several times throughout the reading, Toplin discussed the format of the historical film in Hollywood and how diversions from the formula can sometimes have financially disastrous consequences for directors.  I agree with Toplin that it is more important for a historical film to portray the bigger picture, and sometimes the small fictional details which help make the movie more appealing to audiences do not matter that much. If a director inundated audiences with every historical detail and perspective, the movie most likely would not be very successful.  If a movie is unable to reach a wide audience, than whatever story the director is attempting to tell gets lost in obscurity. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Toplin mentioned movies that attempt to recount one specific event or one or two historical figures are more prone to criticism because, well they are easier to criticize.  The movies we have dubbed the most historically accurate this semester are ones that explain history from the &amp;quot;community&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; perspective (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Long Walk Home&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to name a few).  Lately this semester, we have focused on historical films revolving around one or two characters - &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the Fourth...&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;All The President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  These movies, along with my &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Cinderella Man&amp;#039;&amp;#039; project, have made me admire the efforts of these filmmakers focusing on one event or historical figure.  While these films tend to be under the microscope when viewed by film critics and historians, when they are done accurately, it provides viewers with facts and a specific perspective about the time period.  I personally enjoy these types of films because there is always another side to a story, but it&amp;#039;s not always clear what that side is.  History is never viewed by only one set of eyes, and movies are a great way to explore other visions. - David F.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 15 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-12-04T04:08:05Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m going to assume that all of the video clips and radio broadcasts were the originals, so showing the clips and audio clips of the time brings authenticity to the movie. Seeing as the movie was released only a few years after the scandal dissipated, and two years after Nixon&amp;#039;s resignation, it feels real. Nixon&amp;#039;s impeachment hearings made history back in the 1970s, and much like 9/11 was to us in 2003, people remember how they felt during that time. It&amp;#039;s akin to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in that it&amp;#039;s so close to the event. Unlike in the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039; where people were acting as people who lived two hundred years ago, these actors -remember-. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went.  The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film didn&amp;#039;t do a ton to explain this in detail, but through the newspaper headlines we see that Eagleton was picked as the original VP but then in other news snippets we see that McGovern is forced to be dropped from the ticket. Then in one of the planning meetings the editors joke over how nobody wants to take the now vacant VP spot, referencing the names mentioned in class. While this was something that fell outside of the focus of the film, it was nice to see that it was subtly worked into the story.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the women shown working in this movie were doing various types of secretarial work, and not working as say reporters.  I&amp;#039;m guessing this is an accurate portrayal of working women of this time, since this movie took place during the woman&amp;#039;s rights movement.  -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wondered for a while why &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; always introduced themselves as &amp;quot;Hi this is ____ from the Washington Post,&amp;quot; and then go on. But then I realized that it was important (at least back then) for reporters to identify themselves. I felt that the &amp;quot;on record&amp;quot; vs &amp;quot;off record&amp;quot; barriers were really clearly defined. Somehow I am a little skeptical that reporters today are so gracious and just, though I haven&amp;#039;t been interviewed by the Washington Post recently so how do I really know? - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kellye&amp;#039;s comment about Deep Throat, I thought his role in the movie was sufficient.  In the film, it seemed that Woodward only went to his source when he and Bernstein ran into a road-block during their investigation (which was often).  Furthermore, a lot of people thought DT wasn&amp;#039;t as helpful too Woodward, based on the movie.  I can only imagine the position DT was in, torn between compromising his position at the FBI and doing what is just and patriotic.  I also wondered why DT only met with Woodward and not Bernstein, but apparently DT was only Woodward&amp;#039;s source and DT never met Bernstein at all during the investigation.  This was key when Felt (DT) was asked if he ever leaked information to Woodward AND Bernstein.  According to the book, Woodward wondered if Felt denied this and got out of it b/c of a technicality (he only leaked info to Woodward).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt the movie did a pretty good job of portraying the relationship of Bernstein and Woodward. Though they worked together in the movie their were several signs that they didn&amp;#039;t particularly like each other since they would do things without telling each other about it and they were portrayed a bit competitive. This movie also does a good job at showing the depth and significance of CREEP in showing just how deep they were in the American government and talking about the various things they were involved in. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I think the movie was pretty accurate about describing the Watergate happenings and the people involved and their actions. Whether it was right about Woodstein’s investigative processes, I couldn’t really say since we didn’t go too deep on that in class, and I haven’t read Woodstein’s book. However, because the movie was based on their book, I’ll assume it was fairly accurate. Of course we also have to keep in mind that the book likely embellished a few things… for instance, it seems the supposed methods of communication with Deep Throat that Woodstein wrote about are factually questionable. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought they did a great job in using the proximity of the time the film was made to the actual events without abusing it. We could see clearly the disbelief of the general public (well not too much of that actually) and of the editors themselves (not only because of fear of risking journalistic integrity--but because generally people trusted that the government did not do sleazy, illegal stuff, at least not at the Presidential level). I thought the movie approached representing opinions and reasoning behind secrecy and such was really well done-- maybe, again, because the movie and the characters seemed so real, as it was made recently after the events.  --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps things have changed since the 70s, but how did Woodstein never get caught in traffic? I mean this is DC we are talking about here. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am curious as to whether the safety of Woodward and Bernstein was played up for the sake of the film? Certainly they were being spied on, but did they really have to fear their lives? That whole fear aspect seemed a bit awkward in the film and I am curious if it was a real fear or something played up to add tension in the film?- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Bryan-- I think that when a dude who works for the FBI makes you meet him in a parking garage in the middle of the night over a period of about 8 months and finally tells you that people in every part and in every level of the government are involved as conspirators to do illegal bidding for the President, anyone would get freaked out that he was being watched or bugged or possibly endangered. So even if Woodward and Burnstein weren&amp;#039;t being spied on--I think they at least had just cause to fear that they might be in the context of the movie.-- Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the book and in the movie, Woodward would put the flag up whenever he wanted to meet w/ Deep Throat, and DT would mark the NY Times in case he wanted to meet w/ Woodward.  However, the movie primarily showed Woodward making an effort to meet DT.  How often did DT request to meet w/ Woodward?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a hard time believing that it was so easy to get into contact with high ranking White House officials. I am fairly certain that White House security was not that lax. Woodward and Bernstein would need to get into contact with someone and could just call the direct lines to their secretaries. I may be wrong but this seems unrealistic to me. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Mallory, it concerned me how easily Woodstein was able to call and either get secretaries of very high ranking White House officials or even the officials themselves.  And the way people would just give up information on where someone was amazed me.  You would think that someone who was the Special Council to the President wouldn&amp;#039;t be able to be tracked down with the ease of just &amp;quot;oh he&amp;#039;s actually in this office right now, let me give you that number.&amp;quot;  It seems really odd to me. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My issue with the movie is that the film portrayed Woodward and Bernstein as the heroes of the investigation: the only guys willing to bring down the high-ranking bullies of the government.  Although the film alludes to the on-going special investigation by the Grand Jury, &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; seem to get all the credit for the discovery of the cover-up and the ultimate downfall of President Nixon.~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another issue I have with the film is the lack of mention by Woodward or Bernstein of Nixon&amp;#039;s involvement.  Their investigation seems to end when they finally get confirmation of Halderman.It doesn&amp;#039;t make sense to me that this ruthless reporting team would just stop at Halderman and not link the trail to Nixon. Since the legacy of Watergate is centered around President Nixon, why wouldn&amp;#039;t the movie at least allude to the President&amp;#039;s involvement? ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mallory sort of. It was surprising to me in the beginning that a librarian would be perfectly willing to look up and divulge the for any old person calling up on the phone the requested materials or checked out materials of patron of the library... and the White HOuse library! Really? She quickly gets intercepted and told to change her story but what was she doing giving that information in the first place. Even in regular old public libraries, personal check-out accounts are supposed to be private. Did people not care as much back then? Also in Juliann&amp;#039;s point about where the movie ends... I think it gets cut off there not to say that Woodstein stopped their investigation and journalism on the topic but that that was the key piece of the puzzle that lead to the house of cards falling down. Once they get the magnitude of the scandal revealed, other reporters, newspapers, and the public investigations are probably on equal footing with them and the movie can&amp;#039;t continue with them as the courageous, lone detectives. But I do find it interesting that, except for in the closing typewriting scene, they really don&amp;#039;t go as far as accusing Nixon of being a major conspirator or knowingly involved-- was it because the movie was made practically in the then-present day?--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think probably the biggest fault of the movie for me is how it ends. For one, it’s very abrupt. However, the largest issue is that there is no recognition of the other contributions made to the Watergate case. Of course the movie is about Woodstein investigating Watergate, so I expect it to be about them rather than other aspects of the investigation involving the courts and Congress and what not. I don’t even think the other investigations necessarily had to be mentioned during the movie itself. The problem comes with the ending where it’s not even acknowledged that there was more investigation going on other than Woodstein’s. The movie makes it appear that only the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Washington Post&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reports brought light to the corruption in the White House. All it would’ve taken was an informational card at the end to satisfy me. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
Would this movie really be a secondary source about the Watergate scandal? Dr. McClurken said that the filmmaker was thinking about making the movie as the scandal was happening and that the rights to make a movie out of the book was bought some time around then.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One revelation that the movie showed through Woodstein&amp;#039;s work that I think is important is how the dirty tricks had been going on since long before the Watergate break-in, back at least to the formation of CREEP.  At one point, Bradlee told Woodstein that only half the public polled had heard of the name Watergate.  We know that by the time Nixon resigned, the whole nation knew about it, but they may not have known just how far back it went.  With all Woodstein&amp;#039;s investigation and the stated realization of how much larger the issue was than the break-in, this shows that CREEP&amp;#039;s workings had been successfully kept secret for a long time. -Whitney Holcomb.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like it would be tough for this movie to be considered as a primary source on the scandal itself.  It was focused much more on Woodward and Bernstein, as we were warned, and although it did discuss the scandal, it didn&amp;#039;t really cover all of it.  A lot of it was based on the early findings and discoveries and how long it took Woodward and Bernstein to piece everything together and kind of breezed over everything that happened in about 30 seconds at the end of the movie.  But it could definitely be used as a source looking at Woodward and Bernstein and their interactions at the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Washington Post&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. But I think that the movie can also be worked into that &amp;quot;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;quot; genre in that it was made around the time of the actual event.  The clothes were authentic and it nearly killed me, as was Dustin Hoffman&amp;#039;s beautifully feathered hair.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Kellye, this movie may have definitely helped to push people over to Democrats in 1976 because they were reminded right before the election about the Watergate Scandal and that many Republicans tried to cover it up and lied about it.--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning, there was darkness and it was good; then there was a loud and jolting noise of a typewriter. I wonder if the filmmakers did that to convey how the American were in relation to knowing what was going on with President Nixon? The people were happy because they didn&amp;#039;t know what was happening, then Woodstein reported what their investigation had uncovered and since they wrote via the typewriter, that machine woke the population up with a startle.-Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tagging onto Christine&amp;#039;s comment, I think it was a very important preface to the movie that McClurken specified that it was a movie about the Washington Post breaking the story of Watergate. Part of me was like &amp;quot;what? we didn&amp;#039;t see what actually happens!&amp;quot; but we did see the Post succeed in cracking the story, and the trial and all those details were irrelevant to the Post story. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that it shows the half-legitimate ways Woodstein were &amp;quot;confirming&amp;quot; information from sources.  They could be very indirect, without making the people being questioned explicitly state an answer, effectively getting information from those who didn&amp;#039;t want to talk.  My favorite was when Bernstein counted to ten on the phone about Haldeman.  Also, there was getting the bookkeeper to nod at the initials L, M, and P.  Third, when they got Sloan to finally say that he &amp;quot;would not have a problem&amp;quot; with their accusatory article if they published it. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reference to Dr. M&amp;#039;s reference to the Orioles in lecture, I recognized the actor who played Rosenfeld, Jack Warden, as Juror 7 from 12 Angry Men. He was the guy who kept wanting to reach a verdict quickly because he had Yankees tickets and said the line which still resonates for dopes like me who still root for the O&amp;#039;s: &amp;quot;Baltimore? That&amp;#039;s like being hit in the head with a crow bar once a day. &amp;quot; Ugh. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too am a Baltimore sports fan! Baltimore Sports teams have been quite successful considering none of their franchises are ancient. The Colts were only in Baltimore for roughly 30 years yet had many championships to boast. They were also involved in some of the most pivotal games in NFL history: the 1958 Championship game versus the New York Giants which ushered in the era of televised football, Super Bowl III where the upstart New York Jets from the Mickey Mouse League (the AFL) beat the Colts in one of the biggest upsets leading to the merger in 1970, and &amp;quot;the ghost to the post&amp;quot; game in 1977 vs. the Raiders. The Orioles were a great team in the late &amp;#039;60s and early &amp;#039;70s and could have won even more championships. Cal Ripken will go down as one of the best and purest players in the game, now if he could just take over the team they could return to prominence. Now to my point, I think this is an important movie because without the Post article (or any other press investigation of the break-in) there is a good chance that the crimes of the Nixon administration would have gone unchecked. Movies like Stone&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Nixon&amp;#039;&amp;#039; do not place much emphasis on the Post article, but without Woodstein&amp;#039;s work would there have been a resignation? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of the methods of historical movies talked about in &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; are present in this movie. Historic TV clips were used throughout the movie and did a good job of helping contributing to the historic feel of the movie. They also follow the method of the protagonist character Bernstein and Woodward and villian character CREEP and those involved with the coverup. There is always a feeling of paranoia throughout the movie showed by the dark scenes and especially when Woodward meets with Bernstein to show the potential danger even when it never directly shows any characters planning to do anything against Woodward and Bernstein. There is also the resolution at the end of the movie that shows the success of the protagonists. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the way the filmmakers incorporated actual television and sound clips into the narrative.  They are interspersed throughout the film, giving the audience historical and political context, yet they are not the primary focus.  This is Woodward and Bernstein&amp;#039;s story, as Dr. McClurken mentioned in class.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall Comments on Movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I completely agree that this type of journalism is vital to preserving democracy, does anyone feel like in the post-Watergate world we are too quick in assuming the worst of our politicians (perhaps this is a bad question in the post Bush era)? This was a sentiment brought up in a book I had to read for another class which addressed declining voter turnout, and I was curious if anyone else felt that the media now perhaps tries too hard to uncover the next Watergate? The book (The Vanishing Voter) argues that the media has taken a &amp;quot;never again&amp;quot; type stance toward political corruption and that this has at times led to overly negative news coverage, which has in turn depressed voters into apathy towards the whole political process. Is this a change in the practices of the media, or has this simply been exacerbated by the 24/7 news hole? This is a tricky situation in that we need to be kept abreast of these types of abuses, but after a while every little lead on political corruption does take its toll.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It&amp;#039;s largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was more of a lecture thing, but I did not realize how popular Nixon was. “Nixon and the environment”, “Nixon and China”, even “Nixon and Vietnam” seemed to all be pluses for him- and his approval ratings showed it. Nixon was an effective President, but because of Watergate I suppose that effectiveness will always be suspect. Because of the aforementioned reasons I kept asking myself, why would Nixon do this? Why would he utterly destroy his opponents when he had achieved rather impressive political feats?(I guess that begs the question: did he only have successes because of the obliteration of his opponents?) Either way I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that Nixon was a man so fraught with insecurity that he could never be satisfied with his successes.  Nixon was so plagued by his past failures that he was determined to have as much power as possible. The Alger Hiss case and The Checkers Speech were our warnings, but alas!-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very glad that the -Gate phenomenon was referenced in lecture. That is something that seriously drives me nuts. Who decides what gets -Gate status anyway? Why is there a Troopergate and Cigargate, but other political scandals get off the -Gate hook, so to speak? Why wasn&amp;#039;t John Edwards&amp;#039; cheating scandal called Infidelity-gate, or Dick Cheney&amp;#039;s hunting incident a few years back Shot-in-the-face-gate? Is there some unwritten journalist code that determines this naming process? And just last year this practice made its way into the sports world with the Spygate scandal that tainted the Patriots&amp;#039; undefeated regular season. What happens if there is a scandal involving an American spy in the future? Does this theoretical incident then get dubbed Spygate II, or does it get a less cool sounding -Gate name, I mean shouldn&amp;#039;t real life spies get first dibs on the -Gate name? What happens when there is a political scandal on the Golden Gate Bridge, is it then called Golden Gate-Gate or is that too stupid? What if there is a scandal literally involving a gate? Does this bother anyone else? Is it sad that I can muster more vitriol over something trivial like a scandal naming process rather than the scandal that supplied the name in the first place? Can I fit any more questions into a wiki-post?- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So I did some research and apparently there are 3 (!) Troopergates, 2 Spygates (both of which were sports related, as real spies the world over are no doubt shaking their heads in dismay) and 2 Grannygates. Also, there is an Iguanagate, a Tasergate (Sweet), and even a Bingogate. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Niiiice. Well said.  And no, I don&amp;#039;t think it&amp;#039;s sad that you&amp;#039;ve mustered this much vitriol about a trivial aspect. I do the same thing sometimes.  However, that may mean I&amp;#039;m just a sad case, too. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of sad that the name combo has degenerated in much the same way as the -Gate phenomenon. Where Woodstein was a combo of two young journalists on the rise, now we are subjected to Bennifer, Branjelina and others. I blame Nixon.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised by how small a role Deep Throat seemed to play in the film. He is referenced so much in pop culture and has been parodied by The Simpsons AND Family Guy, so he seems like a big deal. In the movie, though, he didn&amp;#039;t really do much or even seem to help that much. I guess I was just surprised by the amount of controversy over DT contrasted with what seems to be the role he played. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I&amp;#039;m in the minority so far... I really didn&amp;#039;t like the movie, I kept staring at the time elapse to see how much time was left in the film.  I was hoping I would like it because it sounded similar to the film I did for my project, but I just couldn&amp;#039;t get into this one. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;All the President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; had an interesting way of telling the Watergate Scandal. As we learned about the scandal yesterday we went from the inside out, whereas in the film we go from the outside in. It definitely gives a different but very informative perspective. I also found it interesting how little of a part Nixon played. Aside from the various news clips, which did give the movie an accurate feel, his name was not mentioned as often as other White House names. The movie focused more on his lackeys. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the movie but absolutely hated how it ended.  You&amp;#039;re going to make me sit there for 2 1/2 hours to watch all the build up of the break on the scandal and then breeze over Nixon resigning and all of the repercussions?  I don&amp;#039;t think so.  If you&amp;#039;re going to build up to the scandal breaking, at least make the movie climactic.  Seriously. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a way, I think the movie was most accurate in that I had trouble following what exactly was going on when they were throwing out all the names and piecing things together. Usually, I like to know what’s happening in a movie, and I get annoyed when I don’t. However, considering this movie is about Watergate, it seems appropriate that the story is convoluted. I had trouble keeping track of everyone being mentioned in class on Tuesday, so it only makes sense that I have the same problem with the movie too. Watergate is simply not an easy topic to follow unless you want a headache. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as a side comment: it was a little distracting to see Dustin Hoffman turn around and suddenly look like a lady. It was probably the long hair and tiny, thin body. I think the flared pants also had a little to do with it, though they were accurate for the time period. And standing next to Robert Redford certainly didn’t help. Not at all. Poor guy. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on Reading in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; mentioned how the other important figures involved in uncovering Watergate are never really talked about in the movie. I think it is reasonable in this movie because the movie never shows what really happens to cause Nixon to resign and never shows anything of what happens in the courts. The movie really is not about the Watergate Scandal, but about the role of Bernstein and Woodward in investigating the scandal. I think the primary message the movie is presenting is that Bernstein and Woodward helped pave the way towards the exposure of Nixon even if they did not have the big role in the Nixon investigations. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say, I liked how Toplin commented, in &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; that even if a historical film is horrible there is usually something correct about it, Such as the clothing or the backdrop setting.  There are very few comprehensive failures.  I really liked that, because we&amp;#039;ve had a variety of films this semester, ones that have been fairly awesome to not so much... (i.e. Pocahontas), but all of them have had some resounding correctness to it... even if just the backdrop scenery. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Toplin&amp;#039;s criticism of the movie is that it portrays Woodstein as being solely responsible for investigating and uncovering the Watergate scandal. I actually think that the film spent a good amount of time on the Post editors, Sloan, Segretti, the woman in charge of the money, etc. It seemed to show that they didn&amp;#039;t do it all on their own, and they had a lot of help along the way. Maybe part of his criticism is the fact that, regardless of the other characters in the movie, society has remembered only Woodstein (when we&amp;#039;ve discussed all semester how historical films should convey actual history to people). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case of this movie, though applicable to many historical films, I don&amp;#039;t think that criticism of creative license is overly important. For example, I don&amp;#039;t care if the exchanges between Woodstein were word-for-word. What is important is conveying the big picture story. I will agree, as we have discussed all semester, that the addition of new things is often pointless and off-putting to historians; however, as Toplin says, historical evidence is so fragmented, it is impossible to convey all sides. George Kennan discusses this idea in an article we read in 299, where he says that a historian, at the time they are writing, can only see such a small portion of the historical truth, and always at an angle - it is impossible to see all evidence from all sides. We can&amp;#039;t deny that historical books face the same problems, but the movies sure do get more people excited and interested (esp for a movie like this - how many kids wanted to grow up and be Wash Post reporters??) -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wish we had read the middle section - pgs 90-138 - a little earlier in the semester. I really liked the idea of &amp;quot;faction.&amp;quot; I feel like we have addressed some of the ideas in this section in class already, but it was interesting that historical films revolving around fictional characters have a higher success rate of impressing critics concerned about historical accuracy. I personally have mentioned this on the wiki before - for example in the Long Walk Home, I was happy to NOT see Rosa Parks and MLK attempted to be portrayed - instead, fictional characters represented themes and general things that happened during that period. I agree with Toplin that this is a more effective, and often times less criticized, method of portraying history in film. - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout this class, we have evaluated the historical accuracies and inaccuracies in historical films.  At times, I feel as if our nitpicky attacks of historical inaccuracies as scholars might be too harsh. Several times throughout the reading, Toplin discussed the format of the historical film in Hollywood and how diversions from the formula can sometimes have financially disastrous consequences for directors.  I agree with Toplin that it is more important for a historical film to portray the bigger picture, and sometimes the small fictional details which help make the movie more appealing to audiences do not matter that much. If a director inundated audiences with every historical detail and perspective, the movie most likely would not be very successful.  If a movie is unable to reach a wide audience, than whatever story the director is attempting to tell gets lost in obscurity. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Toplin mentioned movies that attempt to recount one specific event or one or two historical figures are more prone to criticism because, well they are easier to criticize.  The movies we have dubbed the most historically accurate this semester are ones that explain history from the &amp;quot;community&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; perspective (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Long Walk Home&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to name a few).  Lately this semester, we have focused on historical films revolving around one or two characters - &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the Fourth...&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;All The President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  These movies, along with my &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Cinderella Man&amp;#039;&amp;#039; project, have made me admire the efforts of these filmmakers focusing on one event or historical figure.  While these films tend to be under the microscope when viewed by film critics and historians, when they are done accurately, it provides viewers with facts and a specific perspective about the time period.  I personally enjoy these types of films because there is always another side to a story, but it&amp;#039;s not always clear what that side is.  History is never viewed by only one set of eyes, and movies are a great way to explore other visions. - David F.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 15 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-12-04T03:56:03Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m going to assume that all of the video clips and radio broadcasts were the originals, so showing the clips and audio clips of the time brings authenticity to the movie. Seeing as the movie was released only a few years after the scandal dissipated, and two years after Nixon&amp;#039;s resignation, it feels real. Nixon&amp;#039;s impeachment hearings made history back in the 1970s, and much like 9/11 was to us in 2003, people remember how they felt during that time. It&amp;#039;s akin to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in that it&amp;#039;s so close to the event. Unlike in the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039; where people were acting as people who lived two hundred years ago, these actors -remember-. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went.  The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film didn&amp;#039;t do a ton to explain this in detail, but through the newspaper headlines we see that Eagleton was picked as the original VP but then in other news snippets we see that McGovern is forced to be dropped from the ticket. Then in one of the planning meetings the editors joke over how nobody wants to take the now vacant VP spot, referencing the names mentioned in class. While this was something that fell outside of the focus of the film, it was nice to see that it was subtly worked into the story.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the women shown working in this movie were doing various types of secretarial work, and not working as say reporters.  I&amp;#039;m guessing this is an accurate portrayal of working women of this time, since this movie took place during the woman&amp;#039;s rights movement.  -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wondered for a while why &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; always introduced themselves as &amp;quot;Hi this is ____ from the Washington Post,&amp;quot; and then go on. But then I realized that it was important (at least back then) for reporters to identify themselves. I felt that the &amp;quot;on record&amp;quot; vs &amp;quot;off record&amp;quot; barriers were really clearly defined. Somehow I am a little skeptical that reporters today are so gracious and just, though I haven&amp;#039;t been interviewed by the Washington Post recently so how do I really know? - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kellye&amp;#039;s comment about Deep Throat, I thought his role in the movie was sufficient.  In the film, it seemed that Woodward only went to his source when he and Bernstein ran into a road-block during their investigation (which was often).  I also wondered why DT only met with Woodward and not Bernstein, but apparently DT was only Woodward&amp;#039;s source and DT never met Bernstein at all during the investigation.  This was key when Felt (DT) was asked if he ever leaked information to Woodward AND Bernstein.  According to the book, Woodward wondered if Felt denied this and got out of it b/c of a technicality (he only leaked info to Woodward).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt the movie did a pretty good job of portraying the relationship of Bernstein and Woodward. Though they worked together in the movie their were several signs that they didn&amp;#039;t particularly like each other since they would do things without telling each other about it and they were portrayed a bit competitive. This movie also does a good job at showing the depth and significance of CREEP in showing just how deep they were in the American government and talking about the various things they were involved in. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I think the movie was pretty accurate about describing the Watergate happenings and the people involved and their actions. Whether it was right about Woodstein’s investigative processes, I couldn’t really say since we didn’t go too deep on that in class, and I haven’t read Woodstein’s book. However, because the movie was based on their book, I’ll assume it was fairly accurate. Of course we also have to keep in mind that the book likely embellished a few things… for instance, it seems the supposed methods of communication with Deep Throat that Woodstein wrote about are factually questionable. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps things have changed since the 70s, but how did Woodstein never get caught in traffic? I mean this is DC we are talking about here. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am curious as to whether the safety of Woodward and Bernstein was played up for the sake of the film? Certainly they were being spied on, but did they really have to fear their lives? That whole fear aspect seemed a bit awkward in the film and I am curious if it was a real fear or something played up to add tension in the film?- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Bryan-- I think that when a dude who works for the FBI makes you meet him in a parking garage in the middle of the night over a period of about 8 months and finally tells you that people in every part and in every level of the government are involved as conspirators to do illegal bidding for the President, anyone would get freaked out that he was being watched or bugged or possibly endangered. So even if Woodward and Burnstein weren&amp;#039;t being spied on--I think they at least had just cause to fear that they might be in the context of the movie.-- Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the book and in the movie, Woodward would put the flag up whenever he wanted to meet w/ Deep Throat, and DT would mark the NY Times in case he wanted to meet w/ Woodward.  However, the movie primarily showed Woodward making an effort to meet DT.  How often did DT request to meet w/ Woodward?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a hard time believing that it was so easy to get into contact with high ranking White House officials. I am fairly certain that White House security was not that lax. Woodward and Bernstein would need to get into contact with someone and could just call the direct lines to their secretaries. I may be wrong but this seems unrealistic to me. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Mallory, it concerned me how easily Woodstein was able to call and either get secretaries of very high ranking White House officials or even the officials themselves.  And the way people would just give up information on where someone was amazed me.  You would think that someone who was the Special Council to the President wouldn&amp;#039;t be able to be tracked down with the ease of just &amp;quot;oh he&amp;#039;s actually in this office right now, let me give you that number.&amp;quot;  It seems really odd to me. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My issue with the movie is that the film portrayed Woodward and Bernstein as the heroes of the investigation: the only guys willing to bring down the high-ranking bullies of the government.  Although the film alludes to the on-going special investigation by the Grand Jury, &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; seem to get all the credit for the discovery of the cover-up and the ultimate downfall of President Nixon.~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another issue I have with the film is the lack of mention by Woodward or Bernstein of Nixon&amp;#039;s involvement.  Their investigation seems to end when they finally get confirmation of Halderman.It doesn&amp;#039;t make sense to me that this ruthless reporting team would just stop at Halderman and not link the trail to Nixon. Since the legacy of Watergate is centered around President Nixon, why wouldn&amp;#039;t the movie at least allude to the President&amp;#039;s involvement? ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mallory sort of. It was surprising to me in the beginning that a librarian would be perfectly willing to look up and divulge the for any old person calling up on the phone the requested materials or checked out materials of patron of the library... and the White HOuse library! Really? She quickly gets intercepted and told to change her story but what was she doing giving that information in the first place. Even in regular old public libraries, personal check-out accounts are supposed to be private. Did people not care as much back then? Also in Juliann&amp;#039;s point about where the movie ends... I think it gets cut off there not to say that Woodstein stopped their investigation and journalism on the topic but that that was the key piece of the puzzle that lead to the house of cards falling down. Once they get the magnitude of the scandal revealed, other reporters, newspapers, and the public investigations are probably on equal footing with them and the movie can&amp;#039;t continue with them as the courageous, lone detectives. But I do find it interesting that, except for in the closing typewriting scene, they really don&amp;#039;t go as far as accusing Nixon of being a major conspirator or knowingly involved-- was it because the movie was made practically in the then-present day?--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think probably the biggest fault of the movie for me is how it ends. For one, it’s very abrupt. However, the largest issue is that there is no recognition of the other contributions made to the Watergate case. Of course the movie is about Woodstein investigating Watergate, so I expect it to be about them rather than other aspects of the investigation involving the courts and Congress and what not. I don’t even think the other investigations necessarily had to be mentioned during the movie itself. The problem comes with the ending where it’s not even acknowledged that there was more investigation going on other than Woodstein’s. The movie makes it appear that only the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Washington Post&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reports brought light to the corruption in the White House. All it would’ve taken was an informational card at the end to satisfy me. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
Would this movie really be a secondary source about the Watergate scandal? Dr. McClurken said that the filmmaker was thinking about making the movie as the scandal was happening and that the rights to make a movie out of the book was bought some time around then.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One revelation that the movie showed through Woodstein&amp;#039;s work that I think is important is how the dirty tricks had been going on since long before the Watergate break-in, back at least to the formation of CREEP.  At one point, Bradlee told Woodstein that only half the public polled had heard of the name Watergate.  We know that by the time Nixon resigned, the whole nation knew about it, but they may not have known just how far back it went.  With all Woodstein&amp;#039;s investigation and the stated realization of how much larger the issue was than the break-in, this shows that CREEP&amp;#039;s workings had been successfully kept secret for a long time. -Whitney Holcomb.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like it would be tough for this movie to be considered as a primary source on the scandal itself.  It was focused much more on Woodward and Bernstein, as we were warned, and although it did discuss the scandal, it didn&amp;#039;t really cover all of it.  A lot of it was based on the early findings and discoveries and how long it took Woodward and Bernstein to piece everything together and kind of breezed over everything that happened in about 30 seconds at the end of the movie.  But it could definitely be used as a source looking at Woodward and Bernstein and their interactions at the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Washington Post&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. But I think that the movie can also be worked into that &amp;quot;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;quot; genre in that it was made around the time of the actual event.  The clothes were authentic and it nearly killed me, as was Dustin Hoffman&amp;#039;s beautifully feathered hair.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Kellye, this movie may have definitely helped to push people over to Democrats in 1976 because they were reminded right before the election about the Watergate Scandal and that many Republicans tried to cover it up and lied about it.--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning, there was darkness and it was good; then there was a loud and jolting noise of a typewriter. I wonder if the filmmakers did that to convey how the American were in relation to knowing what was going on with President Nixon? The people were happy because they didn&amp;#039;t know what was happening, then Woodstein reported what their investigation had uncovered and since they wrote via the typewriter, that machine woke the population up with a startle.-Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tagging onto Christine&amp;#039;s comment, I think it was a very important preface to the movie that McClurken specified that it was a movie about the Washington Post breaking the story of Watergate. Part of me was like &amp;quot;what? we didn&amp;#039;t see what actually happens!&amp;quot; but we did see the Post succeed in cracking the story, and the trial and all those details were irrelevant to the Post story. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that it shows the half-legitimate ways Woodstein were &amp;quot;confirming&amp;quot; information from sources.  They could be very indirect, without making the people being questioned explicitly state an answer, effectively getting information from those who didn&amp;#039;t want to talk.  My favorite was when Bernstein counted to ten on the phone about Haldeman.  Also, there was getting the bookkeeper to nod at the initials L, M, and P.  Third, when they got Sloan to finally say that he &amp;quot;would not have a problem&amp;quot; with their accusatory article if they published it. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reference to Dr. M&amp;#039;s reference to the Orioles in lecture, I recognized the actor who played Rosenfeld, Jack Warden, as Juror 7 from 12 Angry Men. He was the guy who kept wanting to reach a verdict quickly because he had Yankees tickets and said the line which still resonates for dopes like me who still root for the O&amp;#039;s: &amp;quot;Baltimore? That&amp;#039;s like being hit in the head with a crow bar once a day. &amp;quot; Ugh. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too am a Baltimore sports fan! Baltimore Sports teams have been quite successful considering none of their franchises are ancient. The Colts were only in Baltimore for roughly 30 years yet had many championships to boast. They were also involved in some of the most pivotal games in NFL history: the 1958 Championship game versus the New York Giants which ushered in the era of televised football, Super Bowl III where the upstart New York Jets from the Mickey Mouse League (the AFL) beat the Colts in one of the biggest upsets leading to the merger in 1970, and &amp;quot;the ghost to the post&amp;quot; game in 1977 vs. the Raiders. The Orioles were a great team in the late &amp;#039;60s and early &amp;#039;70s and could have won even more championships. Cal Ripken will go down as one of the best and purest players in the game, now if he could just take over the team they could return to prominence. Now to my point, I think this is an important movie because without the Post article (or any other press investigation of the break-in) there is a good chance that the crimes of the Nixon administration would have gone unchecked. Movies like Stone&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Nixon&amp;#039;&amp;#039; do not place much emphasis on the Post article, but without Woodstein&amp;#039;s work would there have been a resignation? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of the methods of historical movies talked about in &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; are present in this movie. Historic TV clips were used throughout the movie and did a good job of helping contributing to the historic feel of the movie. They also follow the method of the protagonist character Bernstein and Woodward and villian character CREEP and those involved with the coverup. There is always a feeling of paranoia throughout the movie showed by the dark scenes and especially when Woodward meets with Bernstein to show the potential danger even when it never directly shows any characters planning to do anything against Woodward and Bernstein. There is also the resolution at the end of the movie that shows the success of the protagonists. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall Comments on Movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I completely agree that this type of journalism is vital to preserving democracy, does anyone feel like in the post-Watergate world we are too quick in assuming the worst of our politicians (perhaps this is a bad question in the post Bush era)? This was a sentiment brought up in a book I had to read for another class which addressed declining voter turnout, and I was curious if anyone else felt that the media now perhaps tries too hard to uncover the next Watergate? The book (The Vanishing Voter) argues that the media has taken a &amp;quot;never again&amp;quot; type stance toward political corruption and that this has at times led to overly negative news coverage, which has in turn depressed voters into apathy towards the whole political process. Is this a change in the practices of the media, or has this simply been exacerbated by the 24/7 news hole? This is a tricky situation in that we need to be kept abreast of these types of abuses, but after a while every little lead on political corruption does take its toll.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It&amp;#039;s largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was more of a lecture thing, but I did not realize how popular Nixon was. “Nixon and the environment”, “Nixon and China”, even “Nixon and Vietnam” seemed to all be pluses for him- and his approval ratings showed it. Nixon was an effective President, but because of Watergate I suppose that effectiveness will always be suspect. Because of the aforementioned reasons I kept asking myself, why would Nixon do this? Why would he utterly destroy his opponents when he had achieved rather impressive political feats?(I guess that begs the question: did he only have successes because of the obliteration of his opponents?) Either way I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that Nixon was a man so fraught with insecurity that he could never be satisfied with his successes.  Nixon was so plagued by his past failures that he was determined to have as much power as possible. The Alger Hiss case and The Checkers Speech were our warnings, but alas!-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very glad that the -Gate phenomenon was referenced in lecture. That is something that seriously drives me nuts. Who decides what gets -Gate status anyway? Why is there a Troopergate and Cigargate, but other political scandals get off the -Gate hook, so to speak? Why wasn&amp;#039;t John Edwards&amp;#039; cheating scandal called Infidelity-gate, or Dick Cheney&amp;#039;s hunting incident a few years back Shot-in-the-face-gate? Is there some unwritten journalist code that determines this naming process? And just last year this practice made its way into the sports world with the Spygate scandal that tainted the Patriots&amp;#039; undefeated regular season. What happens if there is a scandal involving an American spy in the future? Does this theoretical incident then get dubbed Spygate II, or does it get a less cool sounding -Gate name, I mean shouldn&amp;#039;t real life spies get first dibs on the -Gate name? What happens when there is a political scandal on the Golden Gate Bridge, is it then called Golden Gate-Gate or is that too stupid? What if there is a scandal literally involving a gate? Does this bother anyone else? Is it sad that I can muster more vitriol over something trivial like a scandal naming process rather than the scandal that supplied the name in the first place? Can I fit any more questions into a wiki-post?- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So I did some research and apparently there are 3 (!) Troopergates, 2 Spygates (both of which were sports related, as real spies the world over are no doubt shaking their heads in dismay) and 2 Grannygates. Also, there is an Iguanagate, a Tasergate (Sweet), and even a Bingogate. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Niiiice. Well said.  And no, I don&amp;#039;t think it&amp;#039;s sad that you&amp;#039;ve mustered this much vitriol about a trivial aspect. I do the same thing sometimes.  However, that may mean I&amp;#039;m just a sad case, too. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of sad that the name combo has degenerated in much the same way as the -Gate phenomenon. Where Woodstein was a combo of two young journalists on the rise, now we are subjected to Bennifer, Branjelina and others. I blame Nixon.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised by how small a role Deep Throat seemed to play in the film. He is referenced so much in pop culture and has been parodied by The Simpsons AND Family Guy, so he seems like a big deal. In the movie, though, he didn&amp;#039;t really do much or even seem to help that much. I guess I was just surprised by the amount of controversy over DT contrasted with what seems to be the role he played. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I&amp;#039;m in the minority so far... I really didn&amp;#039;t like the movie, I kept staring at the time elapse to see how much time was left in the film.  I was hoping I would like it because it sounded similar to the film I did for my project, but I just couldn&amp;#039;t get into this one. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;All the President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; had an interesting way of telling the Watergate Scandal. As we learned about the scandal yesterday we went from the inside out, whereas in the film we go from the outside in. It definitely gives a different but very informative perspective. I also found it interesting how little of a part Nixon played. Aside from the various news clips, which did give the movie an accurate feel, his name was not mentioned as often as other White House names. The movie focused more on his lackeys. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the movie but absolutely hated how it ended.  You&amp;#039;re going to make me sit there for 2 1/2 hours to watch all the build up of the break on the scandal and then breeze over Nixon resigning and all of the repercussions?  I don&amp;#039;t think so.  If you&amp;#039;re going to build up to the scandal breaking, at least make the movie climactic.  Seriously. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a way, I think the movie was most accurate in that I had trouble following what exactly was going on when they were throwing out all the names and piecing things together. Usually, I like to know what’s happening in a movie, and I get annoyed when I don’t. However, considering this movie is about Watergate, it seems appropriate that the story is convoluted. I had trouble keeping track of everyone being mentioned in class on Tuesday, so it only makes sense that I have the same problem with the movie too. Watergate is simply not an easy topic to follow unless you want a headache. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as a side comment: it was a little distracting to see Dustin Hoffman turn around and suddenly look like a lady. It was probably the long hair and tiny, thin body. I think the flared pants also had a little to do with it, though they were accurate for the time period. And standing next to Robert Redford certainly didn’t help. Not at all. Poor guy. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on Reading in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; mentioned how the other important figures involved in uncovering Watergate are never really talked about in the movie. I think it is reasonable in this movie because the movie never shows what really happens to cause Nixon to resign and never shows anything of what happens in the courts. The movie really is not about the Watergate Scandal, but about the role of Bernstein and Woodward in investigating the scandal. I think the primary message the movie is presenting is that Bernstein and Woodward helped pave the way towards the exposure of Nixon even if they did not have the big role in the Nixon investigations. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say, I liked how Toplin commented, in &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; that even if a historical film is horrible there is usually something correct about it, Such as the clothing or the backdrop setting.  There are very few comprehensive failures.  I really liked that, because we&amp;#039;ve had a variety of films this semester, ones that have been fairly awesome to not so much... (i.e. Pocahontas), but all of them have had some resounding correctness to it... even if just the backdrop scenery. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Toplin&amp;#039;s criticism of the movie is that it portrays Woodstein as being solely responsible for investigating and uncovering the Watergate scandal. I actually think that the film spent a good amount of time on the Post editors, Sloan, Segretti, the woman in charge of the money, etc. It seemed to show that they didn&amp;#039;t do it all on their own, and they had a lot of help along the way. Maybe part of his criticism is the fact that, regardless of the other characters in the movie, society has remembered only Woodstein (when we&amp;#039;ve discussed all semester how historical films should convey actual history to people). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case of this movie, though applicable to many historical films, I don&amp;#039;t think that criticism of creative license is overly important. For example, I don&amp;#039;t care if the exchanges between Woodstein were word-for-word. What is important is conveying the big picture story. I will agree, as we have discussed all semester, that the addition of new things is often pointless and off-putting to historians; however, as Toplin says, historical evidence is so fragmented, it is impossible to convey all sides. George Kennan discusses this idea in an article we read in 299, where he says that a historian, at the time they are writing, can only see such a small portion of the historical truth, and always at an angle - it is impossible to see all evidence from all sides. We can&amp;#039;t deny that historical books face the same problems, but the movies sure do get more people excited and interested (esp for a movie like this - how many kids wanted to grow up and be Wash Post reporters??) -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wish we had read the middle section - pgs 90-138 - a little earlier in the semester. I really liked the idea of &amp;quot;faction.&amp;quot; I feel like we have addressed some of the ideas in this section in class already, but it was interesting that historical films revolving around fictional characters have a higher success rate of impressing critics concerned about historical accuracy. I personally have mentioned this on the wiki before - for example in the Long Walk Home, I was happy to NOT see Rosa Parks and MLK attempted to be portrayed - instead, fictional characters represented themes and general things that happened during that period. I agree with Toplin that this is a more effective, and often times less criticized, method of portraying history in film. - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout this class, we have evaluated the historical accuracies and inaccuracies in historical films.  At times, I feel as if our nitpicky attacks of historical inaccuracies as scholars might be too harsh. Several times throughout the reading, Toplin discussed the format of the historical film in Hollywood and how diversions from the formula can sometimes have financially disastrous consequences for directors.  I agree with Toplin that it is more important for a historical film to portray the bigger picture, and sometimes the small fictional details which help make the movie more appealing to audiences do not matter that much. If a director inundated audiences with every historical detail and perspective, the movie most likely would not be very successful.  If a movie is unable to reach a wide audience, than whatever story the director is attempting to tell gets lost in obscurity. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Toplin mentioned movies that attempt to recount one specific event or one or two historical figures are more prone to criticism because, well they are easier to criticize.  The movies we have dubbed the most historically accurate this semester are ones that explain history from the &amp;quot;community&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; perspective (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Long Walk Home&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to name a few).  Lately this semester, we have focused on historical films revolving around one or two characters - &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the Fourth...&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;All The President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  These movies, along with my &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Cinderella Man&amp;#039;&amp;#039; project, have made me admire the efforts of these filmmakers focusing on one event or historical figure.  While these films tend to be under the microscope when viewed by film critics and historians, when they are done accurately, it provides viewers with facts and a specific perspective about the time period.  I personally enjoy these types of films because there is always another side to a story, but it&amp;#039;s not always clear what that side is.  History is never viewed by only one set of eyes, and movies are a great way to explore other visions. - David F.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 15 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-12-04T03:47:38Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m going to assume that all of the video clips and radio broadcasts were the originals, so showing the clips and audio clips of the time brings authenticity to the movie. Seeing as the movie was released only a few years after the scandal dissipated, and two years after Nixon&amp;#039;s resignation, it feels real. Nixon&amp;#039;s impeachment hearings made history back in the 1970s, and much like 9/11 was to us in 2003, people remember how they felt during that time. It&amp;#039;s akin to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in that it&amp;#039;s so close to the event. Unlike in the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039; where people were acting as people who lived two hundred years ago, these actors -remember-. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went.  The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film didn&amp;#039;t do a ton to explain this in detail, but through the newspaper headlines we see that Eagleton was picked as the original VP but then in other news snippets we see that McGovern is forced to be dropped from the ticket. Then in one of the planning meetings the editors joke over how nobody wants to take the now vacant VP spot, referencing the names mentioned in class. While this was something that fell outside of the focus of the film, it was nice to see that it was subtly worked into the story.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All the women shown working in this movie were doing various types of secretarial work, and not working as say reporters.  I&amp;#039;m guessing this is an accurate portrayal of working women of this time, since this movie took place during the woman&amp;#039;s rights movement.  -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wondered for a while why &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; always introduced themselves as &amp;quot;Hi this is ____ from the Washington Post,&amp;quot; and then go on. But then I realized that it was important (at least back then) for reporters to identify themselves. I felt that the &amp;quot;on record&amp;quot; vs &amp;quot;off record&amp;quot; barriers were really clearly defined. Somehow I am a little skeptical that reporters today are so gracious and just, though I haven&amp;#039;t been interviewed by the Washington Post recently so how do I really know? - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kellye&amp;#039;s comment about Deep Throat, I thought his role in the movie was sufficient.  In the film, it seemed that Woodward only went to his source when he and Bernstein ran into a road-block during their investigation (which was often).  I also wondered why DT only met with Woodward and not Bernstein, but apparently DT was only Woodward&amp;#039;s source and DT never met Bernstein at all during the investigation.  This was key when Felt (DT) was asked if he ever leaked information to Woodward AND Bernstein.  According to the book, Woodward wondered if Felt denied this and got out of it b/c of a technicality (he only leaked info to Woodward).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt the movie did a pretty good job of portraying the relationship of Bernstein and Woodward. Though they worked together in the movie their were several signs that they didn&amp;#039;t particularly like each other since they would do things without telling each other about it and they were portrayed a bit competitive. This movie also does a good job at showing the depth and significance of CREEP in showing just how deep they were in the American government and talking about the various things they were involved in. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I think the movie was pretty accurate about describing the Watergate happenings and the people involved and their actions. Whether it was right about Woodstein’s investigative processes, I couldn’t really say since we didn’t go too deep on that in class, and I haven’t read Woodstein’s book. However, because the movie was based on their book, I’ll assume it was fairly accurate. Of course we also have to keep in mind that the book likely embellished a few things… for instance, it seems the supposed methods of communication with Deep Throat that Woodstein wrote about are factually questionable. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Perhaps things have changed since the 70s, but how did Woodstein never get caught in traffic? I mean this is DC we are talking about here. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am curious as to whether the safety of Woodward and Bernstein was played up for the sake of the film? Certainly they were being spied on, but did they really have to fear their lives? That whole fear aspect seemed a bit awkward in the film and I am curious if it was a real fear or something played up to add tension in the film?- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the book and in the movie, Woodward would put the flag up whenever he wanted to meet w/ Deep Throat, and DT would mark the NY Times in case he wanted to meet w/ Woodward.  However, the movie primarily showed Woodward making an effort to meet DT.  How often did DT request to meet w/ Woodward?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a hard time believing that it was so easy to get into contact with high ranking White House officials. I am fairly certain that White House security was not that lax. Woodward and Bernstein would need to get into contact with someone and could just call the direct lines to their secretaries. I may be wrong but this seems unrealistic to me. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Mallory, it concerned me how easily Woodstein was able to call and either get secretaries of very high ranking White House officials or even the officials themselves.  And the way people would just give up information on where someone was amazed me.  You would think that someone who was the Special Council to the President wouldn&amp;#039;t be able to be tracked down with the ease of just &amp;quot;oh he&amp;#039;s actually in this office right now, let me give you that number.&amp;quot;  It seems really odd to me. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My issue with the movie is that the film portrayed Woodward and Bernstein as the heroes of the investigation: the only guys willing to bring down the high-ranking bullies of the government.  Although the film alludes to the on-going special investigation by the Grand Jury, &amp;quot;Woodstein&amp;quot; seem to get all the credit for the discovery of the cover-up and the ultimate downfall of President Nixon.~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another issue I have with the film is the lack of mention by Woodward or Bernstein of Nixon&amp;#039;s involvement.  Their investigation seems to end when they finally get confirmation of Halderman.It doesn&amp;#039;t make sense to me that this ruthless reporting team would just stop at Halderman and not link the trail to Nixon. Since the legacy of Watergate is centered around President Nixon, why wouldn&amp;#039;t the movie at least allude to the President&amp;#039;s involvement? ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Mallory sort of. It was surprising to me in the beginning that a librarian would be perfectly willing to look up and divulge the for any old person calling up on the phone the requested materials or checked out materials of patron of the library... and the White HOuse library! Really? She quickly gets intercepted and told to change her story but what was she doing giving that information in the first place. Even in regular old public libraries, personal check-out accounts are supposed to be private. Did people not care as much back then? Also in Juliann&amp;#039;s point about where the movie ends... I think it gets cut off there not to say that Woodstein stopped their investigation and journalism on the topic but that that was the key piece of the puzzle that lead to the house of cards falling down. Once they get the magnitude of the scandal revealed, other reporters, newspapers, and the public investigations are probably on equal footing with them and the movie can&amp;#039;t continue with them as the courageous, lone detectives. But I do find it interesting that, except for in the closing typewriting scene, they really don&amp;#039;t go as far as accusing Nixon of being a major conspirator or knowingly involved-- was it because the movie was made practically in the then-present day?--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think probably the biggest fault of the movie for me is how it ends. For one, it’s very abrupt. However, the largest issue is that there is no recognition of the other contributions made to the Watergate case. Of course the movie is about Woodstein investigating Watergate, so I expect it to be about them rather than other aspects of the investigation involving the courts and Congress and what not. I don’t even think the other investigations necessarily had to be mentioned during the movie itself. The problem comes with the ending where it’s not even acknowledged that there was more investigation going on other than Woodstein’s. The movie makes it appear that only the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Washington Post&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reports brought light to the corruption in the White House. All it would’ve taken was an informational card at the end to satisfy me. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
Would this movie really be a secondary source about the Watergate scandal? Dr. McClurken said that the filmmaker was thinking about making the movie as the scandal was happening and that the rights to make a movie out of the book was bought some time around then.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One revelation that the movie showed through Woodstein&amp;#039;s work that I think is important is how the dirty tricks had been going on since long before the Watergate break-in, back at least to the formation of CREEP.  At one point, Bradlee told Woodstein that only half the public polled had heard of the name Watergate.  We know that by the time Nixon resigned, the whole nation knew about it, but they may not have known just how far back it went.  With all Woodstein&amp;#039;s investigation and the stated realization of how much larger the issue was than the break-in, this shows that CREEP&amp;#039;s workings had been successfully kept secret for a long time. -Whitney Holcomb.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like it would be tough for this movie to be considered as a primary source on the scandal itself.  It was focused much more on Woodward and Bernstein, as we were warned, and although it did discuss the scandal, it didn&amp;#039;t really cover all of it.  A lot of it was based on the early findings and discoveries and how long it took Woodward and Bernstein to piece everything together and kind of breezed over everything that happened in about 30 seconds at the end of the movie.  But it could definitely be used as a source looking at Woodward and Bernstein and their interactions at the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Washington Post&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. But I think that the movie can also be worked into that &amp;quot;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;quot; genre in that it was made around the time of the actual event.  The clothes were authentic and it nearly killed me, as was Dustin Hoffman&amp;#039;s beautifully feathered hair.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Kellye, this movie may have definitely helped to push people over to Democrats in 1976 because they were reminded right before the election about the Watergate Scandal and that many Republicans tried to cover it up and lied about it.--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning, there was darkness and it was good; then there was a loud and jolting noise of a typewriter. I wonder if the filmmakers did that to convey how the American were in relation to knowing what was going on with President Nixon? The people were happy because they didn&amp;#039;t know what was happening, then Woodstein reported what their investigation had uncovered and since they wrote via the typewriter, that machine woke the population up with a startle.-Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tagging onto Christine&amp;#039;s comment, I think it was a very important preface to the movie that McClurken specified that it was a movie about the Washington Post breaking the story of Watergate. Part of me was like &amp;quot;what? we didn&amp;#039;t see what actually happens!&amp;quot; but we did see the Post succeed in cracking the story, and the trial and all those details were irrelevant to the Post story. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that it shows the half-legitimate ways Woodstein were &amp;quot;confirming&amp;quot; information from sources.  They could be very indirect, without making the people being questioned explicitly state an answer, effectively getting information from those who didn&amp;#039;t want to talk.  My favorite was when Bernstein counted to ten on the phone about Haldeman.  Also, there was getting the bookkeeper to nod at the initials L, M, and P.  Third, when they got Sloan to finally say that he &amp;quot;would not have a problem&amp;quot; with their accusatory article if they published it. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In reference to Dr. M&amp;#039;s reference to the Orioles in lecture, I recognized the actor who played Rosenfeld, Jack Warden, as Juror 7 from 12 Angry Men. He was the guy who kept wanting to reach a verdict quickly because he had Yankees tickets and said the line which still resonates for dopes like me who still root for the O&amp;#039;s: &amp;quot;Baltimore? That&amp;#039;s like being hit in the head with a crow bar once a day. &amp;quot; Ugh. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too am a Baltimore sports fan! Baltimore Sports teams have been quite successful considering none of their franchises are ancient. The Colts were only in Baltimore for roughly 30 years yet had many championships to boast. They were also involved in some of the most pivotal games in NFL history: the 1958 Championship game versus the New York Giants which ushered in the era of televised football, Super Bowl III where the upstart New York Jets from the Mickey Mouse League (the AFL) beat the Colts in one of the biggest upsets leading to the merger in 1970, and &amp;quot;the ghost to the post&amp;quot; game in 1977 vs. the Raiders. The Orioles were a great team in the late &amp;#039;60s and early &amp;#039;70s and could have won even more championships. Cal Ripken will go down as one of the best and purest players in the game, now if he could just take over the team they could return to prominence. Now to my point, I think this is an important movie because without the Post article (or any other press investigation of the break-in) there is a good chance that the crimes of the Nixon administration would have gone unchecked. Movies like Stone&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Nixon&amp;#039;&amp;#039; do not place much emphasis on the Post article, but without Woodstein&amp;#039;s work would there have been a resignation? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of the methods of historical movies talked about in &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; are present in this movie. Historic TV clips were used throughout the movie and did a good job of helping contributing to the historic feel of the movie. They also follow the method of the protagonist character Bernstein and Woodward and villian character CREEP and those involved with the coverup. There is always a feeling of paranoia throughout the movie showed by the dark scenes and especially when Woodward meets with Bernstein to show the potential danger even when it never directly shows any characters planning to do anything against Woodward and Bernstein. There is also the resolution at the end of the movie that shows the success of the protagonists. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall Comments on Movie ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I completely agree that this type of journalism is vital to preserving democracy, does anyone feel like in the post-Watergate world we are too quick in assuming the worst of our politicians (perhaps this is a bad question in the post Bush era)? This was a sentiment brought up in a book I had to read for another class which addressed declining voter turnout, and I was curious if anyone else felt that the media now perhaps tries too hard to uncover the next Watergate? The book (The Vanishing Voter) argues that the media has taken a &amp;quot;never again&amp;quot; type stance toward political corruption and that this has at times led to overly negative news coverage, which has in turn depressed voters into apathy towards the whole political process. Is this a change in the practices of the media, or has this simply been exacerbated by the 24/7 news hole? This is a tricky situation in that we need to be kept abreast of these types of abuses, but after a while every little lead on political corruption does take its toll.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It&amp;#039;s largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was more of a lecture thing, but I did not realize how popular Nixon was. “Nixon and the environment”, “Nixon and China”, even “Nixon and Vietnam” seemed to all be pluses for him- and his approval ratings showed it. Nixon was an effective President, but because of Watergate I suppose that effectiveness will always be suspect. Because of the aforementioned reasons I kept asking myself, why would Nixon do this? Why would he utterly destroy his opponents when he had achieved rather impressive political feats?(I guess that begs the question: did he only have successes because of the obliteration of his opponents?) Either way I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that Nixon was a man so fraught with insecurity that he could never be satisfied with his successes.  Nixon was so plagued by his past failures that he was determined to have as much power as possible. The Alger Hiss case and The Checkers Speech were our warnings, but alas!-Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very glad that the -Gate phenomenon was referenced in lecture. That is something that seriously drives me nuts. Who decides what gets -Gate status anyway? Why is there a Troopergate and Cigargate, but other political scandals get off the -Gate hook, so to speak? Why wasn&amp;#039;t John Edwards&amp;#039; cheating scandal called Infidelity-gate, or Dick Cheney&amp;#039;s hunting incident a few years back Shot-in-the-face-gate? Is there some unwritten journalist code that determines this naming process? And just last year this practice made its way into the sports world with the Spygate scandal that tainted the Patriots&amp;#039; undefeated regular season. What happens if there is a scandal involving an American spy in the future? Does this theoretical incident then get dubbed Spygate II, or does it get a less cool sounding -Gate name, I mean shouldn&amp;#039;t real life spies get first dibs on the -Gate name? What happens when there is a political scandal on the Golden Gate Bridge, is it then called Golden Gate-Gate or is that too stupid? What if there is a scandal literally involving a gate? Does this bother anyone else? Is it sad that I can muster more vitriol over something trivial like a scandal naming process rather than the scandal that supplied the name in the first place? Can I fit any more questions into a wiki-post?- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So I did some research and apparently there are 3 (!) Troopergates, 2 Spygates (both of which were sports related, as real spies the world over are no doubt shaking their heads in dismay) and 2 Grannygates. Also, there is an Iguanagate, a Tasergate (Sweet), and even a Bingogate. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Niiiice. Well said.  And no, I don&amp;#039;t think it&amp;#039;s sad that you&amp;#039;ve mustered this much vitriol about a trivial aspect. I do the same thing sometimes.  However, that may mean I&amp;#039;m just a sad case, too. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of sad that the name combo has degenerated in much the same way as the -Gate phenomenon. Where Woodstein was a combo of two young journalists on the rise, now we are subjected to Bennifer, Branjelina and others. I blame Nixon.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised by how small a role Deep Throat seemed to play in the film. He is referenced so much in pop culture and has been parodied by The Simpsons AND Family Guy, so he seems like a big deal. In the movie, though, he didn&amp;#039;t really do much or even seem to help that much. I guess I was just surprised by the amount of controversy over DT contrasted with what seems to be the role he played. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, I&amp;#039;m in the minority so far... I really didn&amp;#039;t like the movie, I kept staring at the time elapse to see how much time was left in the film.  I was hoping I would like it because it sounded similar to the film I did for my project, but I just couldn&amp;#039;t get into this one. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;All the President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039; had an interesting way of telling the Watergate Scandal. As we learned about the scandal yesterday we went from the inside out, whereas in the film we go from the outside in. It definitely gives a different but very informative perspective. I also found it interesting how little of a part Nixon played. Aside from the various news clips, which did give the movie an accurate feel, his name was not mentioned as often as other White House names. The movie focused more on his lackeys. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the movie but absolutely hated how it ended.  You&amp;#039;re going to make me sit there for 2 1/2 hours to watch all the build up of the break on the scandal and then breeze over Nixon resigning and all of the repercussions?  I don&amp;#039;t think so.  If you&amp;#039;re going to build up to the scandal breaking, at least make the movie climactic.  Seriously. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In a way, I think the movie was most accurate in that I had trouble following what exactly was going on when they were throwing out all the names and piecing things together. Usually, I like to know what’s happening in a movie, and I get annoyed when I don’t. However, considering this movie is about Watergate, it seems appropriate that the story is convoluted. I had trouble keeping track of everyone being mentioned in class on Tuesday, so it only makes sense that I have the same problem with the movie too. Watergate is simply not an easy topic to follow unless you want a headache. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just as a side comment: it was a little distracting to see Dustin Hoffman turn around and suddenly look like a lady. It was probably the long hair and tiny, thin body. I think the flared pants also had a little to do with it, though they were accurate for the time period. And standing next to Robert Redford certainly didn’t help. Not at all. Poor guy. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Comments on Reading in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Reel History&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot; mentioned how the other important figures involved in uncovering Watergate are never really talked about in the movie. I think it is reasonable in this movie because the movie never shows what really happens to cause Nixon to resign and never shows anything of what happens in the courts. The movie really is not about the Watergate Scandal, but about the role of Bernstein and Woodward in investigating the scandal. I think the primary message the movie is presenting is that Bernstein and Woodward helped pave the way towards the exposure of Nixon even if they did not have the big role in the Nixon investigations. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say, I liked how Toplin commented, in &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; that even if a historical film is horrible there is usually something correct about it, Such as the clothing or the backdrop setting.  There are very few comprehensive failures.  I really liked that, because we&amp;#039;ve had a variety of films this semester, ones that have been fairly awesome to not so much... (i.e. Pocahontas), but all of them have had some resounding correctness to it... even if just the backdrop scenery. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Toplin&amp;#039;s criticism of the movie is that it portrays Woodstein as being solely responsible for investigating and uncovering the Watergate scandal. I actually think that the film spent a good amount of time on the Post editors, Sloan, Segretti, the woman in charge of the money, etc. It seemed to show that they didn&amp;#039;t do it all on their own, and they had a lot of help along the way. Maybe part of his criticism is the fact that, regardless of the other characters in the movie, society has remembered only Woodstein (when we&amp;#039;ve discussed all semester how historical films should convey actual history to people). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In this case of this movie, though applicable to many historical films, I don&amp;#039;t think that criticism of creative license is overly important. For example, I don&amp;#039;t care if the exchanges between Woodstein were word-for-word. What is important is conveying the big picture story. I will agree, as we have discussed all semester, that the addition of new things is often pointless and off-putting to historians; however, as Toplin says, historical evidence is so fragmented, it is impossible to convey all sides. George Kennan discusses this idea in an article we read in 299, where he says that a historian, at the time they are writing, can only see such a small portion of the historical truth, and always at an angle - it is impossible to see all evidence from all sides. We can&amp;#039;t deny that historical books face the same problems, but the movies sure do get more people excited and interested (esp for a movie like this - how many kids wanted to grow up and be Wash Post reporters??) -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wish we had read the middle section - pgs 90-138 - a little earlier in the semester. I really liked the idea of &amp;quot;faction.&amp;quot; I feel like we have addressed some of the ideas in this section in class already, but it was interesting that historical films revolving around fictional characters have a higher success rate of impressing critics concerned about historical accuracy. I personally have mentioned this on the wiki before - for example in the Long Walk Home, I was happy to NOT see Rosa Parks and MLK attempted to be portrayed - instead, fictional characters represented themes and general things that happened during that period. I agree with Toplin that this is a more effective, and often times less criticized, method of portraying history in film. - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout this class, we have evaluated the historical accuracies and inaccuracies in historical films.  At times, I feel as if our nitpicky attacks of historical inaccuracies as scholars might be too harsh. Several times throughout the reading, Toplin discussed the format of the historical film in Hollywood and how diversions from the formula can sometimes have financially disastrous consequences for directors.  I agree with Toplin that it is more important for a historical film to portray the bigger picture, and sometimes the small fictional details which help make the movie more appealing to audiences do not matter that much. If a director inundated audiences with every historical detail and perspective, the movie most likely would not be very successful.  If a movie is unable to reach a wide audience, than whatever story the director is attempting to tell gets lost in obscurity. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Toplin mentioned movies that attempt to recount one specific event or one or two historical figures are more prone to criticism because, well they are easier to criticize.  The movies we have dubbed the most historically accurate this semester are ones that explain history from the &amp;quot;community&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; perspective (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Long Walk Home&amp;#039;&amp;#039; to name a few).  Lately this semester, we have focused on historical films revolving around one or two characters - &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the Fourth...&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;All The President&amp;#039;s Men&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  These movies, along with my &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Cinderella Man&amp;#039;&amp;#039; project, have made me admire the efforts of these filmmakers focusing on one event or historical figure.  While these films tend to be under the microscope when viewed by film critics and historians, when they are done accurately, it provides viewers with facts and a specific perspective about the time period.  I personally enjoy these types of films because there is always another side to a story, but it&amp;#039;s not always clear what that side is.  History is never viewed by only one set of eyes, and movies are a great way to explore other visions. - David F.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-20T08:27:58Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets.  They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village.  He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit.  Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron&amp;#039;s character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don&amp;#039;t have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, &amp;quot;Cutbacks.  The government&amp;#039;s just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys.&amp;quot; According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised with how much this movie was able to accurately portray.  You really see how hard it was for the Vets to return to the states with little to no support from their country and all of the stresses from war.  Most of them were druggies or, like Ron, alcoholics.  You also see how crappy the hospitals were and how little funding they received from the federal government.  I know we learned in class that it was much less than post-WWII America but the movie really made it real how few doctors there were and how just, disgusting the hospitals actually were.  I was NOT prepared for the bedpans and the vomit.  That was unnecessary. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really liked how well the film showed the difficulty discerning guys in your own troops and the members of the Vietcong. It really amplified how stressful and chaotic the setting was over in Vietnam and how frequently new guys were being added or sent home from American troops. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, much of the hospital horror that occurred in the film has happened as recently as last year. Those of us from the DC area will likely remember the extensive coverage of the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that the Washington Post covered extensively. Red tape, rat and cockroach infestations, mold, all occurring at the US Army&amp;#039;s flagship east coast medical center. It was accurate then, it is accurate now. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether veterans were disabled or suffering from PTSD, the readjustment to a country at war with itself had to leave any veteran feeling lost in the shuffle (at best). I think this movie conveys the disillusionment of the Vietnam era well. Kovic is a guy who went from “love it or leave” it to “politicians are rapists and thieves”. His story resonates because it was not uncommon, and sadly not unjustified. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The difference in the two 4th of July parades accurately displays the differing views of the American people. When the WWII veterans returned home, hundreds of people were lining the streets, cheering, clapping, and holding American flags. When Ron is being driven through the parade the people lining the streets are jeering and giving him the figure. It shows the very different reactions of the American people to these two wars. One war they supported (WWII), the other they did not (Vietnam). Also, during the first parade when the fireworks/gun shots(?) are fired the veteran is startled and flinches and young Ron takes notice of that; this is exactly what happens to Ron during the parade, he flinches when he hears that gun shot sound. These are two examples of the PTSD the soldiers experienced that affected them in their everyday life.  --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This film was the first that hammered home for me how bad it is when the government isn&amp;#039;t prepared to take care of wounded veterans.  The scenes in the VA hospital make it easy to understand the difficulties associated with a lack of funding, and what it was like for veterans in those hospitals.  I guess watching Forest Gump too many times left me thinking VA hospitals were all ping pong and ice cream. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the scene in the bar where Kovic and the WWII Marine get into a scuffle was powerful in that it showed the disconnect between generations and between the views on the different wars. I know that guys like my grandfather who served in the Marines in the Pacific during WWII and in Korea often had little sympathy for perceived &amp;quot;whiners&amp;quot; from Vietnam. Because of the different circumstances surrounding the two wars and the vast differences between the generations, it is no wonder there were such tensions among the veterans.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree on the movie doing a great job with showing how Ron’s view changes towards the war.  It shows how society around him affected his thoughts on how the war had a negative impact on America.   The film also gave examples of what was happening in America, the Kent State shootings (Donna briefly stated about) and the brutal beatings by police officers at the war rallies. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As with the people above me, I felt the film did a good job portraying PTSD, and how no one really knew much about it or what was going on.  No one was like &amp;#039;oh he has blah blah blah&amp;#039; they were like &amp;#039;your home you should just forget it and get on with life.&amp;#039; --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film also got the age of the soldiers correct.  In the beginning, there was a scene when some recruiting officers showed up at Ronnie&amp;#039;s high school, trying to recruit some of the young men from there.  Also, according to Wilson&amp;#039;s grave stone, the guy Ronnie killed was only 19 years old when he died, so again a very young person.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also correctly mentions the events going on at this time, such as the Kent State Massacre, My Lai etc.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie also got correct the reactions Ronnie got from his family when he finally came home from the hospital.  His family was unsure of how to act around him, and they were always asking if he needed extra help.  Ronnie&amp;#039;s mother&amp;#039;s reaction reminded me a lot of Homer&amp;#039;s mother&amp;#039;s reaction when she first saw her son, in &amp;quot;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;quot;.  Both mothers could barely look at their sons with out crying, and had to excuse themselves so they wouldn&amp;#039;t break down in front of their sons.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely agree with Bryan that the film accurately depicted the disconnect between vets of the Vietnam War and vets of other wars.  Although we now view Korean War vets as the most neglected (and rightly so, I must say), at the time Vietnam vets were looked down on in a way the other vets weren&amp;#039;t.  This was the first war in the U.S. popularly questioned by the public. -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was ironic that Nixon said in his nomination speech that people who served in Vietnam deserve the honor and respect they earned, when after all he cut funding to verterans and held back verteran healthcare and education beneftis.-James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t remember his name, but Kovic&amp;#039;s friend who owns the burger joint once warned him that the communist threat was not as prominent as many thought.  This is accurate because communism, although real, was never much of a threat as much as a percieved threat to the American public.  &amp;quot;Better dead than red&amp;quot; was Kovic&amp;#039;s saying, as Kovic thought he was fighting against communism, only to find himself in aiding and abbeting a population in the middle of a civil war.-James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Ron&amp;#039;s Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they&amp;#039;re just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people.  The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control.  It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC.  Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn&amp;#039;t have been. -Whitney Holcomb &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Really? I thought the reason they were shocked is that the Americans honestly didn&amp;#039;t think there were civilians in the area. The justification for shooting was that the lieutenant saw rifles in the huts, only later did the Americans find out that the VC had used civilians as &amp;quot;Cover&amp;quot;. Also I thought the confusion and uncertainty between unarmed civilians and VC was one of the main frustrations American soldiers had fighting in Vietnam. I thought this scene was accurate. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know Jason, I would have to agree with Whitney on this one.  When we see Ron in Vietnam, right before the shootings, he is starting his second tour of duty.  It is hard to believe that after already spending a year in the conflict, Ron would not have experienced chaotic confusion, the murder of innocent civilians and the savagery that characterized the war.  According to Phillip Caputo, who was also a marine during the early period of conflict , in &amp;quot;Rumor of War,&amp;quot; soldiers were fast introduced  to the ruthlessness of the war. Soldiers realized pretty quickly that they would receive no mercy, so chose to present very little themselves. I am not saying the Kovic had become a ruthless killer, but that he would not have been so naive to that kind of warfare. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought they were more shocked to find that they were being fired at rather than the fact that they killed innocent peolple.  It was also accurate for soldiers to disobey orders, act on their own, and do as they please.  -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gotta agree with Jason here, this was not some situation where they were going in to suppress some village, nor was this some &amp;quot;revenge&amp;quot; mission, they thought the VC were there in force, and upon seeing nobody in the hut was armed of course they would be upset. I doubt one tour of duty would suddenly turn Kovic into some heartless baby killing machine.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I interpreted the backwards hanging of the flag as a sign of symbolic protest. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You have a good point about the shooting, Jason.  I guess I missed seeing the rifles part of that.  But about the flag, wasn&amp;#039;t Ron at that point still very patriotic? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that overall this movie hit some key points that are accurate, BUT I felt that it was another stereotypical portrayal of a torn up vietnam vet. Maybe I am still living in a fantasy that most of the vets were not drastically screwed up when they returned from the war. I know it was based on a book so this might not have been necessarily a film makers decision.  - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Awe come on, Elle.  You didn&amp;#039;t like the American Hero story?  It&amp;#039;s not shown on the silver screen nearly enough.  That&amp;#039;s not to say it wasn&amp;#039;t an impressive life story, but like Elle said, it just seemed to be too much.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just to offer up some perspective, the screenplay was written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic himself, both of which were veterans of this war. Kovic approved the casting of Tom Cruise, and while there were obviously scenes added for dramatic license (most notably, Ron Kovic telling Will&amp;#039;s family that he was responsible for their son&amp;#039;s murder), most of it was on the up and up. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That being said, Parris Island would have only been eight weeks of hell back then. Not thirteen. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe this is a function of there just not being a whole lot of combat scenes but I was wondering where all the black soldiers were? There was the guy that saved Kovic and carried him to safety, but I don&amp;#039;t recall seeing any other black soldiers, which is strange seeing as how something like 60 percent of black males were drafted. Though I guess the protest scenes showed a bit more diversity. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don’t know much about the book the movie is based off of, but I felt the whole scene in Mexico was inaccurate. If I’m wrong please correct me, but this was something America did not talk about if it were true.  Was Mexico a popular retreat place for the Vets, and was it exactly like how it was portrayed in the film? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the depiction of Mexico was a little ludicrous. Although I know Mexico was a place of destination for some wishing to escape the states, in the movie, Mexico seemed almost to be a resort, a haven for the disabled, paraplegic veteran, with poker, alcohol and prostitutes at your beck and call. I didn&amp;#039;t really buy it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m not sure, but in the scene Ron and a friend of his were talking about the war and the friend stated “This is a wealthy man’s war.”  What does he mean by that?  It was not a war for the common soldier because most soldiers who fought were from the lower class. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I interpreted this quote about &amp;quot;the wealthy man&amp;#039;s war&amp;quot; as an acknowledgment of the notion that politicians in Washington &amp;quot;play war&amp;quot;, using lower class boys as their playing pieces. In other words, the &amp;quot;fatcats&amp;quot; in Washington make war, but let others do their fightin&amp;#039;. Take a listen to Creedence Clearwater Revival&amp;#039;s Fortunate Son. Here is a lyric that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up every time,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Some folks are born made to wave the flag,&lt;br /&gt;
Ooh, they&amp;#039;re red, white and blue.&lt;br /&gt;
And when the band plays hail to the chief,&lt;br /&gt;
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators son, son.&lt;br /&gt;
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no,&amp;quot;- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.&amp;quot; New York Times, Oct. 28, 1973.&lt;br /&gt;
-Wealthy White Politican Henry Kissinger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The US must carry out some act somewhere in the world which shows its determination to continue to be a world power.&amp;quot; Post-Vietnam blues, as quoted in The Washington Post, April 1975&lt;br /&gt;
-Henry Kissinger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;So many minority youths had volunteered that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself.&amp;quot; --Tom DeLay, explaining at the 1988 GOP convention why he and vice presidential nominee Dan Quayle did not fight in the Vietnam War &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie has a very strange passage of time. It quickly zooms to the Vietnam war without any transition period covering training or the green zone. The movie does not really go into any real depth of experience in the Vietnam war and only focuses on a couple instances of traumatic war experience followed by a stay at a hospital. The way they condemn the hospitals particularly bothers me in relation to the discussion of our lecture in which it was discussed that Vietnam had a large support staff and better health treatment for soldiers. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of going off of Ashley and Jason&amp;#039;s comments, what did you all think about the remark that Vietnam was a &amp;quot;white man&amp;#039;s war&amp;quot;?  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, I think that the belief that Vietnam was &amp;quot;a white man&amp;#039;s war&amp;quot; was common during the conflit. Although many of the soldiers fighting in Vietnam were black, most were drafted, meaning they were forced to fight.  Racial tensions within the USA during the 1960s and 1970s were still very heightened. Many felt that America should not be fighting a war overseas for freedom while there was still a battle for civil liberties going on within the country.  Some believed that &amp;quot;the white man&amp;quot; was more concerned with communism abroad than improving the lives of Americans, especially poor, underprivileged African Americans. The hospital scenes depict this attitude, when the attendants and nurses tell Ron they do not care about Vietnam, that it is not their fight, and they therefore have little respect for Ron&amp;#039;s sacrifice. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, I have to say that I found that remark incredibly inaccurate.  This was the first war fought by a desegregated military.  As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class, this was a war fought overwhelmingly by working class whites and black soldiers.  In Vietnam, for the first time in American history, we saw a class and racial disconnect in the makeup of our military forces.  Vietnam was fought by those disadvantaged by society: young, poor white and black men.  Not exactly those you think of when describing the makeup of congress or the presidency.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that really bothered me about the movie was the censorship on drug use. Stone showed everything else - sex with prostitutes, alcoholism, vomit and bed pans, but the movie definitely shied away from a common characteristic of a returning Vietnam Vet undergoing psychological trauma - the use of drugs, specifically heroine as Dr. M mentioned in class. There was a split second where you saw it in the hospital, but nowhere else. Was this perhaps because of the time period in which the movie was made, during Reagan&amp;#039;s war on drugs? ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Tim O&amp;#039;Brian&amp;#039;s book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;A Rumor of War,&amp;quot; the author discusses how the war appealed to the young generation originally.  How most of those who signed up early were teenagers and young adults because they were taught to be proud of their country and wanted to defend it.  They answered Kennedy&amp;#039;s call of &amp;quot;ask what you can do for your country&amp;quot; and wanted to be like their parents who had fought in previous wars, most notably WWII.  You could see this in the movie pretty well, especially when the young Ron is sitting there watching Kennedy&amp;#039;s address with his family and gets riled up about how to help and defend his country. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So this wasn&amp;#039;t a major part of anything but I wondered about the letters that were sent to and from soldiers. In the film Ron sends love letters to his lady, and it is also mentioned in the readings. Did this communication with home help also to keep the moral high, or no more so than any other war? - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very pleased to see O&amp;#039;Brien&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Things They Carried&amp;#039;&amp;#039; selected as a reading for this film. I would highly suggest that anyone who hasn&amp;#039;t read O&amp;#039;Brien to pick up &amp;#039;&amp;#039;TTTC&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Going After Cacciato&amp;#039;&amp;#039; as both are extremely powerful books in understanding the psyche of the Vietnam soldier. I found that of any text (be it film, novel, textbook), &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Things They Carried&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was one of the most formative texts for me in understanding the impact of Vietnam on a generation (which is notable seeing as how it is a work of fiction). In regards to this film and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;TTTC&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I found that Kovic&amp;#039;s despair upon returning and most people not really caring about the war was reflected well in O&amp;#039;Brien&amp;#039;s book. Though not in our excerpt, there is a story of a Vietnam vet who returns home and basically drives around his town every night with nothing to do, trying to figure out where he fits in with the world he has returned home to find. In my opinion it is the most heartbreaking part of the book in that all this person wants is basically the occasional pat on the back for a job well done, not a fancy parade, but he never really gets it. Also the issue of returning home to girls that have since moved on in their lives is reflected in the book, as with Kovic and his childhood sweetheart with whom he can no longer really communicate.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Rumor of War&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I thought Caputo’s discussion of nostalgia offered a new perspective on why the Vietnam conflict was so complicated for Vietnam veterans. Whether veterans supported or protested the war, their time in Vietnam was the most formative experience of their lives. Caputo said his objections to Vietnam were informed by a completely different set of circumstances than that of the homefront protesters- war. “Because I had fought in it, it was not an abstract issue, but a deeply emotional experience, the most significant thing that had happened to me.” I think this is the very sentiment that everyone ought to keep in mind when discussing the Vietnam conflict (and really any hot-button issue). Regardless of where people fall on the issue of Vietnam, everyone’s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;opinion&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is valid. Too often one side accuses the other side of “not getting it” or that “they’re wrong”, but this accusation misses the point. With an issue as personal and emotional as war, there is no right or wrong, just a poignant internalization of a provocative reality.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In spite of everything, we felt a strange attachment to Vietnam and, even stranger, a longing to return.&amp;quot;  These words from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Rumor of War&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is closely related to Tom Cruise&amp;#039;s character.  He joins the war initially b/c he finds the thought of combat &amp;quot;attractive&amp;quot; (a term used by this reading).  Upon his return, he encounters a brother who has gained liberal thoughts on the war, but Tom Cruise struggles to understand this opposition because of his nostalgia.  Furthermore, the reading explains that the overall mission in Vietnam was not to gain position or territory, but to simply &amp;quot;kill communists.&amp;quot;  These are very powerful words and something Oliver Stone was able to depict well in the movie. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie does not really fit in well with what they carried in my opinion because it does not show a real variety in the soldiers in Vietnam. The point of that reading was that they didn&amp;#039;t all carry the same things and quite a few things they took were personalized, but this was not shown in the movie. The movie never go anywhere near the depth of the readings in conveying the Vietnam war experience for soldiers. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although I agree with Jonathan that the movie does not depict the soldiers in Vietnam as complex or diverse as the readings convey, one part of the reading really struck a chord with me after watching the movie.  In &amp;quot;Things they carried,&amp;quot; the author mentions Lieutenant Jimmy Cross, his love for Martha back home and his dramatic reaction to the killing of his man Lavender. Although in the reading Cross didn&amp;#039;t technically kill Lavender, he felt responsible and he carried that guilt with him, leading him to tear up the pictures and letters from his love. In the movie, Kovic carried the guilt of having killed Wilson with him for a long time, leading him down a road of self-destruction, and ultimately a meeting with Wilson&amp;#039;s family in a quest for forgiveness. Not all burdens are tangible in the cases of Cross and Kovic, but they can prove awfully heavy to bear. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie fits in well with &amp;quot;A Rumor of War&amp;quot; because the author talks about how when he hears thunder all he can think about is &amp;quot;the roar of artillery&amp;quot;, and in the movie when Ronnie heard a helicopter flying overhead, he had a flashback to fighting in Vietnam.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Most American soldiers in Vietnam--at least the ones I knew--could not be divided into good men and bad. Each possessed roughly equal measures of both qualities.&amp;quot; These words from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rumor of War&amp;#039;&amp;#039; were perhaps the most telling of all, in regards to the movie. Despite a complete emotional transformation, Ron Kovic was never a good guy and he was never a bad guy. No one knew quite how to react to him, or any of the other veterans because as Caputo says, &amp;quot;the American soldier was a reflection of themselves.&amp;quot; -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have never read Kovic&amp;#039;s autobiographical account, but Born on the Fourth of July (great title btw) is very closely related to &amp;quot;A Rumor of War&amp;quot; as the above post mention. Not only is this a personal account from a soldier who served for a long time in Vietnam, but I have heard many other accounts, analyses, etc. that say generally the same thing about soldier mentality and conditions. The short scene of war in the film must have been quite the sparknotes of Kovic&amp;#039;s actual experiences, but it was able to show a great deal, in a short bit of time, of what a soldier might have experienced. What we didn&amp;#039;t get out of the actual flashbacks and such, we could interpret from the scenes when Cruise interacts with other vets, like off-his-rocker Wilem Dafoe. &amp;quot;A Rumor of War&amp;quot; provides ample defense for the crimes of P.C.s fellow soldiers because of the bond felt between him and the only other people who could understand what he had went through, but simultaneously the describes the growing feeling (especially through the influence of the emerging society) to protest those pulling the strings and being the cause of all the suffering, as the author himself turned toward the protest movement. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers, including Ron Kovic really thought they were going to beat Communists in Vietnam in the beginning. They were disillusioned. The Cold War was coming to an end around the time this movie was made. The Tienanmen Square Massacre happened on July 4, 1989 and Berlin Wall fell in late 1989. It seems like with the release of this film, the filmmakers were making a comment on Communism or the war on it.- Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With a father who served in Vietnam from 1969-1970, I can say that this movie was pretty accurate with the stories he told about coming back home. While his story is nowhere near the personal hell that Kovic endured in his time back from the fighting, this movie showed, accurately, that our Vietnam Veterans did not get their ticker-tape parades. They were not congratulated. They were not thanked. By the time 1970 rolled around, free love was over. The Rolling Stones had held a concert at Altamont that led to 3 accidental deaths and one murder. Bobby and Jack Kennedy were dead, as were Dr. King and Malcolm X. Popular music was anti-war, involving everyone from the Doors, to Jefferson Airplane to Country Joe and the Fish. For once, America was losing a war, and with it, America lost its innocence. The homefront was a maelstrom of emotion, and while many were thankful for the service of our men and women, the anger, hatred and disenchantment was there as well. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash already mentioned this, but Oliver Stone himself was a Vietnam Vet, which I did not find out until after watching the movie.  This makes me wonder about the motives behind making this film.  The Gulf War began a year later in August of 1990, so how much of an influence did the build-up of that war have on Stone and Kovic?  Was this more than just a re-telling of one veteran&amp;#039;s story?  Was this film a tool to try and get Americans to oppose the Gulf War?  Kovic was arrested 12 times for political protests, and he was an active protestor against the Gulf War.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the movie, there was an ever-present tone painting the fight against communism as a ludicrous, illogical one.  The scene where Kovic&amp;#039;s mother tells him he is doing the right thing for going off to war to fight, because God is against communism really captures that tone. I think because this movie was made at the very end of the Cold War, when Americans had grown tired of the Communist fight, some contemporary criticism on foreign policy had definitely made its way into the movie.~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its really interesting how the film shows the treatment of soldiers. Comparing the 2 parades and the treatment of the soldiers... flicking him off as he drove by, the spitting in the faces of protesting vets, the basic degradation of vets, people calling him pathetic and having lost his ability to walk for &amp;quot;nothing&amp;quot;. I think this film adds to the sentiment that grew out of that anti-war movement and the negative qualities of it. Today we separate the soldiers from the war better when we start condemning. Although, we can still see many instances of American soldiers doing horrible, horrendous, in human things to detainees--like in the instance of Abu Ghraib--because of what the soldiers are told to do by the superiors and the mental climate in which they become accustom to--something unfamiliar, unrecognizable, and very primeval like how the soldiers felt in Vietnam when they committed atrocities. Granted this happened years after Stone&amp;#039;s film was made... but it is still relevent--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In watching the documentary in the special features, it was stated that after winning Best Picture for Platoon, &amp;quot;Oliver Stone could have made any movie he wanted.&amp;quot; Born On... was a promise kept to Ron Kovic himself that he would get this movie made. Oliver Stone was not looking for an Oscar with this one, but he got one anyway for Best Director. He wasn&amp;#039;t looking to gross $70 million, but it did anyway. This wasn&amp;#039;t even meant to be Oliver Stone&amp;#039;s baby. He had already done that with Platoon. Born On The 4th was a promise kept to a fellow Vietnam Veteran. Kovic felt very much that his story had been left behind and ignored. Oliver Stone promised to bring it back. Wasn&amp;#039;t that enough? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was the use of the blinking club lights meant to convey a sense of unreality in Ronnie&amp;#039;s life after his return home? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only other Oliver Stone movie I have seen was &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Any Given Sunday&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, a football movie where he used a lot of cuts and dramatized a lot of scenes where intense dialogue was taken place.  So for this movie, I was expecting a lot of distortion and even complexity in the progression of the film.  I actually don&amp;#039;t mind how the film was made b/c it is very unique to Stone&amp;#039;s style, and it seemed to fit in this story re-tell of someone&amp;#039;s Vietnam war experience.  By watching these two Stone movies, it seems he likes to integrate the past with the present.  The way he seems to do this is, for example, in the scene where Kovic is speaking at a parade but he cannot continue b/c of the baby crying.  Stone reminds Kovic (and the audience) about the baby crying in Vietnam and instills sounds of helicoptors and gun fire.  Very powerful techniques.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the jarring nature of the film was really unsettling - but I felt that this was a conscious decision by the film makers to portray how unsettling and choppy the experience of the vietnam was was for soldiers. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That makes sense for the &amp;quot;Vietnam Section&amp;quot; I guess we can call it, but for the entire movie?  It didn&amp;#039;t really seem to make sense and I don&amp;#039;t know if it was a wise choice on their part (if it was a conscious decision) to try to do that.  Something just doesn&amp;#039;t seem to add up.  But the choppiness really did work with the war scenes because you did get a sense of confusion and chaos of the situations these guys were in. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kelly&amp;#039;s response - I was thinking psychologically it works for the whole movie. I am NOT saying that I enjoyed it as a film viewer, but I can see why it might have been done that way. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly and Elle, this is a common technique of Stone&amp;#039;s, used in even heavier amounts in Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. Even JFK ran with it. Stone has often said that the stories he tells are filled with an anarchic level of chaos and panic, and the jarring, frantic cuts are his way of showing that panic. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It worked for me. - Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tangentally, I loved the placement of Johnny Got His Gun in the scene where Kovic learns he will never walk again. For those of you who have never read this (I have two copies, I am willing to let people borrow), there is perhaps no better work of literature that better portrays the agonizing fear that comes with realizing you, as a soldier, will never be understood as a human again. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the Fourth of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039; &amp;#039;s relationship to other Vietnam films, (I guess this is &amp;quot;filmography&amp;quot; as opposed to historiography) I think this movie does a good job of portraying the Vietnam vet. I would categorize this film as a biographical autobiography, that is Stone told Kovic&amp;#039;s story with help from Kovic himself. On one hand &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the Fourth of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039; validates the stock characters we see in other films while ultimately moving beyond those characterizations. Dr. McClurken mentioned that other movies about Vietnam depicted the vets as unstable and alienated, and the real Ron Kovic certainly had to deal with his share of instability and alienation in the years following his return home. What made Kovic different from the characters in other movies is that he was able to channel his feelings into activism. Plenty of veterans came home and never quite recovered, but Kovic’s story is important because he did not let Vietnam defeat him personally.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did Tom Cruise&amp;#039;s hair change so drastically? I&amp;#039;m assuming it&amp;#039;s suppose to show how much he aged while at war, but I have to say it made me somewhat uncomfortable. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought most of Ron&amp;#039;s childhood scenes were hyper-dramatized and nearly silly.  &amp;quot;I had a dream last night Ron.  You were talking in front of a whole bunch of people...&amp;quot;?  There are the dangers of basing a film on an autobiography.  We are all the heroes of our own lives. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oliver Stone sure has a talent for ruining moments that should be dramatic. For instance, Ron’s breakdown at his parents’ house when he’s shouting and crying about killing children and being paralyzed and castrated? It was intense and very heart wrenching. And then he starts screaming “Penis! Penis!” at the top of his lungs, and the moment is gone. Then when Ron and the other fellow are left in the desert, and they fight over &amp;#039;&amp;#039;who killed more babies&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and start spitting on each other and fall out of their wheelchairs. Yeah, that was really dramatic. Not. A scene like that should &amp;#039;&amp;#039;not&amp;#039;&amp;#039; have been made comedic. And while I’m complaining about Stone’s style, he also has a talent for trying to make moments dramatic that really shouldn&amp;#039;t be dramatic. As JT notes above, the childhood scenes boarded on silly. And why did Stone feel the need to use slow motion so gratuitously? I was over the slow-mo in the first five minutes on the movie. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find the focus on the experiences of one veteran an inferior approach compared to the approach made in &amp;quot;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;quot;. I find it problematic how the movie tries to relate all the various problems veterans faced to one person. There are other veterans in the movie, but none are given any real depth compared to the main character. I also found it questionable how little time the movie actually spent in the Vietnam war itself. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To contribute to Jonathan&amp;#039;s point, I think that the only character that was truly developed in the film was Kovic. I had trouble even identifying people in the movie. When Kovic goes to hug his old childhood friend, also a Vietnam Vet, I didn&amp;#039;t even know who he was.  I also had trouble piecing together who exactly Wilson was, the man Kovic killed.  And for other characters, like Donna, we do not know very much about her at all, other than the fact that Kovic likes her and she goes to Syracuse. Everyone seemed very flat in comparison to Kovic. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t really think the point of the movie was to focus on the war, it was to focus on the equally trying time that some vets like Kovic faced upon returning home. Movies like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Platoon&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;We Were Soldiers&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (had to get that Mel Gibson reference in there) and to an extent &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rescue Dawn&amp;#039;&amp;#039; chronicle the conditions over in Vietnam. But this movie, Taxi Driver and Deer Hunter focus on the effect of coming home and dealing with an experience that fundamentally changed those who served. For instance, using WWII movies, if you wanted to view the war itself you might watch &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Saving Private Ryan&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, whereas if you wanted to see the effect of the war upon returning home you would want to watch &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, or &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Flags of Our Fathers&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. There can be &amp;quot;war movies&amp;quot; that do not focus on actual combat, and in some instances these are more compelling.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that really bothered me was the music for the film. John Williams has done an awful lot of first rate scores, but I don’t think his style of music was appropriate for this movie. Sure, it was pretty, but it kept pulling me out of the scenes. I’m pretty sure “they” say that the best scores are the ones viewers don’t really notice. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taylor, I think the meaning behind the desert scene was to show how ridiculous blind vindictiveness can be. Willem Dafoe&amp;#039;s character was angry for the sake of being angry, while Kovic was angry for being abandoned. Both of them ran away instead of confronting the issue, and I think this was Stone (or Kovic&amp;#039;s) way of saying &amp;quot;running away is still running away. You still have the same problems, they just have a different mailing address.&amp;quot; The verbal fight over &amp;quot;how many babies did [they] kill,&amp;quot; was also important, in that it showed how the war created a value system so twisted that the only way these menw ere able to validate themselves was by a kill count. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, the catheter scene was, in my opinion, Ron Kovic forcing his family to accept what he is. His mother refuses to accept what the war did to him, and Ron refused to be ignored. This was one of the most soul-crushing scenes in the movie, I thought, because it showed just how alone he was in his torment. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I certainly agree that the dialogue in the desert scene is important. It tells a lot about what the war did to these men. My problem is that it’s turned into a humorous moment, which really detracts from the meaningfulness of it for me. The same goes for the scene in the Kovic household where Ron confronts his parents. I think pulling out the catheter was important for his family and the audience, but it’s turned into something of a joke. Maybe there’s some deep philosophical point to be made about making those moments humorous, but I’m not really in the mood to be grasping at straws. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But at the same time do you all think you&amp;#039;d react in the same way had we watched this when the movie came out, before Tom Cruise was jumping on couches and making Oprah look like the model of constraint? Maybe even on a subconscious level the fact that most people don&amp;#039;t take Cruise seriously anymore impacted the way that some of you viewed these particular scenes.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were two guys in this film that also did Platoon-- Willem Dafoe and the dude with the scar on his face in Platoon. I also kept thinking about other Vietnam films. This was different in that it is really a story about a single man and the post-war adjustment (with only 2 quick war scenes) kind of like Best Years of Our Lives. I don&amp;#039;t think they ever made a non-why does life suck so much this film is so depressing-Vietnam film. That&amp;#039;s why everyone should go see Tropic Thunder this weekend at cheapseats... its gonna be LEGENDARY!!!--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times.  I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic.  Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As is often difficult for anyone, upon developing bias, it was tough for me to detach from my love for Oliver Stone in watching this. Instead, I watched it from the perspective of a 20 year old kid whose brother is an Iraq vet and whose father is a Vietnam vet. I watched from the perspective of a kid still trying to figure out his own personal politics, while still giving everyone else&amp;#039;s, regardless of my agreement/disagreement, a fair day in court. I watch it from the perspective of trying to put myself, a relatively conservative 21-year-old, college-going kid into the perspective of the time, when my politics probably would not have been popular. Finally, I watch it with the knowledge that there is not a single human being alive that WANTS war. With all of these emotions around one simple, three-letter-word, &amp;quot;war,&amp;quot; Stone crafted a masterful examination of the human psyche. It was chaotic. To be perfectly honest, the Vietnam era was a pretty terrible time to be American. -Cash Nelson  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to disagree with both of you, I thought Cruise was fantastic. His performance captured the essence of Vietnam Vet struggling to find closure in a world of chaos and alienation.  I was very impressed - see he can be more than just Top Gun.  And if we are going to analyze movies fairly as historians, we should not let our personal opinions of the actors&amp;#039; personal lives so greatly affect our analysis of the film.~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t really care for this.  It wasn&amp;#039;t very entertaining for me and it&amp;#039;s not something I would ever watch again.  I didn&amp;#039;t have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he&amp;#039;d actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he&amp;#039;d been gone.  We see kid Ron watching JFK&amp;#039;s speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967.  Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in &amp;#039;46 do things come together.  I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tom Cruise pre-Vietnam/during the war &amp;gt; Tom Cruise in the hospital to the end.  And, I know that&amp;#039;s how the style was in the 1970s, but I couldn&amp;#039;t handle it.  Everything just seemed to be too over-the-top almost and very very dramatic.  And I think abbreviating Kovic&amp;#039;s life so much to fit it all in in 2 1/2 hours hurt the movie a great deal.  As the others said, it was so fragmented and scattered that I had a hard time keeping up with how old Ron was supposed to be, etc.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more thing; were those supposed to be New York accents?  I know Kovic was from Long Island but come on now.  They sounded a bit off to me, but I suppose anything is better than Kevin Costner and a Boston accent. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Try Kevin Costner and a New Orleans accent. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh, eiw. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that Stone showed the differing views between Ron and Donna. He a Vet and she a war-protester. It reminded me of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Forrest Gump&amp;#039;&amp;#039; although &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Forrest Gump&amp;#039;&amp;#039; came 8 years after &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the 4th of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I&amp;#039;m glad Stone mentioned the protest at Kent State because not only did this horrible event have a big impact on the American public but also college campuses were hubs for protests that held very powerful stances during the Vietnam era. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was expecting something really bad, and really inaccurate from Oliver Stone. He surprised me, I liked the film... a lot. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Cash&amp;#039;s comment, I cannot resist quoting Robert E. Lee: observing the slaughter of the Battle of Fredericksburg from his vantage point on Telegraph Hill, he said to Gen. Longstreet, &amp;quot;It is well that war is so terrible - we should grow too fond of it.&amp;quot;  It still rings true.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I didn&amp;#039;t like the movie all that much, and by the time it ended I was actually fairly... depressed is too strong sounding but I can not think of another word.  I didn&amp;#039;t like how the movie would just cut to another scene, no transition, no nothing, just one minute your watching something then BAM something completely different.  It drove me nuts!! --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Way to ruin “Moon River,” Oliver Stone and Tom Cruise. You two need to apologize to Audrey Hepburn, Henry Mancini, and Johnny Mercer.  I’ll never be able to listen to that song the same way again. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That was the point. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the point was to ruin the song in a &amp;quot;meaningful&amp;quot; way, then they failed for me. Anyway, I did like the movie. Of course, I can’t think of any movie that I’ve ever truly disliked. It’s nice to be reminded that Tom Cruise can be more than just a crazy person. I think the film did a fair job depicting the period, and it followed Kovic’s autobiography pretty accurately. However, I do think that it’s important to note that the book made me cry, while the movie didn’t. Usually, I react more emotionally to movies than books, simply because words can’t always get across feelings like an expression can. While I think the movie did a fantastic and heartbreaking job of showing Ron’s pain, I think I’ll stick to the autobiography. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that the friend said he di drugs to deal with the return from war and and the war in general but They never showed him doing anything. I fact he didn&amp;#039;t seem even be effected by anything. Maybe it was to show the degrees of problems. I just feel Stone could have shown that character more.---Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This seemed like one of the better of Stone&amp;#039;s movies. Perhaps this is because he served in Vietnam. -Wesley Weeks&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-20T08:15:43Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets.  They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village.  He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit.  Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron&amp;#039;s character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don&amp;#039;t have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, &amp;quot;Cutbacks.  The government&amp;#039;s just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys.&amp;quot; According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised with how much this movie was able to accurately portray.  You really see how hard it was for the Vets to return to the states with little to no support from their country and all of the stresses from war.  Most of them were druggies or, like Ron, alcoholics.  You also see how crappy the hospitals were and how little funding they received from the federal government.  I know we learned in class that it was much less than post-WWII America but the movie really made it real how few doctors there were and how just, disgusting the hospitals actually were.  I was NOT prepared for the bedpans and the vomit.  That was unnecessary. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really liked how well the film showed the difficulty discerning guys in your own troops and the members of the Vietcong. It really amplified how stressful and chaotic the setting was over in Vietnam and how frequently new guys were being added or sent home from American troops. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, much of the hospital horror that occurred in the film has happened as recently as last year. Those of us from the DC area will likely remember the extensive coverage of the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that the Washington Post covered extensively. Red tape, rat and cockroach infestations, mold, all occurring at the US Army&amp;#039;s flagship east coast medical center. It was accurate then, it is accurate now. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether veterans were disabled or suffering from PTSD, the readjustment to a country at war with itself had to leave any veteran feeling lost in the shuffle (at best). I think this movie conveys the disillusionment of the Vietnam era well. Kovic is a guy who went from “love it or leave” it to “politicians are rapists and thieves”. His story resonates because it was not uncommon, and sadly not unjustified. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The difference in the two 4th of July parades accurately displays the differing views of the American people. When the WWII veterans returned home, hundreds of people were lining the streets, cheering, clapping, and holding American flags. When Ron is being driven through the parade the people lining the streets are jeering and giving him the figure. It shows the very different reactions of the American people to these two wars. One war they supported (WWII), the other they did not (Vietnam). Also, during the first parade when the fireworks/gun shots(?) are fired the veteran is startled and flinches and young Ron takes notice of that; this is exactly what happens to Ron during the parade, he flinches when he hears that gun shot sound. These are two examples of the PTSD the soldiers experienced that affected them in their everyday life.  --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This film was the first that hammered home for me how bad it is when the government isn&amp;#039;t prepared to take care of wounded veterans.  The scenes in the VA hospital make it easy to understand the difficulties associated with a lack of funding, and what it was like for veterans in those hospitals.  I guess watching Forest Gump too many times left me thinking VA hospitals were all ping pong and ice cream. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the scene in the bar where Kovic and the WWII Marine get into a scuffle was powerful in that it showed the disconnect between generations and between the views on the different wars. I know that guys like my grandfather who served in the Marines in the Pacific during WWII and in Korea often had little sympathy for perceived &amp;quot;whiners&amp;quot; from Vietnam. Because of the different circumstances surrounding the two wars and the vast differences between the generations, it is no wonder there were such tensions among the veterans.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree on the movie doing a great job with showing how Ron’s view changes towards the war.  It shows how society around him affected his thoughts on how the war had a negative impact on America.   The film also gave examples of what was happening in America, the Kent State shootings (Donna briefly stated about) and the brutal beatings by police officers at the war rallies. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As with the people above me, I felt the film did a good job portraying PTSD, and how no one really knew much about it or what was going on.  No one was like &amp;#039;oh he has blah blah blah&amp;#039; they were like &amp;#039;your home you should just forget it and get on with life.&amp;#039; --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film also got the age of the soldiers correct.  In the beginning, there was a scene when some recruiting officers showed up at Ronnie&amp;#039;s high school, trying to recruit some of the young men from there.  Also, according to Wilson&amp;#039;s grave stone, the guy Ronnie killed was only 19 years old when he died, so again a very young person.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also correctly mentions the events going on at this time, such as the Kent State Massacre, My Lai etc.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie also got correct the reactions Ronnie got from his family when he finally came home from the hospital.  His family was unsure of how to act around him, and they were always asking if he needed extra help.  Ronnie&amp;#039;s mother&amp;#039;s reaction reminded me a lot of Homer&amp;#039;s mother&amp;#039;s reaction when she first saw her son, in &amp;quot;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;quot;.  Both mothers could barely look at their sons with out crying, and had to excuse themselves so they wouldn&amp;#039;t break down in front of their sons.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely agree with Bryan that the film accurately depicted the disconnect between vets of the Vietnam War and vets of other wars.  Although we now view Korean War vets as the most neglected (and rightly so, I must say), at the time Vietnam vets were looked down on in a way the other vets weren&amp;#039;t.  This was the first war in the U.S. popularly questioned by the public. -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was ironic that Nixon said in his nomination speech that people who served in Vietnam deserve the honor and respect they earned, when after all he cut funding to verterans and held back verteran healthcare and education beneftis.-James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t remember his name, but Kovic&amp;#039;s friend who owns the burger joint once warned him that the communist threat was not as prominent as many thought.  This is accurate because communism, although real, was never much of a threat as much as a percieved threat to the American public.  &amp;quot;Better dead than red&amp;quot; was Kovic&amp;#039;s saying, as Kovic thought he was fighting against communism, only to find himself in aiding and abbeting a population in the middle of a civil war.-James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Ron&amp;#039;s Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they&amp;#039;re just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people.  The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control.  It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC.  Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn&amp;#039;t have been. -Whitney Holcomb &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Really? I thought the reason they were shocked is that the Americans honestly didn&amp;#039;t think there were civilians in the area. The justification for shooting was that the lieutenant saw rifles in the huts, only later did the Americans find out that the VC had used civilians as &amp;quot;Cover&amp;quot;. Also I thought the confusion and uncertainty between unarmed civilians and VC was one of the main frustrations American soldiers had fighting in Vietnam. I thought this scene was accurate. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know Jason, I would have to agree with Whitney on this one.  When we see Ron in Vietnam, right before the shootings, he is starting his second tour of duty.  It is hard to believe that after already spending a year in the conflict, Ron would not have experienced chaotic confusion, the murder of innocent civilians and the savagery that characterized the war.  According to Phillip Caputo, who was also a marine during the early period of conflict , in &amp;quot;Rumor of War,&amp;quot; soldiers were fast introduced  to the ruthlessness of the war. Soldiers realized pretty quickly that they would receive no mercy, so chose to present very little themselves. I am not saying the Kovic had become a ruthless killer, but that he would not have been so naive to that kind of warfare. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought they were more shocked to find that they were being fired at rather than the fact that they killed innocent peolple.  It was also accurate for soldiers to disobey orders, act on their own, and do as they please.  -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gotta agree with Jason here, this was not some situation where they were going in to suppress some village, nor was this some &amp;quot;revenge&amp;quot; mission, they thought the VC were there in force, and upon seeing nobody in the hut was armed of course they would be upset. I doubt one tour of duty would suddenly turn Kovic into some heartless baby killing machine.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I interpreted the backwards hanging of the flag as a sign of symbolic protest. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You have a good point about the shooting, Jason.  I guess I missed seeing the rifles part of that.  But about the flag, wasn&amp;#039;t Ron at that point still very patriotic? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that overall this movie hit some key points that are accurate, BUT I felt that it was another stereotypical portrayal of a torn up vietnam vet. Maybe I am still living in a fantasy that most of the vets were not drastically screwed up when they returned from the war. I know it was based on a book so this might not have been necessarily a film makers decision.  - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Awe come on, Elle.  You didn&amp;#039;t like the American Hero story?  It&amp;#039;s not shown on the silver screen nearly enough.  That&amp;#039;s not to say it wasn&amp;#039;t an impressive life story, but like Elle said, it just seemed to be too much.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just to offer up some perspective, the screenplay was written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic himself, both of which were veterans of this war. Kovic approved the casting of Tom Cruise, and while there were obviously scenes added for dramatic license (most notably, Ron Kovic telling Will&amp;#039;s family that he was responsible for their son&amp;#039;s murder), most of it was on the up and up. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That being said, Parris Island would have only been eight weeks of hell back then. Not thirteen. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe this is a function of there just not being a whole lot of combat scenes but I was wondering where all the black soldiers were? There was the guy that saved Kovic and carried him to safety, but I don&amp;#039;t recall seeing any other black soldiers, which is strange seeing as how something like 60 percent of black males were drafted. Though I guess the protest scenes showed a bit more diversity. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don’t know much about the book the movie is based off of, but I felt the whole scene in Mexico was inaccurate. If I’m wrong please correct me, but this was something America did not talk about if it were true.  Was Mexico a popular retreat place for the Vets, and was it exactly like how it was portrayed in the film? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the depiction of Mexico was a little ludicrous. Although I know Mexico was a place of destination for some wishing to escape the states, in the movie, Mexico seemed almost to be a resort, a haven for the disabled, paraplegic veteran, with poker, alcohol and prostitutes at your beck and call. I didn&amp;#039;t really buy it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m not sure, but in the scene Ron and a friend of his were talking about the war and the friend stated “This is a wealthy man’s war.”  What does he mean by that?  It was not a war for the common soldier because most soldiers who fought were from the lower class. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I interpreted this quote about &amp;quot;the wealthy man&amp;#039;s war&amp;quot; as an acknowledgment of the notion that politicians in Washington &amp;quot;play war&amp;quot;, using lower class boys as their playing pieces. In other words, the &amp;quot;fatcats&amp;quot; in Washington make war, but let others do their fightin&amp;#039;. Take a listen to Creedence Clearwater Revival&amp;#039;s Fortunate Son. Here is a lyric that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up every time,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Some folks are born made to wave the flag,&lt;br /&gt;
Ooh, they&amp;#039;re red, white and blue.&lt;br /&gt;
And when the band plays hail to the chief,&lt;br /&gt;
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators son, son.&lt;br /&gt;
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no,&amp;quot;- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.&amp;quot; New York Times, Oct. 28, 1973.&lt;br /&gt;
-Wealthy White Politican Henry Kissinger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The US must carry out some act somewhere in the world which shows its determination to continue to be a world power.&amp;quot; Post-Vietnam blues, as quoted in The Washington Post, April 1975&lt;br /&gt;
-Henry Kissinger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;So many minority youths had volunteered that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself.&amp;quot; --Tom DeLay, explaining at the 1988 GOP convention why he and vice presidential nominee Dan Quayle did not fight in the Vietnam War &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie has a very strange passage of time. It quickly zooms to the Vietnam war without any transition period covering training or the green zone. The movie does not really go into any real depth of experience in the Vietnam war and only focuses on a couple instances of traumatic war experience followed by a stay at a hospital. The way they condemn the hospitals particularly bothers me in relation to the discussion of our lecture in which it was discussed that Vietnam had a large support staff and better health treatment for soldiers. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of going off of Ashley and Jason&amp;#039;s comments, what did you all think about the remark that Vietnam was a &amp;quot;white man&amp;#039;s war&amp;quot;?  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, I think that the belief that Vietnam was &amp;quot;a white man&amp;#039;s war&amp;quot; was common during the conflit. Although many of the soldiers fighting in Vietnam were black, most were drafted, meaning they were forced to fight.  Racial tensions within the USA during the 1960s and 1970s were still very heightened. Many felt that America should not be fighting a war overseas for freedom while there was still a battle for civil liberties going on within the country.  Some believed that &amp;quot;the white man&amp;quot; was more concerned with communism abroad than improving the lives of Americans, especially poor, underprivileged African Americans. The hospital scenes depict this attitude, when the attendants and nurses tell Ron they do not care about Vietnam, that it is not their fight, and they therefore have little respect for Ron&amp;#039;s sacrifice. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, I have to say that I found that remark incredibly inaccurate.  This was the first war fought by a desegregated military.  As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class, this was a war fought overwhelmingly by working class whites and black soldiers.  In Vietnam, for the first time in American history, we saw a class and racial disconnect in the makeup of our military forces.  Vietnam was fought by those disadvantaged by society: young, poor white and black men.  Not exactly those you think of when describing the makeup of congress or the presidency.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that really bothered me about the movie was the censorship on drug use. Stone showed everything else - sex with prostitutes, alcoholism, vomit and bed pans, but the movie definitely shied away from a common characteristic of a returning Vietnam Vet undergoing psychological trauma - the use of drugs, specifically heroine as Dr. M mentioned in class. There was a split second where you saw it in the hospital, but nowhere else. Was this perhaps because of the time period in which the movie was made, during Reagan&amp;#039;s war on drugs? ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Tim O&amp;#039;Brian&amp;#039;s book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;A Rumor of War,&amp;quot; the author discusses how the war appealed to the young generation originally.  How most of those who signed up early were teenagers and young adults because they were taught to be proud of their country and wanted to defend it.  They answered Kennedy&amp;#039;s call of &amp;quot;ask what you can do for your country&amp;quot; and wanted to be like their parents who had fought in previous wars, most notably WWII.  You could see this in the movie pretty well, especially when the young Ron is sitting there watching Kennedy&amp;#039;s address with his family and gets riled up about how to help and defend his country. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So this wasn&amp;#039;t a major part of anything but I wondered about the letters that were sent to and from soldiers. In the film Ron sends love letters to his lady, and it is also mentioned in the readings. Did this communication with home help also to keep the moral high, or no more so than any other war? - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very pleased to see O&amp;#039;Brien&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Things They Carried&amp;#039;&amp;#039; selected as a reading for this film. I would highly suggest that anyone who hasn&amp;#039;t read O&amp;#039;Brien to pick up &amp;#039;&amp;#039;TTTC&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Going After Cacciato&amp;#039;&amp;#039; as both are extremely powerful books in understanding the psyche of the Vietnam soldier. I found that of any text (be it film, novel, textbook), &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Things They Carried&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was one of the most formative texts for me in understanding the impact of Vietnam on a generation (which is notable seeing as how it is a work of fiction). In regards to this film and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;TTTC&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I found that Kovic&amp;#039;s despair upon returning and most people not really caring about the war was reflected well in O&amp;#039;Brien&amp;#039;s book. Though not in our excerpt, there is a story of a Vietnam vet who returns home and basically drives around his town every night with nothing to do, trying to figure out where he fits in with the world he has returned home to find. In my opinion it is the most heartbreaking part of the book in that all this person wants is basically the occasional pat on the back for a job well done, not a fancy parade, but he never really gets it. Also the issue of returning home to girls that have since moved on in their lives is reflected in the book, as with Kovic and his childhood sweetheart with whom he can no longer really communicate.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Rumor of War&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I thought Caputo’s discussion of nostalgia offered a new perspective on why the Vietnam conflict was so complicated for Vietnam veterans. Whether veterans supported or protested the war, their time in Vietnam was the most formative experience of their lives. Caputo said his objections to Vietnam were informed by a completely different set of circumstances than that of the homefront protesters- war. “Because I had fought in it, it was not an abstract issue, but a deeply emotional experience, the most significant thing that had happened to me.” I think this is the very sentiment that everyone ought to keep in mind when discussing the Vietnam conflict (and really any hot-button issue). Regardless of where people fall on the issue of Vietnam, everyone’s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;opinion&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is valid. Too often one side accuses the other side of “not getting it” or that “they’re wrong”, but this accusation misses the point. With an issue as personal and emotional as war, there is no right or wrong, just a poignant internalization of a provocative reality.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In spite of everything, we felt a strange attachment to Vietnam and, even stranger, a longing to return.&amp;quot;  These words from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Rumor of War&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is closely related to Tom Cruise&amp;#039;s character.  He joins the war initially b/c he finds the thought of combat &amp;quot;attractive&amp;quot; (a term used by this reading).  Upon his return, he encounters a brother who has gained liberal thoughts on the war, but Tom Cruise struggles to understand this opposition because of his nostalgia.  Furthermore, the reading explains that the overall mission in Vietnam was not to gain position or territory, but to simply &amp;quot;kill communists.&amp;quot;  These are very powerful words and something Oliver Stone was able to depict well in the movie. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie does not really fit in well with what they carried in my opinion because it does not show a real variety in the soldiers in Vietnam. The point of that reading was that they didn&amp;#039;t all carry the same things and quite a few things they took were personalized, but this was not shown in the movie. The movie never go anywhere near the depth of the readings in conveying the Vietnam war experience for soldiers. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although I agree with Jonathan that the movie does not depict the soldiers in Vietnam as complex or diverse as the readings convey, one part of the reading really struck a chord with me after watching the movie.  In &amp;quot;Things they carried,&amp;quot; the author mentions Lieutenant Jimmy Cross, his love for Martha back home and his dramatic reaction to the killing of his man Lavender. Although in the reading Cross didn&amp;#039;t technically kill Lavender, he felt responsible and he carried that guilt with him, leading him to tear up the pictures and letters from his love. In the movie, Kovic carried the guilt of having killed Wilson with him for a long time, leading him down a road of self-destruction, and ultimately a meeting with Wilson&amp;#039;s family in a quest for forgiveness. Not all burdens are tangible in the cases of Cross and Kovic, but they can prove awfully heavy to bear. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie fits in well with &amp;quot;A Rumor of War&amp;quot; because the author talks about how when he hears thunder all he can think about is &amp;quot;the roar of artillery&amp;quot;, and in the movie when Ronnie heard a helicopter flying overhead, he had a flashback to fighting in Vietnam.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Most American soldiers in Vietnam--at least the ones I knew--could not be divided into good men and bad. Each possessed roughly equal measures of both qualities.&amp;quot; These words from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rumor of War&amp;#039;&amp;#039; were perhaps the most telling of all, in regards to the movie. Despite a complete emotional transformation, Ron Kovic was never a good guy and he was never a bad guy. No one knew quite how to react to him, or any of the other veterans because as Caputo says, &amp;quot;the American soldier was a reflection of themselves.&amp;quot; -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers, including Ron Kovic really thought they were going to beat Communists in Vietnam in the beginning. They were disillusioned. The Cold War was coming to an end around the time this movie was made. The Tienanmen Square Massacre happened on July 4, 1989 and Berlin Wall fell in late 1989. It seems like with the release of this film, the filmmakers were making a comment on Communism or the war on it.- Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With a father who served in Vietnam from 1969-1970, I can say that this movie was pretty accurate with the stories he told about coming back home. While his story is nowhere near the personal hell that Kovic endured in his time back from the fighting, this movie showed, accurately, that our Vietnam Veterans did not get their ticker-tape parades. They were not congratulated. They were not thanked. By the time 1970 rolled around, free love was over. The Rolling Stones had held a concert at Altamont that led to 3 accidental deaths and one murder. Bobby and Jack Kennedy were dead, as were Dr. King and Malcolm X. Popular music was anti-war, involving everyone from the Doors, to Jefferson Airplane to Country Joe and the Fish. For once, America was losing a war, and with it, America lost its innocence. The homefront was a maelstrom of emotion, and while many were thankful for the service of our men and women, the anger, hatred and disenchantment was there as well. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash already mentioned this, but Oliver Stone himself was a Vietnam Vet, which I did not find out until after watching the movie.  This makes me wonder about the motives behind making this film.  The Gulf War began a year later in August of 1990, so how much of an influence did the build-up of that war have on Stone and Kovic?  Was this more than just a re-telling of one veteran&amp;#039;s story?  Was this film a tool to try and get Americans to oppose the Gulf War?  Kovic was arrested 12 times for political protests, and he was an active protestor against the Gulf War.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the movie, there was an ever-present tone painting the fight against communism as a ludicrous, illogical one.  The scene where Kovic&amp;#039;s mother tells him he is doing the right thing for going off to war to fight, because God is against communism really captures that tone. I think because this movie was made at the very end of the Cold War, when Americans had grown tired of the Communist fight, some contemporary criticism on foreign policy had definitely made its way into the movie.~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its really interesting how the film shows the treatment of soldiers. Comparing the 2 parades and the treatment of the soldiers... flicking him off as he drove by, the spitting in the faces of protesting vets, the basic degradation of vets, people calling him pathetic and having lost his ability to walk for &amp;quot;nothing&amp;quot;. I think this film adds to the sentiment that grew out of that anti-war movement and the negative qualities of it. Today we separate the soldiers from the war better when we start condemning. Although, we can still see many instances of American soldiers doing horrible, horrendous, in human things to detainees--like in the instance of Abu Ghraib--because of what the soldiers are told to do by the superiors and the mental climate in which they become accustom to--something unfamiliar, unrecognizable, and very primeval like how the soldiers felt in Vietnam when they committed atrocities. Granted this happened years after Stone&amp;#039;s film was made... but it is still relevent--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In watching the documentary in the special features, it was stated that after winning Best Picture for Platoon, &amp;quot;Oliver Stone could have made any movie he wanted.&amp;quot; Born On... was a promise kept to Ron Kovic himself that he would get this movie made. Oliver Stone was not looking for an Oscar with this one, but he got one anyway for Best Director. He wasn&amp;#039;t looking to gross $70 million, but it did anyway. This wasn&amp;#039;t even meant to be Oliver Stone&amp;#039;s baby. He had already done that with Platoon. Born On The 4th was a promise kept to a fellow Vietnam Veteran. Kovic felt very much that his story had been left behind and ignored. Oliver Stone promised to bring it back. Wasn&amp;#039;t that enough? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was the use of the blinking club lights meant to convey a sense of unreality in Ronnie&amp;#039;s life after his return home? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only other Oliver Stone movie I have seen was &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Any Given Sunday&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, a football movie where he used a lot of cuts and dramatized a lot of scenes where intense dialogue was taken place.  So for this movie, I was expecting a lot of distortion and even complexity in the progression of the film.  I actually don&amp;#039;t mind how the film was made b/c it is very unique to Stone&amp;#039;s style, and it seemed to fit in this story re-tell of someone&amp;#039;s Vietnam war experience.  By watching these two Stone movies, it seems he likes to integrate the past with the present.  The way he seems to do this is, for example, in the scene where Kovic is speaking at a parade but he cannot continue b/c of the baby crying.  Stone reminds Kovic (and the audience) about the baby crying in Vietnam and instills sounds of helicoptors and gun fire.  Very powerful techniques.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the jarring nature of the film was really unsettling - but I felt that this was a conscious decision by the film makers to portray how unsettling and choppy the experience of the vietnam was was for soldiers. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That makes sense for the &amp;quot;Vietnam Section&amp;quot; I guess we can call it, but for the entire movie?  It didn&amp;#039;t really seem to make sense and I don&amp;#039;t know if it was a wise choice on their part (if it was a conscious decision) to try to do that.  Something just doesn&amp;#039;t seem to add up.  But the choppiness really did work with the war scenes because you did get a sense of confusion and chaos of the situations these guys were in. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kelly&amp;#039;s response - I was thinking psychologically it works for the whole movie. I am NOT saying that I enjoyed it as a film viewer, but I can see why it might have been done that way. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly and Elle, this is a common technique of Stone&amp;#039;s, used in even heavier amounts in Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. Even JFK ran with it. Stone has often said that the stories he tells are filled with an anarchic level of chaos and panic, and the jarring, frantic cuts are his way of showing that panic. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It worked for me. - Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tangentally, I loved the placement of Johnny Got His Gun in the scene where Kovic learns he will never walk again. For those of you who have never read this (I have two copies, I am willing to let people borrow), there is perhaps no better work of literature that better portrays the agonizing fear that comes with realizing you, as a soldier, will never be understood as a human again. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the Fourth of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039; &amp;#039;s relationship to other Vietnam films, (I guess this is &amp;quot;filmography&amp;quot; as opposed to historiography) I think this movie does a good job of portraying the Vietnam vet. I would categorize this film as a biographical autobiography, that is Stone told Kovic&amp;#039;s story with help from Kovic himself. On one hand &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the Fourth of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039; validates the stock characters we see in other films while ultimately moving beyond those characterizations. Dr. McClurken mentioned that other movies about Vietnam depicted the vets as unstable and alienated, and the real Ron Kovic certainly had to deal with his share of instability and alienation in the years following his return home. What made Kovic different from the characters in other movies is that he was able to channel his feelings into activism. Plenty of veterans came home and never quite recovered, but Kovic’s story is important because he did not let Vietnam defeat him personally.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did Tom Cruise&amp;#039;s hair change so drastically? I&amp;#039;m assuming it&amp;#039;s suppose to show how much he aged while at war, but I have to say it made me somewhat uncomfortable. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought most of Ron&amp;#039;s childhood scenes were hyper-dramatized and nearly silly.  &amp;quot;I had a dream last night Ron.  You were talking in front of a whole bunch of people...&amp;quot;?  There are the dangers of basing a film on an autobiography.  We are all the heroes of our own lives. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oliver Stone sure has a talent for ruining moments that should be dramatic. For instance, Ron’s breakdown at his parents’ house when he’s shouting and crying about killing children and being paralyzed and castrated? It was intense and very heart wrenching. And then he starts screaming “Penis! Penis!” at the top of his lungs, and the moment is gone. Then when Ron and the other fellow are left in the desert, and they fight over &amp;#039;&amp;#039;who killed more babies&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and start spitting on each other and fall out of their wheelchairs. Yeah, that was really dramatic. Not. A scene like that should &amp;#039;&amp;#039;not&amp;#039;&amp;#039; have been made comedic. And while I’m complaining about Stone’s style, he also has a talent for trying to make moments dramatic that really shouldn&amp;#039;t be dramatic. As JT notes above, the childhood scenes boarded on silly. And why did Stone feel the need to use slow motion so gratuitously? I was over the slow-mo in the first five minutes on the movie. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find the focus on the experiences of one veteran an inferior approach compared to the approach made in &amp;quot;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;quot;. I find it problematic how the movie tries to relate all the various problems veterans faced to one person. There are other veterans in the movie, but none are given any real depth compared to the main character. I also found it questionable how little time the movie actually spent in the Vietnam war itself. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To contribute to Jonathan&amp;#039;s point, I think that the only character that was truly developed in the film was Kovic. I had trouble even identifying people in the movie. When Kovic goes to hug his old childhood friend, also a Vietnam Vet, I didn&amp;#039;t even know who he was.  I also had trouble piecing together who exactly Wilson was, the man Kovic killed.  And for other characters, like Donna, we do not know very much about her at all, other than the fact that Kovic likes her and she goes to Syracuse. Everyone seemed very flat in comparison to Kovic. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t really think the point of the movie was to focus on the war, it was to focus on the equally trying time that some vets like Kovic faced upon returning home. Movies like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Platoon&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;We Were Soldiers&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (had to get that Mel Gibson reference in there) and to an extent &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rescue Dawn&amp;#039;&amp;#039; chronicle the conditions over in Vietnam. But this movie, Taxi Driver and Deer Hunter focus on the effect of coming home and dealing with an experience that fundamentally changed those who served. For instance, using WWII movies, if you wanted to view the war itself you might watch &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Saving Private Ryan&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, whereas if you wanted to see the effect of the war upon returning home you would want to watch &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, or &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Flags of Our Fathers&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. There can be &amp;quot;war movies&amp;quot; that do not focus on actual combat, and in some instances these are more compelling.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that really bothered me was the music for the film. John Williams has done an awful lot of first rate scores, but I don’t think his style of music was appropriate for this movie. Sure, it was pretty, but it kept pulling me out of the scenes. I’m pretty sure “they” say that the best scores are the ones viewers don’t really notice. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taylor, I think the meaning behind the desert scene was to show how ridiculous blind vindictiveness can be. Willem Dafoe&amp;#039;s character was angry for the sake of being angry, while Kovic was angry for being abandoned. Both of them ran away instead of confronting the issue, and I think this was Stone (or Kovic&amp;#039;s) way of saying &amp;quot;running away is still running away. You still have the same problems, they just have a different mailing address.&amp;quot; The verbal fight over &amp;quot;how many babies did [they] kill,&amp;quot; was also important, in that it showed how the war created a value system so twisted that the only way these menw ere able to validate themselves was by a kill count. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, the catheter scene was, in my opinion, Ron Kovic forcing his family to accept what he is. His mother refuses to accept what the war did to him, and Ron refused to be ignored. This was one of the most soul-crushing scenes in the movie, I thought, because it showed just how alone he was in his torment. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I certainly agree that the dialogue in the desert scene is important. It tells a lot about what the war did to these men. My problem is that it’s turned into a humorous moment, which really detracts from the meaningfulness of it for me. The same goes for the scene in the Kovic household where Ron confronts his parents. I think pulling out the catheter was important for his family and the audience, but it’s turned into something of a joke. Maybe there’s some deep philosophical point to be made about making those moments humorous, but I’m not really in the mood to be grasping at straws. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But at the same time do you all think you&amp;#039;d react in the same way had we watched this when the movie came out, before Tom Cruise was jumping on couches and making Oprah look like the model of constraint? Maybe even on a subconscious level the fact that most people don&amp;#039;t take Cruise seriously anymore impacted the way that some of you viewed these particular scenes.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were two guys in this film that also did Platoon-- Willem Dafoe and the dude with the scar on his face in Platoon. I also kept thinking about other Vietnam films. This was different in that it is really a story about a single man and the post-war adjustment (with only 2 quick war scenes) kind of like Best Years of Our Lives. I don&amp;#039;t think they ever made a non-why does life suck so much this film is so depressing-Vietnam film. That&amp;#039;s why everyone should go see Tropic Thunder this weekend at cheapseats... its gonna be LEGENDARY!!!--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times.  I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic.  Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As is often difficult for anyone, upon developing bias, it was tough for me to detach from my love for Oliver Stone in watching this. Instead, I watched it from the perspective of a 20 year old kid whose brother is an Iraq vet and whose father is a Vietnam vet. I watched from the perspective of a kid still trying to figure out his own personal politics, while still giving everyone else&amp;#039;s, regardless of my agreement/disagreement, a fair day in court. I watch it from the perspective of trying to put myself, a relatively conservative 21-year-old, college-going kid into the perspective of the time, when my politics probably would not have been popular. Finally, I watch it with the knowledge that there is not a single human being alive that WANTS war. With all of these emotions around one simple, three-letter-word, &amp;quot;war,&amp;quot; Stone crafted a masterful examination of the human psyche. It was chaotic. To be perfectly honest, the Vietnam era was a pretty terrible time to be American. -Cash Nelson  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to disagree with both of you, I thought Cruise was fantastic. His performance captured the essence of Vietnam Vet struggling to find closure in a world of chaos and alienation.  I was very impressed - see he can be more than just Top Gun.  And if we are going to analyze movies fairly as historians, we should not let our personal opinions of the actors&amp;#039; personal lives so greatly affect our analysis of the film.~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t really care for this.  It wasn&amp;#039;t very entertaining for me and it&amp;#039;s not something I would ever watch again.  I didn&amp;#039;t have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he&amp;#039;d actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he&amp;#039;d been gone.  We see kid Ron watching JFK&amp;#039;s speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967.  Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in &amp;#039;46 do things come together.  I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tom Cruise pre-Vietnam/during the war &amp;gt; Tom Cruise in the hospital to the end.  And, I know that&amp;#039;s how the style was in the 1970s, but I couldn&amp;#039;t handle it.  Everything just seemed to be too over-the-top almost and very very dramatic.  And I think abbreviating Kovic&amp;#039;s life so much to fit it all in in 2 1/2 hours hurt the movie a great deal.  As the others said, it was so fragmented and scattered that I had a hard time keeping up with how old Ron was supposed to be, etc.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more thing; were those supposed to be New York accents?  I know Kovic was from Long Island but come on now.  They sounded a bit off to me, but I suppose anything is better than Kevin Costner and a Boston accent. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Try Kevin Costner and a New Orleans accent. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh, eiw. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that Stone showed the differing views between Ron and Donna. He a Vet and she a war-protester. It reminded me of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Forrest Gump&amp;#039;&amp;#039; although &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Forrest Gump&amp;#039;&amp;#039; came 8 years after &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the 4th of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I&amp;#039;m glad Stone mentioned the protest at Kent State because not only did this horrible event have a big impact on the American public but also college campuses were hubs for protests that held very powerful stances during the Vietnam era. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was expecting something really bad, and really inaccurate from Oliver Stone. He surprised me, I liked the film... a lot. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Cash&amp;#039;s comment, I cannot resist quoting Robert E. Lee: observing the slaughter of the Battle of Fredericksburg from his vantage point on Telegraph Hill, he said to Gen. Longstreet, &amp;quot;It is well that war is so terrible - we should grow too fond of it.&amp;quot;  It still rings true.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I didn&amp;#039;t like the movie all that much, and by the time it ended I was actually fairly... depressed is too strong sounding but I can not think of another word.  I didn&amp;#039;t like how the movie would just cut to another scene, no transition, no nothing, just one minute your watching something then BAM something completely different.  It drove me nuts!! --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Way to ruin “Moon River,” Oliver Stone and Tom Cruise. You two need to apologize to Audrey Hepburn, Henry Mancini, and Johnny Mercer.  I’ll never be able to listen to that song the same way again. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That was the point. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the point was to ruin the song in a &amp;quot;meaningful&amp;quot; way, then they failed for me. Anyway, I did like the movie. Of course, I can’t think of any movie that I’ve ever truly disliked. It’s nice to be reminded that Tom Cruise can be more than just a crazy person. I think the film did a fair job depicting the period, and it followed Kovic’s autobiography pretty accurately. However, I do think that it’s important to note that the book made me cry, while the movie didn’t. Usually, I react more emotionally to movies than books, simply because words can’t always get across feelings like an expression can. While I think the movie did a fantastic and heartbreaking job of showing Ron’s pain, I think I’ll stick to the autobiography. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that the friend said he di drugs to deal with the return from war and and the war in general but They never showed him doing anything. I fact he didn&amp;#039;t seem even be effected by anything. Maybe it was to show the degrees of problems. I just feel Stone could have shown that character more.---Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This seemed like one of the better of Stone&amp;#039;s movies. Perhaps this is because he served in Vietnam. -Wesley Weeks&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 13 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-20T08:04:07Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets.  They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village.  He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit.  Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron&amp;#039;s character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don&amp;#039;t have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, &amp;quot;Cutbacks.  The government&amp;#039;s just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys.&amp;quot; According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised with how much this movie was able to accurately portray.  You really see how hard it was for the Vets to return to the states with little to no support from their country and all of the stresses from war.  Most of them were druggies or, like Ron, alcoholics.  You also see how crappy the hospitals were and how little funding they received from the federal government.  I know we learned in class that it was much less than post-WWII America but the movie really made it real how few doctors there were and how just, disgusting the hospitals actually were.  I was NOT prepared for the bedpans and the vomit.  That was unnecessary. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also really liked how well the film showed the difficulty discerning guys in your own troops and the members of the Vietcong. It really amplified how stressful and chaotic the setting was over in Vietnam and how frequently new guys were being added or sent home from American troops. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Unfortunately, much of the hospital horror that occurred in the film has happened as recently as last year. Those of us from the DC area will likely remember the extensive coverage of the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that the Washington Post covered extensively. Red tape, rat and cockroach infestations, mold, all occurring at the US Army&amp;#039;s flagship east coast medical center. It was accurate then, it is accurate now. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whether veterans were disabled or suffering from PTSD, the readjustment to a country at war with itself had to leave any veteran feeling lost in the shuffle (at best). I think this movie conveys the disillusionment of the Vietnam era well. Kovic is a guy who went from “love it or leave” it to “politicians are rapists and thieves”. His story resonates because it was not uncommon, and sadly not unjustified. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The difference in the two 4th of July parades accurately displays the differing views of the American people. When the WWII veterans returned home, hundreds of people were lining the streets, cheering, clapping, and holding American flags. When Ron is being driven through the parade the people lining the streets are jeering and giving him the figure. It shows the very different reactions of the American people to these two wars. One war they supported (WWII), the other they did not (Vietnam). Also, during the first parade when the fireworks/gun shots(?) are fired the veteran is startled and flinches and young Ron takes notice of that; this is exactly what happens to Ron during the parade, he flinches when he hears that gun shot sound. These are two examples of the PTSD the soldiers experienced that affected them in their everyday life.  --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This film was the first that hammered home for me how bad it is when the government isn&amp;#039;t prepared to take care of wounded veterans.  The scenes in the VA hospital make it easy to understand the difficulties associated with a lack of funding, and what it was like for veterans in those hospitals.  I guess watching Forest Gump too many times left me thinking VA hospitals were all ping pong and ice cream. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the scene in the bar where Kovic and the WWII Marine get into a scuffle was powerful in that it showed the disconnect between generations and between the views on the different wars. I know that guys like my grandfather who served in the Marines in the Pacific during WWII and in Korea often had little sympathy for perceived &amp;quot;whiners&amp;quot; from Vietnam. Because of the different circumstances surrounding the two wars and the vast differences between the generations, it is no wonder there were such tensions among the veterans.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also agree on the movie doing a great job with showing how Ron’s view changes towards the war.  It shows how society around him affected his thoughts on how the war had a negative impact on America.   The film also gave examples of what was happening in America, the Kent State shootings (Donna briefly stated about) and the brutal beatings by police officers at the war rallies. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As with the people above me, I felt the film did a good job portraying PTSD, and how no one really knew much about it or what was going on.  No one was like &amp;#039;oh he has blah blah blah&amp;#039; they were like &amp;#039;your home you should just forget it and get on with life.&amp;#039; --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The film also got the age of the soldiers correct.  In the beginning, there was a scene when some recruiting officers showed up at Ronnie&amp;#039;s high school, trying to recruit some of the young men from there.  Also, according to Wilson&amp;#039;s grave stone, the guy Ronnie killed was only 19 years old when he died, so again a very young person.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also correctly mentions the events going on at this time, such as the Kent State Massacre, My Lai etc.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the movie also got correct the reactions Ronnie got from his family when he finally came home from the hospital.  His family was unsure of how to act around him, and they were always asking if he needed extra help.  Ronnie&amp;#039;s mother&amp;#039;s reaction reminded me a lot of Homer&amp;#039;s mother&amp;#039;s reaction when she first saw her son, in &amp;quot;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;quot;.  Both mothers could barely look at their sons with out crying, and had to excuse themselves so they wouldn&amp;#039;t break down in front of their sons.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely agree with Bryan that the film accurately depicted the disconnect between vets of the Vietnam War and vets of other wars.  Although we now view Korean War vets as the most neglected (and rightly so, I must say), at the time Vietnam vets were looked down on in a way the other vets weren&amp;#039;t.  This was the first war in the U.S. popularly questioned by the public. -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was ironic that Nixon said in his nomination speech that people who served in Vietnam deserve the honor and respect they earned, when after all he cut funding to verterans and held back verteran healthcare and education beneftis.-James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can&amp;#039;t remember his name, but Kovic&amp;#039;s friend who owns the burger joint once warned him that the communist threat was not as prominent as many thought.  This is accurate because communism, although real, was never much of a threat as much as a percieved threat to the American public.  &amp;quot;Better dead than red&amp;quot; was Kovic&amp;#039;s saying, as Kovic thought he was fighting against communism, only to find himself in aiding and abbeting a population in the middle of a civil war.-James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Ron&amp;#039;s Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they&amp;#039;re just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people.  The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control.  It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC.  Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn&amp;#039;t have been. -Whitney Holcomb &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Really? I thought the reason they were shocked is that the Americans honestly didn&amp;#039;t think there were civilians in the area. The justification for shooting was that the lieutenant saw rifles in the huts, only later did the Americans find out that the VC had used civilians as &amp;quot;Cover&amp;quot;. Also I thought the confusion and uncertainty between unarmed civilians and VC was one of the main frustrations American soldiers had fighting in Vietnam. I thought this scene was accurate. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know Jason, I would have to agree with Whitney on this one.  When we see Ron in Vietnam, right before the shootings, he is starting his second tour of duty.  It is hard to believe that after already spending a year in the conflict, Ron would not have experienced chaotic confusion, the murder of innocent civilians and the savagery that characterized the war.  According to Phillip Caputo, who was also a marine during the early period of conflict , in &amp;quot;Rumor of War,&amp;quot; soldiers were fast introduced  to the ruthlessness of the war. Soldiers realized pretty quickly that they would receive no mercy, so chose to present very little themselves. I am not saying the Kovic had become a ruthless killer, but that he would not have been so naive to that kind of warfare. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought they were more shocked to find that they were being fired at rather than the fact that they killed innocent peolple.  It was also accurate for soldiers to disobey orders, act on their own, and do as they please.  -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Gotta agree with Jason here, this was not some situation where they were going in to suppress some village, nor was this some &amp;quot;revenge&amp;quot; mission, they thought the VC were there in force, and upon seeing nobody in the hut was armed of course they would be upset. I doubt one tour of duty would suddenly turn Kovic into some heartless baby killing machine.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I interpreted the backwards hanging of the flag as a sign of symbolic protest. -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You have a good point about the shooting, Jason.  I guess I missed seeing the rifles part of that.  But about the flag, wasn&amp;#039;t Ron at that point still very patriotic? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that overall this movie hit some key points that are accurate, BUT I felt that it was another stereotypical portrayal of a torn up vietnam vet. Maybe I am still living in a fantasy that most of the vets were not drastically screwed up when they returned from the war. I know it was based on a book so this might not have been necessarily a film makers decision.  - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Awe come on, Elle.  You didn&amp;#039;t like the American Hero story?  It&amp;#039;s not shown on the silver screen nearly enough.  That&amp;#039;s not to say it wasn&amp;#039;t an impressive life story, but like Elle said, it just seemed to be too much.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just to offer up some perspective, the screenplay was written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic himself, both of which were veterans of this war. Kovic approved the casting of Tom Cruise, and while there were obviously scenes added for dramatic license (most notably, Ron Kovic telling Will&amp;#039;s family that he was responsible for their son&amp;#039;s murder), most of it was on the up and up. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That being said, Parris Island would have only been eight weeks of hell back then. Not thirteen. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maybe this is a function of there just not being a whole lot of combat scenes but I was wondering where all the black soldiers were? There was the guy that saved Kovic and carried him to safety, but I don&amp;#039;t recall seeing any other black soldiers, which is strange seeing as how something like 60 percent of black males were drafted. Though I guess the protest scenes showed a bit more diversity. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don’t know much about the book the movie is based off of, but I felt the whole scene in Mexico was inaccurate. If I’m wrong please correct me, but this was something America did not talk about if it were true.  Was Mexico a popular retreat place for the Vets, and was it exactly like how it was portrayed in the film? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the depiction of Mexico was a little ludicrous. Although I know Mexico was a place of destination for some wishing to escape the states, in the movie, Mexico seemed almost to be a resort, a haven for the disabled, paraplegic veteran, with poker, alcohol and prostitutes at your beck and call. I didn&amp;#039;t really buy it. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m not sure, but in the scene Ron and a friend of his were talking about the war and the friend stated “This is a wealthy man’s war.”  What does he mean by that?  It was not a war for the common soldier because most soldiers who fought were from the lower class. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I interpreted this quote about &amp;quot;the wealthy man&amp;#039;s war&amp;quot; as an acknowledgment of the notion that politicians in Washington &amp;quot;play war&amp;quot;, using lower class boys as their playing pieces. In other words, the &amp;quot;fatcats&amp;quot; in Washington make war, but let others do their fightin&amp;#039;. Take a listen to Creedence Clearwater Revival&amp;#039;s Fortunate Son. Here is a lyric that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up every time,&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Some folks are born made to wave the flag,&lt;br /&gt;
Ooh, they&amp;#039;re red, white and blue.&lt;br /&gt;
And when the band plays hail to the chief,&lt;br /&gt;
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators son, son.&lt;br /&gt;
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no,&amp;quot;- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.&amp;quot; New York Times, Oct. 28, 1973.&lt;br /&gt;
-Wealthy White Politican Henry Kissinger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;The US must carry out some act somewhere in the world which shows its determination to continue to be a world power.&amp;quot; Post-Vietnam blues, as quoted in The Washington Post, April 1975&lt;br /&gt;
-Henry Kissinger&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;So many minority youths had volunteered that there was literally no room for patriotic folks like myself.&amp;quot; --Tom DeLay, explaining at the 1988 GOP convention why he and vice presidential nominee Dan Quayle did not fight in the Vietnam War &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie has a very strange passage of time. It quickly zooms to the Vietnam war without any transition period covering training or the green zone. The movie does not really go into any real depth of experience in the Vietnam war and only focuses on a couple instances of traumatic war experience followed by a stay at a hospital. The way they condemn the hospitals particularly bothers me in relation to the discussion of our lecture in which it was discussed that Vietnam had a large support staff and better health treatment for soldiers. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kind of going off of Ashley and Jason&amp;#039;s comments, what did you all think about the remark that Vietnam was a &amp;quot;white man&amp;#039;s war&amp;quot;?  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, I think that the belief that Vietnam was &amp;quot;a white man&amp;#039;s war&amp;quot; was common during the conflit. Although many of the soldiers fighting in Vietnam were black, most were drafted, meaning they were forced to fight.  Racial tensions within the USA during the 1960s and 1970s were still very heightened. Many felt that America should not be fighting a war overseas for freedom while there was still a battle for civil liberties going on within the country.  Some believed that &amp;quot;the white man&amp;quot; was more concerned with communism abroad than improving the lives of Americans, especially poor, underprivileged African Americans. The hospital scenes depict this attitude, when the attendants and nurses tell Ron they do not care about Vietnam, that it is not their fight, and they therefore have little respect for Ron&amp;#039;s sacrifice. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, I have to say that I found that remark incredibly inaccurate.  This was the first war fought by a desegregated military.  As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class, this was a war fought overwhelmingly by working class whites and black soldiers.  In Vietnam, for the first time in American history, we saw a class and racial disconnect in the makeup of our military forces.  Vietnam was fought by those disadvantaged by society: young, poor white and black men.  Not exactly those you think of when describing the makeup of congress or the presidency.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that really bothered me about the movie was the censorship on drug use. Stone showed everything else - sex with prostitutes, alcoholism, vomit and bed pans, but the movie definitely shied away from a common characteristic of a returning Vietnam Vet undergoing psychological trauma - the use of drugs, specifically heroine as Dr. M mentioned in class. There was a split second where you saw it in the hospital, but nowhere else. Was this perhaps because of the time period in which the movie was made, during Reagan&amp;#039;s war on drugs? ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
In Tim O&amp;#039;Brian&amp;#039;s book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;A Rumor of War,&amp;quot; the author discusses how the war appealed to the young generation originally.  How most of those who signed up early were teenagers and young adults because they were taught to be proud of their country and wanted to defend it.  They answered Kennedy&amp;#039;s call of &amp;quot;ask what you can do for your country&amp;quot; and wanted to be like their parents who had fought in previous wars, most notably WWII.  You could see this in the movie pretty well, especially when the young Ron is sitting there watching Kennedy&amp;#039;s address with his family and gets riled up about how to help and defend his country. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So this wasn&amp;#039;t a major part of anything but I wondered about the letters that were sent to and from soldiers. In the film Ron sends love letters to his lady, and it is also mentioned in the readings. Did this communication with home help also to keep the moral high, or no more so than any other war? - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was very pleased to see O&amp;#039;Brien&amp;#039;s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Things They Carried&amp;#039;&amp;#039; selected as a reading for this film. I would highly suggest that anyone who hasn&amp;#039;t read O&amp;#039;Brien to pick up &amp;#039;&amp;#039;TTTC&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Going After Cacciato&amp;#039;&amp;#039; as both are extremely powerful books in understanding the psyche of the Vietnam soldier. I found that of any text (be it film, novel, textbook), &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Things They Carried&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was one of the most formative texts for me in understanding the impact of Vietnam on a generation (which is notable seeing as how it is a work of fiction). In regards to this film and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;TTTC&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I found that Kovic&amp;#039;s despair upon returning and most people not really caring about the war was reflected well in O&amp;#039;Brien&amp;#039;s book. Though not in our excerpt, there is a story of a Vietnam vet who returns home and basically drives around his town every night with nothing to do, trying to figure out where he fits in with the world he has returned home to find. In my opinion it is the most heartbreaking part of the book in that all this person wants is basically the occasional pat on the back for a job well done, not a fancy parade, but he never really gets it. Also the issue of returning home to girls that have since moved on in their lives is reflected in the book, as with Kovic and his childhood sweetheart with whom he can no longer really communicate.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Rumor of War&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I thought Caputo’s discussion of nostalgia offered a new perspective on why the Vietnam conflict was so complicated for Vietnam veterans. Whether veterans supported or protested the war, their time in Vietnam was the most formative experience of their lives. Caputo said his objections to Vietnam were informed by a completely different set of circumstances than that of the homefront protesters- war. “Because I had fought in it, it was not an abstract issue, but a deeply emotional experience, the most significant thing that had happened to me.” I think this is the very sentiment that everyone ought to keep in mind when discussing the Vietnam conflict (and really any hot-button issue). Regardless of where people fall on the issue of Vietnam, everyone’s &amp;#039;&amp;#039;opinion&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is valid. Too often one side accuses the other side of “not getting it” or that “they’re wrong”, but this accusation misses the point. With an issue as personal and emotional as war, there is no right or wrong, just a poignant internalization of a provocative reality.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;In spite of everything, we felt a strange attachment to Vietnam and, even stranger, a longing to return.&amp;quot;  These words from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Rumor of War&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is closely related to Tom Cruise&amp;#039;s character.  He joins the war initially b/c he finds the thought of combat &amp;quot;attractive&amp;quot; (a term used by this reading).  Upon his return, he encounters a brother who has gained liberal thoughts on the war, but Tom Cruise struggles to understand this opposition because of his nostalgia.  Furthermore, the reading explains that the overall mission in Vietnam was not to gain position or territory, but to simply &amp;quot;kill communists.&amp;quot;  These are very powerful words and something Oliver Stone was able to depict well in the movie. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie does not really fit in well with what they carried in my opinion because it does not show a real variety in the soldiers in Vietnam. The point of that reading was that they didn&amp;#039;t all carry the same things and quite a few things they took were personalized, but this was not shown in the movie. The movie never go anywhere near the depth of the readings in conveying the Vietnam war experience for soldiers. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although I agree with Jonathan that the movie does not depict the soldiers in Vietnam as complex or diverse as the readings convey, one part of the reading really struck a chord with me after watching the movie.  In &amp;quot;Things they carried,&amp;quot; the author mentions Lieutenant Jimmy Cross, his love for Martha back home and his dramatic reaction to the killing of his man Lavender. Although in the reading Cross didn&amp;#039;t technically kill Lavender, he felt responsible and he carried that guilt with him, leading him to tear up the pictures and letters from his love. In the movie, Kovic carried the guilt of having killed Wilson with him for a long time, leading him down a road of self-destruction, and ultimately a meeting with Wilson&amp;#039;s family in a quest for forgiveness. Not all burdens are tangible in the cases of Cross and Kovic, but they can prove awfully heavy to bear. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie fits in well with &amp;quot;A Rumor of War&amp;quot; because the author talks about how when he hears thunder all he can think about is &amp;quot;the roar of artillery&amp;quot;, and in the movie when Ronnie heard a helicopter flying overhead, he had a flashback to fighting in Vietnam.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Most American soldiers in Vietnam--at least the ones I knew--could not be divided into good men and bad. Each possessed roughly equal measures of both qualities.&amp;quot; These words from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rumor of War&amp;#039;&amp;#039; were perhaps the most telling of all, in regards to the movie. Despite a complete emotional transformation, Ron Kovic was never a good guy and he was never a bad guy. No one knew quite how to react to him, or any of the other veterans because as Caputo says, &amp;quot;the American soldier was a reflection of themselves.&amp;quot; -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers, including Ron Kovic really thought they were going to beat Communists in Vietnam in the beginning. They were disillusioned. The Cold War was coming to an end around the time this movie was made. The Tienanmen Square Massacre happened on July 4, 1989 and Berlin Wall fell in late 1989. It seems like with the release of this film, the filmmakers were making a comment on Communism or the war on it.- Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
With a father who served in Vietnam from 1969-1970, I can say that this movie was pretty accurate with the stories he told about coming back home. While his story is nowhere near the personal hell that Kovic endured in his time back from the fighting, this movie showed, accurately, that our Vietnam Veterans did not get their ticker-tape parades. They were not congratulated. They were not thanked. By the time 1970 rolled around, free love was over. The Rolling Stones had held a concert at Altamont that led to 3 accidental deaths and one murder. Bobby and Jack Kennedy were dead, as were Dr. King and Malcolm X. Popular music was anti-war, involving everyone from the Doors, to Jefferson Airplane to Country Joe and the Fish. For once, America was losing a war, and with it, America lost its innocence. The homefront was a maelstrom of emotion, and while many were thankful for the service of our men and women, the anger, hatred and disenchantment was there as well. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash already mentioned this, but Oliver Stone himself was a Vietnam Vet, which I did not find out until after watching the movie.  This makes me wonder about the motives behind making this film.  The Gulf War began a year later in August of 1990, so how much of an influence did the build-up of that war have on Stone and Kovic?  Was this more than just a re-telling of one veteran&amp;#039;s story?  Was this film a tool to try and get Americans to oppose the Gulf War?  Kovic was arrested 12 times for political protests, and he was an active protestor against the Gulf War.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Throughout the movie, there was an ever-present tone painting the fight against communism as a ludicrous, illogical one.  The scene where Kovic&amp;#039;s mother tells him he is doing the right thing for going off to war to fight, because God is against communism really captures that tone. I think because this movie was made at the very end of the Cold War, when Americans had grown tired of the Communist fight, some contemporary criticism on foreign policy had definitely made its way into the movie.~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its really interesting how the film shows the treatment of soldiers. Comparing the 2 parades and the treatment of the soldiers... flicking him off as he drove by, the spitting in the faces of protesting vets, the basic degradation of vets, people calling him pathetic and having lost his ability to walk for &amp;quot;nothing&amp;quot;. I think this film adds to the sentiment that grew out of that anti-war movement and the negative qualities of it. Today we separate the soldiers from the war better when we start condemning. Although, we can still see many instances of American soldiers doing horrible, horrendous, in human things to detainees--like in the instance of Abu Ghraib--because of what the soldiers are told to do by the superiors and the mental climate in which they become accustom to--something unfamiliar, unrecognizable, and very primeval like how the soldiers felt in Vietnam when they committed atrocities. Granted this happened years after Stone&amp;#039;s film was made... but it is still relevent--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In watching the documentary in the special features, it was stated that after winning Best Picture for Platoon, &amp;quot;Oliver Stone could have made any movie he wanted.&amp;quot; Born On... was a promise kept to Ron Kovic himself that he would get this movie made. Oliver Stone was not looking for an Oscar with this one, but he got one anyway for Best Director. He wasn&amp;#039;t looking to gross $70 million, but it did anyway. This wasn&amp;#039;t even meant to be Oliver Stone&amp;#039;s baby. He had already done that with Platoon. Born On The 4th was a promise kept to a fellow Vietnam Veteran. Kovic felt very much that his story had been left behind and ignored. Oliver Stone promised to bring it back. Wasn&amp;#039;t that enough? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was the use of the blinking club lights meant to convey a sense of unreality in Ronnie&amp;#039;s life after his return home? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The only other Oliver Stone movie I have seen was &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Any Given Sunday&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, a football movie where he used a lot of cuts and dramatized a lot of scenes where intense dialogue was taken place.  So for this movie, I was expecting a lot of distortion and even complexity in the progression of the film.  I actually don&amp;#039;t mind how the film was made b/c it is very unique to Stone&amp;#039;s style, and it seemed to fit in this story re-tell of someone&amp;#039;s Vietnam war experience.  By watching these two Stone movies, it seems he likes to integrate the past with the present.  The way he seems to do this is, for example, in the scene where Kovic is speaking at a parade but he cannot continue b/c of the baby crying.  Stone reminds Kovic (and the audience) about the baby crying in Vietnam and instills sounds of helicoptors and gun fire.  Very powerful techniques.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the jarring nature of the film was really unsettling - but I felt that this was a conscious decision by the film makers to portray how unsettling and choppy the experience of the vietnam was was for soldiers. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That makes sense for the &amp;quot;Vietnam Section&amp;quot; I guess we can call it, but for the entire movie?  It didn&amp;#039;t really seem to make sense and I don&amp;#039;t know if it was a wise choice on their part (if it was a conscious decision) to try to do that.  Something just doesn&amp;#039;t seem to add up.  But the choppiness really did work with the war scenes because you did get a sense of confusion and chaos of the situations these guys were in. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Kelly&amp;#039;s response - I was thinking psychologically it works for the whole movie. I am NOT saying that I enjoyed it as a film viewer, but I can see why it might have been done that way. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly and Elle, this is a common technique of Stone&amp;#039;s, used in even heavier amounts in Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. Even JFK ran with it. Stone has often said that the stories he tells are filled with an anarchic level of chaos and panic, and the jarring, frantic cuts are his way of showing that panic. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It worked for me. - Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tangentally, I loved the placement of Johnny Got His Gun in the scene where Kovic learns he will never walk again. For those of you who have never read this (I have two copies, I am willing to let people borrow), there is perhaps no better work of literature that better portrays the agonizing fear that comes with realizing you, as a soldier, will never be understood as a human again. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In terms of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the Fourth of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039; &amp;#039;s relationship to other Vietnam films, (I guess this is &amp;quot;filmography&amp;quot; as opposed to historiography) I think this movie does a good job of portraying the Vietnam vet. I would categorize this film as a biographical autobiography, that is Stone told Kovic&amp;#039;s story with help from Kovic himself. On one hand &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the Fourth of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039; validates the stock characters we see in other films while ultimately moving beyond those characterizations. Dr. McClurken mentioned that other movies about Vietnam depicted the vets as unstable and alienated, and the real Ron Kovic certainly had to deal with his share of instability and alienation in the years following his return home. What made Kovic different from the characters in other movies is that he was able to channel his feelings into activism. Plenty of veterans came home and never quite recovered, but Kovic’s story is important because he did not let Vietnam defeat him personally.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did Tom Cruise&amp;#039;s hair change so drastically? I&amp;#039;m assuming it&amp;#039;s suppose to show how much he aged while at war, but I have to say it made me somewhat uncomfortable. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought most of Ron&amp;#039;s childhood scenes were hyper-dramatized and nearly silly.  &amp;quot;I had a dream last night Ron.  You were talking in front of a whole bunch of people...&amp;quot;?  There are the dangers of basing a film on an autobiography.  We are all the heroes of our own lives. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oliver Stone sure has a talent for ruining moments that should be dramatic. For instance, Ron’s breakdown at his parents’ house when he’s shouting and crying about killing children and being paralyzed and castrated? It was intense and very heart wrenching. And then he starts screaming “Penis! Penis!” at the top of his lungs, and the moment is gone. Then when Ron and the other fellow are left in the desert, and they fight over &amp;#039;&amp;#039;who killed more babies&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and start spitting on each other and fall out of their wheelchairs. Yeah, that was really dramatic. Not. A scene like that should &amp;#039;&amp;#039;not&amp;#039;&amp;#039; have been made comedic. And while I’m complaining about Stone’s style, he also has a talent for trying to make moments dramatic that really shouldn&amp;#039;t be dramatic. As JT notes above, the childhood scenes boarded on silly. And why did Stone feel the need to use slow motion so gratuitously? I was over the slow-mo in the first five minutes on the movie. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I find the focus on the experiences of one veteran an inferior approach compared to the approach made in &amp;quot;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;quot;. I find it problematic how the movie tries to relate all the various problems veterans faced to one person. There are other veterans in the movie, but none are given any real depth compared to the main character. I also found it questionable how little time the movie actually spent in the Vietnam war itself. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To contribute to Jonathan&amp;#039;s point, I think that the only character that was truly developed in the film was Kovic. I had trouble even identifying people in the movie. When Kovic goes to hug his old childhood friend, also a Vietnam Vet, I didn&amp;#039;t even know who he was.  I also had trouble piecing together who exactly Wilson was, the man Kovic killed.  And for other characters, like Donna, we do not know very much about her at all, other than the fact that Kovic likes her and she goes to Syracuse. Everyone seemed very flat in comparison to Kovic. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t really think the point of the movie was to focus on the war, it was to focus on the equally trying time that some vets like Kovic faced upon returning home. Movies like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Platoon&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and &amp;#039;&amp;#039;We Were Soldiers&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (had to get that Mel Gibson reference in there) and to an extent &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rescue Dawn&amp;#039;&amp;#039; chronicle the conditions over in Vietnam. But this movie, Taxi Driver and Deer Hunter focus on the effect of coming home and dealing with an experience that fundamentally changed those who served. For instance, using WWII movies, if you wanted to view the war itself you might watch &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Saving Private Ryan&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, whereas if you wanted to see the effect of the war upon returning home you would want to watch &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, or &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Flags of Our Fathers&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. There can be &amp;quot;war movies&amp;quot; that do not focus on actual combat, and in some instances these are more compelling.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that really bothered me was the music for the film. John Williams has done an awful lot of first rate scores, but I don’t think his style of music was appropriate for this movie. Sure, it was pretty, but it kept pulling me out of the scenes. I’m pretty sure “they” say that the best scores are the ones viewers don’t really notice. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taylor, I think the meaning behind the desert scene was to show how ridiculous blind vindictiveness can be. Willem Dafoe&amp;#039;s character was angry for the sake of being angry, while Kovic was angry for being abandoned. Both of them ran away instead of confronting the issue, and I think this was Stone (or Kovic&amp;#039;s) way of saying &amp;quot;running away is still running away. You still have the same problems, they just have a different mailing address.&amp;quot; The verbal fight over &amp;quot;how many babies did [they] kill,&amp;quot; was also important, in that it showed how the war created a value system so twisted that the only way these menw ere able to validate themselves was by a kill count. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, the catheter scene was, in my opinion, Ron Kovic forcing his family to accept what he is. His mother refuses to accept what the war did to him, and Ron refused to be ignored. This was one of the most soul-crushing scenes in the movie, I thought, because it showed just how alone he was in his torment. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I certainly agree that the dialogue in the desert scene is important. It tells a lot about what the war did to these men. My problem is that it’s turned into a humorous moment, which really detracts from the meaningfulness of it for me. The same goes for the scene in the Kovic household where Ron confronts his parents. I think pulling out the catheter was important for his family and the audience, but it’s turned into something of a joke. Maybe there’s some deep philosophical point to be made about making those moments humorous, but I’m not really in the mood to be grasping at straws. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
But at the same time do you all think you&amp;#039;d react in the same way had we watched this when the movie came out, before Tom Cruise was jumping on couches and making Oprah look like the model of constraint? Maybe even on a subconscious level the fact that most people don&amp;#039;t take Cruise seriously anymore impacted the way that some of you viewed these particular scenes.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times.  I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic.  Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As is often difficult for anyone, upon developing bias, it was tough for me to detach from my love for Oliver Stone in watching this. Instead, I watched it from the perspective of a 20 year old kid whose brother is an Iraq vet and whose father is a Vietnam vet. I watched from the perspective of a kid still trying to figure out his own personal politics, while still giving everyone else&amp;#039;s, regardless of my agreement/disagreement, a fair day in court. I watch it from the perspective of trying to put myself, a relatively conservative 21-year-old, college-going kid into the perspective of the time, when my politics probably would not have been popular. Finally, I watch it with the knowledge that there is not a single human being alive that WANTS war. With all of these emotions around one simple, three-letter-word, &amp;quot;war,&amp;quot; Stone crafted a masterful examination of the human psyche. It was chaotic. To be perfectly honest, the Vietnam era was a pretty terrible time to be American. -Cash Nelson  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to disagree with both of you, I thought Cruise was fantastic. His performance captured the essence of Vietnam Vet struggling to find closure in a world of chaos and alienation.  I was very impressed - see he can be more than just Top Gun.  And if we are going to analyze movies fairly as historians, we should not let our personal opinions of the actors&amp;#039; personal lives so greatly affect our analysis of the film.~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t really care for this.  It wasn&amp;#039;t very entertaining for me and it&amp;#039;s not something I would ever watch again.  I didn&amp;#039;t have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he&amp;#039;d actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he&amp;#039;d been gone.  We see kid Ron watching JFK&amp;#039;s speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967.  Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in &amp;#039;46 do things come together.  I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tom Cruise pre-Vietnam/during the war &amp;gt; Tom Cruise in the hospital to the end.  And, I know that&amp;#039;s how the style was in the 1970s, but I couldn&amp;#039;t handle it.  Everything just seemed to be too over-the-top almost and very very dramatic.  And I think abbreviating Kovic&amp;#039;s life so much to fit it all in in 2 1/2 hours hurt the movie a great deal.  As the others said, it was so fragmented and scattered that I had a hard time keeping up with how old Ron was supposed to be, etc.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more thing; were those supposed to be New York accents?  I know Kovic was from Long Island but come on now.  They sounded a bit off to me, but I suppose anything is better than Kevin Costner and a Boston accent. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Try Kevin Costner and a New Orleans accent. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh, eiw. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that Stone showed the differing views between Ron and Donna. He a Vet and she a war-protester. It reminded me of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Forrest Gump&amp;#039;&amp;#039; although &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Forrest Gump&amp;#039;&amp;#039; came 8 years after &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Born on the 4th of July&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I&amp;#039;m glad Stone mentioned the protest at Kent State because not only did this horrible event have a big impact on the American public but also college campuses were hubs for protests that held very powerful stances during the Vietnam era. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was expecting something really bad, and really inaccurate from Oliver Stone. He surprised me, I liked the film... a lot. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Cash&amp;#039;s comment, I cannot resist quoting Robert E. Lee: observing the slaughter of the Battle of Fredericksburg from his vantage point on Telegraph Hill, he said to Gen. Longstreet, &amp;quot;It is well that war is so terrible - we should grow too fond of it.&amp;quot;  It still rings true.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I didn&amp;#039;t like the movie all that much, and by the time it ended I was actually fairly... depressed is too strong sounding but I can not think of another word.  I didn&amp;#039;t like how the movie would just cut to another scene, no transition, no nothing, just one minute your watching something then BAM something completely different.  It drove me nuts!! --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Way to ruin “Moon River,” Oliver Stone and Tom Cruise. You two need to apologize to Audrey Hepburn, Henry Mancini, and Johnny Mercer.  I’ll never be able to listen to that song the same way again. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That was the point. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If the point was to ruin the song in a &amp;quot;meaningful&amp;quot; way, then they failed for me. Anyway, I did like the movie. Of course, I can’t think of any movie that I’ve ever truly disliked. It’s nice to be reminded that Tom Cruise can be more than just a crazy person. I think the film did a fair job depicting the period, and it followed Kovic’s autobiography pretty accurately. However, I do think that it’s important to note that the book made me cry, while the movie didn’t. Usually, I react more emotionally to movies than books, simply because words can’t always get across feelings like an expression can. While I think the movie did a fantastic and heartbreaking job of showing Ron’s pain, I think I’ll stick to the autobiography. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that the friend said he di drugs to deal with the return from war and and the war in general but They never showed him doing anything. I fact he didn&amp;#039;t seem even be effected by anything. Maybe it was to show the degrees of problems. I just feel Stone could have shown that character more.---Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This seemed like one of the better of Stone&amp;#039;s movies. Perhaps this is because he served in Vietnam. -Wesley Weeks&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-13T11:27:24Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa&amp;#039;s sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers&amp;#039; choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn&amp;#039;t know what was going on. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dates and major events all happened at the right time, including the bombing of Dr. King&amp;#039;s home. Through tear-fogged eyes, I was able to see that this was a&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; heartbreakingly accurate depiction of a world&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; where we referred to other human beings as dogs, and often worse names than that. The Citizen&amp;#039;s Coalition seemed to be accurately depicted, down to the Confederate Flag as its logo. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This wasn&amp;#039;t an easy movie to get through, but that was the point. It wasn&amp;#039;t an easy time to be black either.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;dissension within the groups was well depicted&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; - Miriam and her husband disagreed on the issue, and the black family&amp;#039;s daughter didn&amp;#039;t get it either. I like that we could see all sides of the story through these two families. Blacks didn&amp;#039;t all automatically think YEAH! Let&amp;#039;s walk everywhere! It caught on through the meetings/rallies and some had to be convinced. And not all whites felt the same way about the situation either - and I also liked the progression that both Miriam and her husband went through - not affected, somewhat concerned, then taking action. Very powerful movie. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; depictions of the non-violent responses by the Montgomery black population to be very powerful&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. There is the scene where the middle son basically takes a whupping, resisting the urge to fight back, and the violent white mob at the end of the movie is met merely with song. Many civil rights leaders, like MLK, relied on non-violent resistance and this movie did well to exhibit the power inherent in non-violence.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the way the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;movie handled the black community&amp;#039;s gender roles fairly well&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Though in many cases it was the women out on the front lines protesting, earning, taking the long walks, in all the church scenes the authority figures were male.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well it would be true that most of the leaders of black civil rights groups would be male although women played a very heavy role in the movement they were not given as much representation in leadership so I do not feel that was inaccurate. I also thought the bus scene at the beginning of the movie was particularly well done from an historic standpoint. I also felt this movie had a very good time progression you can see this especially as the actions of Whites against the boycott become progresively worse over the course of the movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was impressed with the overall accuracy, including the timing of events. I felt that the movie did a good job portraying what seemed to be accurate emotions and struggles of those involved.  They did a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;good job showing gender roles in both the white and black communities&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, however, i felt that they should have showed more men involved in the bus boycott.  It seemed that most of the male involvement was in the Church. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie was &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;accurate with how white women would pick up their black maids for work when the boycott began&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Miriam shows this well with picking up Odessa at least two times a week for work. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As many have said before me, this movie is strikingly accurate in its portrayal of the 1950s American south.  The filmmakers made an excellent decision in portraying every character (except perhaps the vile brother-in-law) as three dimensional people with conflicted interests and complex motivations.  I was particularly impressed by the handling of gender roles.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Outside of the home, Miriam is unquestionably [perceived as] superior to Odessa.  But within their own family spheres, Odessa has significantly more influence over her family than Miriam does over hers.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Little details, like blacks having to pay at the front of the bus then board in the back or Miriam&amp;#039;s being a member of the Junior League, add to the film&amp;#039;s air of authenticity.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that really stuck out to me, and I know it&amp;#039;s minor, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;the characters even acknowledged how new MLK was to the scene&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  I think it was at the Christmas dinner when they mentioned how MLK had just gotten to Montgomery and although it&amp;#039;s almost in passing, it shows that the filmmakers really did their research.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;economic conditions of Odessa’s family&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; were pretty right on. It was clear that they were living relatively comfortably as part of the postwar economic boom, but they were still tight on money. Odessa worked as a domestic servant, and she needed that work to support her family just like many other black women. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The handling of the boycott was done really well. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Odessa didn’t outright say she was participating in the boycott (but rather that she was scared to ride the bus), and Miriam didn’t outright say she was driving Odessa and later the others around. Like in the readings, everyone was lying, and everyone knew about the lying, but no one called anyone out on it.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; They also showed the white drivers being harassed by the cops in order to break the boycott. Probably most importantly, the movie did a nice job getting across how huge the boycott was and just what it meant to the blacks. The sentiment that “my feet are tired, but my soul is rested” was very evident. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I thought the movie handled the characterizations of the “villains” really well.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Yes, Norman and Tunker were racist jerks, but they had a great rapport with Mary Catherine. Norman naming streets after his “girls” and his explanation for it was really sweet, and he somewhat redeemed himself when he attacked Tunker for slapping his wife. I find that it’s really very hard to reconcile “good man” and “bigot.” I also liked when Miriam talked about the perpetuation of racism: you grow up with it, it’s part of your world, and you don’t really question it. Was she making excuses for Norman? Sure. But I also believe it’s easy to dismiss people like Norman as jerks without considering environmental factors. I remember seeing some footage of a White Power rally, and there were these women holding their babies as they watched crosses burning, and I thought, “These kids just don’t have a chance.” So, yes, I think Norman and especially Tunker are jerks, but I think they were also victims in a way. The movie did a pretty nice job mixing in a little of that. It didn’t say, “Racism is okay because it’s not your fault,” but rather, it gave a little examination about how racism continues to exist. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I missed the lecture on Tuesday so I wasn&amp;#039;t actually aware of this but it demonstrates how disconnected, we or at least I, am with the time period depicted.  At the beginning of the movie, when the two women go to through the front door to pay and then exit to go to the back door, I actual was confused and didn&amp;#039;t know what was going on.  Sad buy true. - Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young racist brother makes mention of the Klan, saying that they don&amp;#039;t have to do any of the secret identity, robe-wearing, secret handshake, oath making, etc. stuff with their council meeting. But he is essentially comparing the intentions of each to one another. By the 1950s the Klan had lost significant support form its height of 3 million in the 1930s. It would not have been acceptable for a man like Mr. Thompson to join the Klan in 1956, however the violent actions these men take at the end of the film (while only the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement) might as well be acts of Klans men. Its hard to believe people were able to get away with this kind of thing when blacks were within their constitutional rights to do everything they were doing in protest. The gradually rising concerns of Mrs. Thompson,  as a moderate, open-minded woman for her time, was believable. By looking at two fictional characters who played their roles within the civil rights movement along side countless other unnamed people, we can see how the full conversion of a privileged white person to the cause was a process that took a combination of time, initial open-mindedness, and motivation to actually participate. Mrs. Thompson, who is good-hearted but totally clueless at the beginning, becomes involved in the movement only because of the subtle clueing-in by her respected maid Odessa. I thought his was highly believable. The non-violent technique of Odessa&amp;#039;s son when he was being beaten by the white boys is suggestive of the future SNCC protest techniques. The impact it had on the white boy beating the pacifist black boy showed how the technique was, to a degree, effective-- they could not claim defense or any other bull**** justification. However, in the case of evoking the aged stereotype of the &amp;quot;lazy negro&amp;quot; throughout the film by white folks about the blacks who were slaving over their dinners, cleaning their homes and doing it all on sore, bleeding feet from their &amp;quot;long walk,&amp;quot; no one seemed to see the hypocrisy in their own statement. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also found the scene where Mrs. Thompson stands up to her husband very compelling. She had the benefit of a college education but of course, as a woman of the era, didn&amp;#039;t put it to use, and if she did all she could do was secretary work. The very suggestion of this to her husband though was extremely undermining to his role as the man of the house in the 1950s. The performance of it too, however, was wonderful. She mixed him a drink like a good little wife to show that she was willing to keep the norm to some extent, but she also did it to calm him before hand. Her nervousness at standing up to her husband like this, and of course in fear of causing a rift as it did, and her nerves showed. Likewise, Odessa displays two very contrasting personalities. At work and when confronted by a-hole cops, she is quiet and submissive, but at home she has as much word in her house as her husband, if not more. It is hard to watch her have to swallow her pride each day in order to keep her job or keep out of trouble. This was an excellent way to subtly express the urgent desire of southern blacks to change their world into one where they could live without fear in their public lives. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found Miriam&amp;#039;s revelation  of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she&amp;#039;s willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word &amp;quot;nigger&amp;quot; a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don&amp;#039;t doubt that some Southern white women did help, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;but&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, &amp;quot;Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home.&amp;quot;(225)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be &amp;quot;fresh and alert&amp;quot; during work, or &amp;quot;I want my maid to be on time&amp;quot;, Southern white women were helping with the boycott.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of &amp;quot;I want you to be awake!&amp;quot;, the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam&amp;#039;s character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious &amp;quot;I stayed in the pool&amp;quot; mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary&amp;#039;s zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lauren, I didn&amp;#039;t find what Miriam did to be very unlikely, as this was one opportunity for the caring housewives with no money of their own to make a difference for the blacks.  I don&amp;#039;t think Miriam rushed into it, although we didn&amp;#039;t see much hesitation on her part during the film.  First of all, she had always treated her maids well, although she also always knew her husband didn&amp;#039;t agree with it.  She knew from the start that her husband didn&amp;#039;t approve of her even driving Odessa, and she stopped when he found out and made her do so.  She didn&amp;#039;t want to, but she did spend time thinking it over and finally determined that what her husband did was the final straw, the culmination of her long-held feelings that blacks deserved better treatment.  By making up her mind she was rebelling against her husband and the whites&amp;#039; sense of right or wrong, and she was aware of what consequences might be if the blacks won--she was in support of them. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Where were all of the real characters from the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree Jason, I wish they had showed more of the real people instead of just making up characters. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, sorry if I sound redundant there, but apparently Jason and I were apparently writing that at exactly the same time! -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--Whitney, you reminded me of another point that I wanted to say. I was so happy when Miriam stood up to her husband on her right to drive Odessa to work and told him that if he insists on running her household, that she&amp;#039;ll involve herself in his business. After all, she does have a college degree. That defiance wasn&amp;#039;t surprising coming from her, but suddenly  (thinking for what seemed like a day) she has a determination to get a job just so she can drive Odessa and have her own money. From what I can see, she never had a job before and she was wholly dependent on her husband for as long they&amp;#039;ve been married. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I&amp;#039;m just questioning the likelihood that Miriam would change her career life dramatically. Helping with the boycott changes her and her family&amp;#039;s life in any case, but going to work outside the home would impact her and her family even more directly.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Jason, I agree with you about her broad personality, but I viewed her as naive. She&amp;#039;s had her husband take care of her for years and now she&amp;#039;s taking large steps very quickly towards progression. Women in her place would have been more hesitant or taken smaller steps over a longer period of time, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;if&amp;#039;&amp;#039; they did anything. The behavior and views of Miriam&amp;#039;s companions illustrate what many Southern women felt. With the time constraints on the movie, the filmmakers felt the need to speed the process of Miriam&amp;#039;s change; but I felt it was too fast. Some Southern white women did help, like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Virginia Durr; but she went to Wellesley College in Massachusetts&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. That experience in the North must&amp;#039;ve impacted her life in a positive way towards blacks (Source: http://www.wellesley.edu/Anniversary/durr.html). Unlike most Southern women, Virginia Durr had experience with black peers and got to understand them as more than inferior people who work for her. As far as I can see, Miriam has lived in the South all her life. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The scene that I found most questionable was the end scene&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Although I know Miriam decided to support the bus boycott I just find it unlikely that any women would go so far as to stand up to a mob especially when they had a daughter to worry about. I also found Miriam&amp;#039;s change in atitude a little to sudden she never really talked heart to heart with Odessa before and after one conversation with her she suddenly becomes a fanatic to the cause even if she was sympathetic to the cause. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found the character of Norman Thompson (the husband) intriguing, specifically his attitudes towards the Citizen&amp;#039;s Council.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  At first, he seemed indifferent to the goals and values of the organization, but then he is influenced by his brother to regularly attend meetings as his views about blacks developed.  Furthermore, when his wife found out he was going to these meetings and asked why, he responded at one point &amp;quot;it&amp;#039;s either that or the KKK.&amp;quot;  In class, we discussed the uprising of the KKK again because of the bus boycotts.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;What I want to know is how whites viewed the KKK during this time.  Did they undermine and de-value their purpose as Norman&amp;#039;s comments implied?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;When Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter decides to ride the bus and the three white boys harass her would the bus driver really have stopped the bus and told them to get off.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Telling them he would call the cops if they didn&amp;#039;t and then telling them to never get on his bus again. Everything I have ever learned leads me to think that the bus driver would have asked Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter to get off and let the boys alone. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m surprised the film didn’t add anything about Brown v. Board of Edu. That was a big accomplishment for the black communities and also occurred before the bus boycott.  Also did they have any other bus boycotts besides in Montgomery, AL? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it&amp;#039;s a bit presumptuous to assume that an upper-middle class woman like Miriam wouldn&amp;#039;t have supported the bus boycott by running carpool.  Yes, racism was extremely prevalent in the south.  Yes, her character risks a lot by doing so.  But in all social movements like the Civil Rights movement, people risked their lives and reputations for what they believed in.  If they--black and white--hadn&amp;#039;t done so, the movement wouldn&amp;#039;t have succeeded.  I agree that Miriam isn&amp;#039;t representative of the average woman of her stature at the time, but we can&amp;#039;t say it wouldn&amp;#039;t have happened.  Just my two cents.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;To be honest, I can’t think of too much to complain about. It makes me wonder if I’m missing something, because that just seems so wrong. Oh woe, what kind of world do we live in when we can&amp;#039;t find inaccuracies in a historical film?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; On the issues discussed above: The readings suggested that it was actually quite common for white women to drive their maids around. Now, I’m sure some of this had to do with convenience on the white women’s part, since they just really needed their maids, but there were also women like Virginia Durr who truly believed in the cause. I think Miriam represented both of these types. In the beginning she’s sympathetic, but she’s more interested in housework getting done. By the end, she’s a convert to the cause. Maybe it was a bit fast (we don’t really know how long passed in the movie), but it’s a fair representation. Also, while Miriam didn’t attend college in the North, she did give that little speech about growing up one way and then seeing more of the world, which she did a tad more than Norman did (that little trip with the ladies and the swimming hole). Also, I think she was quite dissatisfied with her life as a happy homemaker (à la &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Feminine Mystique&amp;#039;&amp;#039;) and was looking for something more worthwhile to do with herself. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every white man in this film is depicted as a racist who staunchly takes the side of the counter-boycott movement. The heroes of the film are clearly the women, but even here we see a diversity of views in black women but all white women besides Sissy Spasek are pretty firmly against any black rights. Perhaps this was very accurate for Montgomery, but I think the film may have over simplified its antagonists/villains. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed:  When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened.  In Mrs. Durr&amp;#039;s statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit.  Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Testimony of Thomas Williams&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I felt the main idea of the testimony was to convey the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;de facto&amp;#039;&amp;#039; laws of the South, and how those laws were rooted in white supremacist tradition rather than American jurisprudence. It was the small but powerful phrase uttered by the bus driver that justified everything that happened to Williams and thousands of blacks in the Jim Crow era- &amp;quot;Your in the South now&amp;quot;. Whites were able to get away with this behavior because they had the power to do so, and until the late 1950s no one made them do any differently. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think Williams exposed the crucial factor that would change life in the South- enforcement. &amp;quot;...Supreme Court decisions just are not enough. It is necessary to have a law to prevent them from doing these things.&amp;quot; In the movie we see whites dominating and intimidating blacks because they could. The policemen were actively orchestrating that domination and intimidation.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; As was proven with the integration of schools in the decades to follow, enforcement of law would be the only way to ensure tangible change. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be silly BUT...&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Why was there not even the slightest mention of the schools - Brown v. Board had already happened&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;... how long did it take for the desegregation of schools to actually kick in? -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I remember from the readings correctly, the South continued with their segregation and Jim Crow laws even after Supreme Court decisions.  Much of the unconstitutional decisions did go in effect in the South until the federal government forcibly made the South listen to those decisions. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I,too, found Thomas Williams&amp;#039; account to be truly profound. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;In particular, when he discusses his experience in the jail. He said that he was treated peacefully, which to be honest I was surprised because as we see in the movie and from our knowledge of history this is an extremely hostile time for African Americans.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; He further explains how one of the deputies tells him he should consider him self lucky for being treated so kindly (... yeah, OK) and not getting his &amp;quot;head beat in&amp;quot; and in all &amp;quot;fairness&amp;quot; that is what would have happened if a white person stepped outside their bounds.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Long Walk Home&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and Thomas Williams&amp;#039; account are both truly heartbreaking and it&amp;#039;s sickening to know that a country who prides itself on democratic beliefs and equality for all citizens could have endured such an unfathomable period of history. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie does a good job at following the details given about the bus boycott in primary sources. The instances of the car speeding incidence and the attitude of the police was well shown in this movie by the scene where Odessa advices Miriam to drive slow because of tickets and the scene where Odessa is kicked out of the park by the police. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this happened on purpose, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Long Walk Home was nestled in a chronology of MAJOR movies being made about growing up in America as a member of the black community. Others were Do The Right Thing (1989), Boyz N The Hood (1991), Malcolm X (1992), and Menace II Society (1993). Anyone know if this was coincidence or not?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I really wonder what the experience was like for the black actors making this movie.  So Whoopi only being born in 1955 would have not experience the bus boycott but would have experience other Civil Rights movements as a young child.  Was it hard for these actors to portray these roles? I cant imagine having to relive that kind of experience.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By skimming through reviews on IMDB and going through Roger Ebert&amp;#039;s website, the movie was generally well-received.  It did not get nominated for any major awards, and I don&amp;#039;t think it made the money a blockbuster film would have, but its major themes are ones that are going to resonate with future audiences.  This film reminded me of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Driving Miss Daisy&amp;#039;&amp;#039; because it focused on the relationship between one black person and one white person.  None of the characters were monumental to the effect of Rosa Parks or MLK, but it did show how important every single person was to the progression towards racial equality.  I thoroughly enjoyed this film and appreciate its message. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie was amazing.  I thought it really communicated the inconceivable injustice of that time and place.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Every time I see a movie that depicts the racism of this time, it is still almost unbelievable that those things ever happened, from slavery to segregation.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Also, the makeup for the young man that was beaten up was incredibly evocative.  Once again, I thought this movie was great. - Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The style of this movie was somewhat strange to me&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; - the camera would focus on closer objects or people, or further objects and have the alternate distance one blurry. Also I remember a few rolling shots where it followed Miriam across the room, but she goes behind something and comes out on the other side. Another example - close up on the telephone. Strange to me, but artistic. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Did anyone have a problem with a movie about the Montgomery Bus Boycotts being told from a young affluent white girl&amp;#039;s perspective?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Was it just me, or did this movie seem to be a bit too focused on the evolution of Miriam into an activist, rather than the movement to organize a successful boycott? Granted, I still felt that this was a powerful depiction, I just thought that maybe the story of the black family should have been more clearly the &amp;quot;A&amp;quot; storyline.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this fact.  I think that even though you did not get the full picture you were able to get a better understanding of the confusion of the time.  The little girl didn&amp;#039;t really understand what was going on so it give everything a naive sort of feel&lt;br /&gt;
to a hard and difficult time.  I think that by tell it though a young girl&amp;#039;s perspective it allows the viewer to see the white perspective of what was going on, thereby allowing you to sympathize with the maid that raised the young child. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Also, I liked how they alluded to MLK without actually showing him. Is it just me or is there some unspoken Hollywood agreement that King will not be prominently depicted on screen?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I was trying to think about this, and to my memory there aren&amp;#039;t any movies where an actor portrays King. Why do you think this is the case? Is it because he was such an electrifying and dynamic person that no actor is comfortable risking their career depicting such an icon? Another thing I was wondering, how is it that there have not been any movies about the Freedom Rides (at least to my knowledge)? After reading James Farmer&amp;#039;s autobiography &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Lay Bare the Heart&amp;#039;&amp;#039; last year I was struck at how compelling a narrative that the freedom rides would make for film. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Certainly &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;this would make for a better movie than Saw 38 or whatever number they are on&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;--Bryan, I have to say I agree, but unfortunately my answer is a bit cynical. Hollywood has, in addition to trying to re-define (read: stereotype!) gender roles, also fit racial roles into neat, little stereotypical boxes. Your cheeky inclusion of the Saw movies (they&amp;#039;ve greenlit Saw 8, by the way, even though only 5 have been made) is actually rather relevant, because no genre is more guilty of this than horror. After all, if any rule remains constant, it&amp;#039;s that the black guy dies first. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;--The next point to make is that we have very few legendary black actors. Our most famous, Denzel Washington, has been typecast to an epic level. Man On Fire, Virtuosity, Out of Time and Inside Man are all the same movie, in a different setting, with different names. It&amp;#039;s unfortunate, but as a culture, we are simply not ready to let our black actors shine the way we let our whites. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;--I agree with you Cash that the lack of prominent black actors is an issue. Denzel though to his credit has portrayed historic figures well (Malcolm X, Ruben Carter), but he obviously couldn&amp;#039;t pull off a portrayal of MLK. And it isn&amp;#039;t as though other black figures haven&amp;#039;t been successfully portrayed: Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin and Charlie Parker, Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles (I feel like I heard that Don Cheadle is doing a Miles Davis biopic in the future). I guess I was more curious over whether the fact that King has yet to be definitively depicted on screen is more a function of the lack of black actors, or is there a fear of trying to do justice in a portrayal of one of the most compelling Americans ever? I mean who wouldn&amp;#039;t go see a MLK biopic? -Bryan Mull&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The movie seems to hold back a bit on showing the actual violence going on.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; The movie implies the violence is bad by mentioning the church bombings, but the couple of scenes of actual violence in the movie are relevantly tame. There is clearly an attitude of fear in the movie about the situation, but we never really see the real reason for the fear as all the characters in the movie get off ok. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the filmmaker&amp;#039;s choice to have this movie from the daughter&amp;#039;s perspective very interesting and very beneficial to its achievement of historical accuracy.  At first, I couldn&amp;#039;t help but chuckle at the fact that a young white girl was telling a story about one of the most influential movements in black civil rights history.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;But when you think about it, you couldn&amp;#039;t get a more objective point of view.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  The daughter had no idea what was going on, she did not know the concept of race.  She only sees the care and protectiveness from both her parents and Odessa.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think this made it easier for the audience to immerse themselves into the shoes of Odessa and other blacks during the bus boycotts, as well as Miriam, her husband, and especially her daughter.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Furthermore, there are no biases attached to the daughter because of her attachment to her family and Odessa.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how in the movie when Miriam drives by the carpool lot and is asking Odessa about it and Odessa explains how the carpool works.  When Miriam says she wants to help because it is just about busing and Odessa explains that it is about more than just busing. She asks Miriam how will she feel when blacks are teaching in white schools or living in her neighborhood and tells her if she crosses that line she can&amp;#039;t go back. The movie then cuts away to the next day. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;this helps give the sense that maybe whites who were helping didn&amp;#039;t necessarily understand what they were becoming involved in and then when they did find out and what it would truly mean for them, they had doubts about it&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Bryan&amp;#039;s question about the narrator, although it kind of bothered me too I feel like it was a definite choice made by the filmmakers.  Kellye touched on it best when she mentioned how it relayed the confusion of the time; kids were being raised into these types of households.  They didn&amp;#039;t really understand what was going on and to be a young girl especially in the situation she was in, must have been difficult.  But I can definitely see the need to make the black family more central than they seemed to be.  The storyline seemed to focus almost more around Miriam than Odessa to me.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan-  There was a 1978 TV movie &amp;quot;King,&amp;quot; in which Paul Winfield portrayed Martin Luther King, Jr. and Cicely Tyson portrayed Coretta Scott King.  (Those two actors were in my project movie, Sounder.)  And Cash- what about Denzel Washington in oh, say, Malcolm X?  And Remember the Titans? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I cried.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, seriously, Jason did cry. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I sobbed. On more than one occasion, and loudly. I still don&amp;#039;t have words to really articulate the way I felt after this one, other than to say I think it&amp;#039;s the best movie we&amp;#039;ve watched so far. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I got teary-eyed, too, at some point, although I can&amp;#039;t remember where.  Overall, I think this movie is an effective portrayal of this significant event in US history, since its details are often overlooked in classrooms.  It gets across the personal effects of racism to these particular families and how they had tolerated it but would no longer. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that they didn&amp;#039;t try to portray the monumental people of this movement in the film - there was no rosa parks or MLK Jr, which, to me made it better. Overall, very good film. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a bit of interesting information that I wanted to share with everyone. I was reading up on the movie just to get some more background information and I read that one of the buses used in the film was actually the Montgomery Bus Lines bus that Rosa Parks was riding on when she was arrested. --Mallory Cruise&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;After some of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched this semester, and comparing it to the length of next week&amp;#039;s film, this one was rather short.  Not that I mind, it was nice to have a shorter film.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed that such a short film (only 97 minutes) could have such a tremendous impact.  It was an incredible movie. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed by this movie.  I was very impressed with Merriam&amp;#039;s role in the movement and how she stood up to her husband, I could really see a push for equality for women as well.  There were definitely parts of the movie that almost made me cry. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this movie was very well done. Yes it was short but I think it added to the movie in this case. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;There is no need to show the whole bus boycott. It would have made a really long really boring movie.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; It was just the right length to get involved with the boycott and subsequently the Civil Rights Movement that is growing and show how people were reacting without going overboard. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elle, with the filmmaker’s view of leaving real characters out of the film.  The movie felt real to me and definitely left me thinking afterwards on the trouble the black community went through with standing up for their rights. Though, I did enjoy the mixture of Martin Luther King speeches throughout the movie. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glad to know I wasn&amp;#039;t the only one crying on Tuesday night in Chandler!  This is definitely a tearjerker, although not of the Titanic variation.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this film. I feel like I’ve said that about a fair number of the films we’ve seen, so I guess I’m just easy to please. One more movie to add to my DVD collection! While I didn’t quite cry (I’m just hard-hearted like that), it did leave me with that feeling in my gut like some movies do. It’s the sort of feeling that makes you want to get out and do something that can make a difference in the world. So yeah, inspirational. The acting is also fantastic. I completely and utterly love Sissy Spacek. In fact, the first thing I did after the movie was listen to Loretta Lynn (who I also love). The movie was also historically accurate. Essentially, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Long Walk Home&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is everything a historic film should be. Interesting, well acted, and accurate. And for those with short attention spans (so, basically most of America), it’s short.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-13T11:19:52Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa&amp;#039;s sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers&amp;#039; choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn&amp;#039;t know what was going on. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dates and major events all happened at the right time, including the bombing of Dr. King&amp;#039;s home. Through tear-fogged eyes, I was able to see that this was a&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; heartbreakingly accurate depiction of a world&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; where we referred to other human beings as dogs, and often worse names than that. The Citizen&amp;#039;s Coalition seemed to be accurately depicted, down to the Confederate Flag as its logo. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This wasn&amp;#039;t an easy movie to get through, but that was the point. It wasn&amp;#039;t an easy time to be black either.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;dissension within the groups was well depicted&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; - Miriam and her husband disagreed on the issue, and the black family&amp;#039;s daughter didn&amp;#039;t get it either. I like that we could see all sides of the story through these two families. Blacks didn&amp;#039;t all automatically think YEAH! Let&amp;#039;s walk everywhere! It caught on through the meetings/rallies and some had to be convinced. And not all whites felt the same way about the situation either - and I also liked the progression that both Miriam and her husband went through - not affected, somewhat concerned, then taking action. Very powerful movie. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; depictions of the non-violent responses by the Montgomery black population to be very powerful&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. There is the scene where the middle son basically takes a whupping, resisting the urge to fight back, and the violent white mob at the end of the movie is met merely with song. Many civil rights leaders, like MLK, relied on non-violent resistance and this movie did well to exhibit the power inherent in non-violence.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the way the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;movie handled the black community&amp;#039;s gender roles fairly well&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Though in many cases it was the women out on the front lines protesting, earning, taking the long walks, in all the church scenes the authority figures were male.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well it would be true that most of the leaders of black civil rights groups would be male although women played a very heavy role in the movement they were not given as much representation in leadership so I do not feel that was inaccurate. I also thought the bus scene at the beginning of the movie was particularly well done from an historic standpoint. I also felt this movie had a very good time progression you can see this especially as the actions of Whites against the boycott become progresively worse over the course of the movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was impressed with the overall accuracy, including the timing of events. I felt that the movie did a good job portraying what seemed to be accurate emotions and struggles of those involved.  They did a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;good job showing gender roles in both the white and black communities&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, however, i felt that they should have showed more men involved in the bus boycott.  It seemed that most of the male involvement was in the Church. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie was &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;accurate with how white women would pick up their black maids for work when the boycott began&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Miriam shows this well with picking up Odessa at least two times a week for work. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As many have said before me, this movie is strikingly accurate in its portrayal of the 1950s American south.  The filmmakers made an excellent decision in portraying every character (except perhaps the vile brother-in-law) as three dimensional people with conflicted interests and complex motivations.  I was particularly impressed by the handling of gender roles.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Outside of the home, Miriam is unquestionably [perceived as] superior to Odessa.  But within their own family spheres, Odessa has significantly more influence over her family than Miriam does over hers.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Little details, like blacks having to pay at the front of the bus then board in the back or Miriam&amp;#039;s being a member of the Junior League, add to the film&amp;#039;s air of authenticity.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that really stuck out to me, and I know it&amp;#039;s minor, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;the characters even acknowledged how new MLK was to the scene&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  I think it was at the Christmas dinner when they mentioned how MLK had just gotten to Montgomery and although it&amp;#039;s almost in passing, it shows that the filmmakers really did their research.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;economic conditions of Odessa’s family&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; were pretty right on. It was clear that they were living relatively comfortably as part of the postwar economic boom, but they were still tight on money. Odessa worked as a domestic servant, and she needed that work to support her family just like many other black women. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The handling of the boycott was done really well. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Odessa didn’t outright say she was participating in the boycott (but rather that she was scared to ride the bus), and Miriam didn’t outright say she was driving Odessa and later the others around. Like in the readings, everyone was lying, and everyone knew about the lying, but no one called anyone out on it.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; They also showed the white drivers being harassed by the cops in order to break the boycott. Probably most importantly, the movie did a nice job getting across how huge the boycott was and just what it meant to the blacks. The sentiment that “my feet are tired, but my soul is rested” was very evident. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I thought the movie handled the characterizations of the “villains” really well.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Yes, Norman and Tunker were racist jerks, but they had a great rapport with Mary Catherine. Norman naming streets after his “girls” and his explanation for it was really sweet, and he somewhat redeemed himself when he attacked Tunker for slapping his wife. I find that it’s really very hard to reconcile “good man” and “bigot.” I also liked when Miriam talked about the perpetuation of racism: you grow up with it, it’s part of your world, and you don’t really question it. Was she making excuses for Norman? Sure. But I also believe it’s easy to dismiss people like Norman as jerks without considering environmental factors. I remember seeing some footage of a White Power rally, and there were these women holding their babies as they watched crosses burning, and I thought, “These kids just don’t have a chance.” So, yes, I think Norman and especially Tunker are jerks, but I think they were also victims in a way. The movie did a pretty nice job mixing in a little of that. It didn’t say, “Racism is okay because it’s not your fault,” but rather, it gave a little examination about how racism continues to exist. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I missed the lecture on Tuesday so I wasn&amp;#039;t actually aware of this but it demonstrates how disconnected, we or at least I, am with the time period depicted.  At the beginning of the movie, when the two women go to through the front door to pay and then exit to go to the back door, I actual was confused and didn&amp;#039;t know what was going on.  Sad buy true. - Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young racist brother makes mention of the Klan, saying that they don&amp;#039;t have to do any of the secret identity, robe-wearing, secret handshake, oath making, etc. stuff with their council meeting. But he is essentially comparing the intentions of each to one another. By the 1950s the Klan had lost significant support form its height of 3 million in the 1930s. It would not have been acceptable for a man like Mr. Thompson to join the Klan in 1956, however the violent actions these men take at the end of the film (while only the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement) might as well be acts of Klans men. Its hard to believe people were able to get away with this kind of thing when blacks were within their constitutional rights to do everything they were doing in protest. The gradually rising concerns of Mrs. Thompson,  as a moderate, open-minded woman for her time, was believable. By looking at two fictional characters who played their roles within the civil rights movement along side countless other unnamed people, we can see how the full conversion of a privileged white person to the cause was a process that took a combination of time, initial open-mindedness, and motivation to actually participate. Mrs. Thompson, who is good-hearted but totally clueless at the beginning, becomes involved in the movement only because of the subtle clueing-in by her respected maid Odessa. I thought his was highly believable. The non-violent technique of Odessa&amp;#039;s son when he was being beaten by the white boys is suggestive of the future SNCC protest techniques. The impact it had on the white boy beating the pacifist black boy showed how the technique was, to a degree, effective-- they could not claim defense or any other bull**** justification. However, in the case of evoking the aged stereotype of the &amp;quot;lazy negro&amp;quot; throughout the film by white folks about the blacks who were slaving over their dinners, cleaning their homes and doing it all on sore, bleeding feet from their &amp;quot;long walk,&amp;quot; no one seemed to see the hypocrisy in their own statement. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found Miriam&amp;#039;s revelation  of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she&amp;#039;s willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word &amp;quot;nigger&amp;quot; a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don&amp;#039;t doubt that some Southern white women did help, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;but&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, &amp;quot;Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home.&amp;quot;(225)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be &amp;quot;fresh and alert&amp;quot; during work, or &amp;quot;I want my maid to be on time&amp;quot;, Southern white women were helping with the boycott.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of &amp;quot;I want you to be awake!&amp;quot;, the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam&amp;#039;s character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious &amp;quot;I stayed in the pool&amp;quot; mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary&amp;#039;s zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lauren, I didn&amp;#039;t find what Miriam did to be very unlikely, as this was one opportunity for the caring housewives with no money of their own to make a difference for the blacks.  I don&amp;#039;t think Miriam rushed into it, although we didn&amp;#039;t see much hesitation on her part during the film.  First of all, she had always treated her maids well, although she also always knew her husband didn&amp;#039;t agree with it.  She knew from the start that her husband didn&amp;#039;t approve of her even driving Odessa, and she stopped when he found out and made her do so.  She didn&amp;#039;t want to, but she did spend time thinking it over and finally determined that what her husband did was the final straw, the culmination of her long-held feelings that blacks deserved better treatment.  By making up her mind she was rebelling against her husband and the whites&amp;#039; sense of right or wrong, and she was aware of what consequences might be if the blacks won--she was in support of them. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Where were all of the real characters from the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree Jason, I wish they had showed more of the real people instead of just making up characters. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, sorry if I sound redundant there, but apparently Jason and I were apparently writing that at exactly the same time! -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--Whitney, you reminded me of another point that I wanted to say. I was so happy when Miriam stood up to her husband on her right to drive Odessa to work and told him that if he insists on running her household, that she&amp;#039;ll involve herself in his business. After all, she does have a college degree. That defiance wasn&amp;#039;t surprising coming from her, but suddenly  (thinking for what seemed like a day) she has a determination to get a job just so she can drive Odessa and have her own money. From what I can see, she never had a job before and she was wholly dependent on her husband for as long they&amp;#039;ve been married. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I&amp;#039;m just questioning the likelihood that Miriam would change her career life dramatically. Helping with the boycott changes her and her family&amp;#039;s life in any case, but going to work outside the home would impact her and her family even more directly.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Jason, I agree with you about her broad personality, but I viewed her as naive. She&amp;#039;s had her husband take care of her for years and now she&amp;#039;s taking large steps very quickly towards progression. Women in her place would have been more hesitant or taken smaller steps over a longer period of time, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;if&amp;#039;&amp;#039; they did anything. The behavior and views of Miriam&amp;#039;s companions illustrate what many Southern women felt. With the time constraints on the movie, the filmmakers felt the need to speed the process of Miriam&amp;#039;s change; but I felt it was too fast. Some Southern white women did help, like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Virginia Durr; but she went to Wellesley College in Massachusetts&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. That experience in the North must&amp;#039;ve impacted her life in a positive way towards blacks (Source: http://www.wellesley.edu/Anniversary/durr.html). Unlike most Southern women, Virginia Durr had experience with black peers and got to understand them as more than inferior people who work for her. As far as I can see, Miriam has lived in the South all her life. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The scene that I found most questionable was the end scene&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Although I know Miriam decided to support the bus boycott I just find it unlikely that any women would go so far as to stand up to a mob especially when they had a daughter to worry about. I also found Miriam&amp;#039;s change in atitude a little to sudden she never really talked heart to heart with Odessa before and after one conversation with her she suddenly becomes a fanatic to the cause even if she was sympathetic to the cause. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found the character of Norman Thompson (the husband) intriguing, specifically his attitudes towards the Citizen&amp;#039;s Council.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  At first, he seemed indifferent to the goals and values of the organization, but then he is influenced by his brother to regularly attend meetings as his views about blacks developed.  Furthermore, when his wife found out he was going to these meetings and asked why, he responded at one point &amp;quot;it&amp;#039;s either that or the KKK.&amp;quot;  In class, we discussed the uprising of the KKK again because of the bus boycotts.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;What I want to know is how whites viewed the KKK during this time.  Did they undermine and de-value their purpose as Norman&amp;#039;s comments implied?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;When Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter decides to ride the bus and the three white boys harass her would the bus driver really have stopped the bus and told them to get off.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Telling them he would call the cops if they didn&amp;#039;t and then telling them to never get on his bus again. Everything I have ever learned leads me to think that the bus driver would have asked Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter to get off and let the boys alone. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m surprised the film didn’t add anything about Brown v. Board of Edu. That was a big accomplishment for the black communities and also occurred before the bus boycott.  Also did they have any other bus boycotts besides in Montgomery, AL? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it&amp;#039;s a bit presumptuous to assume that an upper-middle class woman like Miriam wouldn&amp;#039;t have supported the bus boycott by running carpool.  Yes, racism was extremely prevalent in the south.  Yes, her character risks a lot by doing so.  But in all social movements like the Civil Rights movement, people risked their lives and reputations for what they believed in.  If they--black and white--hadn&amp;#039;t done so, the movement wouldn&amp;#039;t have succeeded.  I agree that Miriam isn&amp;#039;t representative of the average woman of her stature at the time, but we can&amp;#039;t say it wouldn&amp;#039;t have happened.  Just my two cents.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;To be honest, I can’t think of too much to complain about. It makes me wonder if I’m missing something, because that just seems so wrong. Oh woe, what kind of world do we live in when we can&amp;#039;t find inaccuracies in a historical film?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; On the issues discussed above: The readings suggested that it was actually quite common for white women to drive their maids around. Now, I’m sure some of this had to do with convenience on the white women’s part, since they just really needed their maids, but there were also women like Virginia Durr who truly believed in the cause. I think Miriam represented both of these types. In the beginning she’s sympathetic, but she’s more interested in housework getting done. By the end, she’s a convert to the cause. Maybe it was a bit fast (we don’t really know how long passed in the movie), but it’s a fair representation. Also, while Miriam didn’t attend college in the North, she did give that little speech about growing up one way and then seeing more of the world, which she did a tad more than Norman did (that little trip with the ladies and the swimming hole). Also, I think she was quite dissatisfied with her life as a happy homemaker (à la &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Feminine Mystique&amp;#039;&amp;#039;) and was looking for something more worthwhile to do with herself. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Every white man in this film is depicted as a racist who staunchly takes the side of the counter-boycott movement. The heroes of the film are clearly the women, but even here we see a diversity of views in black women but all white women besides Sissy Spasek are pretty firmly against any black rights. Perhaps this was very accurate for Montgomery, but I think the film may have over simplified its antagonists/villains. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed:  When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened.  In Mrs. Durr&amp;#039;s statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit.  Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Testimony of Thomas Williams&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I felt the main idea of the testimony was to convey the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;de facto&amp;#039;&amp;#039; laws of the South, and how those laws were rooted in white supremacist tradition rather than American jurisprudence. It was the small but powerful phrase uttered by the bus driver that justified everything that happened to Williams and thousands of blacks in the Jim Crow era- &amp;quot;Your in the South now&amp;quot;. Whites were able to get away with this behavior because they had the power to do so, and until the late 1950s no one made them do any differently. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think Williams exposed the crucial factor that would change life in the South- enforcement. &amp;quot;...Supreme Court decisions just are not enough. It is necessary to have a law to prevent them from doing these things.&amp;quot; In the movie we see whites dominating and intimidating blacks because they could. The policemen were actively orchestrating that domination and intimidation.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; As was proven with the integration of schools in the decades to follow, enforcement of law would be the only way to ensure tangible change. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be silly BUT...&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Why was there not even the slightest mention of the schools - Brown v. Board had already happened&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;... how long did it take for the desegregation of schools to actually kick in? -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I remember from the readings correctly, the South continued with their segregation and Jim Crow laws even after Supreme Court decisions.  Much of the unconstitutional decisions did go in effect in the South until the federal government forcibly made the South listen to those decisions. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I,too, found Thomas Williams&amp;#039; account to be truly profound. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;In particular, when he discusses his experience in the jail. He said that he was treated peacefully, which to be honest I was surprised because as we see in the movie and from our knowledge of history this is an extremely hostile time for African Americans.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; He further explains how one of the deputies tells him he should consider him self lucky for being treated so kindly (... yeah, OK) and not getting his &amp;quot;head beat in&amp;quot; and in all &amp;quot;fairness&amp;quot; that is what would have happened if a white person stepped outside their bounds.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Long Walk Home&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and Thomas Williams&amp;#039; account are both truly heartbreaking and it&amp;#039;s sickening to know that a country who prides itself on democratic beliefs and equality for all citizens could have endured such an unfathomable period of history. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie does a good job at following the details given about the bus boycott in primary sources. The instances of the car speeding incidence and the attitude of the police was well shown in this movie by the scene where Odessa advices Miriam to drive slow because of tickets and the scene where Odessa is kicked out of the park by the police. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this happened on purpose, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Long Walk Home was nestled in a chronology of MAJOR movies being made about growing up in America as a member of the black community. Others were Do The Right Thing (1989), Boyz N The Hood (1991), Malcolm X (1992), and Menace II Society (1993). Anyone know if this was coincidence or not?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I really wonder what the experience was like for the black actors making this movie.  So Whoopi only being born in 1955 would have not experience the bus boycott but would have experience other Civil Rights movements as a young child.  Was it hard for these actors to portray these roles? I cant imagine having to relive that kind of experience.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By skimming through reviews on IMDB and going through Roger Ebert&amp;#039;s website, the movie was generally well-received.  It did not get nominated for any major awards, and I don&amp;#039;t think it made the money a blockbuster film would have, but its major themes are ones that are going to resonate with future audiences.  This film reminded me of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Driving Miss Daisy&amp;#039;&amp;#039; because it focused on the relationship between one black person and one white person.  None of the characters were monumental to the effect of Rosa Parks or MLK, but it did show how important every single person was to the progression towards racial equality.  I thoroughly enjoyed this film and appreciate its message. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie was amazing.  I thought it really communicated the inconceivable injustice of that time and place.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Every time I see a movie that depicts the racism of this time, it is still almost unbelievable that those things ever happened, from slavery to segregation.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Also, the makeup for the young man that was beaten up was incredibly evocative.  Once again, I thought this movie was great. - Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The style of this movie was somewhat strange to me&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; - the camera would focus on closer objects or people, or further objects and have the alternate distance one blurry. Also I remember a few rolling shots where it followed Miriam across the room, but she goes behind something and comes out on the other side. Another example - close up on the telephone. Strange to me, but artistic. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Did anyone have a problem with a movie about the Montgomery Bus Boycotts being told from a young affluent white girl&amp;#039;s perspective?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Was it just me, or did this movie seem to be a bit too focused on the evolution of Miriam into an activist, rather than the movement to organize a successful boycott? Granted, I still felt that this was a powerful depiction, I just thought that maybe the story of the black family should have been more clearly the &amp;quot;A&amp;quot; storyline.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this fact.  I think that even though you did not get the full picture you were able to get a better understanding of the confusion of the time.  The little girl didn&amp;#039;t really understand what was going on so it give everything a naive sort of feel&lt;br /&gt;
to a hard and difficult time.  I think that by tell it though a young girl&amp;#039;s perspective it allows the viewer to see the white perspective of what was going on, thereby allowing you to sympathize with the maid that raised the young child. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Also, I liked how they alluded to MLK without actually showing him. Is it just me or is there some unspoken Hollywood agreement that King will not be prominently depicted on screen?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I was trying to think about this, and to my memory there aren&amp;#039;t any movies where an actor portrays King. Why do you think this is the case? Is it because he was such an electrifying and dynamic person that no actor is comfortable risking their career depicting such an icon? Another thing I was wondering, how is it that there have not been any movies about the Freedom Rides (at least to my knowledge)? After reading James Farmer&amp;#039;s autobiography &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Lay Bare the Heart&amp;#039;&amp;#039; last year I was struck at how compelling a narrative that the freedom rides would make for film. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Certainly &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;this would make for a better movie than Saw 38 or whatever number they are on&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;--Bryan, I have to say I agree, but unfortunately my answer is a bit cynical. Hollywood has, in addition to trying to re-define (read: stereotype!) gender roles, also fit racial roles into neat, little stereotypical boxes. Your cheeky inclusion of the Saw movies (they&amp;#039;ve greenlit Saw 8, by the way, even though only 5 have been made) is actually rather relevant, because no genre is more guilty of this than horror. After all, if any rule remains constant, it&amp;#039;s that the black guy dies first. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;--The next point to make is that we have very few legendary black actors. Our most famous, Denzel Washington, has been typecast to an epic level. Man On Fire, Virtuosity, Out of Time and Inside Man are all the same movie, in a different setting, with different names. It&amp;#039;s unfortunate, but as a culture, we are simply not ready to let our black actors shine the way we let our whites. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;--I agree with you Cash that the lack of prominent black actors is an issue. Denzel though to his credit has portrayed historic figures well (Malcolm X, Ruben Carter), but he obviously couldn&amp;#039;t pull off a portrayal of MLK. And it isn&amp;#039;t as though other black figures haven&amp;#039;t been successfully portrayed: Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin and Charlie Parker, Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles (I feel like I heard that Don Cheadle is doing a Miles Davis biopic in the future). I guess I was more curious over whether the fact that King has yet to be definitively depicted on screen is more a function of the lack of black actors, or is there a fear of trying to do justice in a portrayal of one of the most compelling Americans ever? I mean who wouldn&amp;#039;t go see a MLK biopic? -Bryan Mull&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The movie seems to hold back a bit on showing the actual violence going on.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; The movie implies the violence is bad by mentioning the church bombings, but the couple of scenes of actual violence in the movie are relevantly tame. There is clearly an attitude of fear in the movie about the situation, but we never really see the real reason for the fear as all the characters in the movie get off ok. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the filmmaker&amp;#039;s choice to have this movie from the daughter&amp;#039;s perspective very interesting and very beneficial to its achievement of historical accuracy.  At first, I couldn&amp;#039;t help but chuckle at the fact that a young white girl was telling a story about one of the most influential movements in black civil rights history.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;But when you think about it, you couldn&amp;#039;t get a more objective point of view.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  The daughter had no idea what was going on, she did not know the concept of race.  She only sees the care and protectiveness from both her parents and Odessa.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think this made it easier for the audience to immerse themselves into the shoes of Odessa and other blacks during the bus boycotts, as well as Miriam, her husband, and especially her daughter.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Furthermore, there are no biases attached to the daughter because of her attachment to her family and Odessa.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how in the movie when Miriam drives by the carpool lot and is asking Odessa about it and Odessa explains how the carpool works.  When Miriam says she wants to help because it is just about busing and Odessa explains that it is about more than just busing. She asks Miriam how will she feel when blacks are teaching in white schools or living in her neighborhood and tells her if she crosses that line she can&amp;#039;t go back. The movie then cuts away to the next day. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;this helps give the sense that maybe whites who were helping didn&amp;#039;t necessarily understand what they were becoming involved in and then when they did find out and what it would truly mean for them, they had doubts about it&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Bryan&amp;#039;s question about the narrator, although it kind of bothered me too I feel like it was a definite choice made by the filmmakers.  Kellye touched on it best when she mentioned how it relayed the confusion of the time; kids were being raised into these types of households.  They didn&amp;#039;t really understand what was going on and to be a young girl especially in the situation she was in, must have been difficult.  But I can definitely see the need to make the black family more central than they seemed to be.  The storyline seemed to focus almost more around Miriam than Odessa to me.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan-  There was a 1978 TV movie &amp;quot;King,&amp;quot; in which Paul Winfield portrayed Martin Luther King, Jr. and Cicely Tyson portrayed Coretta Scott King.  (Those two actors were in my project movie, Sounder.)  And Cash- what about Denzel Washington in oh, say, Malcolm X?  And Remember the Titans? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I cried.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, seriously, Jason did cry. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I sobbed. On more than one occasion, and loudly. I still don&amp;#039;t have words to really articulate the way I felt after this one, other than to say I think it&amp;#039;s the best movie we&amp;#039;ve watched so far. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I got teary-eyed, too, at some point, although I can&amp;#039;t remember where.  Overall, I think this movie is an effective portrayal of this significant event in US history, since its details are often overlooked in classrooms.  It gets across the personal effects of racism to these particular families and how they had tolerated it but would no longer. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that they didn&amp;#039;t try to portray the monumental people of this movement in the film - there was no rosa parks or MLK Jr, which, to me made it better. Overall, very good film. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a bit of interesting information that I wanted to share with everyone. I was reading up on the movie just to get some more background information and I read that one of the buses used in the film was actually the Montgomery Bus Lines bus that Rosa Parks was riding on when she was arrested. --Mallory Cruise&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;After some of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched this semester, and comparing it to the length of next week&amp;#039;s film, this one was rather short.  Not that I mind, it was nice to have a shorter film.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed that such a short film (only 97 minutes) could have such a tremendous impact.  It was an incredible movie. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed by this movie.  I was very impressed with Merriam&amp;#039;s role in the movement and how she stood up to her husband, I could really see a push for equality for women as well.  There were definitely parts of the movie that almost made me cry. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this movie was very well done. Yes it was short but I think it added to the movie in this case. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;There is no need to show the whole bus boycott. It would have made a really long really boring movie.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; It was just the right length to get involved with the boycott and subsequently the Civil Rights Movement that is growing and show how people were reacting without going overboard. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elle, with the filmmaker’s view of leaving real characters out of the film.  The movie felt real to me and definitely left me thinking afterwards on the trouble the black community went through with standing up for their rights. Though, I did enjoy the mixture of Martin Luther King speeches throughout the movie. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glad to know I wasn&amp;#039;t the only one crying on Tuesday night in Chandler!  This is definitely a tearjerker, although not of the Titanic variation.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this film. I feel like I’ve said that about a fair number of the films we’ve seen, so I guess I’m just easy to please. One more movie to add to my DVD collection! While I didn’t quite cry (I’m just hard-hearted like that), it did leave me with that feeling in my gut like some movies do. It’s the sort of feeling that makes you want to get out and do something that can make a difference in the world. So yeah, inspirational. The acting is also fantastic. I completely and utterly love Sissy Spacek. In fact, the first thing I did after the movie was listen to Loretta Lynn (who I also love). The movie was also historically accurate. Essentially, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Long Walk Home&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is everything a historic film should be. Interesting, well acted, and accurate. And for those with short attention spans (so, basically most of America), it’s short.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 12 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-13T11:12:42Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa&amp;#039;s sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers&amp;#039; choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn&amp;#039;t know what was going on. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dates and major events all happened at the right time, including the bombing of Dr. King&amp;#039;s home. Through tear-fogged eyes, I was able to see that this was a&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; heartbreakingly accurate depiction of a world&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; where we referred to other human beings as dogs, and often worse names than that. The Citizen&amp;#039;s Coalition seemed to be accurately depicted, down to the Confederate Flag as its logo. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;This wasn&amp;#039;t an easy movie to get through, but that was the point. It wasn&amp;#039;t an easy time to be black either.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;dissension within the groups was well depicted&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; - Miriam and her husband disagreed on the issue, and the black family&amp;#039;s daughter didn&amp;#039;t get it either. I like that we could see all sides of the story through these two families. Blacks didn&amp;#039;t all automatically think YEAH! Let&amp;#039;s walk everywhere! It caught on through the meetings/rallies and some had to be convinced. And not all whites felt the same way about the situation either - and I also liked the progression that both Miriam and her husband went through - not affected, somewhat concerned, then taking action. Very powerful movie. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; depictions of the non-violent responses by the Montgomery black population to be very powerful&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. There is the scene where the middle son basically takes a whupping, resisting the urge to fight back, and the violent white mob at the end of the movie is met merely with song. Many civil rights leaders, like MLK, relied on non-violent resistance and this movie did well to exhibit the power inherent in non-violence.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the way the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;movie handled the black community&amp;#039;s gender roles fairly well&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Though in many cases it was the women out on the front lines protesting, earning, taking the long walks, in all the church scenes the authority figures were male.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well it would be true that most of the leaders of black civil rights groups would be male although women played a very heavy role in the movement they were not given as much representation in leadership so I do not feel that was inaccurate. I also thought the bus scene at the beginning of the movie was particularly well done from an historic standpoint. I also felt this movie had a very good time progression you can see this especially as the actions of Whites against the boycott become progresively worse over the course of the movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was impressed with the overall accuracy, including the timing of events. I felt that the movie did a good job portraying what seemed to be accurate emotions and struggles of those involved.  They did a &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;good job showing gender roles in both the white and black communities&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, however, i felt that they should have showed more men involved in the bus boycott.  It seemed that most of the male involvement was in the Church. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie was &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;accurate with how white women would pick up their black maids for work when the boycott began&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Miriam shows this well with picking up Odessa at least two times a week for work. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As many have said before me, this movie is strikingly accurate in its portrayal of the 1950s American south.  The filmmakers made an excellent decision in portraying every character (except perhaps the vile brother-in-law) as three dimensional people with conflicted interests and complex motivations.  I was particularly impressed by the handling of gender roles.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Outside of the home, Miriam is unquestionably [perceived as] superior to Odessa.  But within their own family spheres, Odessa has significantly more influence over her family than Miriam does over hers.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Little details, like blacks having to pay at the front of the bus then board in the back or Miriam&amp;#039;s being a member of the Junior League, add to the film&amp;#039;s air of authenticity.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that really stuck out to me, and I know it&amp;#039;s minor, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;the characters even acknowledged how new MLK was to the scene&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  I think it was at the Christmas dinner when they mentioned how MLK had just gotten to Montgomery and although it&amp;#039;s almost in passing, it shows that the filmmakers really did their research.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;economic conditions of Odessa’s family&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; were pretty right on. It was clear that they were living relatively comfortably as part of the postwar economic boom, but they were still tight on money. Odessa worked as a domestic servant, and she needed that work to support her family just like many other black women. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The handling of the boycott was done really well. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Odessa didn’t outright say she was participating in the boycott (but rather that she was scared to ride the bus), and Miriam didn’t outright say she was driving Odessa and later the others around. Like in the readings, everyone was lying, and everyone knew about the lying, but no one called anyone out on it.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; They also showed the white drivers being harassed by the cops in order to break the boycott. Probably most importantly, the movie did a nice job getting across how huge the boycott was and just what it meant to the blacks. The sentiment that “my feet are tired, but my soul is rested” was very evident. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I thought the movie handled the characterizations of the “villains” really well.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Yes, Norman and Tunker were racist jerks, but they had a great rapport with Mary Catherine. Norman naming streets after his “girls” and his explanation for it was really sweet, and he somewhat redeemed himself when he attacked Tunker for slapping his wife. I find that it’s really very hard to reconcile “good man” and “bigot.” I also liked when Miriam talked about the perpetuation of racism: you grow up with it, it’s part of your world, and you don’t really question it. Was she making excuses for Norman? Sure. But I also believe it’s easy to dismiss people like Norman as jerks without considering environmental factors. I remember seeing some footage of a White Power rally, and there were these women holding their babies as they watched crosses burning, and I thought, “These kids just don’t have a chance.” So, yes, I think Norman and especially Tunker are jerks, but I think they were also victims in a way. The movie did a pretty nice job mixing in a little of that. It didn’t say, “Racism is okay because it’s not your fault,” but rather, it gave a little examination about how racism continues to exist. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I missed the lecture on Tuesday so I wasn&amp;#039;t actually aware of this but it demonstrates how disconnected, we or at least I, am with the time period depicted.  At the beginning of the movie, when the two women go to through the front door to pay and then exit to go to the back door, I actual was confused and didn&amp;#039;t know what was going on.  Sad buy true. - Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The young racist brother makes mention of the Klan, saying that they don&amp;#039;t have to do any of the secret identity, robe-wearing, secret handshake, oath making, etc. stuff with their council meeting. But he is essentially comparing the intentions of each to one another. By the 1950s the Klan had lost significant support form its height of 3 million in the 1930s. It would not have been acceptable for a man like Mr. Thompson to join the Klan in 1956, however the violent actions these men take at the end of the film (while only the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement) might as well be acts of Klans men. Its hard to believe people were able to get away with this kind of thing when blacks were within their constitutional rights to do everything they were doing in protest. The gradually rising concerns of Mrs. Thompson,  as a moderate, open-minded woman for her time, was believable. By looking at two fictional characters who played their roles within the civil rights movement along side countless other unnamed people, we can see how the full conversion of a privileged white person to the cause was a process that took a combination of time, initial open-mindedness, and motivation to actually participate. Mrs. Thompson, who is good-hearted but totally clueless at the beginning, becomes involved in the movement only because of the subtle clueing-in by her respected maid Odessa. I thought his was highly believable. The non-violent technique of Odessa&amp;#039;s son when he was being beaten by the white boys is suggestive of the future SNCC protest techniques. The impact it had on the white boy beating the pacifist black boy showed how the technique was, to a degree, effective-- they could not claim defense or any other bull**** justification. However, in the case of evoking the aged stereotype of the &amp;quot;lazy negro&amp;quot; throughout the film by white folks about the blacks who were slaving over their dinners, cleaning their homes and doing it all on sore, bleeding feet from their &amp;quot;long walk,&amp;quot; no one seemed to see the hypocrisy in their own statement. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found Miriam&amp;#039;s revelation  of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she&amp;#039;s willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word &amp;quot;nigger&amp;quot; a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don&amp;#039;t doubt that some Southern white women did help, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;but&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, &amp;quot;Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home.&amp;quot;(225)&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be &amp;quot;fresh and alert&amp;quot; during work, or &amp;quot;I want my maid to be on time&amp;quot;, Southern white women were helping with the boycott.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of &amp;quot;I want you to be awake!&amp;quot;, the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam&amp;#039;s character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious &amp;quot;I stayed in the pool&amp;quot; mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary&amp;#039;s zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lauren, I didn&amp;#039;t find what Miriam did to be very unlikely, as this was one opportunity for the caring housewives with no money of their own to make a difference for the blacks.  I don&amp;#039;t think Miriam rushed into it, although we didn&amp;#039;t see much hesitation on her part during the film.  First of all, she had always treated her maids well, although she also always knew her husband didn&amp;#039;t agree with it.  She knew from the start that her husband didn&amp;#039;t approve of her even driving Odessa, and she stopped when he found out and made her do so.  She didn&amp;#039;t want to, but she did spend time thinking it over and finally determined that what her husband did was the final straw, the culmination of her long-held feelings that blacks deserved better treatment.  By making up her mind she was rebelling against her husband and the whites&amp;#039; sense of right or wrong, and she was aware of what consequences might be if the blacks won--she was in support of them. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Where were all of the real characters from the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Rosa Parks&amp;#039;&amp;#039; reading?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree Jason, I wish they had showed more of the real people instead of just making up characters. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wow, sorry if I sound redundant there, but apparently Jason and I were apparently writing that at exactly the same time! -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
--Whitney, you reminded me of another point that I wanted to say. I was so happy when Miriam stood up to her husband on her right to drive Odessa to work and told him that if he insists on running her household, that she&amp;#039;ll involve herself in his business. After all, she does have a college degree. That defiance wasn&amp;#039;t surprising coming from her, but suddenly  (thinking for what seemed like a day) she has a determination to get a job just so she can drive Odessa and have her own money. From what I can see, she never had a job before and she was wholly dependent on her husband for as long they&amp;#039;ve been married. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I&amp;#039;m just questioning the likelihood that Miriam would change her career life dramatically. Helping with the boycott changes her and her family&amp;#039;s life in any case, but going to work outside the home would impact her and her family even more directly.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; --Jason, I agree with you about her broad personality, but I viewed her as naive. She&amp;#039;s had her husband take care of her for years and now she&amp;#039;s taking large steps very quickly towards progression. Women in her place would have been more hesitant or taken smaller steps over a longer period of time, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;if&amp;#039;&amp;#039; they did anything. The behavior and views of Miriam&amp;#039;s companions illustrate what many Southern women felt. With the time constraints on the movie, the filmmakers felt the need to speed the process of Miriam&amp;#039;s change; but I felt it was too fast. Some Southern white women did help, like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Virginia Durr; but she went to Wellesley College in Massachusetts&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. That experience in the North must&amp;#039;ve impacted her life in a positive way towards blacks (Source: http://www.wellesley.edu/Anniversary/durr.html). Unlike most Southern women, Virginia Durr had experience with black peers and got to understand them as more than inferior people who work for her. As far as I can see, Miriam has lived in the South all her life. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The scene that I found most questionable was the end scene&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. Although I know Miriam decided to support the bus boycott I just find it unlikely that any women would go so far as to stand up to a mob especially when they had a daughter to worry about. I also found Miriam&amp;#039;s change in atitude a little to sudden she never really talked heart to heart with Odessa before and after one conversation with her she suddenly becomes a fanatic to the cause even if she was sympathetic to the cause. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I found the character of Norman Thompson (the husband) intriguing, specifically his attitudes towards the Citizen&amp;#039;s Council.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  At first, he seemed indifferent to the goals and values of the organization, but then he is influenced by his brother to regularly attend meetings as his views about blacks developed.  Furthermore, when his wife found out he was going to these meetings and asked why, he responded at one point &amp;quot;it&amp;#039;s either that or the KKK.&amp;quot;  In class, we discussed the uprising of the KKK again because of the bus boycotts.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;What I want to know is how whites viewed the KKK during this time.  Did they undermine and de-value their purpose as Norman&amp;#039;s comments implied?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;When Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter decides to ride the bus and the three white boys harass her would the bus driver really have stopped the bus and told them to get off.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Telling them he would call the cops if they didn&amp;#039;t and then telling them to never get on his bus again. Everything I have ever learned leads me to think that the bus driver would have asked Odessa&amp;#039;s daughter to get off and let the boys alone. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I’m surprised the film didn’t add anything about Brown v. Board of Edu. That was a big accomplishment for the black communities and also occurred before the bus boycott.  Also did they have any other bus boycotts besides in Montgomery, AL? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it&amp;#039;s a bit presumptuous to assume that an upper-middle class woman like Miriam wouldn&amp;#039;t have supported the bus boycott by running carpool.  Yes, racism was extremely prevalent in the south.  Yes, her character risks a lot by doing so.  But in all social movements like the Civil Rights movement, people risked their lives and reputations for what they believed in.  If they--black and white--hadn&amp;#039;t done so, the movement wouldn&amp;#039;t have succeeded.  I agree that Miriam isn&amp;#039;t representative of the average woman of her stature at the time, but we can&amp;#039;t say it wouldn&amp;#039;t have happened.  Just my two cents.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;To be honest, I can’t think of too much to complain about. It makes me wonder if I’m missing something, because that just seems so wrong. Oh woe, what kind of world do we live in when we can&amp;#039;t find inaccuracies in a historical film?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; On the issues discussed above: The readings suggested that it was actually quite common for white women to drive their maids around. Now, I’m sure some of this had to do with convenience on the white women’s part, since they just really needed their maids, but there were also women like Virginia Durr who truly believed in the cause. I think Miriam represented both of these types. In the beginning she’s sympathetic, but she’s more interested in housework getting done. By the end, she’s a convert to the cause. Maybe it was a bit fast (we don’t really know how long passed in the movie), but it’s a fair representation. Also, while Miriam didn’t attend college in the North, she did give that little speech about growing up one way and then seeing more of the world, which she did a tad more than Norman did (that little trip with the ladies and the swimming hole). Also, I think she was quite dissatisfied with her life as a happy homemaker (à la &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Feminine Mystique&amp;#039;&amp;#039;) and was looking for something more worthwhile to do with herself. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed:  When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened.  In Mrs. Durr&amp;#039;s statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit.  Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really liked the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Testimony of Thomas Williams&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. I felt the main idea of the testimony was to convey the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;de facto&amp;#039;&amp;#039; laws of the South, and how those laws were rooted in white supremacist tradition rather than American jurisprudence. It was the small but powerful phrase uttered by the bus driver that justified everything that happened to Williams and thousands of blacks in the Jim Crow era- &amp;quot;Your in the South now&amp;quot;. Whites were able to get away with this behavior because they had the power to do so, and until the late 1950s no one made them do any differently. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think Williams exposed the crucial factor that would change life in the South- enforcement. &amp;quot;...Supreme Court decisions just are not enough. It is necessary to have a law to prevent them from doing these things.&amp;quot; In the movie we see whites dominating and intimidating blacks because they could. The policemen were actively orchestrating that domination and intimidation.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; As was proven with the integration of schools in the decades to follow, enforcement of law would be the only way to ensure tangible change. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be silly BUT...&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Why was there not even the slightest mention of the schools - Brown v. Board had already happened&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;... how long did it take for the desegregation of schools to actually kick in? -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I remember from the readings correctly, the South continued with their segregation and Jim Crow laws even after Supreme Court decisions.  Much of the unconstitutional decisions did go in effect in the South until the federal government forcibly made the South listen to those decisions. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I,too, found Thomas Williams&amp;#039; account to be truly profound. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;In particular, when he discusses his experience in the jail. He said that he was treated peacefully, which to be honest I was surprised because as we see in the movie and from our knowledge of history this is an extremely hostile time for African Americans.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; He further explains how one of the deputies tells him he should consider him self lucky for being treated so kindly (... yeah, OK) and not getting his &amp;quot;head beat in&amp;quot; and in all &amp;quot;fairness&amp;quot; that is what would have happened if a white person stepped outside their bounds.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Long Walk Home&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and Thomas Williams&amp;#039; account are both truly heartbreaking and it&amp;#039;s sickening to know that a country who prides itself on democratic beliefs and equality for all citizens could have endured such an unfathomable period of history. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel the movie does a good job at following the details given about the bus boycott in primary sources. The instances of the car speeding incidence and the attitude of the police was well shown in this movie by the scene where Odessa advices Miriam to drive slow because of tickets and the scene where Odessa is kicked out of the park by the police. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this happened on purpose, but &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Long Walk Home was nestled in a chronology of MAJOR movies being made about growing up in America as a member of the black community. Others were Do The Right Thing (1989), Boyz N The Hood (1991), Malcolm X (1992), and Menace II Society (1993). Anyone know if this was coincidence or not?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I really wonder what the experience was like for the black actors making this movie.  So Whoopi only being born in 1955 would have not experience the bus boycott but would have experience other Civil Rights movements as a young child.  Was it hard for these actors to portray these roles? I cant imagine having to relive that kind of experience.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
By skimming through reviews on IMDB and going through Roger Ebert&amp;#039;s website, the movie was generally well-received.  It did not get nominated for any major awards, and I don&amp;#039;t think it made the money a blockbuster film would have, but its major themes are ones that are going to resonate with future audiences.  This film reminded me of &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Driving Miss Daisy&amp;#039;&amp;#039; because it focused on the relationship between one black person and one white person.  None of the characters were monumental to the effect of Rosa Parks or MLK, but it did show how important every single person was to the progression towards racial equality.  I thoroughly enjoyed this film and appreciate its message. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie was amazing.  I thought it really communicated the inconceivable injustice of that time and place.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Every time I see a movie that depicts the racism of this time, it is still almost unbelievable that those things ever happened, from slavery to segregation.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  Also, the makeup for the young man that was beaten up was incredibly evocative.  Once again, I thought this movie was great. - Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The style of this movie was somewhat strange to me&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; - the camera would focus on closer objects or people, or further objects and have the alternate distance one blurry. Also I remember a few rolling shots where it followed Miriam across the room, but she goes behind something and comes out on the other side. Another example - close up on the telephone. Strange to me, but artistic. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Did anyone have a problem with a movie about the Montgomery Bus Boycotts being told from a young affluent white girl&amp;#039;s perspective?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Was it just me, or did this movie seem to be a bit too focused on the evolution of Miriam into an activist, rather than the movement to organize a successful boycott? Granted, I still felt that this was a powerful depiction, I just thought that maybe the story of the black family should have been more clearly the &amp;quot;A&amp;quot; storyline.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this fact.  I think that even though you did not get the full picture you were able to get a better understanding of the confusion of the time.  The little girl didn&amp;#039;t really understand what was going on so it give everything a naive sort of feel&lt;br /&gt;
to a hard and difficult time.  I think that by tell it though a young girl&amp;#039;s perspective it allows the viewer to see the white perspective of what was going on, thereby allowing you to sympathize with the maid that raised the young child. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Also, I liked how they alluded to MLK without actually showing him. Is it just me or is there some unspoken Hollywood agreement that King will not be prominently depicted on screen?&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; I was trying to think about this, and to my memory there aren&amp;#039;t any movies where an actor portrays King. Why do you think this is the case? Is it because he was such an electrifying and dynamic person that no actor is comfortable risking their career depicting such an icon? Another thing I was wondering, how is it that there have not been any movies about the Freedom Rides (at least to my knowledge)? After reading James Farmer&amp;#039;s autobiography &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Lay Bare the Heart&amp;#039;&amp;#039; last year I was struck at how compelling a narrative that the freedom rides would make for film. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Certainly &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;this would make for a better movie than Saw 38 or whatever number they are on&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;--Bryan, I have to say I agree, but unfortunately my answer is a bit cynical. Hollywood has, in addition to trying to re-define (read: stereotype!) gender roles, also fit racial roles into neat, little stereotypical boxes. Your cheeky inclusion of the Saw movies (they&amp;#039;ve greenlit Saw 8, by the way, even though only 5 have been made) is actually rather relevant, because no genre is more guilty of this than horror. After all, if any rule remains constant, it&amp;#039;s that the black guy dies first. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;--The next point to make is that we have very few legendary black actors. Our most famous, Denzel Washington, has been typecast to an epic level. Man On Fire, Virtuosity, Out of Time and Inside Man are all the same movie, in a different setting, with different names. It&amp;#039;s unfortunate, but as a culture, we are simply not ready to let our black actors shine the way we let our whites. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;--I agree with you Cash that the lack of prominent black actors is an issue. Denzel though to his credit has portrayed historic figures well (Malcolm X, Ruben Carter), but he obviously couldn&amp;#039;t pull off a portrayal of MLK. And it isn&amp;#039;t as though other black figures haven&amp;#039;t been successfully portrayed: Forest Whitaker as Idi Amin and Charlie Parker, Jamie Foxx as Ray Charles (I feel like I heard that Don Cheadle is doing a Miles Davis biopic in the future). I guess I was more curious over whether the fact that King has yet to be definitively depicted on screen is more a function of the lack of black actors, or is there a fear of trying to do justice in a portrayal of one of the most compelling Americans ever? I mean who wouldn&amp;#039;t go see a MLK biopic? -Bryan Mull&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The movie seems to hold back a bit on showing the actual violence going on.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; The movie implies the violence is bad by mentioning the church bombings, but the couple of scenes of actual violence in the movie are relevantly tame. There is clearly an attitude of fear in the movie about the situation, but we never really see the real reason for the fear as all the characters in the movie get off ok. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the filmmaker&amp;#039;s choice to have this movie from the daughter&amp;#039;s perspective very interesting and very beneficial to its achievement of historical accuracy.  At first, I couldn&amp;#039;t help but chuckle at the fact that a young white girl was telling a story about one of the most influential movements in black civil rights history.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;But when you think about it, you couldn&amp;#039;t get a more objective point of view.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  The daughter had no idea what was going on, she did not know the concept of race.  She only sees the care and protectiveness from both her parents and Odessa.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I think this made it easier for the audience to immerse themselves into the shoes of Odessa and other blacks during the bus boycotts, as well as Miriam, her husband, and especially her daughter.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; Furthermore, there are no biases attached to the daughter because of her attachment to her family and Odessa.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how in the movie when Miriam drives by the carpool lot and is asking Odessa about it and Odessa explains how the carpool works.  When Miriam says she wants to help because it is just about busing and Odessa explains that it is about more than just busing. She asks Miriam how will she feel when blacks are teaching in white schools or living in her neighborhood and tells her if she crosses that line she can&amp;#039;t go back. The movie then cuts away to the next day. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;this helps give the sense that maybe whites who were helping didn&amp;#039;t necessarily understand what they were becoming involved in and then when they did find out and what it would truly mean for them, they had doubts about it&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Bryan&amp;#039;s question about the narrator, although it kind of bothered me too I feel like it was a definite choice made by the filmmakers.  Kellye touched on it best when she mentioned how it relayed the confusion of the time; kids were being raised into these types of households.  They didn&amp;#039;t really understand what was going on and to be a young girl especially in the situation she was in, must have been difficult.  But I can definitely see the need to make the black family more central than they seemed to be.  The storyline seemed to focus almost more around Miriam than Odessa to me.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan-  There was a 1978 TV movie &amp;quot;King,&amp;quot; in which Paul Winfield portrayed Martin Luther King, Jr. and Cicely Tyson portrayed Coretta Scott King.  (Those two actors were in my project movie, Sounder.)  And Cash- what about Denzel Washington in oh, say, Malcolm X?  And Remember the Titans? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;I cried.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
No, seriously, Jason did cry. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I sobbed. On more than one occasion, and loudly. I still don&amp;#039;t have words to really articulate the way I felt after this one, other than to say I think it&amp;#039;s the best movie we&amp;#039;ve watched so far. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I got teary-eyed, too, at some point, although I can&amp;#039;t remember where.  Overall, I think this movie is an effective portrayal of this significant event in US history, since its details are often overlooked in classrooms.  It gets across the personal effects of racism to these particular families and how they had tolerated it but would no longer. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that they didn&amp;#039;t try to portray the monumental people of this movement in the film - there was no rosa parks or MLK Jr, which, to me made it better. Overall, very good film. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a bit of interesting information that I wanted to share with everyone. I was reading up on the movie just to get some more background information and I read that one of the buses used in the film was actually the Montgomery Bus Lines bus that Rosa Parks was riding on when she was arrested. --Mallory Cruise&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;After some of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched this semester, and comparing it to the length of next week&amp;#039;s film, this one was rather short.  Not that I mind, it was nice to have a shorter film.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed that such a short film (only 97 minutes) could have such a tremendous impact.  It was an incredible movie. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was amazed by this movie.  I was very impressed with Merriam&amp;#039;s role in the movement and how she stood up to her husband, I could really see a push for equality for women as well.  There were definitely parts of the movie that almost made me cry. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought this movie was very well done. Yes it was short but I think it added to the movie in this case. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;There is no need to show the whole bus boycott. It would have made a really long really boring movie.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; It was just the right length to get involved with the boycott and subsequently the Civil Rights Movement that is growing and show how people were reacting without going overboard. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elle, with the filmmaker’s view of leaving real characters out of the film.  The movie felt real to me and definitely left me thinking afterwards on the trouble the black community went through with standing up for their rights. Though, I did enjoy the mixture of Martin Luther King speeches throughout the movie. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Glad to know I wasn&amp;#039;t the only one crying on Tuesday night in Chandler!  This is definitely a tearjerker, although not of the Titanic variation.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this film. I feel like I’ve said that about a fair number of the films we’ve seen, so I guess I’m just easy to please. One more movie to add to my DVD collection! While I didn’t quite cry (I’m just hard-hearted like that), it did leave me with that feeling in my gut like some movies do. It’s the sort of feeling that makes you want to get out and do something that can make a difference in the world. So yeah, inspirational. The acting is also fantastic. I completely and utterly love Sissy Spacek. In fact, the first thing I did after the movie was listen to Loretta Lynn (who I also love). The movie was also historically accurate. Essentially, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Long Walk Home&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is everything a historic film should be. Interesting, well acted, and accurate. And for those with short attention spans (so, basically most of America), it’s short.&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Project_List</id>
		<title>329--Project List</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Project_List"/>
				<updated>2008-11-11T15:18:16Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 329--Project List */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 329--Project List ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Place your name and the link to the start of your project below.&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
James Drury: [http://jwdrury.umwblogs.org/]   jwdrury.umwblogs.org/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye Sorber: http://ksorb2yv.umwblogs.org/apollo-13-study/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley Wilkins: http://awilkins.umwblogs.org/  (Its a variety of pages on the Side Links, 5 to be exact)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Elle Weaver: http://eweaver.umwblogs.org/bonnieandclyde/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mary Beth Conrad:  http://embea.umwblogs.org/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash Nelson: http://nickn87.umwblogs.org/2008/11/06/jfk-project-page-one/ (the blog directly after this one chronologically is part two, and then the biblio)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Whitney Holcomb: http://wholcomb.umwblogs.org/sounder/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jonathan Bell: http://jbell2ja.umwblogs.org/history-in-film-patton/ Mine is all in one page with two columns read the left side first.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Lauren: [http://pyrgress.umwblogs.org] I have the main article and a &amp;quot;works cited&amp;quot; post. Be sure to look at both.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly Wuyscik: http://kwuyscik.umwblogs.org/thirteen-days/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
David Flores:  http://daflo05.umwblogs.org/cinderella-man-introduction/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan Mull: http://bmull.umwblogs.org/introduction-to-the-searchers/ (Follow right side page links)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine W.: http://cwueb5yr.umwblogs.org/pearl-harbor-project/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katherine Stinson: http://kstinson88.umwblogs.org/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amanda Russell: http://agrussell.umwblogs.org/wall-street-the-project/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Sarah Richardson: http://serichardson.umwblogs.org/the-scarlet-letter/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mallory Cruise: http://mcrui2mq.umwblogs.org/2008/11/10/41/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wesley Weeks: http://wweeks.umwblogs.org/guess-who%E2%80%99s-coming-to-dinner/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ashley Scutari: http://ascutari.umwblogs.org/introduction-to-malcolm-x/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
JT Newcomb: http://jnewcomb.umwblogs.org/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt DeMarr: http://mdemarr.umwblogs.org/zodiac-does-th…y-have-historyzodiac-does-the-mystery-have-history/ &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aliza Jackie Reed: http://areed.umwblogs.org/us-history-in-film-in-blog-project/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taylor Brann: http://kokoro.umwblogs.org/&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Shannon Hauser: http://grapesofwrath.umwblogs.org/&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-06T09:46:14Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as source about the mid-1940s US (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He is especially convincing since Harold Russell really did lose his hands as a result of the war. Like his character he never saw battle, must have had a heck of a rehabilitation, but also wrote a book &amp;quot;The Best Years of My Life&amp;quot;-signifying that like Homer, he felt compelled to go on with life as the other characters did despite the clear struggles they would continue to have. The general success of the 1950s is proof that people went on with their lives, but we know from hospital records and personal memoirs of countless WWII vets that the yet to be named PTSD effected most vets for much of their lives. The way it is manifested in the film is really wonderful and not overdone. It is poignant so to sympathize with the recently returned soldiers. But the film&amp;#039;s ending is not a clear-cut happy ending- though Al, Fred, and Homer each get their girl in the end and a potentially hopeful future life, no one&amp;#039;s problems disappear. Al still has a drink in his hand (though I think they might under-due the alcoholism due to Hollywood Code restrictions), Homer still has hooks for hands, and Fred admits to Peggy that they might have a tough life because of him (his night-terrors, his short-temper, his less than ideal job/$/housing situation), but each have hope given to them by strong (totally selfless) women who love them. This is a big message I think the movie is pushing, as did the propaganda in reality. Women&amp;#039;s place was with their husbands, especially if they were returning soldiers. Divorce (and especially marriage splitting by a third party) had to be portrayed using kid-gloves in 1940s Hollywood, but I am glad they showed it, as many marriages like that of Fred and Marie&amp;#039;s did end in divorce after the war. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The hopelessness was something I definitely noticed. Much akin to the panic felt by Joe in Dalton Trumbo&amp;#039;s Johnny Got His Gun, it seemed like all three men were realizing at several junctures throughout the story that they wanted to be anywhere other than back home. The other thing that really struck me about this movie is that you could put the story into any time period and have it remain relevant. The struggles, fears and anger felt by the three soldiers are all still felt by the soldier&amp;#039;s returning from Iraq. Everyone is afraid in the same language. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, 31% of all marriages existing in the US in 1946 ended in divorce that year.  This would have been due to a variety of causes, primarily from the readjusting to family or friends.  People can change a lot in three years, and remember there were quick marriages like Fred&amp;#039;s before deployment, women becoming independent, veterans having mental problems, but also the new marriages like Homer coming home to marry his girl, though I don&amp;#039;t know numbers for that, and, of course, the baby boom.  I think this film pretty well represents different marriage situations resulting from war.  Al kept his marriage and loved his family, but now he drank more. However, I believe that his wife Milly still being the sweetest, most selfless person in the movie is just that image of the ideal wife to a returning husband. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I&amp;#039;m glad to be seeing this after the lecture.  Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn&amp;#039;t help Fred much.  One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tidbits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn&amp;#039;t just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We didn&amp;#039;t discuss this in class, but the I think it was common for soldiers fighting in Japan to take items such as samurai swords as souvenirs, like what Al brought home.  I interviewed my great-uncle, about his WWII experiences for my oral history project, and he talked about souvenirs he got from Japan, including a samurai sword, which he still has.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women represented in the film were all very independent. I felt that this was accurate to the time because they were forced to be autonomous while their men were away. This can be demonstrated in Marie taking a job at the nightclub, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
In addition - the film portrayed how the workforce had moved on without the soldiers. There were several grumbles about jobs not being safe due to the returning veterans, and it was obviously a source of tension for both sides of the conflict. Finally, in regards to war time production - the scene where they fly in and see all the unused airplanes that will be scrapped is pretty accurate as well.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does well at showing what soldiers returning from overseas had to face when they came back home.  Freddy comes home to learn that his wife has found a new job and moved in with herself, Mr. Stevenson(AL) finds that he is entitled to an even better job (unlike Fred) and Homer faces the tough task of adjusting to life in general with artificial hands.  Although it may seem that Homer faces the most psychological challenge, Freddy also faces challenges of confronting his past, as war memories seem to haunt him sporadically throughout the movie.  The wives of the soldiers also seem to be portrayed in extremes; Homer&amp;#039;s wife supports him and shows her love for him more than the other two and Freddy&amp;#039;s wife gave him a hard as they end up divorcing.  I would talk more about Al, but he just seems to have no problems at all at adjusting with the exception of maybe an acute fondness of drinking. -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Got a few notes on the economic issues portrayed in the film.  The movie shows Mr. Cameron making predictions that there will be a depression because of all the soldiers returning home, a widespread thought at the time.  Also, I thought other servicemen were guaranteed loans, however Al seems overly hesitant to give a loan to another serviceman because he has no collateral.  The movie also makes reference to and shows soldiers receiving unemployment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
War time savings put a lot of soldiers at an advantage, or at least helped make their transition home a lot easier.  Fred mentions he saved 1000 or received it from the treasury somehow.  That seems like a lot of money in an economy when groceries might have been a few cents and the most expensive of perfumes were a few bucks.  How did he go through all that money so fast?--Especially since the time span of the movie looks to only be a few months if that.--James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that the returning soldiers didn&amp;#039;t let Homers lose of hands effect the relationship. they are initially thrown off but accept it in a considerably short time. But his family take a long time to accept his situation. I  feel this is a good description of how families had a hard time dealing with returning soldiers, and how they often assumed that soldier was psychologically changed.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the depiction of the mental state of all three men was an accurate account of how some people were after the war.  Homer mostly fit right back in no problem, but he had his disability to work through, which many families had to deal with after the war.  Fred had the marriage right before the war, that in ended in divorce after the war.  Al was the example of the returning veteran who had been married long before the war, and dealt with a drinking problem after the war.  I felt the movie accurately depicted at least three varieties of people&amp;#039;s experiences after the war. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning when the three main characters are returning home in a taxi, Homer suggests &amp;quot;going to Butch&amp;#039;s for a drink&amp;quot; before being dropped off at his home.  This statement had some implications, primarily the anxiety being felt by the soldiers about returning home.  This is important because it shows that the hesitance and reluctance goes both ways (between soldiers and their families).  Furthermore, I assumed that all the men would be excited about returning home, but this movie shows how complex their feelings were about returning to their families.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with portraying how upon entering Boone, the soldiers are almost shocked to find that nothing has changed. Visually, to them, it seemed as if they never left home. I believe it&amp;#039;s Homer who points out that men are playing golf and the high school football team was playing a game and it is he who first points out that nothing has changed. As we discussed in class, these veterans saw and experienced things that most Americans couldn&amp;#039;t even conceive. For these men to have changed so drastically and to come home to a place that seemed as if time had stood still, was an idea they had a hard time grasping. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the scene with Fred and all of the now defunct places was really staggering and drove home the question of what happens after the war and what does a nation do. It&amp;#039;s also a subtle nod to the droves of people who must have been working to crank out so many planes during the war and echoes their uselessness post-war. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I thought was accurate in the film was when the daughter Peggy told her father when he first came home that she was taking Domestic Science and bought a cook book. That goes to show what women learned in college during those years. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another aspect of education in the post-war period is the increasing emphasis on science, evident by Al&amp;#039;s son&amp;#039;s discussion on the physics between the atomic bomb.  Another comment on this scene is that it shows how isolated soldiers were during the war.  Al&amp;#039;s son knew more about the events surrounding the bomb than his own father did.  According to the reading for this week, an American soldier&amp;#039;s exposure to the outside world was typically limited to the propaganda magazine, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Stars and Stripes&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and radio targeted specifically at the armed forces, while civilians were inundated with constant media (even if it was skewed). ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best Years of Our Lives is downright commendable for how it handles Al&amp;#039;s PTSD.  Watching it&amp;#039;s portrayals of his trouble adjusting, his drinking problems, etc., I can hardly believe how ahead of the film&amp;#039;s time it is in handling a phenomenon not otherwise well handled by the general public at the time... especially given that it was made at the same time as it&amp;#039;s context. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the strongest things in the movie is Homer dealing with his disability. Throughout the film, he seems to be making a show of his independence, going out of his way to prove to people that he can function just like a normal person can (providing lights for cigarettes all the time, for instance). Despite this, the scene with his father at bedtime shows his helplessness and vulnerability without needing dialogue or even fully showing his arms. The scene with Wilma reinforces this, providing further expression of Homer’s feelings through dialogue and fully showing the condition his injuries has left him in. In a society that exalted masculinity and individuality, veterans with disabilities like Homer’s probably felt emasculated and disillusioned because they had to rely on others so much. A little side information: Harold Russell, who played Homer, was a real veteran who lost his hands in a training accident. Despite having no acting experience, he won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar and an honorary Oscar. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie did a good job dealing with the more personal side of people who have fought in wars. It is unusal for a movie to deal almost exclusively with the aftermath of the war rather than the war itself.  This is not an insignificant contribution to that. - Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with everyone else who thought the film did a good job in depicting PTSD.  It also didn&amp;#039;t sugarcoat the experience of the soldiers returning from war.  We have marital strife, alcoholism, social conflict, and permanent disablement.  Not your typical, happy view of post-WWII America.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I want to add to my previous comment on the isolation of soldiers.  Many civilians assumed that being a soldier during the war meant exposure to different places and people, to whole other cultures.  But the reality of many soldiers was one of isolation in a particular location, performing a particular task. Some soldiers never even saw combat. The movie builds on this idea several times throughout.  When Homer returns as a double amputee, his friends, family and even strangers he meets assume he got the injury during some act of heroism, when in reality it was in a fire, and he rarely saw the outside of the submarine he was stationed in. Frank and Al had similar experiences, not believing their experiences could match the expectations of everyone back home. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jonathan, the movie is limited to three experiences in one town.  There&amp;#039;s no broad sense of understanding how many troops actually came back and how they would have impacted societal, economic, and political realms of cities, states, and the nation. -JamesD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The minority issue was a HUGE issue for me too as I watched the film, those of us who watched it at the regular screening actually started counting at one point - I believe that there were only three black people that I remember in the film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue I had might not be one at all.  In the unemployment line there were women.  I thought the scene was depicting the unemployment checks being handed out to veterans, I thought women didn&amp;#039;t get veterans pay for many years.  Or was it just unemployment in general? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that Peggy accuses her parents of never having had troubles. Considering the time that the movie takes place, the Great Depression was not that long ago, and most likely put at least a little strain on many marriages. Somehow the idea of a traditional wedding and a fancy honeymoon equals a good marriage, and I think this is an example of social myths we are still trying to get away from. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My biggest issue with the representation of minorities was that Fred was so dismissive of his medals for heroism, when so many (unrepresented) women and racial minorities weren&amp;#039;t even awarded medals for what they did. Despite the medals being handed out &amp;quot;with the rations,&amp;quot; I feel as if this was probably not true for groups like the WASPS. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The character I felt bad for in the film is Peggy’s brother. The father extended the invitation to the family to go out on the town except the brother. The father stated “the three of us will go out.” He must be the black sheep of the family. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t think that the reason the brother had to stay home was because he was the black sheep of the family, but rather that he had more important things to do, like study physics - since he was a male, education was after all important. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Amanda makes a great point. I know the movie is already long but I am disappointed in the lack of mention to minorities and women&amp;#039;s wartime roles. I noticed after I took Dr. M&amp;#039;s Women&amp;#039;s history class that the film was a great, informative drama that depicted its time but re-enforces the propaganda of the time telling women where their place was. Even women who weren&amp;#039;t married lost their jobs in factories or other positions when soldiers came home. I love the adorably innocent Theresa Wright in every film she is in, but Peggy lacks some dimension- Wilma has already got the role of selfless sweet, girl-next-door. Peggy tries to split up a marriage but I thought her character could have gone farther in pushing the norms of female roles, making them more realistic (or how about just more progressive)!--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that struck me from a portion of the reading was how hard it must have been on loved ones who were awaiting their sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends return home. In the reading it mentions that letters are sent to wounded soldiers family members. The letters weren&amp;#039;t specific - just a &amp;quot;seriously injured&amp;quot; category and a forwarding address. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine having that little information about a loved one. All in all, I think that the film primarily focuses its attention on how it would have been to be a veteran returning to home, and somewhat avoided the situation of how life really was for those who had been left behind. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Fred is packing up to leave Boone City, he lets his parents keep the citations for his medals.  He tells them they just came with his K-rations, and they don&amp;#039;t mean much to him.  Does this mean that his citation was like a fill-in-the-blank that lots of people in his situation (whatever exactly that may have been) got, something that they were all issued?  Or that the citation was just so insignificant that it merely came with rations?  Paul Fussell reveals the dishonesty behind writing medal citations, and Fred&amp;#039;s attitude toward his is that it is also essentially meaningless.  Whatever it may be, his parents take pride in it, so that&amp;#039;s one mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ah, the ubiquitous &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;! Fussell talks about his arrival at the field hospital by saying, “It was like the scene of the aftermath of the Battle of Atlanta in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;”. Whether it was an exaggeration or not, Fussell uses this comparison to show the carnage of war (and everyone would have gotten it!). The other part of the reading that struck me as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;-esque was his discussion of the roles of nurses. Obviously, WWII nurses had the job of mending and dealing with soldiers in a very medical way, but they still seemed to serve the same kind of comforting role as Scarlet did in the Civil War. Fussell wrote about the nurse’s “freshness, affection, and good cheer” and how they shared “inside jokes”. It seems that the intangible qualities of nurses were just as important to a soldier’s psychological condition as their medical services were to a soldier’s physical well-being. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the second section of the Fussell reading, he noted that once out of the service, he no longer had to boast of the infantry&amp;#039;s supposed superiority when in all actuality they were the dregs of the armed forces. This sentiment does not seem to jibe with Al&amp;#039;s character in the movie. Early in the film when the 3 men meet, there is a scene where Al is quick to defend the honor of the infantry. Also, Al is a more prosperous man which belies Fussell&amp;#039;s assertion that the infantry is made up the lower rungs of society.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fussell also noted that upon his return he vowed to never work under anyone again and to get as far away from his combat clothes as he could manage. This reminded me a lot of Fred&amp;#039;s character. He swears that he won&amp;#039;t work the soda jerk job, and clearly hates wearing his uniform as evident when he and Marie argue over his suit.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fussell also discussed going back to school and finishing up his degree which is something Fred briefly mentioned during a fight with Marie.  The option of education and the ability to finish something that veterans may have started and were pulled from, or never got the chance to even begin, must have been a big deal especially since the government would help to pay for it with the GI Bill. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the reading, it seems to me that no movie can accurately depict the suffering of someone involved in a war.  This movie of course isn&amp;#039;t focused on the war itself but while reading the excerpt from Fusell&amp;#039;s book I was reminded how no popular portrayals are as harsh as reality. - Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One  thing that struck me about the reading was just how cynical Fussell was, how lost he seemed. All three former service men depicted in this movie share that feeling - of not really fitting back nicely in the world they left behind. Often when men joined the armed forces during WWII, they did so believing they would fight the bad guy, bring freedom to the world and come home a hero.  But as Fussell reveals, the actual experience of being a soldier was very different.  It seemed Fussell spent the majority of his enlistment in a hospital, when he recieved a &amp;quot;Serious&amp;quot; injury acquired during a moment of stupidity and stubbornness, rather than heroism in his opinion. His awards meant very little to him, like Frank in the movie.  Fussell also mentions the point system used to discharge soldiers, and if your points were not high enough, you were not able to go home.  Even after the war was over, the inability to immediately return home was a frustration felt by many soldiers, prompting the protests for demobilization of forces. This is touched on briefly during the opening scene when the soldiers wait for a flight home. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Al states in the movie the likelihood of him being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; by his family.  I found this to be an interesting term, and even more interesting coming from a soldier.  This again derives from my assumption that soldiers would have been nothing but excited about seeing their families.  This movie, though, has made realize that the soldiers (especially them, not just the families) had all kinds of doubts and expectations about returning home.  The expectation of being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; was something I thought would come from the family and not Al.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The humor in this movie stood out to me as well.  Most of it was sarcastic and even dark, but nonetheless enjoyable.  I also like how the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; goes back to this time period.  It makes me feel better in case I ever go back in time and want to get drunk at a bar, and in order to describe my experience I use the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; and the people will know what I was talking about.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve seen it commented on here that one of the downfalls of the movie is that it does not address the experience of minorities in the military.  This seems pretty indicative of the time in which it is made.  Ignoring minorities is on about the same page as the USS WVa sailor never really being shown an appropriate level of appreciation for his actions at Pearl Harbor. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The line that always sticks with me when I watch this movie is Butch talking to Homer and saying, “Give &amp;#039;em time, kid; they&amp;#039;ll catch on. You know your folks&amp;#039;ll get used to you, and you&amp;#039;ll get used to them. Then everything&amp;#039;ll settle down nicely. Unless we have another war. Then none of us have to worry because we&amp;#039;ll all be blown to bits the first day. So cheer up, huh?” This line really expresses the uncertainty of life many Americans felt following the end of WWII. The end of the alliance with Russia, the start of the Cold War, and the introduction of atomic weapons. No doubt, these things left Americans feeling extremely uneasy, especially in the late ‘40s when the country’s economy still seemed so fragile. They probably thought the next war would truly be &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The War to End All Wars&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place.  Peggy then makes a comment about taking a class in domestic science, an interesting title.  Was this a common course in most school&amp;#039;s curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Best Years&amp;quot; won 7 Academy Awards in 1947 and it is preserved in the Library of Congress. It only lost the award for Best Sound. The American Film Institute included in 3 times in its top 100 movie lists. The producer, Samuel Goldwyn received the Irving Thalberg Award, a special honor for outstanding work in production. Harold Russell was given a Special Oscar® &amp;quot;for bringing hope and courage to his fellow veterans.&amp;quot; Obviously this film had a large impact on the general audience, critics, and other actors of the time. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harold Russell also won the Best Supporting Oscar (only person to win 2 oscars for the same role). William Wyler saw him in a documentary and actually rewrote the part especially for him. He was not an actor and like his character, he never saw combat, but it goes to show that men and women could be deeply affected and their lives forever changed without even needing to experience the terrors of actual battle or war, like those women who died in the WASPs or WACs or people who died or were disfigured in factories. I personally was touched (I cried at least twice) by the authenticity of Harold Russell&amp;#039;s performance. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best Years of Our Lives is an enduringly popular film, at least with the TCM-loving crowd.  As Amanda already mentioned, it won seven Academy Awards.  World War II films tend to be popular.  Most Americans would probably say that WWII was one of our shining moments.  After all, we saved Europe (and the world) from the ultimate villains.  Americans equally felt the economic and social uncertainty in the aftermath of the war.  It&amp;#039;s not surprising that a film which focused on these problems would be so popular with the public in 1946.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of generational tensions going on in the movie… about twenty years before generational tensions were “in”. The scene in Butch’s pub where Al pressures Fred into abandoning his feelings and intentions with Peggy reminded me of the scene in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Graduate&amp;#039;&amp;#039; when Mr. Robinson said to Ben, “I want you to stay away from Elaine”. In both examples we see a traditionally strong father figure dissuading a “drifting”/ unconventional suitor from pursuing a girl who deserves nothing but the best. Even though the mid-1940s and the late-1960s were radically different for many reasons, the uncertainty and optimism that existed in those two eras made the storyline of ‘love conquering all’ very appealing. It seems as though “Father Knows Best” was a notion reserved for the 1950s! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck at how successful the movie was in depicting an era that was still ongoing when the movie was released. In recent years nearly all of the movies made about the Iraq war have flopped commercially. I wonder why Best Years of Our Lives could be so successful during its day whereas similar attempts to depict a current war on screen have failed? Are we so tired of the 24/7 news bombardment that we shun movies depicting the war? It as not as though all the Iraq war movies have been bad either, some have been highly regarded by critics. Does it say more about society now or in the 40s that nobody watches movies about the Iraq war today, yet BYOL was such a success?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the story was and interesting concept. They took three men who returned and all are of different ranks. On their way home Fred is the man of power and is looked up to by the other two men but as the story continues he is the one who has the hardest fall. Al is of a lower rank but has rising power through out the story. Homer has a difficult time just like the other two but it has more to with psychology. His adjustment is considerably better at least with money then that of Fred. The story is well written and very compelling.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Part of me wonders if maybe the movie was so successful because the American public was so used to propaganda films and newsreels.  For once, they were able to watch an actual film and it was about something everyone could relate to.  People could identify with it and not have to worry about being heavily influenced in a &amp;quot;Pro-America&amp;quot; propaganda-esque way. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being that this movie was made in 1946 and was about 1946, the ending intrigued me.  It pretty much assumed that whatever complexities the soldiers and their families were experiencing would somehow be solved (in the film&amp;#039;s case, love was the answer).  This was very different than what we saw in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; because that film ended without any closure for the labor workers.  In terms of the time they were made, these two films are not so different in that sense either.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was made in the 80&amp;#039;s when labor unions consumed the media&amp;#039;s attention, as it did in the 1920&amp;#039;s.  So it was like both these films were created in response to current events and attempted to give a solution (if there was one) to the problems at hand. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being the GIANT country music geek that I am, I kept thinking back to Brad Paisley&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Whiskey Lullaby&amp;quot; video. The soldier returns from war, finds his wife cheating on him, and as Brad sings, &amp;quot;puts the bottle to his head and pulls the trigger.&amp;quot; I kept waiting for a story that would be devastatingly sad, and was greatly relieved that this didn&amp;#039;t happen. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this movie better than any that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  It was more engaging and had good suspense.  I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we&amp;#039;re supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred&amp;#039;s marriage.  I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him....  I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed.  I didn&amp;#039;t get that from any of the other movies.  That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts.  In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history.  I wasn&amp;#039;t judging it like I judge historical movies.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie did such a good job portraying the time period accurately because the movie was made during the time period it depicts.  For a movie such as this, not a whole lot of research would have been necessary since the people involved with the movie are living in the time period the movie is supposed to portray.  I also think that this movie is very relevant to audiences today, just as it was when it first came out in 1946.  Today, we have soldiers returning home from Iraq, and some of them are facing problems similar to those of the WWII veterans, such as post traumatic stress disorder, combat related injuries and disabilities, etc. -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would have been really cool to see a post- WWII movie done with the same type of concept as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Crash&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. You know, have five to eight different storylines representing different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds from different parts of the country. To a certain extent, filmmakers have to rely on stereotypes in order to connect with the audience, but by widening the scope of post- war situations, the viewer could gain a deeper understanding of what the time was like. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does a remarkable job of depicting the realities of post-war, white, small town America.– Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really liked the film.  The film was longer, yes, but that didn&amp;#039;t hamper it at all!  I meant to only watch 1/2 on Tuesday and the other half on Wednesday, but I ended up watching about 130 minutes of it the first day because I wasn&amp;#039;t paying attention and was enjoying the film!  The only thing that made me stop watching was my husband texting me saying &amp;quot;I just got off the train be by the house in 5 minutes to get you to go vote&amp;quot; and I was like &amp;quot;Eep!&amp;quot;  So I liked the movie overall and would most definitely recommend it to other people! -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i felt that Peggy was a very strong character. Are they using Peggy&amp;#039;s character to show &lt;br /&gt;
women in a stronger role?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was very interesting that Peggy was one of the heroines of the movie - painted as good, wholesome and All American, when in reality she was a homewrecker - regardless of Fred&amp;#039;s marital problems, he was still married!  It is just interesting that even though she helps break up the marriage, she is seen as good and pure...perhaps that is a little complexity appearing in a female role, or perhaps it is to paint Peggy as Fred&amp;#039;s savior, from an eternity of unhappiness. Are the filmmakers saying that as long as you are pure of heart, it is ok to break the sanctity of marriage, or are they implying that maybe even good and wholesome girls can be a little complicated? What do you think? ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. It was centered around ordinary people, trying to accomplish an act that people have to go through everyday, acclimating to their surroundings. It&amp;#039;s a very real and telling movie, especially since it&amp;#039;s a film about returning from the war, filmed at a time when people were returning from the war. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I really enjoyed the film as well. I felt that it accurately portrayed post-war hard times for Americans returning from the War. I think it is one of the most accurate films we have seen this semester. It also had a love story which gives it the Hollywood appeal to keep the general audience interested. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really love &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but like most movies, it certainly has some issues. For instance, the lack of minority and female veterans and the lack of minority presence in general is a large problem because it diminishes their importance in the war and their importance in American society. Of course, that’s no surprise. Hollywood has long ignored minorities, and that just reminds viewers of the time in which the film was made. Also, there is an issue that always bothers me: what happened to Al’s son? The boy just disappeared; he wasn’t even at the wedding. Finally, there is the unrealistic “life is good” happy ending for everyone. That, however, doesn’t bother me as much. I think the point of the film was not only to express the difficulties of returning veterans, but to provide the hope of a better future for veterans and all of America. It may seem a little outdated now, but in that time of uncertainty following WWII, Americans really needed that reassurance. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just wanted to say that I absolutely loved this movie.  I loved Fred.  I loved Peggy.  I love the Freggy combination.  Perfect.  Oh, and Milly was such a rockstar.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-06T09:37:04Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as source about the mid-1940s US (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He is especially convincing since Harold Russell really did lose his hands as a result of the war. Like his character he never saw battle, must have had a heck of a rehabilitation, but also wrote a book &amp;quot;The Best Years of My Life&amp;quot;-signifying that like Homer, he felt compelled to go on with life as the other characters did despite the clear struggles they would continue to have. The general success of the 1950s is proof that people went on with their lives, but we know from hospital records and personal memoirs of countless WWII vets that the yet to be named PTSD effected most vets for much of their lives. The way it is manifested in the film is really wonderful and not overdone. It is poignant so to sympathize with the recently returned soldiers. But the film&amp;#039;s ending is not a clear-cut happy ending- though Al, Fred, and Homer each get their girl in the end and a potentially hopeful future life, no one&amp;#039;s problems disappear. Al still has a drink in his hand (though I think they might under-due the alcoholism due to Hollywood Code restrictions), Homer still has hooks for hands, and Fred admits to Peggy that they might have a tough life because of him (his night-terrors, his short-temper, his less than ideal job/$/housing situation), but each have hope given to them by strong (totally selfless) women who love them. This is a big message I think the movie is pushing, as did the propaganda in reality. Women&amp;#039;s place was with their husbands, especially if they were returning soldiers. Divorce (and especially marriage splitting by a third party) had to be portrayed using kid-gloves in 1940s Hollywood, but I am glad they showed it, as many marriages like that of Fred and Marie&amp;#039;s did end in divorce after the war. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The hopelessness was something I definitely noticed. Much akin to the panic felt by Joe in Dalton Trumbo&amp;#039;s Johnny Got His Gun, it seemed like all three men were realizing at several junctures throughout the story that they wanted to be anywhere other than back home. The other thing that really struck me about this movie is that you could put the story into any time period and have it remain relevant. The struggles, fears and anger felt by the three soldiers are all still felt by the soldier&amp;#039;s returning from Iraq. Everyone is afraid in the same language. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, 31% of all marriages existing in the US in 1946 ended in divorce that year.  This would have been due to a variety of causes, primarily from the readjusting to family or friends.  People can change a lot in three years, and remember there were quick marriages like Fred&amp;#039;s before deployment, women becoming independent, veterans having mental problems, but also the new marriages like Homer coming home to marry his girl, though I don&amp;#039;t know numbers for that, and, of course, the baby boom.  I think this film pretty well represents different marriage situations resulting from war.  Al kept his marriage and loved his family, but now he drank more. However, I believe that his wife Milly still being the sweetest, most selfless person in the movie is just that image of the ideal wife to a returning husband. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I&amp;#039;m glad to be seeing this after the lecture.  Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn&amp;#039;t help Fred much.  One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tidbits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn&amp;#039;t just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We didn&amp;#039;t discuss this in class, but the I think it was common for soldiers fighting in Japan to take items such as samurai swords as souvenirs, like what Al brought home.  I interviewed my great-uncle, about his WWII experiences for my oral history project, and he talked about souvenirs he got from Japan, including a samurai sword, which he still has.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women represented in the film were all very independent. I felt that this was accurate to the time because they were forced to be autonomous while their men were away. This can be demonstrated in Marie taking a job at the nightclub, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
In addition - the film portrayed how the workforce had moved on without the soldiers. There were several grumbles about jobs not being safe due to the returning veterans, and it was obviously a source of tension for both sides of the conflict. Finally, in regards to war time production - the scene where they fly in and see all the unused airplanes that will be scrapped is pretty accurate as well.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does well at showing what soldiers returning from overseas had to face when they came back home.  Freddy comes home to learn that his wife has found a new job and moved in with herself, Mr. Stevenson(AL) finds that he is entitled to an even better job (unlike Fred) and Homer faces the tough task of adjusting to life in general with artificial hands.  Although it may seem that Homer faces the most psychological challenge, Freddy also faces challenges of confronting his past, as war memories seem to haunt him sporadically throughout the movie.  The wives of the soldiers also seem to be portrayed in extremes; Homer&amp;#039;s wife supports him and shows her love for him more than the other two and Freddy&amp;#039;s wife gave him a hard as they end up divorcing.  I would talk more about Al, but he just seems to have no problems at all at adjusting with the exception of maybe an acute fondness of drinking. -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Got a few notes on the economic issues portrayed in the film.  The movie shows Mr. Cameron making predictions that there will be a depression because of all the soldiers returning home, a widespread thought at the time.  Also, I thought other servicemen were guaranteed loans, however Al seems overly hesitant to give a loan to another serviceman because he has no collateral.  The movie also makes reference to and shows soldiers receiving unemployment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
War time savings put a lot of soldiers at an advantage, or at least helped make their transition home a lot easier.  Fred mentions he saved 1000 or received it from the treasury somehow.  That seems like a lot of money in an economy when groceries might have been a few cents and the most expensive of perfumes were a few bucks.  How did he go through all that money so fast?--Especially since the time span of the movie looks to only be a few months if that.--James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that the returning soldiers didn&amp;#039;t let Homers lose of hands effect the relationship. they are initially thrown off but accept it in a considerably short time. But his family take a long time to accept his situation. I  feel this is a good description of how families had a hard time dealing with returning soldiers, and how they often assumed that soldier was psychologically changed.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the depiction of the mental state of all three men was an accurate account of how some people were after the war.  Homer mostly fit right back in no problem, but he had his disability to work through, which many families had to deal with after the war.  Fred had the marriage right before the war, that in ended in divorce after the war.  Al was the example of the returning veteran who had been married long before the war, and dealt with a drinking problem after the war.  I felt the movie accurately depicted at least three varieties of people&amp;#039;s experiences after the war. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning when the three main characters are returning home in a taxi, Homer suggests &amp;quot;going to Butch&amp;#039;s for a drink&amp;quot; before being dropped off at his home.  This statement had some implications, primarily the anxiety being felt by the soldiers about returning home.  This is important because it shows that the hesitance and reluctance goes both ways (between soldiers and their families).  Furthermore, I assumed that all the men would be excited about returning home, but this movie shows how complex their feelings were about returning to their families.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with portraying how upon entering Boone, the soldiers are almost shocked to find that nothing has changed. Visually, to them, it seemed as if they never left home. I believe it&amp;#039;s Homer who points out that men are playing golf and the high school football team was playing a game and it is he who first points out that nothing has changed. As we discussed in class, these veterans saw and experienced things that most Americans couldn&amp;#039;t even conceive. For these men to have changed so drastically and to come home to a place that seemed as if time had stood still, was an idea they had a hard time grasping. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the scene with Fred and all of the now defunct places was really staggering and drove home the question of what happens after the war and what does a nation do. It&amp;#039;s also a subtle nod to the droves of people who must have been working to crank out so many planes during the war and echoes their uselessness post-war. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I thought was accurate in the film was when the daughter Peggy told her father when he first came home that she was taking Domestic Science and bought a cook book. That goes to show what women learned in college during those years. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another aspect of education in the post-war period is the increasing emphasis on science, evident by Al&amp;#039;s son&amp;#039;s discussion on the physics between the atomic bomb.  Another comment on this scene is that it shows how isolated soldiers were during the war.  Al&amp;#039;s son knew more about the events surrounding the bomb than his own father did.  According to the reading for this week, an American soldier&amp;#039;s exposure to the outside world was typically limited to the propaganda magazine, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Stars and Stripes&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and radio targeted specifically at the armed forces, while civilians were inundated with constant media (even if it was skewed). ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best Years of Our Lives is downright commendable for how it handles Al&amp;#039;s PTSD.  Watching it&amp;#039;s portrayals of his trouble adjusting, his drinking problems, etc., I can hardly believe how ahead of the film&amp;#039;s time it is in handling a phenomenon not otherwise well handled by the general public at the time... especially given that it was made at the same time as it&amp;#039;s context. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the strongest things in the movie is Homer dealing with his disability. Throughout the film, he seems to be making a show of his independence, going out of his way to prove to people that he can function just like a normal person can (providing lights for cigarettes all the time, for instance). Despite this, the scene with his father at bedtime shows his helplessness and vulnerability without needing dialogue or even fully showing his arms. The scene with Wilma reinforces this, providing further expression of Homer’s feelings through dialogue and fully showing the condition his injuries has left him in. In a society that exalted masculinity and individuality, veterans with disabilities like Homer’s probably felt emasculated and disillusioned because they had to rely on others so much. A little side information: Harold Russell, who played Homer, was a real veteran who lost his hands in a training accident. Despite having no acting experience, he won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar and an honorary Oscar. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie did a good job dealing with the more personal side of people who have fought in wars. It is unusal for a movie to deal almost exclusively with the aftermath of the war rather than the war itself.  This is not an insignificant contribution to that. - Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with everyone else who thought the film did a good job in depicting PTSD.  It also didn&amp;#039;t sugarcoat the experience of the soldiers returning from war.  We have marital strife, alcoholism, social conflict, and permanent disablement.  Not your typical, happy view of post-WWII America.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I want to add to my previous comment on the isolation of soldiers.  Many civilians assumed that being a soldier during the war meant exposure to different places and people, to whole other cultures.  But the reality of many soldiers was one of isolation in a particular location, performing a particular task. Some soldiers never even saw combat. The movie builds on this idea several times throughout.  When Homer returns as a double amputee, his friends, family and even strangers he meets assume he got the injury during some act of heroism, when in reality it was in a fire, and he rarely saw the outside of the submarine he was stationed in. Frank and Al had similar experiences, not believing their experiences could match the expectations of everyone back home. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jonathan, the movie is limited to three experiences in one town.  There&amp;#039;s no broad sense of understanding how many troops actually came back and how they would have impacted societal, economic, and political realms of cities, states, and the nation. -JamesD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The minority issue was a HUGE issue for me too as I watched the film, those of us who watched it at the regular screening actually started counting at one point - I believe that there were only three black people that I remember in the film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue I had might not be one at all.  In the unemployment line there were women.  I thought the scene was depicting the unemployment checks being handed out to veterans, I thought women didn&amp;#039;t get veterans pay for many years.  Or was it just unemployment in general? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that Peggy accuses her parents of never having had troubles. Considering the time that the movie takes place, the Great Depression was not that long ago, and most likely put at least a little strain on many marriages. Somehow the idea of a traditional wedding and a fancy honeymoon equals a good marriage, and I think this is an example of social myths we are still trying to get away from. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My biggest issue with the representation of minorities was that Fred was so dismissive of his medals for heroism, when so many (unrepresented) women and racial minorities weren&amp;#039;t even awarded medals for what they did. Despite the medals being handed out &amp;quot;with the rations,&amp;quot; I feel as if this was probably not true for groups like the WASPS. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The character I felt bad for in the film is Peggy’s brother. The father extended the invitation to the family to go out on the town except the brother. The father stated “the three of us will go out.” He must be the black sheep of the family. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t think that the reason the brother had to stay home was because he was the black sheep of the family, but rather that he had more important things to do, like study physics - since he was a male, education was after all important. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that struck me from a portion of the reading was how hard it must have been on loved ones who were awaiting their sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends return home. In the reading it mentions that letters are sent to wounded soldiers family members. The letters weren&amp;#039;t specific - just a &amp;quot;seriously injured&amp;quot; category and a forwarding address. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine having that little information about a loved one. All in all, I think that the film primarily focuses its attention on how it would have been to be a veteran returning to home, and somewhat avoided the situation of how life really was for those who had been left behind. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Fred is packing up to leave Boone City, he lets his parents keep the citations for his medals.  He tells them they just came with his K-rations, and they don&amp;#039;t mean much to him.  Does this mean that his citation was like a fill-in-the-blank that lots of people in his situation (whatever exactly that may have been) got, something that they were all issued?  Or that the citation was just so insignificant that it merely came with rations?  Paul Fussell reveals the dishonesty behind writing medal citations, and Fred&amp;#039;s attitude toward his is that it is also essentially meaningless.  Whatever it may be, his parents take pride in it, so that&amp;#039;s one mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ah, the ubiquitous &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;! Fussell talks about his arrival at the field hospital by saying, “It was like the scene of the aftermath of the Battle of Atlanta in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;”. Whether it was an exaggeration or not, Fussell uses this comparison to show the carnage of war (and everyone would have gotten it!). The other part of the reading that struck me as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;-esque was his discussion of the roles of nurses. Obviously, WWII nurses had the job of mending and dealing with soldiers in a very medical way, but they still seemed to serve the same kind of comforting role as Scarlet did in the Civil War. Fussell wrote about the nurse’s “freshness, affection, and good cheer” and how they shared “inside jokes”. It seems that the intangible qualities of nurses were just as important to a soldier’s psychological condition as their medical services were to a soldier’s physical well-being. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the second section of the Fussell reading, he noted that once out of the service, he no longer had to boast of the infantry&amp;#039;s supposed superiority when in all actuality they were the dregs of the armed forces. This sentiment does not seem to jibe with Al&amp;#039;s character in the movie. Early in the film when the 3 men meet, there is a scene where Al is quick to defend the honor of the infantry. Also, Al is a more prosperous man which belies Fussell&amp;#039;s assertion that the infantry is made up the lower rungs of society.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fussell also noted that upon his return he vowed to never work under anyone again and to get as far away from his combat clothes as he could manage. This reminded me a lot of Fred&amp;#039;s character. He swears that he won&amp;#039;t work the soda jerk job, and clearly hates wearing his uniform as evident when he and Marie argue over his suit.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fussell also discussed going back to school and finishing up his degree which is something Fred briefly mentioned during a fight with Marie.  The option of education and the ability to finish something that veterans may have started and were pulled from, or never got the chance to even begin, must have been a big deal especially since the government would help to pay for it with the GI Bill. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the reading, it seems to me that no movie can accurately depict the suffering of someone involved in a war.  This movie of course isn&amp;#039;t focused on the war itself but while reading the excerpt from Fusell&amp;#039;s book I was reminded how no popular portrayals are as harsh as reality. - Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One  thing that struck me about the reading was just how cynical Fussell was, how lost he seemed. All three former service men depicted in this movie share that feeling - of not really fitting back nicely in the world they left behind. Often when men joined the armed forces during WWII, they did so believing they would fight the bad guy, bring freedom to the world and come home a hero.  But as Fussell reveals, the actual experience of being a soldier was very different.  It seemed Fussell spent the majority of his enlistment in a hospital, when he recieved a &amp;quot;Serious&amp;quot; injury acquired during a moment of stupidity and stubbornness, rather than heroism in his opinion. His awards meant very little to him, like Frank in the movie.  Fussell also mentions the point system used to discharge soldiers, and if your points were not high enough, you were not able to go home.  Even after the war was over, the inability to immediately return home was a frustration felt by many soldiers, prompting the protests for demobilization of forces. This is touched on briefly during the opening scene when the soldiers wait for a flight home. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Al states in the movie the likelihood of him being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; by his family.  I found this to be an interesting term, and even more interesting coming from a soldier.  This again derives from my assumption that soldiers would have been nothing but excited about seeing their families.  This movie, though, has made realize that the soldiers (especially them, not just the families) had all kinds of doubts and expectations about returning home.  The expectation of being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; was something I thought would come from the family and not Al.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The humor in this movie stood out to me as well.  Most of it was sarcastic and even dark, but nonetheless enjoyable.  I also like how the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; goes back to this time period.  It makes me feel better in case I ever go back in time and want to get drunk at a bar, and in order to describe my experience I use the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; and the people will know what I was talking about.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve seen it commented on here that one of the downfalls of the movie is that it does not address the experience of minorities in the military.  This seems pretty indicative of the time in which it is made.  Ignoring minorities is on about the same page as the USS WVa sailor never really being shown an appropriate level of appreciation for his actions at Pearl Harbor. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The line that always sticks with me when I watch this movie is Butch talking to Homer and saying, “Give &amp;#039;em time, kid; they&amp;#039;ll catch on. You know your folks&amp;#039;ll get used to you, and you&amp;#039;ll get used to them. Then everything&amp;#039;ll settle down nicely. Unless we have another war. Then none of us have to worry because we&amp;#039;ll all be blown to bits the first day. So cheer up, huh?” This line really expresses the uncertainty of life many Americans felt following the end of WWII. The end of the alliance with Russia, the start of the Cold War, and the introduction of atomic weapons. No doubt, these things left Americans feeling extremely uneasy, especially in the late ‘40s when the country’s economy still seemed so fragile. They probably thought the next war would truly be &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The War to End All Wars&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place.  Peggy then makes a comment about taking a class in domestic science, an interesting title.  Was this a common course in most school&amp;#039;s curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Best Years&amp;quot; won 7 Academy Awards in 1947 and it is preserved in the Library of Congress. It only lost the award for Best Sound. The American Film Institute included in 3 times in its top 100 movie lists. The producer, Samuel Goldwyn received the Irving Thalberg Award, a special honor for outstanding work in production. Harold Russell was given a Special Oscar® &amp;quot;for bringing hope and courage to his fellow veterans.&amp;quot; Obviously this film had a large impact on the general audience, critics, and other actors of the time. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harold Russell also won the Best Supporting Oscar (only person to win 2 oscars for the same role). William Wyler saw him in a documentary and actually rewrote the part especially for him. He was not an actor and like his character, he never saw combat, but it goes to show that men and women could be deeply affected and their lives forever changed without even needing to experience the terrors of actual battle or war, like those women who died in the WASPs or WACs or people who died or were disfigured in factories. I personally was touched (I cried at least twice) by the authenticity of Harold Russell&amp;#039;s performance. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best Years of Our Lives is an enduringly popular film, at least with the TCM-loving crowd.  As Amanda already mentioned, it won seven Academy Awards.  World War II films tend to be popular.  Most Americans would probably say that WWII was one of our shining moments.  After all, we saved Europe (and the world) from the ultimate villains.  Americans equally felt the economic and social uncertainty in the aftermath of the war.  It&amp;#039;s not surprising that a film which focused on these problems would be so popular with the public in 1946.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of generational tensions going on in the movie… about twenty years before generational tensions were “in”. The scene in Butch’s pub where Al pressures Fred into abandoning his feelings and intentions with Peggy reminded me of the scene in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Graduate&amp;#039;&amp;#039; when Mr. Robinson said to Ben, “I want you to stay away from Elaine”. In both examples we see a traditionally strong father figure dissuading a “drifting”/ unconventional suitor from pursuing a girl who deserves nothing but the best. Even though the mid-1940s and the late-1960s were radically different for many reasons, the uncertainty and optimism that existed in those two eras made the storyline of ‘love conquering all’ very appealing. It seems as though “Father Knows Best” was a notion reserved for the 1950s! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck at how successful the movie was in depicting an era that was still ongoing when the movie was released. In recent years nearly all of the movies made about the Iraq war have flopped commercially. I wonder why Best Years of Our Lives could be so successful during its day whereas similar attempts to depict a current war on screen have failed? Are we so tired of the 24/7 news bombardment that we shun movies depicting the war? It as not as though all the Iraq war movies have been bad either, some have been highly regarded by critics. Does it say more about society now or in the 40s that nobody watches movies about the Iraq war today, yet BYOL was such a success?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the story was and interesting concept. They took three men who returned and all are of different ranks. On their way home Fred is the man of power and is looked up to by the other two men but as the story continues he is the one who has the hardest fall. Al is of a lower rank but has rising power through out the story. Homer has a difficult time just like the other two but it has more to with psychology. His adjustment is considerably better at least with money then that of Fred. The story is well written and very compelling.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Part of me wonders if maybe the movie was so successful because the American public was so used to propaganda films and newsreels.  For once, they were able to watch an actual film and it was about something everyone could relate to.  People could identify with it and not have to worry about being heavily influenced in a &amp;quot;Pro-America&amp;quot; propaganda-esque way. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being that this movie was made in 1946 and was about 1946, the ending intrigued me.  It pretty much assumed that whatever complexities the soldiers and their families were experiencing would somehow be solved (in the film&amp;#039;s case, love was the answer).  This was very different than what we saw in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; because that film ended without any closure for the labor workers.  In terms of the time they were made, these two films are not so different in that sense either.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was made in the 80&amp;#039;s when labor unions consumed the media&amp;#039;s attention, as it did in the 1920&amp;#039;s.  So it was like both these films were created in response to current events and attempted to give a solution (if there was one) to the problems at hand. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being the GIANT country music geek that I am, I kept thinking back to Brad Paisley&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Whiskey Lullaby&amp;quot; video. The soldier returns from war, finds his wife cheating on him, and as Brad sings, &amp;quot;puts the bottle to his head and pulls the trigger.&amp;quot; I kept waiting for a story that would be devastatingly sad, and was greatly relieved that this didn&amp;#039;t happen. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this movie better than any that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  It was more engaging and had good suspense.  I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we&amp;#039;re supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred&amp;#039;s marriage.  I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him....  I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed.  I didn&amp;#039;t get that from any of the other movies.  That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts.  In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history.  I wasn&amp;#039;t judging it like I judge historical movies.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie did such a good job portraying the time period accurately because the movie was made during the time period it depicts.  For a movie such as this, not a whole lot of research would have been necessary since the people involved with the movie are living in the time period the movie is supposed to portray.  I also think that this movie is very relevant to audiences today, just as it was when it first came out in 1946.  Today, we have soldiers returning home from Iraq, and some of them are facing problems similar to those of the WWII veterans, such as post traumatic stress disorder, combat related injuries and disabilities, etc. -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would have been really cool to see a post- WWII movie done with the same type of concept as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Crash&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. You know, have five to eight different storylines representing different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds from different parts of the country. To a certain extent, filmmakers have to rely on stereotypes in order to connect with the audience, but by widening the scope of post- war situations, the viewer could gain a deeper understanding of what the time was like. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does a remarkable job of depicting the realities of post-war, white, small town America.– Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really liked the film.  The film was longer, yes, but that didn&amp;#039;t hamper it at all!  I meant to only watch 1/2 on Tuesday and the other half on Wednesday, but I ended up watching about 130 minutes of it the first day because I wasn&amp;#039;t paying attention and was enjoying the film!  The only thing that made me stop watching was my husband texting me saying &amp;quot;I just got off the train be by the house in 5 minutes to get you to go vote&amp;quot; and I was like &amp;quot;Eep!&amp;quot;  So I liked the movie overall and would most definitely recommend it to other people! -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i felt that Peggy was a very strong character. Are they using Peggy&amp;#039;s character to show &lt;br /&gt;
women in a stronger role?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was very interesting that Peggy was one of the heroines of the movie - painted as good, wholesome and All American, when in reality she was a homewrecker - regardless of Fred&amp;#039;s marital problems, he was still married!  It is just interesting that even though she helps break up the marriage, she is seen as good and pure...perhaps that is a little complexity appearing in a female role, or perhaps it is to paint Peggy as Fred&amp;#039;s savior, from an eternity of unhappiness. Are the filmmakers saying that as long as you are pure of heart, it is ok to break the sanctity of marriage, or are they implying that maybe even good and wholesome girls can be a little complicated? What do you think? ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. It was centered around ordinary people, trying to accomplish an act that people have to go through everyday, acclimating to their surroundings. It&amp;#039;s a very real and telling movie, especially since it&amp;#039;s a film about returning from the war, filmed at a time when people were returning from the war. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I really enjoyed the film as well. I felt that it accurately portrayed post-war hard times for Americans returning from the War. I think it is one of the most accurate films we have seen this semester. It also had a love story which gives it the Hollywood appeal to keep the general audience interested. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really love &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but like most movies, it certainly has some issues. For instance, the lack of minority and female veterans and the lack of minority presence in general is a large problem because it diminishes their importance in the war and their importance in American society. Of course, that’s no surprise. Hollywood has long ignored minorities, and that just reminds viewers of the time in which the film was made. Also, there is an issue that always bothers me: what happened to Al’s son? The boy just disappeared; he wasn’t even at the wedding. Finally, there is the unrealistic “life is good” happy ending for everyone. That, however, doesn’t bother me as much. I think the point of the film was not only to express the difficulties of returning veterans, but to provide the hope of a better future for veterans and all of America. It may seem a little outdated now, but in that time of uncertainty following WWII, Americans really needed that reassurance. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just wanted to say that I absolutely loved this movie.  I loved Fred.  I loved Peggy.  I love the Freggy combination.  Perfect.  Oh, and Milly was such a rockstar.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-06T09:19:02Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 4 Public reaction/impact */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as source about the mid-1940s US (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He is especially convincing as the &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The hopelessness was something I definitely noticed. Much akin to the panic felt by Joe in Dalton Trumbo&amp;#039;s Johnny Got His Gun, it seemed like all three men were realizing at several junctures throughout the story that they wanted to be anywhere other than back home. The other thing that really struck me about this movie is that you could put the story into any time period and have it remain relevant. The struggles, fears and anger felt by the three soldiers are all still felt by the soldier&amp;#039;s returning from Iraq. Everyone is afraid in the same language. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, 31% of all marriages existing in the US in 1946 ended in divorce that year.  This would have been due to a variety of causes, primarily from the readjusting to family or friends.  People can change a lot in three years, and remember there were quick marriages like Fred&amp;#039;s before deployment, women becoming independent, veterans having mental problems, but also the new marriages like Homer coming home to marry his girl, though I don&amp;#039;t know numbers for that, and, of course, the baby boom.  I think this film pretty well represents different marriage situations resulting from war.  Al kept his marriage and loved his family, but now he drank more. However, I believe that his wife Milly still being the sweetest, most selfless person in the movie is just that image of the ideal wife to a returning husband. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I&amp;#039;m glad to be seeing this after the lecture.  Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn&amp;#039;t help Fred much.  One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tidbits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn&amp;#039;t just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We didn&amp;#039;t discuss this in class, but the I think it was common for soldiers fighting in Japan to take items such as samurai swords as souvenirs, like what Al brought home.  I interviewed my great-uncle, about his WWII experiences for my oral history project, and he talked about souvenirs he got from Japan, including a samurai sword, which he still has.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women represented in the film were all very independent. I felt that this was accurate to the time because they were forced to be autonomous while their men were away. This can be demonstrated in Marie taking a job at the nightclub, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
In addition - the film portrayed how the workforce had moved on without the soldiers. There were several grumbles about jobs not being safe due to the returning veterans, and it was obviously a source of tension for both sides of the conflict. Finally, in regards to war time production - the scene where they fly in and see all the unused airplanes that will be scrapped is pretty accurate as well.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does well at showing what soldiers returning from overseas had to face when they came back home.  Freddy comes home to learn that his wife has found a new job and moved in with herself, Mr. Stevenson(AL) finds that he is entitled to an even better job (unlike Fred) and Homer faces the tough task of adjusting to life in general with artificial hands.  Although it may seem that Homer faces the most psychological challenge, Freddy also faces challenges of confronting his past, as war memories seem to haunt him sporadically throughout the movie.  The wives of the soldiers also seem to be portrayed in extremes; Homer&amp;#039;s wife supports him and shows her love for him more than the other two and Freddy&amp;#039;s wife gave him a hard as they end up divorcing.  I would talk more about Al, but he just seems to have no problems at all at adjusting with the exception of maybe an acute fondness of drinking. -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Got a few notes on the economic issues portrayed in the film.  The movie shows Mr. Cameron making predictions that there will be a depression because of all the soldiers returning home, a widespread thought at the time.  Also, I thought other servicemen were guaranteed loans, however Al seems overly hesitant to give a loan to another serviceman because he has no collateral.  The movie also makes reference to and shows soldiers receiving unemployment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
War time savings put a lot of soldiers at an advantage, or at least helped make their transition home a lot easier.  Fred mentions he saved 1000 or received it from the treasury somehow.  That seems like a lot of money in an economy when groceries might have been a few cents and the most expensive of perfumes were a few bucks.  How did he go through all that money so fast?--Especially since the time span of the movie looks to only be a few months if that.--James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that the returning soldiers didn&amp;#039;t let Homers lose of hands effect the relationship. they are initially thrown off but accept it in a considerably short time. But his family take a long time to accept his situation. I  feel this is a good description of how families had a hard time dealing with returning soldiers, and how they often assumed that soldier was psychologically changed.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the depiction of the mental state of all three men was an accurate account of how some people were after the war.  Homer mostly fit right back in no problem, but he had his disability to work through, which many families had to deal with after the war.  Fred had the marriage right before the war, that in ended in divorce after the war.  Al was the example of the returning veteran who had been married long before the war, and dealt with a drinking problem after the war.  I felt the movie accurately depicted at least three varieties of people&amp;#039;s experiences after the war. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning when the three main characters are returning home in a taxi, Homer suggests &amp;quot;going to Butch&amp;#039;s for a drink&amp;quot; before being dropped off at his home.  This statement had some implications, primarily the anxiety being felt by the soldiers about returning home.  This is important because it shows that the hesitance and reluctance goes both ways (between soldiers and their families).  Furthermore, I assumed that all the men would be excited about returning home, but this movie shows how complex their feelings were about returning to their families.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with portraying how upon entering Boone, the soldiers are almost shocked to find that nothing has changed. Visually, to them, it seemed as if they never left home. I believe it&amp;#039;s Homer who points out that men are playing golf and the high school football team was playing a game and it is he who first points out that nothing has changed. As we discussed in class, these veterans saw and experienced things that most Americans couldn&amp;#039;t even conceive. For these men to have changed so drastically and to come home to a place that seemed as if time had stood still, was an idea they had a hard time grasping. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the scene with Fred and all of the now defunct places was really staggering and drove home the question of what happens after the war and what does a nation do. It&amp;#039;s also a subtle nod to the droves of people who must have been working to crank out so many planes during the war and echoes their uselessness post-war. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I thought was accurate in the film was when the daughter Peggy told her father when he first came home that she was taking Domestic Science and bought a cook book. That goes to show what women learned in college during those years. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another aspect of education in the post-war period is the increasing emphasis on science, evident by Al&amp;#039;s son&amp;#039;s discussion on the physics between the atomic bomb.  Another comment on this scene is that it shows how isolated soldiers were during the war.  Al&amp;#039;s son knew more about the events surrounding the bomb than his own father did.  According to the reading for this week, an American soldier&amp;#039;s exposure to the outside world was typically limited to the propaganda magazine, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Stars and Stripes&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and radio targeted specifically at the armed forces, while civilians were inundated with constant media (even if it was skewed). ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best Years of Our Lives is downright commendable for how it handles Al&amp;#039;s PTSD.  Watching it&amp;#039;s portrayals of his trouble adjusting, his drinking problems, etc., I can hardly believe how ahead of the film&amp;#039;s time it is in handling a phenomenon not otherwise well handled by the general public at the time... especially given that it was made at the same time as it&amp;#039;s context. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the strongest things in the movie is Homer dealing with his disability. Throughout the film, he seems to be making a show of his independence, going out of his way to prove to people that he can function just like a normal person can (providing lights for cigarettes all the time, for instance). Despite this, the scene with his father at bedtime shows his helplessness and vulnerability without needing dialogue or even fully showing his arms. The scene with Wilma reinforces this, providing further expression of Homer’s feelings through dialogue and fully showing the condition his injuries has left him in. In a society that exalted masculinity and individuality, veterans with disabilities like Homer’s probably felt emasculated and disillusioned because they had to rely on others so much. A little side information: Harold Russell, who played Homer, was a real veteran who lost his hands in a training accident. Despite having no acting experience, he won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar and an honorary Oscar. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie did a good job dealing with the more personal side of people who have fought in wars. It is unusal for a movie to deal almost exclusively with the aftermath of the war rather than the war itself.  This is not an insignificant contribution to that. - Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with everyone else who thought the film did a good job in depicting PTSD.  It also didn&amp;#039;t sugarcoat the experience of the soldiers returning from war.  We have marital strife, alcoholism, social conflict, and permanent disablement.  Not your typical, happy view of post-WWII America.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I want to add to my previous comment on the isolation of soldiers.  Many civilians assumed that being a soldier during the war meant exposure to different places and people, to whole other cultures.  But the reality of many soldiers was one of isolation in a particular location, performing a particular task. Some soldiers never even saw combat. The movie builds on this idea several times throughout.  When Homer returns as a double amputee, his friends, family and even strangers he meets assume he got the injury during some act of heroism, when in reality it was in a fire, and he rarely saw the outside of the submarine he was stationed in. Frank and Al had similar experiences, not believing their experiences could match the expectations of everyone back home. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jonathan, the movie is limited to three experiences in one town.  There&amp;#039;s no broad sense of understanding how many troops actually came back and how they would have impacted societal, economic, and political realms of cities, states, and the nation. -JamesD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The minority issue was a HUGE issue for me too as I watched the film, those of us who watched it at the regular screening actually started counting at one point - I believe that there were only three black people that I remember in the film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue I had might not be one at all.  In the unemployment line there were women.  I thought the scene was depicting the unemployment checks being handed out to veterans, I thought women didn&amp;#039;t get veterans pay for many years.  Or was it just unemployment in general? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that Peggy accuses her parents of never having had troubles. Considering the time that the movie takes place, the Great Depression was not that long ago, and most likely put at least a little strain on many marriages. Somehow the idea of a traditional wedding and a fancy honeymoon equals a good marriage, and I think this is an example of social myths we are still trying to get away from. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My biggest issue with the representation of minorities was that Fred was so dismissive of his medals for heroism, when so many (unrepresented) women and racial minorities weren&amp;#039;t even awarded medals for what they did. Despite the medals being handed out &amp;quot;with the rations,&amp;quot; I feel as if this was probably not true for groups like the WASPS. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The character I felt bad for in the film is Peggy’s brother. The father extended the invitation to the family to go out on the town except the brother. The father stated “the three of us will go out.” He must be the black sheep of the family. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t think that the reason the brother had to stay home was because he was the black sheep of the family, but rather that he had more important things to do, like study physics - since he was a male, education was after all important. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that struck me from a portion of the reading was how hard it must have been on loved ones who were awaiting their sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends return home. In the reading it mentions that letters are sent to wounded soldiers family members. The letters weren&amp;#039;t specific - just a &amp;quot;seriously injured&amp;quot; category and a forwarding address. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine having that little information about a loved one. All in all, I think that the film primarily focuses its attention on how it would have been to be a veteran returning to home, and somewhat avoided the situation of how life really was for those who had been left behind. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Fred is packing up to leave Boone City, he lets his parents keep the citations for his medals.  He tells them they just came with his K-rations, and they don&amp;#039;t mean much to him.  Does this mean that his citation was like a fill-in-the-blank that lots of people in his situation (whatever exactly that may have been) got, something that they were all issued?  Or that the citation was just so insignificant that it merely came with rations?  Paul Fussell reveals the dishonesty behind writing medal citations, and Fred&amp;#039;s attitude toward his is that it is also essentially meaningless.  Whatever it may be, his parents take pride in it, so that&amp;#039;s one mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ah, the ubiquitous &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;! Fussell talks about his arrival at the field hospital by saying, “It was like the scene of the aftermath of the Battle of Atlanta in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;”. Whether it was an exaggeration or not, Fussell uses this comparison to show the carnage of war (and everyone would have gotten it!). The other part of the reading that struck me as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;-esque was his discussion of the roles of nurses. Obviously, WWII nurses had the job of mending and dealing with soldiers in a very medical way, but they still seemed to serve the same kind of comforting role as Scarlet did in the Civil War. Fussell wrote about the nurse’s “freshness, affection, and good cheer” and how they shared “inside jokes”. It seems that the intangible qualities of nurses were just as important to a soldier’s psychological condition as their medical services were to a soldier’s physical well-being. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the second section of the Fussell reading, he noted that once out of the service, he no longer had to boast of the infantry&amp;#039;s supposed superiority when in all actuality they were the dregs of the armed forces. This sentiment does not seem to jibe with Al&amp;#039;s character in the movie. Early in the film when the 3 men meet, there is a scene where Al is quick to defend the honor of the infantry. Also, Al is a more prosperous man which belies Fussell&amp;#039;s assertion that the infantry is made up the lower rungs of society.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fussell also noted that upon his return he vowed to never work under anyone again and to get as far away from his combat clothes as he could manage. This reminded me a lot of Fred&amp;#039;s character. He swears that he won&amp;#039;t work the soda jerk job, and clearly hates wearing his uniform as evident when he and Marie argue over his suit.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fussell also discussed going back to school and finishing up his degree which is something Fred briefly mentioned during a fight with Marie.  The option of education and the ability to finish something that veterans may have started and were pulled from, or never got the chance to even begin, must have been a big deal especially since the government would help to pay for it with the GI Bill. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the reading, it seems to me that no movie can accurately depict the suffering of someone involved in a war.  This movie of course isn&amp;#039;t focused on the war itself but while reading the excerpt from Fusell&amp;#039;s book I was reminded how no popular portrayals are as harsh as reality. - Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One  thing that struck me about the reading was just how cynical Fussell was, how lost he seemed. All three former service men depicted in this movie share that feeling - of not really fitting back nicely in the world they left behind. Often when men joined the armed forces during WWII, they did so believing they would fight the bad guy, bring freedom to the world and come home a hero.  But as Fussell reveals, the actual experience of being a soldier was very different.  It seemed Fussell spent the majority of his enlistment in a hospital, when he recieved a &amp;quot;Serious&amp;quot; injury acquired during a moment of stupidity and stubbornness, rather than heroism in his opinion. His awards meant very little to him, like Frank in the movie.  Fussell also mentions the point system used to discharge soldiers, and if your points were not high enough, you were not able to go home.  Even after the war was over, the inability to immediately return home was a frustration felt by many soldiers, prompting the protests for demobilization of forces. This is touched on briefly during the opening scene when the soldiers wait for a flight home. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Al states in the movie the likelihood of him being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; by his family.  I found this to be an interesting term, and even more interesting coming from a soldier.  This again derives from my assumption that soldiers would have been nothing but excited about seeing their families.  This movie, though, has made realize that the soldiers (especially them, not just the families) had all kinds of doubts and expectations about returning home.  The expectation of being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; was something I thought would come from the family and not Al.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The humor in this movie stood out to me as well.  Most of it was sarcastic and even dark, but nonetheless enjoyable.  I also like how the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; goes back to this time period.  It makes me feel better in case I ever go back in time and want to get drunk at a bar, and in order to describe my experience I use the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; and the people will know what I was talking about.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve seen it commented on here that one of the downfalls of the movie is that it does not address the experience of minorities in the military.  This seems pretty indicative of the time in which it is made.  Ignoring minorities is on about the same page as the USS WVa sailor never really being shown an appropriate level of appreciation for his actions at Pearl Harbor. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The line that always sticks with me when I watch this movie is Butch talking to Homer and saying, “Give &amp;#039;em time, kid; they&amp;#039;ll catch on. You know your folks&amp;#039;ll get used to you, and you&amp;#039;ll get used to them. Then everything&amp;#039;ll settle down nicely. Unless we have another war. Then none of us have to worry because we&amp;#039;ll all be blown to bits the first day. So cheer up, huh?” This line really expresses the uncertainty of life many Americans felt following the end of WWII. The end of the alliance with Russia, the start of the Cold War, and the introduction of atomic weapons. No doubt, these things left Americans feeling extremely uneasy, especially in the late ‘40s when the country’s economy still seemed so fragile. They probably thought the next war would truly be &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The War to End All Wars&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place.  Peggy then makes a comment about taking a class in domestic science, an interesting title.  Was this a common course in most school&amp;#039;s curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Best Years&amp;quot; won 7 Academy Awards in 1947 and it is preserved in the Library of Congress. It only lost the award for Best Sound. The American Film Institute included in 3 times in its top 100 movie lists. The producer, Samuel Goldwyn received the Irving Thalberg Award, a special honor for outstanding work in production. Harold Russell was given a Special Oscar® &amp;quot;for bringing hope and courage to his fellow veterans.&amp;quot; Obviously this film had a large impact on the general audience, critics, and other actors of the time. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Harold Russell also won the Best Supporting Oscar (only person to win 2 oscars for the same role). William Wyler saw him in a documentary and actually rewrote the part especially for him. He was not an actor and like his character, he never saw combat, but it goes to show that men and women could be deeply affected and their lives forever changed without even needing to experience the terrors of actual battle or war, like those women who died in the WASPs or WACs or people who died or were disfigured in factories. I personally was touched (I cried at least twice) by the authenticity of Harold Russell&amp;#039;s performance. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best Years of Our Lives is an enduringly popular film, at least with the TCM-loving crowd.  As Amanda already mentioned, it won seven Academy Awards.  World War II films tend to be popular.  Most Americans would probably say that WWII was one of our shining moments.  After all, we saved Europe (and the world) from the ultimate villains.  Americans equally felt the economic and social uncertainty in the aftermath of the war.  It&amp;#039;s not surprising that a film which focused on these problems would be so popular with the public in 1946.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of generational tensions going on in the movie… about twenty years before generational tensions were “in”. The scene in Butch’s pub where Al pressures Fred into abandoning his feelings and intentions with Peggy reminded me of the scene in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Graduate&amp;#039;&amp;#039; when Mr. Robinson said to Ben, “I want you to stay away from Elaine”. In both examples we see a traditionally strong father figure dissuading a “drifting”/ unconventional suitor from pursuing a girl who deserves nothing but the best. Even though the mid-1940s and the late-1960s were radically different for many reasons, the uncertainty and optimism that existed in those two eras made the storyline of ‘love conquering all’ very appealing. It seems as though “Father Knows Best” was a notion reserved for the 1950s! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck at how successful the movie was in depicting an era that was still ongoing when the movie was released. In recent years nearly all of the movies made about the Iraq war have flopped commercially. I wonder why Best Years of Our Lives could be so successful during its day whereas similar attempts to depict a current war on screen have failed? Are we so tired of the 24/7 news bombardment that we shun movies depicting the war? It as not as though all the Iraq war movies have been bad either, some have been highly regarded by critics. Does it say more about society now or in the 40s that nobody watches movies about the Iraq war today, yet BYOL was such a success?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the story was and interesting concept. They took three men who returned and all are of different ranks. On their way home Fred is the man of power and is looked up to by the other two men but as the story continues he is the one who has the hardest fall. Al is of a lower rank but has rising power through out the story. Homer has a difficult time just like the other two but it has more to with psychology. His adjustment is considerably better at least with money then that of Fred. The story is well written and very compelling.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Part of me wonders if maybe the movie was so successful because the American public was so used to propaganda films and newsreels.  For once, they were able to watch an actual film and it was about something everyone could relate to.  People could identify with it and not have to worry about being heavily influenced in a &amp;quot;Pro-America&amp;quot; propaganda-esque way. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being that this movie was made in 1946 and was about 1946, the ending intrigued me.  It pretty much assumed that whatever complexities the soldiers and their families were experiencing would somehow be solved (in the film&amp;#039;s case, love was the answer).  This was very different than what we saw in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; because that film ended without any closure for the labor workers.  In terms of the time they were made, these two films are not so different in that sense either.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was made in the 80&amp;#039;s when labor unions consumed the media&amp;#039;s attention, as it did in the 1920&amp;#039;s.  So it was like both these films were created in response to current events and attempted to give a solution (if there was one) to the problems at hand. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being the GIANT country music geek that I am, I kept thinking back to Brad Paisley&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Whiskey Lullaby&amp;quot; video. The soldier returns from war, finds his wife cheating on him, and as Brad sings, &amp;quot;puts the bottle to his head and pulls the trigger.&amp;quot; I kept waiting for a story that would be devastatingly sad, and was greatly relieved that this didn&amp;#039;t happen. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this movie better than any that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  It was more engaging and had good suspense.  I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we&amp;#039;re supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred&amp;#039;s marriage.  I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him....  I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed.  I didn&amp;#039;t get that from any of the other movies.  That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts.  In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history.  I wasn&amp;#039;t judging it like I judge historical movies.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie did such a good job portraying the time period accurately because the movie was made during the time period it depicts.  For a movie such as this, not a whole lot of research would have been necessary since the people involved with the movie are living in the time period the movie is supposed to portray.  I also think that this movie is very relevant to audiences today, just as it was when it first came out in 1946.  Today, we have soldiers returning home from Iraq, and some of them are facing problems similar to those of the WWII veterans, such as post traumatic stress disorder, combat related injuries and disabilities, etc. -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would have been really cool to see a post- WWII movie done with the same type of concept as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Crash&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. You know, have five to eight different storylines representing different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds from different parts of the country. To a certain extent, filmmakers have to rely on stereotypes in order to connect with the audience, but by widening the scope of post- war situations, the viewer could gain a deeper understanding of what the time was like. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does a remarkable job of depicting the realities of post-war, white, small town America.– Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really liked the film.  The film was longer, yes, but that didn&amp;#039;t hamper it at all!  I meant to only watch 1/2 on Tuesday and the other half on Wednesday, but I ended up watching about 130 minutes of it the first day because I wasn&amp;#039;t paying attention and was enjoying the film!  The only thing that made me stop watching was my husband texting me saying &amp;quot;I just got off the train be by the house in 5 minutes to get you to go vote&amp;quot; and I was like &amp;quot;Eep!&amp;quot;  So I liked the movie overall and would most definitely recommend it to other people! -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i felt that Peggy was a very strong character. Are they using Peggy&amp;#039;s character to show &lt;br /&gt;
women in a stronger role?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was very interesting that Peggy was one of the heroines of the movie - painted as good, wholesome and All American, when in reality she was a homewrecker - regardless of Fred&amp;#039;s marital problems, he was still married!  It is just interesting that even though she helps break up the marriage, she is seen as good and pure...perhaps that is a little complexity appearing in a female role, or perhaps it is to paint Peggy as Fred&amp;#039;s savior, from an eternity of unhappiness. Are the filmmakers saying that as long as you are pure of heart, it is ok to break the sanctity of marriage, or are they implying that maybe even good and wholesome girls can be a little complicated? What do you think? ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. It was centered around ordinary people, trying to accomplish an act that people have to go through everyday, acclimating to their surroundings. It&amp;#039;s a very real and telling movie, especially since it&amp;#039;s a film about returning from the war, filmed at a time when people were returning from the war. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I really enjoyed the film as well. I felt that it accurately portrayed post-war hard times for Americans returning from the War. I think it is one of the most accurate films we have seen this semester. It also had a love story which gives it the Hollywood appeal to keep the general audience interested. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really love &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but like most movies, it certainly has some issues. For instance, the lack of minority and female veterans and the lack of minority presence in general is a large problem because it diminishes their importance in the war and their importance in American society. Of course, that’s no surprise. Hollywood has long ignored minorities, and that just reminds viewers of the time in which the film was made. Also, there is an issue that always bothers me: what happened to Al’s son? The boy just disappeared; he wasn’t even at the wedding. Finally, there is the unrealistic “life is good” happy ending for everyone. That, however, doesn’t bother me as much. I think the point of the film was not only to express the difficulties of returning veterans, but to provide the hope of a better future for veterans and all of America. It may seem a little outdated now, but in that time of uncertainty following WWII, Americans really needed that reassurance. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just wanted to say that I absolutely loved this movie.  I loved Fred.  I loved Peggy.  I love the Freggy combination.  Perfect.  Oh, and Milly was such a rockstar.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 11 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-11-06T09:11:20Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as source about the mid-1940s US (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
Homer&amp;#039;s sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
He is especially convincing as the &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The hopelessness was something I definitely noticed. Much akin to the panic felt by Joe in Dalton Trumbo&amp;#039;s Johnny Got His Gun, it seemed like all three men were realizing at several junctures throughout the story that they wanted to be anywhere other than back home. The other thing that really struck me about this movie is that you could put the story into any time period and have it remain relevant. The struggles, fears and anger felt by the three soldiers are all still felt by the soldier&amp;#039;s returning from Iraq. Everyone is afraid in the same language. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred&amp;#039;s nightmares.  He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he&amp;#039;s a hot shot but then can&amp;#039;t find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn&amp;#039;t want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war.  Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left.  Fred&amp;#039;s wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going?  How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, 31% of all marriages existing in the US in 1946 ended in divorce that year.  This would have been due to a variety of causes, primarily from the readjusting to family or friends.  People can change a lot in three years, and remember there were quick marriages like Fred&amp;#039;s before deployment, women becoming independent, veterans having mental problems, but also the new marriages like Homer coming home to marry his girl, though I don&amp;#039;t know numbers for that, and, of course, the baby boom.  I think this film pretty well represents different marriage situations resulting from war.  Al kept his marriage and loved his family, but now he drank more. However, I believe that his wife Milly still being the sweetest, most selfless person in the movie is just that image of the ideal wife to a returning husband. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I&amp;#039;m glad to be seeing this after the lecture.  Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn&amp;#039;t help Fred much.  One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tidbits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn&amp;#039;t just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We didn&amp;#039;t discuss this in class, but the I think it was common for soldiers fighting in Japan to take items such as samurai swords as souvenirs, like what Al brought home.  I interviewed my great-uncle, about his WWII experiences for my oral history project, and he talked about souvenirs he got from Japan, including a samurai sword, which he still has.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The women represented in the film were all very independent. I felt that this was accurate to the time because they were forced to be autonomous while their men were away. This can be demonstrated in Marie taking a job at the nightclub, etc. &lt;br /&gt;
In addition - the film portrayed how the workforce had moved on without the soldiers. There were several grumbles about jobs not being safe due to the returning veterans, and it was obviously a source of tension for both sides of the conflict. Finally, in regards to war time production - the scene where they fly in and see all the unused airplanes that will be scrapped is pretty accurate as well.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie does well at showing what soldiers returning from overseas had to face when they came back home.  Freddy comes home to learn that his wife has found a new job and moved in with herself, Mr. Stevenson(AL) finds that he is entitled to an even better job (unlike Fred) and Homer faces the tough task of adjusting to life in general with artificial hands.  Although it may seem that Homer faces the most psychological challenge, Freddy also faces challenges of confronting his past, as war memories seem to haunt him sporadically throughout the movie.  The wives of the soldiers also seem to be portrayed in extremes; Homer&amp;#039;s wife supports him and shows her love for him more than the other two and Freddy&amp;#039;s wife gave him a hard as they end up divorcing.  I would talk more about Al, but he just seems to have no problems at all at adjusting with the exception of maybe an acute fondness of drinking. -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Got a few notes on the economic issues portrayed in the film.  The movie shows Mr. Cameron making predictions that there will be a depression because of all the soldiers returning home, a widespread thought at the time.  Also, I thought other servicemen were guaranteed loans, however Al seems overly hesitant to give a loan to another serviceman because he has no collateral.  The movie also makes reference to and shows soldiers receiving unemployment.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
War time savings put a lot of soldiers at an advantage, or at least helped make their transition home a lot easier.  Fred mentions he saved 1000 or received it from the treasury somehow.  That seems like a lot of money in an economy when groceries might have been a few cents and the most expensive of perfumes were a few bucks.  How did he go through all that money so fast?--Especially since the time span of the movie looks to only be a few months if that.--James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that the returning soldiers didn&amp;#039;t let Homers lose of hands effect the relationship. they are initially thrown off but accept it in a considerably short time. But his family take a long time to accept his situation. I  feel this is a good description of how families had a hard time dealing with returning soldiers, and how they often assumed that soldier was psychologically changed.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the depiction of the mental state of all three men was an accurate account of how some people were after the war.  Homer mostly fit right back in no problem, but he had his disability to work through, which many families had to deal with after the war.  Fred had the marriage right before the war, that in ended in divorce after the war.  Al was the example of the returning veteran who had been married long before the war, and dealt with a drinking problem after the war.  I felt the movie accurately depicted at least three varieties of people&amp;#039;s experiences after the war. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning when the three main characters are returning home in a taxi, Homer suggests &amp;quot;going to Butch&amp;#039;s for a drink&amp;quot; before being dropped off at his home.  This statement had some implications, primarily the anxiety being felt by the soldiers about returning home.  This is important because it shows that the hesitance and reluctance goes both ways (between soldiers and their families).  Furthermore, I assumed that all the men would be excited about returning home, but this movie shows how complex their feelings were about returning to their families.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with portraying how upon entering Boone, the soldiers are almost shocked to find that nothing has changed. Visually, to them, it seemed as if they never left home. I believe it&amp;#039;s Homer who points out that men are playing golf and the high school football team was playing a game and it is he who first points out that nothing has changed. As we discussed in class, these veterans saw and experienced things that most Americans couldn&amp;#039;t even conceive. For these men to have changed so drastically and to come home to a place that seemed as if time had stood still, was an idea they had a hard time grasping. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the scene with Fred and all of the now defunct places was really staggering and drove home the question of what happens after the war and what does a nation do. It&amp;#039;s also a subtle nod to the droves of people who must have been working to crank out so many planes during the war and echoes their uselessness post-war. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I thought was accurate in the film was when the daughter Peggy told her father when he first came home that she was taking Domestic Science and bought a cook book. That goes to show what women learned in college during those years. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another aspect of education in the post-war period is the increasing emphasis on science, evident by Al&amp;#039;s son&amp;#039;s discussion on the physics between the atomic bomb.  Another comment on this scene is that it shows how isolated soldiers were during the war.  Al&amp;#039;s son knew more about the events surrounding the bomb than his own father did.  According to the reading for this week, an American soldier&amp;#039;s exposure to the outside world was typically limited to the propaganda magazine, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Stars and Stripes&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and radio targeted specifically at the armed forces, while civilians were inundated with constant media (even if it was skewed). ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best Years of Our Lives is downright commendable for how it handles Al&amp;#039;s PTSD.  Watching it&amp;#039;s portrayals of his trouble adjusting, his drinking problems, etc., I can hardly believe how ahead of the film&amp;#039;s time it is in handling a phenomenon not otherwise well handled by the general public at the time... especially given that it was made at the same time as it&amp;#039;s context. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the strongest things in the movie is Homer dealing with his disability. Throughout the film, he seems to be making a show of his independence, going out of his way to prove to people that he can function just like a normal person can (providing lights for cigarettes all the time, for instance). Despite this, the scene with his father at bedtime shows his helplessness and vulnerability without needing dialogue or even fully showing his arms. The scene with Wilma reinforces this, providing further expression of Homer’s feelings through dialogue and fully showing the condition his injuries has left him in. In a society that exalted masculinity and individuality, veterans with disabilities like Homer’s probably felt emasculated and disillusioned because they had to rely on others so much. A little side information: Harold Russell, who played Homer, was a real veteran who lost his hands in a training accident. Despite having no acting experience, he won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar and an honorary Oscar. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie did a good job dealing with the more personal side of people who have fought in wars. It is unusal for a movie to deal almost exclusively with the aftermath of the war rather than the war itself.  This is not an insignificant contribution to that. - Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with everyone else who thought the film did a good job in depicting PTSD.  It also didn&amp;#039;t sugarcoat the experience of the soldiers returning from war.  We have marital strife, alcoholism, social conflict, and permanent disablement.  Not your typical, happy view of post-WWII America.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I want to add to my previous comment on the isolation of soldiers.  Many civilians assumed that being a soldier during the war meant exposure to different places and people, to whole other cultures.  But the reality of many soldiers was one of isolation in a particular location, performing a particular task. Some soldiers never even saw combat. The movie builds on this idea several times throughout.  When Homer returns as a double amputee, his friends, family and even strangers he meets assume he got the injury during some act of heroism, when in reality it was in a fire, and he rarely saw the outside of the submarine he was stationed in. Frank and Al had similar experiences, not believing their experiences could match the expectations of everyone back home. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;all&amp;#039;&amp;#039; women were either extreme! It&amp;#039;s the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy &amp;quot;the homewrecker&amp;quot;). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn&amp;#039;t really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jonathan, the movie is limited to three experiences in one town.  There&amp;#039;s no broad sense of understanding how many troops actually came back and how they would have impacted societal, economic, and political realms of cities, states, and the nation. -JamesD&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The minority issue was a HUGE issue for me too as I watched the film, those of us who watched it at the regular screening actually started counting at one point - I believe that there were only three black people that I remember in the film.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The issue I had might not be one at all.  In the unemployment line there were women.  I thought the scene was depicting the unemployment checks being handed out to veterans, I thought women didn&amp;#039;t get veterans pay for many years.  Or was it just unemployment in general? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting that Peggy accuses her parents of never having had troubles. Considering the time that the movie takes place, the Great Depression was not that long ago, and most likely put at least a little strain on many marriages. Somehow the idea of a traditional wedding and a fancy honeymoon equals a good marriage, and I think this is an example of social myths we are still trying to get away from. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My biggest issue with the representation of minorities was that Fred was so dismissive of his medals for heroism, when so many (unrepresented) women and racial minorities weren&amp;#039;t even awarded medals for what they did. Despite the medals being handed out &amp;quot;with the rations,&amp;quot; I feel as if this was probably not true for groups like the WASPS. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The character I felt bad for in the film is Peggy’s brother. The father extended the invitation to the family to go out on the town except the brother. The father stated “the three of us will go out.” He must be the black sheep of the family. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t think that the reason the brother had to stay home was because he was the black sheep of the family, but rather that he had more important things to do, like study physics - since he was a male, education was after all important. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Something that struck me from a portion of the reading was how hard it must have been on loved ones who were awaiting their sons, brothers, husbands or boyfriends return home. In the reading it mentions that letters are sent to wounded soldiers family members. The letters weren&amp;#039;t specific - just a &amp;quot;seriously injured&amp;quot; category and a forwarding address. I can&amp;#039;t even imagine having that little information about a loved one. All in all, I think that the film primarily focuses its attention on how it would have been to be a veteran returning to home, and somewhat avoided the situation of how life really was for those who had been left behind. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Fred is packing up to leave Boone City, he lets his parents keep the citations for his medals.  He tells them they just came with his K-rations, and they don&amp;#039;t mean much to him.  Does this mean that his citation was like a fill-in-the-blank that lots of people in his situation (whatever exactly that may have been) got, something that they were all issued?  Or that the citation was just so insignificant that it merely came with rations?  Paul Fussell reveals the dishonesty behind writing medal citations, and Fred&amp;#039;s attitude toward his is that it is also essentially meaningless.  Whatever it may be, his parents take pride in it, so that&amp;#039;s one mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ah, the ubiquitous &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;! Fussell talks about his arrival at the field hospital by saying, “It was like the scene of the aftermath of the Battle of Atlanta in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;”. Whether it was an exaggeration or not, Fussell uses this comparison to show the carnage of war (and everyone would have gotten it!). The other part of the reading that struck me as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone with the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;-esque was his discussion of the roles of nurses. Obviously, WWII nurses had the job of mending and dealing with soldiers in a very medical way, but they still seemed to serve the same kind of comforting role as Scarlet did in the Civil War. Fussell wrote about the nurse’s “freshness, affection, and good cheer” and how they shared “inside jokes”. It seems that the intangible qualities of nurses were just as important to a soldier’s psychological condition as their medical services were to a soldier’s physical well-being. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the second section of the Fussell reading, he noted that once out of the service, he no longer had to boast of the infantry&amp;#039;s supposed superiority when in all actuality they were the dregs of the armed forces. This sentiment does not seem to jibe with Al&amp;#039;s character in the movie. Early in the film when the 3 men meet, there is a scene where Al is quick to defend the honor of the infantry. Also, Al is a more prosperous man which belies Fussell&amp;#039;s assertion that the infantry is made up the lower rungs of society.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fussell also noted that upon his return he vowed to never work under anyone again and to get as far away from his combat clothes as he could manage. This reminded me a lot of Fred&amp;#039;s character. He swears that he won&amp;#039;t work the soda jerk job, and clearly hates wearing his uniform as evident when he and Marie argue over his suit.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Fussell also discussed going back to school and finishing up his degree which is something Fred briefly mentioned during a fight with Marie.  The option of education and the ability to finish something that veterans may have started and were pulled from, or never got the chance to even begin, must have been a big deal especially since the government would help to pay for it with the GI Bill. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From the reading, it seems to me that no movie can accurately depict the suffering of someone involved in a war.  This movie of course isn&amp;#039;t focused on the war itself but while reading the excerpt from Fusell&amp;#039;s book I was reminded how no popular portrayals are as harsh as reality. - Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One  thing that struck me about the reading was just how cynical Fussell was, how lost he seemed. All three former service men depicted in this movie share that feeling - of not really fitting back nicely in the world they left behind. Often when men joined the armed forces during WWII, they did so believing they would fight the bad guy, bring freedom to the world and come home a hero.  But as Fussell reveals, the actual experience of being a soldier was very different.  It seemed Fussell spent the majority of his enlistment in a hospital, when he recieved a &amp;quot;Serious&amp;quot; injury acquired during a moment of stupidity and stubbornness, rather than heroism in his opinion. His awards meant very little to him, like Frank in the movie.  Fussell also mentions the point system used to discharge soldiers, and if your points were not high enough, you were not able to go home.  Even after the war was over, the inability to immediately return home was a frustration felt by many soldiers, prompting the protests for demobilization of forces. This is touched on briefly during the opening scene when the soldiers wait for a flight home. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate.  Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Al states in the movie the likelihood of him being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; by his family.  I found this to be an interesting term, and even more interesting coming from a soldier.  This again derives from my assumption that soldiers would have been nothing but excited about seeing their families.  This movie, though, has made realize that the soldiers (especially them, not just the families) had all kinds of doubts and expectations about returning home.  The expectation of being &amp;quot;rehabilitated&amp;quot; was something I thought would come from the family and not Al.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The humor in this movie stood out to me as well.  Most of it was sarcastic and even dark, but nonetheless enjoyable.  I also like how the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; goes back to this time period.  It makes me feel better in case I ever go back in time and want to get drunk at a bar, and in order to describe my experience I use the term &amp;quot;plastered&amp;quot; and the people will know what I was talking about.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve seen it commented on here that one of the downfalls of the movie is that it does not address the experience of minorities in the military.  This seems pretty indicative of the time in which it is made.  Ignoring minorities is on about the same page as the USS WVa sailor never really being shown an appropriate level of appreciation for his actions at Pearl Harbor. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The line that always sticks with me when I watch this movie is Butch talking to Homer and saying, “Give &amp;#039;em time, kid; they&amp;#039;ll catch on. You know your folks&amp;#039;ll get used to you, and you&amp;#039;ll get used to them. Then everything&amp;#039;ll settle down nicely. Unless we have another war. Then none of us have to worry because we&amp;#039;ll all be blown to bits the first day. So cheer up, huh?” This line really expresses the uncertainty of life many Americans felt following the end of WWII. The end of the alliance with Russia, the start of the Cold War, and the introduction of atomic weapons. No doubt, these things left Americans feeling extremely uneasy, especially in the late ‘40s when the country’s economy still seemed so fragile. They probably thought the next war would truly be &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The War to End All Wars&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place.  Peggy then makes a comment about taking a class in domestic science, an interesting title.  Was this a common course in most school&amp;#039;s curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Best Years&amp;quot; won 7 Academy Awards in 1947 and it is preserved in the Library of Congress. It only lost the award for Best Sound. The American Film Institute included in 3 times in its top 100 movie lists. The producer, Samuel Goldwyn received the Irving Thalberg Award, a special honor for outstanding work in production. Harold Russell was given a Special Oscar® &amp;quot;for bringing hope and courage to his fellow veterans.&amp;quot; Obviously this film had a large impact on the general audience, critics, and other actors of the time. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Best Years of Our Lives is an enduringly popular film, at least with the TCM-loving crowd.  As Amanda already mentioned, it won seven Academy Awards.  World War II films tend to be popular.  Most Americans would probably say that WWII was one of our shining moments.  After all, we saved Europe (and the world) from the ultimate villains.  Americans equally felt the economic and social uncertainty in the aftermath of the war.  It&amp;#039;s not surprising that a film which focused on these problems would be so popular with the public in 1946.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of generational tensions going on in the movie… about twenty years before generational tensions were “in”. The scene in Butch’s pub where Al pressures Fred into abandoning his feelings and intentions with Peggy reminded me of the scene in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Graduate&amp;#039;&amp;#039; when Mr. Robinson said to Ben, “I want you to stay away from Elaine”. In both examples we see a traditionally strong father figure dissuading a “drifting”/ unconventional suitor from pursuing a girl who deserves nothing but the best. Even though the mid-1940s and the late-1960s were radically different for many reasons, the uncertainty and optimism that existed in those two eras made the storyline of ‘love conquering all’ very appealing. It seems as though “Father Knows Best” was a notion reserved for the 1950s! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was struck at how successful the movie was in depicting an era that was still ongoing when the movie was released. In recent years nearly all of the movies made about the Iraq war have flopped commercially. I wonder why Best Years of Our Lives could be so successful during its day whereas similar attempts to depict a current war on screen have failed? Are we so tired of the 24/7 news bombardment that we shun movies depicting the war? It as not as though all the Iraq war movies have been bad either, some have been highly regarded by critics. Does it say more about society now or in the 40s that nobody watches movies about the Iraq war today, yet BYOL was such a success?-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the story was and interesting concept. They took three men who returned and all are of different ranks. On their way home Fred is the man of power and is looked up to by the other two men but as the story continues he is the one who has the hardest fall. Al is of a lower rank but has rising power through out the story. Homer has a difficult time just like the other two but it has more to with psychology. His adjustment is considerably better at least with money then that of Fred. The story is well written and very compelling.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Part of me wonders if maybe the movie was so successful because the American public was so used to propaganda films and newsreels.  For once, they were able to watch an actual film and it was about something everyone could relate to.  People could identify with it and not have to worry about being heavily influenced in a &amp;quot;Pro-America&amp;quot; propaganda-esque way. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being that this movie was made in 1946 and was about 1946, the ending intrigued me.  It pretty much assumed that whatever complexities the soldiers and their families were experiencing would somehow be solved (in the film&amp;#039;s case, love was the answer).  This was very different than what we saw in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; because that film ended without any closure for the labor workers.  In terms of the time they were made, these two films are not so different in that sense either.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was made in the 80&amp;#039;s when labor unions consumed the media&amp;#039;s attention, as it did in the 1920&amp;#039;s.  So it was like both these films were created in response to current events and attempted to give a solution (if there was one) to the problems at hand. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being the GIANT country music geek that I am, I kept thinking back to Brad Paisley&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Whiskey Lullaby&amp;quot; video. The soldier returns from war, finds his wife cheating on him, and as Brad sings, &amp;quot;puts the bottle to his head and pulls the trigger.&amp;quot; I kept waiting for a story that would be devastatingly sad, and was greatly relieved that this didn&amp;#039;t happen. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred&amp;#039;s marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like this movie better than any that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  It was more engaging and had good suspense.  I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we&amp;#039;re supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred&amp;#039;s marriage.  I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him....  I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed.  I didn&amp;#039;t get that from any of the other movies.  That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts.  In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history.  I wasn&amp;#039;t judging it like I judge historical movies.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie did such a good job portraying the time period accurately because the movie was made during the time period it depicts.  For a movie such as this, not a whole lot of research would have been necessary since the people involved with the movie are living in the time period the movie is supposed to portray.  I also think that this movie is very relevant to audiences today, just as it was when it first came out in 1946.  Today, we have soldiers returning home from Iraq, and some of them are facing problems similar to those of the WWII veterans, such as post traumatic stress disorder, combat related injuries and disabilities, etc. -Katherine Stinson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It would have been really cool to see a post- WWII movie done with the same type of concept as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Crash&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. You know, have five to eight different storylines representing different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds from different parts of the country. To a certain extent, filmmakers have to rely on stereotypes in order to connect with the audience, but by widening the scope of post- war situations, the viewer could gain a deeper understanding of what the time was like. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does a remarkable job of depicting the realities of post-war, white, small town America.– Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really liked the film.  The film was longer, yes, but that didn&amp;#039;t hamper it at all!  I meant to only watch 1/2 on Tuesday and the other half on Wednesday, but I ended up watching about 130 minutes of it the first day because I wasn&amp;#039;t paying attention and was enjoying the film!  The only thing that made me stop watching was my husband texting me saying &amp;quot;I just got off the train be by the house in 5 minutes to get you to go vote&amp;quot; and I was like &amp;quot;Eep!&amp;quot;  So I liked the movie overall and would most definitely recommend it to other people! -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
i felt that Peggy was a very strong character. Are they using Peggy&amp;#039;s character to show &lt;br /&gt;
women in a stronger role?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was very interesting that Peggy was one of the heroines of the movie - painted as good, wholesome and All American, when in reality she was a homewrecker - regardless of Fred&amp;#039;s marital problems, he was still married!  It is just interesting that even though she helps break up the marriage, she is seen as good and pure...perhaps that is a little complexity appearing in a female role, or perhaps it is to paint Peggy as Fred&amp;#039;s savior, from an eternity of unhappiness. Are the filmmakers saying that as long as you are pure of heart, it is ok to break the sanctity of marriage, or are they implying that maybe even good and wholesome girls can be a little complicated? What do you think? ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, I really enjoyed this film. It was centered around ordinary people, trying to accomplish an act that people have to go through everyday, acclimating to their surroundings. It&amp;#039;s a very real and telling movie, especially since it&amp;#039;s a film about returning from the war, filmed at a time when people were returning from the war. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I really enjoyed the film as well. I felt that it accurately portrayed post-war hard times for Americans returning from the War. I think it is one of the most accurate films we have seen this semester. It also had a love story which gives it the Hollywood appeal to keep the general audience interested. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really love &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Best Years of Our Lives&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but like most movies, it certainly has some issues. For instance, the lack of minority and female veterans and the lack of minority presence in general is a large problem because it diminishes their importance in the war and their importance in American society. Of course, that’s no surprise. Hollywood has long ignored minorities, and that just reminds viewers of the time in which the film was made. Also, there is an issue that always bothers me: what happened to Al’s son? The boy just disappeared; he wasn’t even at the wedding. Finally, there is the unrealistic “life is good” happy ending for everyone. That, however, doesn’t bother me as much. I think the point of the film was not only to express the difficulties of returning veterans, but to provide the hope of a better future for veterans and all of America. It may seem a little outdated now, but in that time of uncertainty following WWII, Americans really needed that reassurance. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just wanted to say that I absolutely loved this movie.  I loved Fred.  I loved Peggy.  I love the Freggy combination.  Perfect.  Oh, and Milly was such a rockstar.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-30T08:02:09Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them.  They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job.  Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how Joe tapped into the idea of Scientific Management during his first rousing speech at the workers meeting. He described the exploitative practices of the bosses and how workers were like parts of a machine that could be replaced. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jason, I have to say I was actually kind of surprised that Kenehan brought up the subject of Scientific Management during his speech.  I think it was helpful for swaying the men to the union because I don&amp;#039;t think many men realized just how invaluable they really were to large companies.  The white men could easily have been (and were in the process of being) replaced by the Italian men and the blacks that were also arriving in Matewan.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that the Italian woman and the old white woman, though at first not being very good neighbors (at least the old one) eventually became reconciled to share and sit together--and to provide comfort when the old lady&amp;#039;s son (grandson?) was killed.  The union had to get the miners to accept the minority scabs who wanted to join the union with them, so it seems appropriate to show that their families had to learn to get along and accept each other, as well. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was pretty generally accurate. It&amp;#039;s not the most perfect of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched, but it did seem to present most of the different sides and opinions involved in the formation of unions and the difficulties of the time. For the record, &amp;#039;villain&amp;#039; is a side, in this case, as we are still talking about a Hollywood movie, and the corporations and secret police could be legitimately cruel. ---Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with showing how even though the men had skepticisms about joining the Union, it was necessary in order to stand up to the mining companies and to demand that they be treated better than just mere &amp;quot;equipment.&amp;quot; The movie accurately portrayed  the brutality that went along with the competition for jobs between races and ethnicities. Also, as Kenehan pointed out it was a fight between those who worked and those who didn&amp;#039;t ( bosses standing around holding guns as miners walked out of mine), it shouldn&amp;#039;t be about skin color or background because at the end of the day they&amp;#039;re all workers and they&amp;#039;re all oppressed. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I haven&amp;#039;t finished the movie yet, in fact I&amp;#039;m not in to it all that much.  However, from the beginning of the movie they did get right just how dirty the men got, and also that they coughed a lot from the dust and particles. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tensions between the whites/blacks, blacks/Italians and Italians/Whites were all very well-portrayed in my opinion. The attacks that Few Clothes incurred towards the beginning of the movie, as well as the tension between the Italian grandmother and white mother throughout the film were both very realistic to me. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We learned in class that the Red Scare was a real blow to the Labor Movement in the U.S and people were suspicious of anyone/anything that could be seen as promoting Communism. This is shown in the movie when Hatfield (I believe) is writing a letter to Felts and says he believes it&amp;#039;s possible Kenehan could be a Red. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt the movie did a good job in portraying the problems facing the workers. Particularly I felt they did a good job dealing with the issue of the company store and company owned houses. The movie made clear the problems mine workers faced because of this arrangement and also shows the fact that the company really did have a lot of power. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie portrayed the level of desperation and volatility that was present in these areas where unions were trying to get off the ground. Before the title even came up you are treated to the hostility of the miners toward the &amp;quot;dago&amp;quot; scabs. Then there is the attack of the black miners brought in as well. The ethnic/racial tension was pretty well represented. I also felt that the taking up of arms against the company was powerful in its depiction of the desperation of the miners, and the lack of real government control in the region. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From what I gathered from Tuesday&amp;#039;s lecture, I thought Matewan was an accurate portrayal of the time.  The racial tensions among the white miners, African-American miners, and the Italian immigrants were present, as was their coming together in the face of incredible adversity.  The racism, while certainly prevalent, didn&amp;#039;t overwhelm the characters.  Sayles also included the anti-Communist sentiment that plagued the labor movement.  All in all, probably the most historically accurate movie we&amp;#039;ve seen so far this semester.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did a fine job capturing many large issues in a historically accurate way. The people were very religious (as seen in the readings) and seemed to rely on it for a sense of comfort in their unjust world. The dangers of the coal mines were mentioned when the lack of husbands are discussed, and it is clear in the opening scene that mining had some pretty adverse health effects and the conditions were all around terrible. It was also obvious that the miners and their families were forced into dependence on the coal company by the company’s backhanded tactics (like raising store prices while lowering the worth of company scripts). Also, the racial and ethnic tensions and how the company used those tensions against the union is covered, as well as the gap between skilled and unskilled workers (the white miners complained that those &amp;#039;&amp;#039;E-talians&amp;#039;&amp;#039; had no mining experience). They showed that the company employed spies to undermine the striking miners, and the Baldwin-Felts men were about as brutal as could be expected. Yet, they also added a bit of complexity when the men were talking before the massacre, showing that they also had their reasons for doing things. Nevertheless, while they didn’t show them poisoning children, I could see them doing it. I think one of the most important things was the depiction of the powerlessness and victimization of the miners and their families. With living conditions like that, it’s not hard to see why people turned to unions to take some control over their lives and make things better for themselves. Finally, things don’t end happily no matter how nice it would be, which reflects the real life failure of the strike. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie stayed close to the history and even refrained from ignoring the unfortunate aftermath of the events it depicts.  This is impressive since the movie is very pro-union yet it doesn’t pretend that the union fixed everything. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the scene where the black miners are told of the company policy regarding wages and wares to be quite effective. As Taylor mentioned these tactics put the workers into instant dependency on the company as most of their wages for the first month are deducted for lodging and clothes. The man going through the protocols drones on and you can see the workers just deflate. Also I felt that this scene, in addition to the whole setting up camp showed just how difficult it was to unionize and go against the owners. No wonder unions had such trouble gaining a lasting foothold. While there could be historical discrepancies in these scenes, the emotions and messages they convey are powerful to understanding the hardships of labor during this era. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like the old miner, Ratliff, with the whistle said in the readings that the system pretty much made &amp;quot;slaves&amp;quot; out of the workers. Freedom was attainable in theory, but surrounded by catch-22s (every option was lose-lose for the miners and their families) and this was clearly depicted in the film- in the company policies explained to the black strikebreakers, in the rhetoric of Kenehan&amp;#039;s speeches, and in the relationships between the women and their families. The mention of &amp;quot;the Wobbilies&amp;quot; was brief and unexplained for the lay-viewer. However, Kenehan mentioned he &amp;quot;used to be a member&amp;quot; and then a miner chimes in that he used to be one &amp;quot;back when it meant something.&amp;quot; The movie, through this line, helps quickly reveal that groups like the International Workers of the World that were strongly and publicly associated with socialist ideas had lost power and credibility. In 1920 the Red Scare was in full swing and it shows in how the miners begin to distrust and grew suspicious of poor, pacifist Kenehan in the middle of the film. Kenehan, although I believe is fictional, accurately represented union field organizers of the time. The movie makes him his hero, reflected in the words of the aged narrator, constantly quoting him. In the reading, Ratliff recalls field organizer Tom Raney, a unionizing hero, giving speeches that captivated Kentucky miners, much like those of Kenehan&amp;#039;s in the movie.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would a woman shoot a dead man multiple times like that woman did after the massacre? I know people were pissed at the mine owners&amp;#039; treatment of miners and their families, but that&amp;#039;s excessive. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I was that woman, I probably would have done the same thing, simply because her boy just had his throat slit by those men.  She was pissed off and emotionally a wreck from not just the union stuff, but her boy being murdered.  Just my opinion though. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems.  The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real?  I do not remember talking about him in class at all?  Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that history is caricatured.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the movie a lot, but for the sake of criticism I think the stereotypical characters and characterizations need to be examined. Now that I have a complex about “stealing people’s thunder” I will only briefly layout my litany and encourage people to elaborate on and/or discredit my claims. The Stone Mountain men clearly mocked the hill people and miners’ way of life, but were especially damning (pun intended) of their religiosity. Were businessmen at this time secular, or was this a plot device to further distinguish the two groups? The mayor was quite noble and honest, was the real Testerman so virtuous or was that too a mechanism of contrast? Finally, the boy preacher Andrew, were young miners (another pun?) that well- educated and articulate, and capable of rallying the members of a community to champion a cause? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Kellye and Jason, I was caught off guard when the main character was fictional.  At least in the other movies we&amp;#039;ve watched, the main characters have been based off of, and were supposed to be, the historical figure.  To see &amp;quot;Few Clothes&amp;quot; Johnson and Sheriff Hatfield in this movie you would expect the writers to use an actual member of the union to be the central figure.  I just don&amp;#039;t understand why filmmakers decide to create people instead of take an historical event and follow through with it. -Kelly Wuyscik &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that although Testerman was noble and honest, he was also portrayed as naive and unassertive.  He&amp;#039;s the character to take pity on when he dies at the end because he was only for upholding what was right and never hurt anybody.  He was not assertive in anything he said, from a first &amp;quot;this is town property&amp;quot; to the agents (that was their point...) to his final &amp;quot;You people have no right to come to this town....&amp;quot;  Ultimately, we find that his words were pretty much in vain.  Nevertheless, his and Hatsfield&amp;#039;s standing up to the agents is a testament to their characters, who in reality refused bribes from coal corporations. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to point out another Glade Plug-In Moment - When Hillard&amp;#039;s (not sure how to spell) Mom offers her extra food to the large Italian family and there is some trouble in the communication - then all of the sudden a vague gesture indicates for the white lady to sit down and POOF the Italian woman understands a compliment about her beautiful children. I agree that there is a good point here that there was a mixing of cultures, immigrants, blacks and white hillbillies, but it is cinematic effect again that transcends all language barrier that is unbelievable to me. And for the record I was a grumbler as we left the theater, I didn&amp;#039;t particularly like the movie and I&amp;#039;m not a film buff but I do know what I like and don&amp;#039;t like entertainment-wise. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it common to have young people working in the coal mines?  I think the movie showed the boy preacher, I believe his name was Danny, working in the coal mines.  ~Katherine~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like someone as young as Danny would not have been allowed to work in the coal mines, or would he of because he would have been cheaper labor?  Also, would a congregation really sit and listen to a 15 year old preach to them?  That just seemed a bit weird to me. Danny also didn&amp;#039;t know how to throw a baseball apparently, but that&amp;#039;s a different subject altogether. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katherine and Kelly, I&amp;#039;m pretty sure that at the time, especially with labor like this, that there were HS-age kids working in the mines. They are cheap labor and are probably going to be healthier for longer, also making them long-available labor. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also don&amp;#039;t think the movie did all that great of a job showing the dangers of working in a coal mine.  None of the characters had coal mining related injuries, but there was one guy in the beginning of the movie who had a bad cough, he might have had black lung from all the coal dust. ~Katherine~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Katherine.  Did anyone else notice how spacious the mine seemed?  They could stand up fully and there was even room to socialize.  That&amp;#039;s a far cry from the boys who get deformed because the mine is too cramped for even their small bodies to be in. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just a minor issue, the readings led me to believe, it could have been just the one, that most miners didn&amp;#039;t leave or get out of the mines until after dark, but they definitely left and got home in the daylight, at least in the beginning. I&amp;#039;ll try to remember to update this after I finish the movie. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the problems I had with this movie is that I feel it really simplified the race ethnic union unification. It would not be something that would happen as rapidly and easily as the movie showed, but something that would take a lot of effort over time. I also did not like the fact that after the first scene in the movie no one else was shown either sick or coughing although the damage to peoples lungs would carry on even when they were not working in the mines. A lot of scenes also felt cliche or just silly. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the reading &amp;quot;The Bitter Cry of Children,&amp;quot; there were kids working in the coal mines with men.  They acted as &amp;quot;breaker boys,&amp;quot; collecting coal deposits and doing other menial tasks.  The significance here is that they experienced the same harsh conditions as the men, but at a greater cost because they are weaker (i.e. most die as a result).  I think Danny is representative of this youth (but keep in mind that there were younger kids working as well), but I have trouble interpreting his role as a preacher-in-training.  How much of a role did religion play with the labor union?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the part when the different groups (whites, Italians, Blacks) were playing their traditional music, which ended up harmonizing together to foreshadow in a way of unity to come.  How long did it take normally for each race to trust each other and join as one union? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest problem with &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably the lack of a larger national context. There isn’t much mention of the other parts of America going through the same struggles, which gives the sense that the strike in Matewan is somehow unique. In fact, I don’t think they even uttered the name United Mine Workers of America. Perhaps it makes the movie stronger in that it focuses on the interworkings and interrelationships of a small community, but it feels almost like Matewan exists in a bubble. Also, there is the issue of the fictional outsider, Joe Kenehan, who comes to bring his message of hope and economic justice and essentially “clean up” the town by spreading ideas of passive resistance and equality and what not. It almost plays like some Western movies (a la &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;), but not quite, as it’s clear that Joe’s efforts didn’t really succeed. There are also a lot of issues that aren’t covered, as things in Matewan didn’t end with the massacre. I didn’t feel like Danny gave much of a conclusion at the end of the movie that portrayed the continuing conflict. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to Taylor&amp;#039;s point, the only reference to a national labor movement was the fictional character Joe, who was supposed to serve as its representative.  Several times in the movie, Joe made reference to what &amp;quot;the Union&amp;quot; had to say on the issue of the strike at Matewan - how the people were supposed to wait for further instruction while the big national guys decided their next move.  Well, in the movie, the local workers of Matewan were initially very excited about the prospect of joining a union and being part of a bigger movement (eluded to when the initial leader/ Baldwin Felts spy proclaims to have been a union man all his life).  When Joe gives the workers the wait and see speech, after they all followed his advice and joined the union at great personal risk, all the workers felt betrayed and ostracized him, held meetings without him and even plotted his assassination.  Now, to what extent did a backlash actually occur against national union organizers?  I got the impression from class and the readings the union leaders were highly regarded - Buster Ratliff cites the UMWA president John L. Lewis as delivering him from slavery, so it was odd to see such local animosity against the outside union man.~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the black scabs are considering joining the union, Few Clothes likens the mining situation to slavery, largely due to the fact that the miners are made to be entirely dependent upon the company for its needs.  Referring to the start of the UMWA, Ratliff has called the mining situation slavery.  In &amp;quot;The Tyranny of the Company Store&amp;quot; we read accounts of the forced dependence.  Having to work for as long as they did, in the danger they did, essentially getting in return their food and housing, perhaps clothing, all subtracted from the binding scrip wages, and not being economically able to move out of the town, was akin to some conditions of slavery. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the Piece Rate system that we heard only good things about in the reading was actually not endorsed by Joe in the film. Now I am skeptical of who wrote this account. Joe&amp;#039;s machinery explanation makes more sense to me.  - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another part of the readings that I found odd in comparison to the film was the passivity of the dying coal miners in their last notes to their loved ones. In the film these miners seemed anything but passive. Religious and definitely along the same lines of waiting for their loved ones in heaven, but a little more spiteful towards the poor conditions that caused deaths and injuries. Only one man writes to his sons to never become coal miners - I felt it should have been more than that. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I didn&amp;#039;t like about the movie was how little they focused on actually being in the mines (although, for the record you couldn&amp;#039;t see a thing while they were actually in the mines so maybe it&amp;#039;s for the best.)  because the audience never got a sense of how terrible work actually was in there.  In some of the readings you can really get a sense that there was little air and that they were getting sick and trapped and injured but in the movie, more people died of gunfire than via coal mining.  It just didn&amp;#039;t seem to measure up right. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading for this week titled “Oh God, For One More Breath”: Early 20th century Tennessee Coal Miners’ Last Words, showed how religious these people were.  They constantly referred to Jesus, and how they were going to go to Heaven, and wanted to meet their family up there too. These documents reminded me of how religious the miners in the movie, especially the Italians, were with their statues of Mary, and other religious items.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading, “The Greatest Thing” Hawkins and Ratliff were talking about the revival of the UMWA by John L. Lewis and the election of FDR as the end of “slavery”. The use of slavery- era rhetoric is interesting, and I think apt. Using this language has particular prudence in the American discussion of workers rights, but was it uniquely American? I imagine that in the European context “slavery” would not be as emotive and catalytic. So, I guess that begs the question, how effective was this kind of rhetoric in America in terms of union membership and support?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Considering how religious mine workers were from the readings it seems off the way movie treats religion. Joe Canahan is accepted in the movie easily enough even after he states he is not religious. It seems that type of behavior would alienate and anger a lot mine workers who were very religious. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Tennessee Coal Miners&amp;#039; Last Words&amp;quot; does not directly relate, but I think it does help to further impress just how serious a job coal mining was, and why it was so important to fight for better working conditions and more rights. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading by John Spargo, he talks about the poor conditions of coal mining for the children. An example is being a coal break.  In the film Danny is a good example of a child who is too young to work in the coal mines. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To learn more about the role of religion among the child coal breakers, the author of &amp;quot;The Bitter Cry of Children&amp;quot; asks a boy if he knows God.  The boy says, &amp;quot;God? He must work in some other mine.&amp;quot;  That is one extreme effect that coal mining has on the life of a child.  We saw the religion in the adult miners&amp;#039; last letters, but this boy is worked so much that he has no time for religious study and any family or acquaintances of his have taught him anything about God.  He&amp;#039;s not living in the greatest conditions to believe in an all-loving, all-powerful God.  Apparently the role of religion was not consistent throughout different mining towns or the ages of  miners.  In the film, the religious men can believe that the union holds a higher hope for them from their lowly, oppressed state, such that they will be delivered from the tyrant&amp;#039;s hand.  It is good to take advantage of religion for Preacher boy to get his points across to the miners without having to rat anyone out.  Besides, Danny tells the end of his Bible stories inaccurately just to make his point. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading Eugene V. Deb&amp;#039;s platform for socialism, it seems pretty clear why there was such a socialist movement in the early 20th century, evident by the kind of votes he received in 1912.  Even after the red scare, the appeal of socialist ideals was still strong for many exploited workers, such as equality for all workers, regardless of race or ethnicity.  The &amp;quot;class conflict&amp;quot; was evident in the movie too, in the form of the workers or the producers versus the non producers.  That is what was ironic about the red scare - even though the people were afraid of communists, they themselves agreed with many socialist policies. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a United States Court of Appeals case that included UMWA and a coal company back in the 1980s (INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant-Appellant: 916 F.2d 1499; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18131; 135 L.R.R.M. 2663; 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,363 [Source: Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.com]). Since the events that was discussed in the case happened when the movie came out, this is evidence that there was unrest between the miners and the mine owners that they worked for, even up to the late 1980s. So, there had to be tensions during the production of the film. In this particular case, there was an agreement between the two parties that expired in spring of 1987. The employers gave the miners an offer that the union rejected by striking. Afterward, the company refused to let some of the workers back on the basis of misconduct during the strike (like Dr. M said during the lecture, the companies found ways to get at the strikers). The court ruled in favor of the union.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found an article comparing the 1920s and 1980s (in a general sense, it seems) that mentions the state of unions in both periods. Basically, it seems to say that unions in the 1980s were facing the same problems as in the 1920s - layoffs, wage slashes, inability to affect policy or working conditions. Union membership declined in the 1980s, from some 25 percent of the workforce to 17 percent, much like in the 1920s when union membership dropped from 4.5 million in 1920 to 2.7 million in 1928 (according to this article, but generally it does jive with what we learned on Tuesday). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
s far as the movie being a primary source, it portrays Sid Hatfield as an archetypal cowboy.  Perhaps this because he was the sheriff.  Either way, this portrayal is romanticized and informs us more about ourselves than the historical Sid Hatfield. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was neat how they made the impression that the young boy, Danny, was the narrator in the movie. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Ashley on how they made Danny as the narrator for the film. Most characters who narrate are much older than Danny’s age when telling a story about their past life situations. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was looking up old movie reviews for Matewan, and the critics seemed to like it - called it one of Sayles&amp;#039;s best pictures.  Personally, I didn&amp;#039;t really care for the movie. I found it boring and hard to follow, even if it was mostly historically accurate. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving  our luxury theatre. So here&amp;#039;s my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of &amp;quot;There Will Be Blood,&amp;quot; a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out &amp;quot;I abandoned my boy!&amp;quot; There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t agree more! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holy crap. Take it back Jackie. Take it back right now. There Will Be Blood was the best movie I&amp;#039;ve seen in years, unquestionably. How can you possibly rag on a PT Anderson film?! And if we are going to nitpick actors, Will Oldham showed everyone why he should have stuck to music. He&amp;#039;s great in Old Joy, but pretty awful in this. However, Chris Cooper showed why he has been given so many solid roles in later years, and I have yet to see a James Earl Jones movie I don&amp;#039;t like. And did anyone else notice that the guy who plays Dr.Kelso on &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Scrubs&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was in this?? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, now I enjoyed Matewan, but I feel that comparisons to TWBB are mostly superficial. Yes they both are centered on extractive industries in rural areas pre WWII, and yes there is the young preacher in both films as well. But first, I have to say that the music (at least for me) served different purposes in each film. Whereas in Matewan (and again I wasn&amp;#039;t wholly focused on it) the music struck me more as just capturing the feel of the region, but TWBB&amp;#039;s score (by the guitarist from Radiohead I believe) served more to heighten tension and highlight the rise and fall of Daniel Plainview. Then there are the characters. Matewan as you said, has a strong ensemble, but TWBB was basically all Daniel Day Lewis all the time (though Paul Dano was effectively creepy). Also, Matewan focuses on the workers themselves and to my knowledge didn&amp;#039;t even name the owners, whereas in TWBB the lowly workers largely are ignored. Regarding the films&amp;#039; young preachers, I felt that in TWBB Dano&amp;#039;s character was used to be a sort of distorted mirror image of DDL. His church grows as does Plainview&amp;#039;s oil company, and in the end they are both men who have essentially fallen from grace, and I don&amp;#039;t feel that Matewan used the boy-preacher in the same manner. Also, Matewan was attempting to depict a specific historical event and place, whereas I felt that TWBB (based off an Upton Sinclair novel) was more allegorical in its approach by showing the self-made (and self-destructed) man. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I enjoy PT Anderson as well, but certainly he is not infallible. The ending to Magnolia, I don&amp;#039;t want to spoil it because it&amp;#039;s still a good movie, but seriously what the hell? -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I think the ending of Magnolia was the most important split second of film-making ever. That smile said everything! -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, I must respond! Working backwards- yes, Cash is right about Magnolia (even if it is off topic), brilliant ending that gives hope to the still pondering viewer! Next, I am not saying that Matewan and TWBB are completely the same or total parallels, Bryan. I was simply trying to preemptively defend Matewan since so many people were grumbling about it after the viewing (or inappropriately laughing... Christine). I wanted to compare it to another acclaimed film that could easily receive the same criticisms towards pacing or depressing themes on humanity (making it, simply, not a fun watch). The films are also both stylistically excellent, though I was not trying to compare the scores, since they are obviously very different and used for very different story-telling effects (I just said I liked them). And on the topic of Will Oldham&amp;#039;s performance, the character annoyed me at first, but his performance only grew stronger throughout the movie, along with his character. And lastly, Cash, you must be very sensitive about TWBB if you think I was ragging on it before. Personally, I never want to see it again because DDL&amp;#039;s character is so excellently despicable and undeserving of sympathy and the long open shots of the midwest make me want to fall asleep... but it is in no way a bad movie (in fact it is quite original, creative, brilliantly acted/scripted, thought provoking, and stirring) as I think I have made clear. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I liked how the spy in Matewan was the guy who played the warden in Shawshank. That man is good at being evil. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh come, now, Jackie.  You couldn&amp;#039;t understand the WV accent?  I enjoyed listening to the dialect (and understanding it all), but I think my awareness of and interest in dialects other than my own (I&amp;#039;m told it&amp;#039;s largely Midwest) have been heightened since I&amp;#039;ve been taking linguistics. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slowest. Movie. Ever. I don&amp;#039;t care how accurate it was, for me it was as slow as Last of the Mohicans.  Scratch that, it felt 12 times longer. Also, I&amp;#039;m beyond upset that they killed Hillard.  He was my favorite.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this was the movie that was the hardest for me to get through. Although, I thought it was comparable to Patriot&amp;#039;s meandering story, not so much Mohicans, which I love every time I sit down to watch it. I&amp;#039;m not the biggest Heath Ledger fan though... -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that that this movie is very evenly paced for what it is depicting. Its not like a war movie, this deals with strikes and unions. Its not like Mel Gibson is in this movie. The miners have to strike hard enough to be noticed but not enough to be considered a riot.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Awh, come on now, those accents were bad or thick.  I should know, been out that way a lot with having lots of family from WV... I thought it was easy enough to understand them to be honest, but my golden rule is if you have trouble understanding put subtitles on.  :-D --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My rule is...if you can&amp;#039;t understand some words...context, context, context.  Then subtitles if you still can&amp;#039;t get it. -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way the Baldwin detectives in the movie feels very stylistic too me. They are portrayed as complete vllians with no sympathetic attributes whatsoever. The movie takes a clear good versus evil approach. Sure the Baldwin detectives may have done terrible things, but I think this movie goes too far in portraying them as evil. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had to watch this movie over two days (not because it was boring, but because I had to leave in the middle of the screening, so I finished the next day).  So during my intermission, I IMDB&amp;#039;d the film and was impressed by how critically-acclaimed the movie was.  Upon finishing the film and the readings (and regarding the lecture), I found very strong correlations between all sources.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; included all the characters mentioned in class (unlike &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;), it implemented the main themes from the readings (children working in the mines, the idea of science in industry, the role of violence, etc).  So while the movie indeed moved at a snail&amp;#039;s pace, I think we should sacrifice that for movies that work hard to achieve historical accuracy.  I also challenge the class to not mention Mel Gibson once for next week&amp;#039;s wiki comments.  We can put his name in the same bubble as we did with &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the comparison with There Will Be Blood.  These are two very different, though great, films.  (TWWB or Atonement should have won the Oscar over No Country!)  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matewan is definitely a film buff&amp;#039;s movie.  It&amp;#039;s one of those films I&amp;#039;m glad I&amp;#039;ve seen, but probably wouldn&amp;#039;t watch again.  Stunning cinematography and use of music, great acting, etc.  It effectively conveys the oppressive, claustrophobic atmosphere of a West Virginia mining town (and of the mines themselves).  To echo what I said above, I think this is the best secondary source of the past that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  Too bad we couldn&amp;#039;t have watched this before the midterm!  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thinking about Matewan, I started to get the idea that this movie was kind of like a Western, at least in the conventions it used. You have the lone lawman standing up to ruthless oppressors in Chief Hatfield. Kenehan is the outsider who rides (though by rail) into town and stirs up trouble. There are the women who are basically just there to be manipulated or ignored by the men. The final shootout that the movie builds up to is just like any number of western shootouts. You could even argue that Few Clothes functions in a similar fashion to an Indian chief. I found it interesting to see the fight for unions and labor rights in Appalachia applied to traditional aspects of the western genre. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this movie being slow but it is definitely one of the more accurate movies we&amp;#039;ve watched (company stores and the cruel/creepy bosses/Felts just to name a few). But, the music is awesome and I felt claustrophobic (esp during the opening credits) just watching this movie! -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thoght the use of the church to tell parts of the story was a very well done and really moved it along.--matt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie does a good job at recreating the rugged life of a union mineworker.  Parts of the movie aid the historical accuracy in the film.  The viewer gets an idea of how rough life was for mineworkers by observing their union meetings.  Race relations are portrayed well by showing how the Africans and Italians resented each other, but in the end in order to strengthen the union they put their differences aside for the bigger picture.  Earl Jones refers to once being a member of the wobblies, which adds context to other labor movements.  Few Clothes Johnson as a strikebreaker turned union leader is accurate, along with the portrayal of hard life in coal mining towns.  Communism is also mentioned.  &lt;br /&gt;
The movie makes it seem like all mine workers took in some form on union, when only 1/3 were unionized and when 60% of coal came from non-union mines.  Also, it would have been nice to have seen more resistance from the coal miners portrayed in the movie, such as more coal mine explosions, shootouts, and strikers that have signs with large anti corporal print.  A scene portraying something similar to the 1921 10,000 man armed march on Logan WV would have added intensity.  –James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really do love this movie. I think it pretty much hit the nail on the historical head despite some of its issues. And really, do some of these issues matter too much in a general sense? How many people even knew about Matewan before this class? I had never heard of the town, and I certainly didn’t know about the strike. It wasn’t even a successful strike, and it didn’t really turn the tide either against or in favor of unions. On the subject of its pacing, I understand why some people might find it boring because it moves slowly and there isn’t always a lot of action, but I personally think that seeing character interactions and emotional responses make for stronger movies.  This movie definitely did well in getting across the emotions of these people, and I think that’s why it’s so good. The great acting certainly helps too, and there were some really amazing performances here. I could feel their complete powerlessness, victimization, desperation, and bitter rage. Heck, it makes me want to join a union to combat corporate injustice! I do think that this is also a terrible movie in that it is so depressing. While there are certainly heroic “hell yeah!” moments where it makes you proud to be a member of the human race (the police chief Hatfield in general, Danny informing the crowd of Joe’s innocence through a sermon, Elma shooting the Baldwin-Felts jerk), there are a lot more “people are jerks, life sucks and you can’t do anything about it” parts (I think special mention goes to the murder of poor Hillard). At the very least, the movie makes it clear that whether unions are successful or not, they can provide a sense of hope and community among different people, which was maybe John Sayles’ message, as Matewan was made during the 1980s when union membership and political power was declining. --Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-30T08:01:45Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them.  They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job.  Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how Joe tapped into the idea of Scientific Management during his first rousing speech at the workers meeting. He described the exploitative practices of the bosses and how workers were like parts of a machine that could be replaced. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jason, I have to say I was actually kind of surprised that Kenehan brought up the subject of Scientific Management during his speech.  I think it was helpful for swaying the men to the union because I don&amp;#039;t think many men realized just how invaluable they really were to large companies.  The white men could easily have been (and were in the process of being) replaced by the Italian men and the blacks that were also arriving in Matewan.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that the Italian woman and the old white woman, though at first not being very good neighbors (at least the old one) eventually became reconciled to share and sit together--and to provide comfort when the old lady&amp;#039;s son (grandson?) was killed.  The union had to get the miners to accept the minority scabs who wanted to join the union with them, so it seems appropriate to show that their families had to learn to get along and accept each other, as well. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was pretty generally accurate. It&amp;#039;s not the most perfect of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched, but it did seem to present most of the different sides and opinions involved in the formation of unions and the difficulties of the time. For the record, &amp;#039;villain&amp;#039; is a side, in this case, as we are still talking about a Hollywood movie, and the corporations and secret police could be legitimately cruel. ---Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with showing how even though the men had skepticisms about joining the Union, it was necessary in order to stand up to the mining companies and to demand that they be treated better than just mere &amp;quot;equipment.&amp;quot; The movie accurately portrayed  the brutality that went along with the competition for jobs between races and ethnicities. Also, as Kenehan pointed out it was a fight between those who worked and those who didn&amp;#039;t ( bosses standing around holding guns as miners walked out of mine), it shouldn&amp;#039;t be about skin color or background because at the end of the day they&amp;#039;re all workers and they&amp;#039;re all oppressed. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I haven&amp;#039;t finished the movie yet, in fact I&amp;#039;m not in to it all that much.  However, from the beginning of the movie they did get right just how dirty the men got, and also that they coughed a lot from the dust and particles. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tensions between the whites/blacks, blacks/Italians and Italians/Whites were all very well-portrayed in my opinion. The attacks that Few Clothes incurred towards the beginning of the movie, as well as the tension between the Italian grandmother and white mother throughout the film were both very realistic to me. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We learned in class that the Red Scare was a real blow to the Labor Movement in the U.S and people were suspicious of anyone/anything that could be seen as promoting Communism. This is shown in the movie when Hatfield (I believe) is writing a letter to Felts and says he believes it&amp;#039;s possible Kenehan could be a Red. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt the movie did a good job in portraying the problems facing the workers. Particularly I felt they did a good job dealing with the issue of the company store and company owned houses. The movie made clear the problems mine workers faced because of this arrangement and also shows the fact that the company really did have a lot of power. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie portrayed the level of desperation and volatility that was present in these areas where unions were trying to get off the ground. Before the title even came up you are treated to the hostility of the miners toward the &amp;quot;dago&amp;quot; scabs. Then there is the attack of the black miners brought in as well. The ethnic/racial tension was pretty well represented. I also felt that the taking up of arms against the company was powerful in its depiction of the desperation of the miners, and the lack of real government control in the region. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From what I gathered from Tuesday&amp;#039;s lecture, I thought Matewan was an accurate portrayal of the time.  The racial tensions among the white miners, African-American miners, and the Italian immigrants were present, as was their coming together in the face of incredible adversity.  The racism, while certainly prevalent, didn&amp;#039;t overwhelm the characters.  Sayles also included the anti-Communist sentiment that plagued the labor movement.  All in all, probably the most historically accurate movie we&amp;#039;ve seen so far this semester.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did a fine job capturing many large issues in a historically accurate way. The people were very religious (as seen in the readings) and seemed to rely on it for a sense of comfort in their unjust world. The dangers of the coal mines were mentioned when the lack of husbands are discussed, and it is clear in the opening scene that mining had some pretty adverse health effects and the conditions were all around terrible. It was also obvious that the miners and their families were forced into dependence on the coal company by the company’s backhanded tactics (like raising store prices while lowering the worth of company scripts). Also, the racial and ethnic tensions and how the company used those tensions against the union is covered, as well as the gap between skilled and unskilled workers (the white miners complained that those &amp;#039;&amp;#039;E-talians&amp;#039;&amp;#039; had no mining experience). They showed that the company employed spies to undermine the striking miners, and the Baldwin-Felts men were about as brutal as could be expected. Yet, they also added a bit of complexity when the men were talking before the massacre, showing that they also had their reasons for doing things. Nevertheless, while they didn’t show them poisoning children, I could see them doing it. I think one of the most important things was the depiction of the powerlessness and victimization of the miners and their families. With living conditions like that, it’s not hard to see why people turned to unions to take some control over their lives and make things better for themselves. Finally, things don’t end happily no matter how nice it would be, which reflects the real life failure of the strike. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie stayed close to the history and even refrained from ignoring the unfortunate aftermath of the events it depicts.  This is impressive since the movie is very pro-union yet it doesn’t pretend that the union fixed everything. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the scene where the black miners are told of the company policy regarding wages and wares to be quite effective. As Taylor mentioned these tactics put the workers into instant dependency on the company as most of their wages for the first month are deducted for lodging and clothes. The man going through the protocols drones on and you can see the workers just deflate. Also I felt that this scene, in addition to the whole setting up camp showed just how difficult it was to unionize and go against the owners. No wonder unions had such trouble gaining a lasting foothold. While there could be historical discrepancies in these scenes, the emotions and messages they convey are powerful to understanding the hardships of labor during this era. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like the old miner, Ratliff, with the whistle said in the readings that the system pretty much made &amp;quot;slaves&amp;quot; out of the workers. Freedom was attainable in theory, but surrounded by catch-22s (every option was lose-lose for the miners and their families) and this was clearly depicted in the film- in the company policies explained to the black strikebreakers, in the rhetoric of Kenehan&amp;#039;s speeches, and in the relationships between the women and their families. The mention of &amp;quot;the Wobbilies&amp;quot; was brief and unexplained for the lay-viewer. However, Kenehan mentioned he &amp;quot;used to be a member&amp;quot; and then a miner chimes in that he used to be one &amp;quot;back when it meant something.&amp;quot; The movie, through this line, helps quickly reveal that groups like the International Workers of the World that were strongly and publicly associated with socialist ideas had lost power and credibility. In 1920 the Red Scare was in full swing and it shows in how the miners begin to distrust and grew suspicious of poor, pacifist Kenehan in the middle of the film. Kenehan, although I believe is fictional, accurately represented union field organizers of the time. The movie makes him his hero, reflected in the words of the aged narrator, constantly quoting him. In the reading, Ratliff recalls field organizer Tom Raney, a unionizing hero, giving speeches that captivated Kentucky miners, much like those of Kenehan&amp;#039;s in the movie.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would a woman shoot a dead man multiple times like that woman did after the massacre? I know people were pissed at the mine owners&amp;#039; treatment of miners and their families, but that&amp;#039;s excessive. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I was that woman, I probably would have done the same thing, simply because her boy just had his throat slit by those men.  She was pissed off and emotionally a wreck from not just the union stuff, but her boy being murdered.  Just my opinion though. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems.  The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real?  I do not remember talking about him in class at all?  Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that history is caricatured.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the movie a lot, but for the sake of criticism I think the stereotypical characters and characterizations need to be examined. Now that I have a complex about “stealing people’s thunder” I will only briefly layout my litany and encourage people to elaborate on and/or discredit my claims. The Stone Mountain men clearly mocked the hill people and miners’ way of life, but were especially damning (pun intended) of their religiosity. Were businessmen at this time secular, or was this a plot device to further distinguish the two groups? The mayor was quite noble and honest, was the real Testerman so virtuous or was that too a mechanism of contrast? Finally, the boy preacher Andrew, were young miners (another pun?) that well- educated and articulate, and capable of rallying the members of a community to champion a cause? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Kellye and Jason, I was caught off guard when the main character was fictional.  At least in the other movies we&amp;#039;ve watched, the main characters have been based off of, and were supposed to be, the historical figure.  To see &amp;quot;Few Clothes&amp;quot; Johnson and Sheriff Hatfield in this movie you would expect the writers to use an actual member of the union to be the central figure.  I just don&amp;#039;t understand why filmmakers decide to create people instead of take an historical event and follow through with it. -Kelly Wuyscik &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that although Testerman was noble and honest, he was also portrayed as naive and unassertive.  He&amp;#039;s the character to take pity on when he dies at the end because he was only for upholding what was right and never hurt anybody.  He was not assertive in anything he said, from a first &amp;quot;this is town property&amp;quot; to the agents (that was their point...) to his final &amp;quot;You people have no right to come to this town....&amp;quot;  Ultimately, we find that his words were pretty much in vain.  Nevertheless, his and Hatsfield&amp;#039;s standing up to the agents is a testament to their characters, who in reality refused bribes from coal corporations. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to point out another Glade Plug-In Moment - When Hillard&amp;#039;s (not sure how to spell) Mom offers her extra food to the large Italian family and there is some trouble in the communication - then all of the sudden a vague gesture indicates for the white lady to sit down and POOF the Italian woman understands a compliment about her beautiful children. I agree that there is a good point here that there was a mixing of cultures, immigrants, blacks and white hillbillies, but it is cinematic effect again that transcends all language barrier that is unbelievable to me. And for the record I was a grumbler as we left the theater, I didn&amp;#039;t particularly like the movie and I&amp;#039;m not a film buff but I do know what I like and don&amp;#039;t like entertainment-wise. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it common to have young people working in the coal mines?  I think the movie showed the boy preacher, I believe his name was Danny, working in the coal mines.  ~Katherine~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like someone as young as Danny would not have been allowed to work in the coal mines, or would he of because he would have been cheaper labor?  Also, would a congregation really sit and listen to a 15 year old preach to them?  That just seemed a bit weird to me. Danny also didn&amp;#039;t know how to throw a baseball apparently, but that&amp;#039;s a different subject altogether. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katherine and Kelly, I&amp;#039;m pretty sure that at the time, especially with labor like this, that there were HS-age kids working in the mines. They are cheap labor and are probably going to be healthier for longer, also making them long-available labor. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also don&amp;#039;t think the movie did all that great of a job showing the dangers of working in a coal mine.  None of the characters had coal mining related injuries, but there was one guy in the beginning of the movie who had a bad cough, he might have had black lung from all the coal dust. ~Katherine~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Katherine.  Did anyone else notice how spacious the mine seemed?  They could stand up fully and there was even room to socialize.  That&amp;#039;s a far cry from the boys who get deformed because the mine is too cramped for even their small bodies to be in. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just a minor issue, the readings led me to believe, it could have been just the one, that most miners didn&amp;#039;t leave or get out of the mines until after dark, but they definitely left and got home in the daylight, at least in the beginning. I&amp;#039;ll try to remember to update this after I finish the movie. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the problems I had with this movie is that I feel it really simplified the race ethnic union unification. It would not be something that would happen as rapidly and easily as the movie showed, but something that would take a lot of effort over time. I also did not like the fact that after the first scene in the movie no one else was shown either sick or coughing although the damage to peoples lungs would carry on even when they were not working in the mines. A lot of scenes also felt cliche or just silly. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the reading &amp;quot;The Bitter Cry of Children,&amp;quot; there were kids working in the coal mines with men.  They acted as &amp;quot;breaker boys,&amp;quot; collecting coal deposits and doing other menial tasks.  The significance here is that they experienced the same harsh conditions as the men, but at a greater cost because they are weaker (i.e. most die as a result).  I think Danny is representative of this youth (but keep in mind that there were younger kids working as well), but I have trouble interpreting his role as a preacher-in-training.  How much of a role did religion play with the labor union?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the part when the different groups (whites, Italians, Blacks) were playing their traditional music, which ended up harmonizing together to foreshadow in a way of unity to come.  How long did it take normally for each race to trust each other and join as one union? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest problem with &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably the lack of a larger national context. There isn’t much mention of the other parts of America going through the same struggles, which gives the sense that the strike in Matewan is somehow unique. In fact, I don’t think they even uttered the name United Mine Workers of America. Perhaps it makes the movie stronger in that it focuses on the interworkings and interrelationships of a small community, but it feels almost like Matewan exists in a bubble. Also, there is the issue of the fictional outsider, Joe Kenehan, who comes to bring his message of hope and economic justice and essentially “clean up” the town by spreading ideas of passive resistance and equality and what not. It almost plays like some Western movies (a la &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;), but not quite, as it’s clear that Joe’s efforts didn’t really succeed. There are also a lot of issues that aren’t covered, as things in Matewan didn’t end with the massacre. I didn’t feel like Danny gave much of a conclusion at the end of the movie that portrayed the continuing conflict. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to Taylor&amp;#039;s point, the only reference to a national labor movement was the fictional character Joe, who was supposed to serve as its representative.  Several times in the movie, Joe made reference to what &amp;quot;the Union&amp;quot; had to say on the issue of the strike at Matewan - how the people were supposed to wait for further instruction while the big national guys decided their next move.  Well, in the movie, the local workers of Matewan were initially very excited about the prospect of joining a union and being part of a bigger movement (eluded to when the initial leader/ Baldwin Felts spy proclaims to have been a union man all his life).  When Joe gives the workers the wait and see speech, after they all followed his advice and joined the union at great personal risk, all the workers felt betrayed and ostracized him, held meetings without him and even plotted his assassination.  Now, to what extent did a backlash actually occur against national union organizers?  I got the impression from class and the readings the union leaders were highly regarded - Buster Ratliff cites the UMWA president John L. Lewis as delivering him from slavery, so it was odd to see such local animosity against the outside union man.~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the black scabs are considering joining the union, Few Clothes likens the mining situation to slavery, largely due to the fact that the miners are made to be entirely dependent upon the company for its needs.  Referring to the start of the UMWA, Ratliff has called the mining situation slavery.  In &amp;quot;The Tyranny of the Company Store&amp;quot; we read accounts of the forced dependence.  Having to work for as long as they did, in the danger they did, essentially getting in return their food and housing, perhaps clothing, all subtracted from the binding scrip wages, and not being economically able to move out of the town, was akin to some conditions of slavery. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the Piece Rate system that we heard only good things about in the reading was actually not endorsed by Joe in the film. Now I am skeptical of who wrote this account. Joe&amp;#039;s machinery explanation makes more sense to me.  - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another part of the readings that I found odd in comparison to the film was the passivity of the dying coal miners in their last notes to their loved ones. In the film these miners seemed anything but passive. Religious and definitely along the same lines of waiting for their loved ones in heaven, but a little more spiteful towards the poor conditions that caused deaths and injuries. Only one man writes to his sons to never become coal miners - I felt it should have been more than that. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I didn&amp;#039;t like about the movie was how little they focused on actually being in the mines (although, for the record you couldn&amp;#039;t see a thing while they were actually in the mines so maybe it&amp;#039;s for the best.)  because the audience never got a sense of how terrible work actually was in there.  In some of the readings you can really get a sense that there was little air and that they were getting sick and trapped and injured but in the movie, more people died of gunfire than via coal mining.  It just didn&amp;#039;t seem to measure up right. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading for this week titled “Oh God, For One More Breath”: Early 20th century Tennessee Coal Miners’ Last Words, showed how religious these people were.  They constantly referred to Jesus, and how they were going to go to Heaven, and wanted to meet their family up there too. These documents reminded me of how religious the miners in the movie, especially the Italians, were with their statues of Mary, and other religious items.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading, “The Greatest Thing” Hawkins and Ratliff were talking about the revival of the UMWA by John L. Lewis and the election of FDR as the end of “slavery”. The use of slavery- era rhetoric is interesting, and I think apt. Using this language has particular prudence in the American discussion of workers rights, but was it uniquely American? I imagine that in the European context “slavery” would not be as emotive and catalytic. So, I guess that begs the question, how effective was this kind of rhetoric in America in terms of union membership and support?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Considering how religious mine workers were from the readings it seems off the way movie treats religion. Joe Canahan is accepted in the movie easily enough even after he states he is not religious. It seems that type of behavior would alienate and anger a lot mine workers who were very religious. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Tennessee Coal Miners&amp;#039; Last Words&amp;quot; does not directly relate, but I think it does help to further impress just how serious a job coal mining was, and why it was so important to fight for better working conditions and more rights. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading by John Spargo, he talks about the poor conditions of coal mining for the children. An example is being a coal break.  In the film Danny is a good example of a child who is too young to work in the coal mines. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To learn more about the role of religion among the child coal breakers, the author of &amp;quot;The Bitter Cry of Children&amp;quot; asks a boy if he knows God.  The boy says, &amp;quot;God? He must work in some other mine.&amp;quot;  That is one extreme effect that coal mining has on the life of a child.  We saw the religion in the adult miners&amp;#039; last letters, but this boy is worked so much that he has no time for religious study and any family or acquaintances of his have taught him anything about God.  He&amp;#039;s not living in the greatest conditions to believe in an all-loving, all-powerful God.  Apparently the role of religion was not consistent throughout different mining towns or the ages of  miners.  In the film, the religious men can believe that the union holds a higher hope for them from their lowly, oppressed state, such that they will be delivered from the tyrant&amp;#039;s hand.  It is good to take advantage of religion for Preacher boy to get his points across to the miners without having to rat anyone out.  Besides, Danny tells the end of his Bible stories inaccurately just to make his point. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading Eugene V. Deb&amp;#039;s platform for socialism, it seems pretty clear why there was such a socialist movement in the early 20th century, evident by the kind of votes he received in 1912.  Even after the red scare, the appeal of socialist ideals was still strong for many exploited workers, such as equality for all workers, regardless of race or ethnicity.  The &amp;quot;class conflict&amp;quot; was evident in the movie too, in the form of the workers or the producers versus the non producers.  That is what was ironic about the red scare - even though the people were afraid of communists, they themselves agreed with many socialist policies. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a United States Court of Appeals case that included UMWA and a coal company back in the 1980s (INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant-Appellant: 916 F.2d 1499; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18131; 135 L.R.R.M. 2663; 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,363 [Source: Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.com]). Since the events that was discussed in the case happened when the movie came out, this is evidence that there was unrest between the miners and the mine owners that they worked for, even up to the late 1980s. So, there had to be tensions during the production of the film. In this particular case, there was an agreement between the two parties that expired in spring of 1987. The employers gave the miners an offer that the union rejected by striking. Afterward, the company refused to let some of the workers back on the basis of misconduct during the strike (like Dr. M said during the lecture, the companies found ways to get at the strikers). The court ruled in favor of the union.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found an article comparing the 1920s and 1980s (in a general sense, it seems) that mentions the state of unions in both periods. Basically, it seems to say that unions in the 1980s were facing the same problems as in the 1920s - layoffs, wage slashes, inability to affect policy or working conditions. Union membership declined in the 1980s, from some 25 percent of the workforce to 17 percent, much like in the 1920s when union membership dropped from 4.5 million in 1920 to 2.7 million in 1928 (according to this article, but generally it does jive with what we learned on Tuesday). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
s far as the movie being a primary source, it portrays Sid Hatfield as an archetypal cowboy.  Perhaps this because he was the sheriff.  Either way, this portrayal is romanticized and informs us more about ourselves than the historical Sid Hatfield. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was neat how they made the impression that the young boy, Danny, was the narrator in the movie. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Ashley on how they made Danny as the narrator for the film. Most characters who narrate are much older than Danny’s age when telling a story about their past life situations. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was looking up old movie reviews for Matewan, and the critics seemed to like it - called it one of Sayles&amp;#039;s best pictures.  Personally, I didn&amp;#039;t really care for the movie. I found it boring and hard to follow, even if it was mostly historically accurate. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving  our luxury theatre. So here&amp;#039;s my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of &amp;quot;There Will Be Blood,&amp;quot; a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out &amp;quot;I abandoned my boy!&amp;quot; There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t agree more! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holy crap. Take it back Jackie. Take it back right now. There Will Be Blood was the best movie I&amp;#039;ve seen in years, unquestionably. How can you possibly rag on a PT Anderson film?! And if we are going to nitpick actors, Will Oldham showed everyone why he should have stuck to music. He&amp;#039;s great in Old Joy, but pretty awful in this. However, Chris Cooper showed why he has been given so many solid roles in later years, and I have yet to see a James Earl Jones movie I don&amp;#039;t like. And did anyone else notice that the guy who plays Dr.Kelso on &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Scrubs&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was in this?? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, now I enjoyed Matewan, but I feel that comparisons to TWBB are mostly superficial. Yes they both are centered on extractive industries in rural areas pre WWII, and yes there is the young preacher in both films as well. But first, I have to say that the music (at least for me) served different purposes in each film. Whereas in Matewan (and again I wasn&amp;#039;t wholly focused on it) the music struck me more as just capturing the feel of the region, but TWBB&amp;#039;s score (by the guitarist from Radiohead I believe) served more to heighten tension and highlight the rise and fall of Daniel Plainview. Then there are the characters. Matewan as you said, has a strong ensemble, but TWBB was basically all Daniel Day Lewis all the time (though Paul Dano was effectively creepy). Also, Matewan focuses on the workers themselves and to my knowledge didn&amp;#039;t even name the owners, whereas in TWBB the lowly workers largely are ignored. Regarding the films&amp;#039; young preachers, I felt that in TWBB Dano&amp;#039;s character was used to be a sort of distorted mirror image of DDL. His church grows as does Plainview&amp;#039;s oil company, and in the end they are both men who have essentially fallen from grace, and I don&amp;#039;t feel that Matewan used the boy-preacher in the same manner. Also, Matewan was attempting to depict a specific historical event and place, whereas I felt that TWBB (based off an Upton Sinclair novel) was more allegorical in its approach by showing the self-made (and self-destructed) man. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I enjoy PT Anderson as well, but certainly he is not infallible. The ending to Magnolia, I don&amp;#039;t want to spoil it because it&amp;#039;s still a good movie, but seriously what the hell? -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I think the ending of Magnolia was the most important split second of film-making ever. That smile said everything! -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, I must respond! Working backwards- yes, Cash is right about Magnolia (even if it is off topic), brilliant ending that gives hope to the still pondering viewer! Next, I am not saying that Matewan and TWBB are completely the same or total parallels, Bryan. I was simply trying to preemptively defend Matewan since so many people were grumbling about it after the viewing (or inappropriately laughing... Christine). I wanted to compare it to another acclaimed film that could easily receive the same criticisms towards pacing or depressing themes on humanity (making it, simply, not a fun watch). The films are also both stylistically excellent, though I was not trying to compare the scores, since they are obviously very different and used for very different story-telling effects (I just said I liked them). And on the topic of Will Oldham&amp;#039;s performance, the character annoyed me at first, but his performance only grew stronger throughout the movie, along with his character. And lastly, Cash, you must be very sensitive about TWBB if you think I was ragging on it before. Personally, I never want to see it again because DDL&amp;#039;s character is so excellently despicable and undeserving of sympathy and the long open shots of the midwest make me want to fall asleep... but it is in no way a bad movie (in fact it is quite original, creative, brilliantly acted/scripted, thought provoking, and stirring) as I think I have made clear. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I liked how the spy in Matewan was the guy who played the warden in Shawshank. That man is good at being evil. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh come, now, Jackie.  You couldn&amp;#039;t understand the WV accent?  I enjoyed listening to the dialect (and understanding it all), but I think my awareness of and interest in dialects other than my own (I&amp;#039;m told it&amp;#039;s largely Midwest) have been heightened since I&amp;#039;ve been taking linguistics. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slowest. Movie. Ever. I don&amp;#039;t care how accurate it was, for me it was as slow as Last of the Mohicans.  Scratch that, it felt 12 times longer. Also, I&amp;#039;m beyond upset that they killed Hillard.  He was my favorite.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this was the movie that was the hardest for me to get through. Although, I thought it was comparable to Patriot&amp;#039;s meandering story, not so much Mohicans, which I love every time I sit down to watch it. I&amp;#039;m not the biggest Heath Ledger fan though... -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that that this movie is very evenly paced for what it is depicting. Its not like a war movie, this deals with strikes and unions. Its not like Mel Gibson is in this movie. The miners have to strike hard enough to be noticed but not enough to be considered a riot.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Awh, come on now, those accents were bad or thick.  I should know, been out that way a lot with having lots of family from WV... I thought it was easy enough to understand them to be honest, but my golden rule is if you have trouble understanding put subtitles on.  :-D --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My rule is...if you can&amp;#039;t understand some words...context, context, context.  Then subtitles if you still can&amp;#039;t get it. -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way the Baldwin detectives in the movie feels very stylistic too me. They are portrayed as complete vllians with no sympathetic attributes whatsoever. The movie takes a clear good versus evil approach. Sure the Baldwin detectives may have done terrible things, but I think this movie goes too far in portraying them as evil. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had to watch this movie over two days (not because it was boring, but because I had to leave in the middle of the screening, so I finished the next day).  So during my intermission, I IMDB&amp;#039;d the film and was impressed by how critically-acclaimed the movie was.  Upon finishing the film and the readings (and regarding the lecture), I found very strong correlations between all sources.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; included all the characters mentioned in class (unlike &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;), it implemented the main themes from the readings (children working in the mines, the idea of science in industry, the role of violence, etc).  So while the movie indeed moved at a snail&amp;#039;s pace, I think we should sacrifice that for movies that work hard to achieve historical accuracy.  I also challenge the class to not mention Mel Gibson once for next week&amp;#039;s wiki comments.  We can put his name in the same bubble as we did with &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the comparison with There Will Be Blood.  These are two very different, though great, films.  (TWWB or Atonement should have won the Oscar over No Country!)  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matewan is definitely a film buff&amp;#039;s movie.  It&amp;#039;s one of those films I&amp;#039;m glad I&amp;#039;ve seen, but probably wouldn&amp;#039;t watch again.  Stunning cinematography and use of music, great acting, etc.  It effectively conveys the oppressive, claustrophobic atmosphere of a West Virginia mining town (and of the mines themselves).  To echo what I said above, I think this is the best secondary source of the past that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  Too bad we couldn&amp;#039;t have watched this before the midterm!  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thinking about Matewan, I started to get the idea that this movie was kind of like a Western, at least in the conventions it used. You have the lone lawman standing up to ruthless oppressors in Chief Hatfield. Kenehan is the outsider who rides (though by rail) into town and stirs up trouble. There are the women who are basically just there to be manipulated or ignored by the men. The final shootout that the movie builds up to is just like any number of western shootouts. You could even argue that Few Clothes functions in a similar fashion to an Indian chief. I found it interesting to see the fight for unions and labor rights in Appalachia applied to traditional aspects of the western genre. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this movie being slow but it is definitely one of the more accurate movies we&amp;#039;ve watched (company stores and the cruel/creepy bosses/Felts just to name a few). But, the music is awesome and I felt claustrophobic (esp during the opening credits) just watching this movie! -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thoght the use of the church to tell parts of the story was a very well done and really moved it along.--matt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie does a good job at recreating the rugged life of a union mineworker.  Parts of the movie aid the historical accuracy in the film.  The viewer gets an idea of how rough life was for mineworkers by observing their union meetings.  Race relations are portrayed well by showing how the Africans and Italians resented each other, but in the end in order to strengthen the union they put their differences aside for the bigger picture.  Earl Jones refers to once being a member of the wobblies, which adds context to other labor movements.  Few Clothes Johnson as a strikebreaker turned union leader is accurate, along with the portrayal of hard life in coal mining towns.  Communism is also mentioned.  &lt;br /&gt;
The movie makes it seem like all mine workers took in some form on union, when only 1/3 were unionized and when 60% of coal came from non-union mines.  Also, it would have been nice to have seen more resistance from the coal miners portrayed in the movie, such as more coal mine explosions, shootouts, and strikers that have signs with large anti corporal print.  A scene portraying something similar to the 1921 10,000 man armed march on Logan WV would have added intensity.  –James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really do love this movie. I think it pretty much hit the nail on the historical head despite some of its issues. And really, do some of these issues matter too much in a general sense? How many people even knew about Matewan before this class? I had never heard of the town, and I certainly didn’t know about the strike. It wasn’t even a successful strike, and it didn’t really turn the tide either against or in favor of unions. On the subject of its pacing, I understand why some people might find it boring because it moves slowly and there isn’t always a lot of action, but I personally think that seeing character interactions and emotional responses make for stronger movies.  This movie definitely did well in getting across the emotions of these people, and I think that’s why it’s so good. The great acting certainly helps too, and there were some really amazing performances here. I could feel their complete powerlessness, victimization, desperation, and bitter rage. Heck, it makes me want to join a union to combat corporate injustice! I do think that this is also a terrible movie in that it is so depressing. While there are certainly heroic “hell yeah!” moments where it makes you proud to be a member of the human race (the police chief Hatfield in general, Danny informing the crowd of Joe’s innocence through a sermon, Elma shooting the Baldwin-Felts jerk), there are a lot more “people are jerks, life sucks and you can’t do anything about it” parts (I think special mention goes to the murder of poor Hillard). At the very least, the movie makes it clear that whether unions are successful or not, they can provide a sense of hope and community among different people, which was maybe John Sayles’ message, as Matewan was made during the 1980s when union membership and political power was declining. --Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-30T07:36:49Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them.  They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job.  Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how Joe tapped into the idea of Scientific Management during his first rousing speech at the workers meeting. He described the exploitative practices of the bosses and how workers were like parts of a machine that could be replaced. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Agreeing with Jason, I have to say I was actually kind of surprised that Kenehan brought up the subject of Scientific Management during his speech.  I think it was helpful for swaying the men to the union because I don&amp;#039;t think many men realized just how invaluable they really were to large companies.  The white men could easily have been (and were in the process of being) replaced by the Italian men and the blacks that were also arriving in Matewan.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked that the Italian woman and the old white woman, though at first not being very good neighbors (at least the old one) eventually became reconciled to share and sit together--and to provide comfort when the old lady&amp;#039;s son (grandson?) was killed.  The union had to get the miners to accept the minority scabs who wanted to join the union with them, so it seems appropriate to show that their families had to learn to get along and accept each other, as well. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was pretty generally accurate. It&amp;#039;s not the most perfect of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched, but it did seem to present most of the different sides and opinions involved in the formation of unions and the difficulties of the time. For the record, &amp;#039;villain&amp;#039; is a side, in this case, as we are still talking about a Hollywood movie, and the corporations and secret police could be legitimately cruel. ---Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job with showing how even though the men had skepticisms about joining the Union, it was necessary in order to stand up to the mining companies and to demand that they be treated better than just mere &amp;quot;equipment.&amp;quot; The movie accurately portrayed  the brutality that went along with the competition for jobs between races and ethnicities. Also, as Kenehan pointed out it was a fight between those who worked and those who didn&amp;#039;t ( bosses standing around holding guns as miners walked out of mine), it shouldn&amp;#039;t be about skin color or background because at the end of the day they&amp;#039;re all workers and they&amp;#039;re all oppressed. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I haven&amp;#039;t finished the movie yet, in fact I&amp;#039;m not in to it all that much.  However, from the beginning of the movie they did get right just how dirty the men got, and also that they coughed a lot from the dust and particles. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The tensions between the whites/blacks, blacks/Italians and Italians/Whites were all very well-portrayed in my opinion. The attacks that Few Clothes incurred towards the beginning of the movie, as well as the tension between the Italian grandmother and white mother throughout the film were both very realistic to me. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
We learned in class that the Red Scare was a real blow to the Labor Movement in the U.S and people were suspicious of anyone/anything that could be seen as promoting Communism. This is shown in the movie when Hatfield (I believe) is writing a letter to Felts and says he believes it&amp;#039;s possible Kenehan could be a Red. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt the movie did a good job in portraying the problems facing the workers. Particularly I felt they did a good job dealing with the issue of the company store and company owned houses. The movie made clear the problems mine workers faced because of this arrangement and also shows the fact that the company really did have a lot of power. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie portrayed the level of desperation and volatility that was present in these areas where unions were trying to get off the ground. Before the title even came up you are treated to the hostility of the miners toward the &amp;quot;dago&amp;quot; scabs. Then there is the attack of the black miners brought in as well. The ethnic/racial tension was pretty well represented. I also felt that the taking up of arms against the company was powerful in its depiction of the desperation of the miners, and the lack of real government control in the region. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From what I gathered from Tuesday&amp;#039;s lecture, I thought Matewan was an accurate portrayal of the time.  The racial tensions among the white miners, African-American miners, and the Italian immigrants were present, as was their coming together in the face of incredible adversity.  The racism, while certainly prevalent, didn&amp;#039;t overwhelm the characters.  Sayles also included the anti-Communist sentiment that plagued the labor movement.  All in all, probably the most historically accurate movie we&amp;#039;ve seen so far this semester.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did a fine job capturing many large issues in a historically accurate way. The people were very religious (as seen in the readings) and seemed to rely on it for a sense of comfort in their unjust world. The dangers of the coal mines were mentioned when the lack of husbands are discussed, and it is clear in the opening scene that mining had some pretty adverse health effects and the conditions were all around terrible. It was also obvious that the miners and their families were forced into dependence on the coal company by the company’s backhanded tactics (like raising store prices while lowering the worth of company scripts). Also, the racial and ethnic tensions and how the company used those tensions against the union is covered, as well as the gap between skilled and unskilled workers (the white miners complained that those &amp;#039;&amp;#039;E-talians&amp;#039;&amp;#039; had no mining experience). They showed that the company employed spies to undermine the striking miners, and the Baldwin-Felts men were about as brutal as could be expected. Yet, they also added a bit of complexity when the men were talking before the massacre, showing that they also had their reasons for doing things. Nevertheless, while they didn’t show them poisoning children, I could see them doing it. I think one of the most important things was the depiction of the powerlessness and victimization of the miners and their families. With living conditions like that, it’s not hard to see why people turned to unions to take some control over their lives and make things better for themselves. Finally, things don’t end happily no matter how nice it would be, which reflects the real life failure of the strike. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie stayed close to the history and even refrained from ignoring the unfortunate aftermath of the events it depicts.  This is impressive since the movie is very pro-union yet it doesn’t pretend that the union fixed everything. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the scene where the black miners are told of the company policy regarding wages and wares to be quite effective. As Taylor mentioned these tactics put the workers into instant dependency on the company as most of their wages for the first month are deducted for lodging and clothes. The man going through the protocols drones on and you can see the workers just deflate. Also I felt that this scene, in addition to the whole setting up camp showed just how difficult it was to unionize and go against the owners. No wonder unions had such trouble gaining a lasting foothold. While there could be historical discrepancies in these scenes, the emotions and messages they convey are powerful to understanding the hardships of labor during this era. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would a woman shoot a dead man multiple times like that woman did after the massacre? I know people were pissed at the mine owners&amp;#039; treatment of miners and their families, but that&amp;#039;s excessive. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If I was that woman, I probably would have done the same thing, simply because her boy just had his throat slit by those men.  She was pissed off and emotionally a wreck from not just the union stuff, but her boy being murdered.  Just my opinion though. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems.  The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real?  I do not remember talking about him in class at all?  Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that history is caricatured.  - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked the movie a lot, but for the sake of criticism I think the stereotypical characters and characterizations need to be examined. Now that I have a complex about “stealing people’s thunder” I will only briefly layout my litany and encourage people to elaborate on and/or discredit my claims. The Stone Mountain men clearly mocked the hill people and miners’ way of life, but were especially damning (pun intended) of their religiosity. Were businessmen at this time secular, or was this a plot device to further distinguish the two groups? The mayor was quite noble and honest, was the real Testerman so virtuous or was that too a mechanism of contrast? Finally, the boy preacher Andrew, were young miners (another pun?) that well- educated and articulate, and capable of rallying the members of a community to champion a cause? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Like Kellye and Jason, I was caught off guard when the main character was fictional.  At least in the other movies we&amp;#039;ve watched, the main characters have been based off of, and were supposed to be, the historical figure.  To see &amp;quot;Few Clothes&amp;quot; Johnson and Sheriff Hatfield in this movie you would expect the writers to use an actual member of the union to be the central figure.  I just don&amp;#039;t understand why filmmakers decide to create people instead of take an historical event and follow through with it. -Kelly Wuyscik &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that although Testerman was noble and honest, he was also portrayed as naive and unassertive.  He&amp;#039;s the character to take pity on when he dies at the end because he was only for upholding what was right and never hurt anybody.  He was not assertive in anything he said, from a first &amp;quot;this is town property&amp;quot; to the agents (that was their point...) to his final &amp;quot;You people have no right to come to this town....&amp;quot;  Ultimately, we find that his words were pretty much in vain.  Nevertheless, his and Hatsfield&amp;#039;s standing up to the agents is a testament to their characters, who in reality refused bribes from coal corporations. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to point out another Glade Plug-In Moment - When Hillard&amp;#039;s (not sure how to spell) Mom offers her extra food to the large Italian family and there is some trouble in the communication - then all of the sudden a vague gesture indicates for the white lady to sit down and POOF the Italian woman understands a compliment about her beautiful children. I agree that there is a good point here that there was a mixing of cultures, immigrants, blacks and white hillbillies, but it is cinematic effect again that transcends all language barrier that is unbelievable to me. And for the record I was a grumbler as we left the theater, I didn&amp;#039;t particularly like the movie and I&amp;#039;m not a film buff but I do know what I like and don&amp;#039;t like entertainment-wise. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was it common to have young people working in the coal mines?  I think the movie showed the boy preacher, I believe his name was Danny, working in the coal mines.  ~Katherine~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel like someone as young as Danny would not have been allowed to work in the coal mines, or would he of because he would have been cheaper labor?  Also, would a congregation really sit and listen to a 15 year old preach to them?  That just seemed a bit weird to me. Danny also didn&amp;#039;t know how to throw a baseball apparently, but that&amp;#039;s a different subject altogether. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katherine and Kelly, I&amp;#039;m pretty sure that at the time, especially with labor like this, that there were HS-age kids working in the mines. They are cheap labor and are probably going to be healthier for longer, also making them long-available labor. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also don&amp;#039;t think the movie did all that great of a job showing the dangers of working in a coal mine.  None of the characters had coal mining related injuries, but there was one guy in the beginning of the movie who had a bad cough, he might have had black lung from all the coal dust. ~Katherine~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Katherine.  Did anyone else notice how spacious the mine seemed?  They could stand up fully and there was even room to socialize.  That&amp;#039;s a far cry from the boys who get deformed because the mine is too cramped for even their small bodies to be in. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just a minor issue, the readings led me to believe, it could have been just the one, that most miners didn&amp;#039;t leave or get out of the mines until after dark, but they definitely left and got home in the daylight, at least in the beginning. I&amp;#039;ll try to remember to update this after I finish the movie. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Some of the problems I had with this movie is that I feel it really simplified the race ethnic union unification. It would not be something that would happen as rapidly and easily as the movie showed, but something that would take a lot of effort over time. I also did not like the fact that after the first scene in the movie no one else was shown either sick or coughing although the damage to peoples lungs would carry on even when they were not working in the mines. A lot of scenes also felt cliche or just silly. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
According to the reading &amp;quot;The Bitter Cry of Children,&amp;quot; there were kids working in the coal mines with men.  They acted as &amp;quot;breaker boys,&amp;quot; collecting coal deposits and doing other menial tasks.  The significance here is that they experienced the same harsh conditions as the men, but at a greater cost because they are weaker (i.e. most die as a result).  I think Danny is representative of this youth (but keep in mind that there were younger kids working as well), but I have trouble interpreting his role as a preacher-in-training.  How much of a role did religion play with the labor union?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the part when the different groups (whites, Italians, Blacks) were playing their traditional music, which ended up harmonizing together to foreshadow in a way of unity to come.  How long did it take normally for each race to trust each other and join as one union? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The biggest problem with &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably the lack of a larger national context. There isn’t much mention of the other parts of America going through the same struggles, which gives the sense that the strike in Matewan is somehow unique. In fact, I don’t think they even uttered the name United Mine Workers of America. Perhaps it makes the movie stronger in that it focuses on the interworkings and interrelationships of a small community, but it feels almost like Matewan exists in a bubble. Also, there is the issue of the fictional outsider, Joe Kenehan, who comes to bring his message of hope and economic justice and essentially “clean up” the town by spreading ideas of passive resistance and equality and what not. It almost plays like some Western movies (a la &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;), but not quite, as it’s clear that Joe’s efforts didn’t really succeed. There are also a lot of issues that aren’t covered, as things in Matewan didn’t end with the massacre. I didn’t feel like Danny gave much of a conclusion at the end of the movie that portrayed the continuing conflict. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to Taylor&amp;#039;s point, the only reference to a national labor movement was the fictional character Joe, who was supposed to serve as its representative.  Several times in the movie, Joe made reference to what &amp;quot;the Union&amp;quot; had to say on the issue of the strike at Matewan - how the people were supposed to wait for further instruction while the big national guys decided their next move.  Well, in the movie, the local workers of Matewan were initially very excited about the prospect of joining a union and being part of a bigger movement (eluded to when the initial leader/ Baldwin Felts spy proclaims to have been a union man all his life).  When Joe gives the workers the wait and see speech, after they all followed his advice and joined the union at great personal risk, all the workers felt betrayed and ostracized him, held meetings without him and even plotted his assassination.  Now, to what extent did a backlash actually occur against national union organizers?  I got the impression from class and the readings the union leaders were highly regarded - Buster Ratliff cites the UMWA president John L. Lewis as delivering him from slavery, so it was odd to see such local animosity against the outside union man.~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the black scabs are considering joining the union, Few Clothes likens the mining situation to slavery, largely due to the fact that the miners are made to be entirely dependent upon the company for its needs.  Referring to the start of the UMWA, Ratliff has called the mining situation slavery.  In &amp;quot;The Tyranny of the Company Store&amp;quot; we read accounts of the forced dependence.  Having to work for as long as they did, in the danger they did, essentially getting in return their food and housing, perhaps clothing, all subtracted from the binding scrip wages, and not being economically able to move out of the town, was akin to some conditions of slavery. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found it interesting that the Piece Rate system that we heard only good things about in the reading was actually not endorsed by Joe in the film. Now I am skeptical of who wrote this account. Joe&amp;#039;s machinery explanation makes more sense to me.  - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another part of the readings that I found odd in comparison to the film was the passivity of the dying coal miners in their last notes to their loved ones. In the film these miners seemed anything but passive. Religious and definitely along the same lines of waiting for their loved ones in heaven, but a little more spiteful towards the poor conditions that caused deaths and injuries. Only one man writes to his sons to never become coal miners - I felt it should have been more than that. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What I didn&amp;#039;t like about the movie was how little they focused on actually being in the mines (although, for the record you couldn&amp;#039;t see a thing while they were actually in the mines so maybe it&amp;#039;s for the best.)  because the audience never got a sense of how terrible work actually was in there.  In some of the readings you can really get a sense that there was little air and that they were getting sick and trapped and injured but in the movie, more people died of gunfire than via coal mining.  It just didn&amp;#039;t seem to measure up right. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading for this week titled “Oh God, For One More Breath”: Early 20th century Tennessee Coal Miners’ Last Words, showed how religious these people were.  They constantly referred to Jesus, and how they were going to go to Heaven, and wanted to meet their family up there too. These documents reminded me of how religious the miners in the movie, especially the Italians, were with their statues of Mary, and other religious items.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading, “The Greatest Thing” Hawkins and Ratliff were talking about the revival of the UMWA by John L. Lewis and the election of FDR as the end of “slavery”. The use of slavery- era rhetoric is interesting, and I think apt. Using this language has particular prudence in the American discussion of workers rights, but was it uniquely American? I imagine that in the European context “slavery” would not be as emotive and catalytic. So, I guess that begs the question, how effective was this kind of rhetoric in America in terms of union membership and support?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Considering how religious mine workers were from the readings it seems off the way movie treats religion. Joe Canahan is accepted in the movie easily enough even after he states he is not religious. It seems that type of behavior would alienate and anger a lot mine workers who were very religious. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The &amp;quot;Tennessee Coal Miners&amp;#039; Last Words&amp;quot; does not directly relate, but I think it does help to further impress just how serious a job coal mining was, and why it was so important to fight for better working conditions and more rights. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the reading by John Spargo, he talks about the poor conditions of coal mining for the children. An example is being a coal break.  In the film Danny is a good example of a child who is too young to work in the coal mines. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To learn more about the role of religion among the child coal breakers, the author of &amp;quot;The Bitter Cry of Children&amp;quot; asks a boy if he knows God.  The boy says, &amp;quot;God? He must work in some other mine.&amp;quot;  That is one extreme effect that coal mining has on the life of a child.  We saw the religion in the adult miners&amp;#039; last letters, but this boy is worked so much that he has no time for religious study and any family or acquaintances of his have taught him anything about God.  He&amp;#039;s not living in the greatest conditions to believe in an all-loving, all-powerful God.  Apparently the role of religion was not consistent throughout different mining towns or the ages of  miners.  In the film, the religious men can believe that the union holds a higher hope for them from their lowly, oppressed state, such that they will be delivered from the tyrant&amp;#039;s hand.  It is good to take advantage of religion for Preacher boy to get his points across to the miners without having to rat anyone out.  Besides, Danny tells the end of his Bible stories inaccurately just to make his point. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Reading Eugene V. Deb&amp;#039;s platform for socialism, it seems pretty clear why there was such a socialist movement in the early 20th century, evident by the kind of votes he received in 1912.  Even after the red scare, the appeal of socialist ideals was still strong for many exploited workers, such as equality for all workers, regardless of race or ethnicity.  The &amp;quot;class conflict&amp;quot; was evident in the movie too, in the form of the workers or the producers versus the non producers.  That is what was ironic about the red scare - even though the people were afraid of communists, they themselves agreed with many socialist policies. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a United States Court of Appeals case that included UMWA and a coal company back in the 1980s (INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant-Appellant: 916 F.2d 1499; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18131; 135 L.R.R.M. 2663; 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,363 [Source: Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.com]). Since the events that was discussed in the case happened when the movie came out, this is evidence that there was unrest between the miners and the mine owners that they worked for, even up to the late 1980s. So, there had to be tensions during the production of the film. In this particular case, there was an agreement between the two parties that expired in spring of 1987. The employers gave the miners an offer that the union rejected by striking. Afterward, the company refused to let some of the workers back on the basis of misconduct during the strike (like Dr. M said during the lecture, the companies found ways to get at the strikers). The court ruled in favor of the union.-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found an article comparing the 1920s and 1980s (in a general sense, it seems) that mentions the state of unions in both periods. Basically, it seems to say that unions in the 1980s were facing the same problems as in the 1920s - layoffs, wage slashes, inability to affect policy or working conditions. Union membership declined in the 1980s, from some 25 percent of the workforce to 17 percent, much like in the 1920s when union membership dropped from 4.5 million in 1920 to 2.7 million in 1928 (according to this article, but generally it does jive with what we learned on Tuesday). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
s far as the movie being a primary source, it portrays Sid Hatfield as an archetypal cowboy.  Perhaps this because he was the sheriff.  Either way, this portrayal is romanticized and informs us more about ourselves than the historical Sid Hatfield. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it was neat how they made the impression that the young boy, Danny, was the narrator in the movie. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Ashley on how they made Danny as the narrator for the film. Most characters who narrate are much older than Danny’s age when telling a story about their past life situations. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was looking up old movie reviews for Matewan, and the critics seemed to like it - called it one of Sayles&amp;#039;s best pictures.  Personally, I didn&amp;#039;t really care for the movie. I found it boring and hard to follow, even if it was mostly historically accurate. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving  our luxury theatre. So here&amp;#039;s my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of &amp;quot;There Will Be Blood,&amp;quot; a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out &amp;quot;I abandoned my boy!&amp;quot; There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t agree more! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Holy crap. Take it back Jackie. Take it back right now. There Will Be Blood was the best movie I&amp;#039;ve seen in years, unquestionably. How can you possibly rag on a PT Anderson film?! And if we are going to nitpick actors, Will Oldham showed everyone why he should have stuck to music. He&amp;#039;s great in Old Joy, but pretty awful in this. However, Chris Cooper showed why he has been given so many solid roles in later years, and I have yet to see a James Earl Jones movie I don&amp;#039;t like. And did anyone else notice that the guy who plays Dr.Kelso on &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Scrubs&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; was in this?? -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Ok, now I enjoyed Matewan, but I feel that comparisons to TWBB are mostly superficial. Yes they both are centered on extractive industries in rural areas pre WWII, and yes there is the young preacher in both films as well. But first, I have to say that the music (at least for me) served different purposes in each film. Whereas in Matewan (and again I wasn&amp;#039;t wholly focused on it) the music struck me more as just capturing the feel of the region, but TWBB&amp;#039;s score (by the guitarist from Radiohead I believe) served more to heighten tension and highlight the rise and fall of Daniel Plainview. Then there are the characters. Matewan as you said, has a strong ensemble, but TWBB was basically all Daniel Day Lewis all the time (though Paul Dano was effectively creepy). Also, Matewan focuses on the workers themselves and to my knowledge didn&amp;#039;t even name the owners, whereas in TWBB the lowly workers largely are ignored. Regarding the films&amp;#039; young preachers, I felt that in TWBB Dano&amp;#039;s character was used to be a sort of distorted mirror image of DDL. His church grows as does Plainview&amp;#039;s oil company, and in the end they are both men who have essentially fallen from grace, and I don&amp;#039;t feel that Matewan used the boy-preacher in the same manner. Also, Matewan was attempting to depict a specific historical event and place, whereas I felt that TWBB (based off an Upton Sinclair novel) was more allegorical in its approach by showing the self-made (and self-destructed) man. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I enjoy PT Anderson as well, but certainly he is not infallible. The ending to Magnolia, I don&amp;#039;t want to spoil it because it&amp;#039;s still a good movie, but seriously what the hell? -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I think the ending of Magnolia was the most important split second of film-making ever. That smile said everything! -Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, I must respond! Working backwards- yes, Cash is right about Magnolia (even if it is off topic), brilliant ending that gives hope to the still pondering viewer! Next, I am not saying that Matewan and TWBB are completely the same or total parallels, Bryan. I was simply trying to preemptively defend Matewan since so many people were grumbling about it after the viewing (or inappropriately laughing... Christine). I wanted to compare it to another acclaimed film that could easily receive the same criticisms towards pacing or depressing themes on humanity (making it, simply, not a fun watch). The films are also both stylistically excellent, though I was not trying to compare the scores, since they are obviously very different and used for very different story-telling effects (I just said I liked them). And on the topic of Will Oldham&amp;#039;s performance, the character annoyed me at first, but his performance only grew stronger throughout the movie, along with his character. And lastly, Cash, you must be very sensitive about TWBB if you think I was ragging on it before. Personally, I never want to see it again because DDL&amp;#039;s character is so excellently despicable and undeserving of sympathy and the long open shots of the midwest make me want to fall asleep... but it is in no way a bad movie (in fact it is quite original, creative, brilliantly acted/scripted, thought provoking, and stirring) as I think I have made clear. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, I liked how the spy in Matewan was the guy who played the warden in Shawshank. That man is good at being evil. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Oh come, now, Jackie.  You couldn&amp;#039;t understand the WV accent?  I enjoyed listening to the dialect (and understanding it all), but I think my awareness of and interest in dialects other than my own (I&amp;#039;m told it&amp;#039;s largely Midwest) have been heightened since I&amp;#039;ve been taking linguistics. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Slowest. Movie. Ever. I don&amp;#039;t care how accurate it was, for me it was as slow as Last of the Mohicans.  Scratch that, it felt 12 times longer. Also, I&amp;#039;m beyond upset that they killed Hillard.  He was my favorite.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this was the movie that was the hardest for me to get through. Although, I thought it was comparable to Patriot&amp;#039;s meandering story, not so much Mohicans, which I love every time I sit down to watch it. I&amp;#039;m not the biggest Heath Ledger fan though... -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that that this movie is very evenly paced for what it is depicting. Its not like a war movie, this deals with strikes and unions. Its not like Mel Gibson is in this movie. The miners have to strike hard enough to be noticed but not enough to be considered a riot.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Awh, come on now, those accents were bad or thick.  I should know, been out that way a lot with having lots of family from WV... I thought it was easy enough to understand them to be honest, but my golden rule is if you have trouble understanding put subtitles on.  :-D --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My rule is...if you can&amp;#039;t understand some words...context, context, context.  Then subtitles if you still can&amp;#039;t get it. -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way the Baldwin detectives in the movie feels very stylistic too me. They are portrayed as complete vllians with no sympathetic attributes whatsoever. The movie takes a clear good versus evil approach. Sure the Baldwin detectives may have done terrible things, but I think this movie goes too far in portraying them as evil. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I had to watch this movie over two days (not because it was boring, but because I had to leave in the middle of the screening, so I finished the next day).  So during my intermission, I IMDB&amp;#039;d the film and was impressed by how critically-acclaimed the movie was.  Upon finishing the film and the readings (and regarding the lecture), I found very strong correlations between all sources.  &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Matewan&amp;#039;&amp;#039; included all the characters mentioned in class (unlike &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;), it implemented the main themes from the readings (children working in the mines, the idea of science in industry, the role of violence, etc).  So while the movie indeed moved at a snail&amp;#039;s pace, I think we should sacrifice that for movies that work hard to achieve historical accuracy.  I also challenge the class to not mention Mel Gibson once for next week&amp;#039;s wiki comments.  We can put his name in the same bubble as we did with &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Gone With the Wind&amp;#039;&amp;#039;.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the comparison with There Will Be Blood.  These are two very different, though great, films.  (TWWB or Atonement should have won the Oscar over No Country!)  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matewan is definitely a film buff&amp;#039;s movie.  It&amp;#039;s one of those films I&amp;#039;m glad I&amp;#039;ve seen, but probably wouldn&amp;#039;t watch again.  Stunning cinematography and use of music, great acting, etc.  It effectively conveys the oppressive, claustrophobic atmosphere of a West Virginia mining town (and of the mines themselves).  To echo what I said above, I think this is the best secondary source of the past that we&amp;#039;ve seen so far.  Too bad we couldn&amp;#039;t have watched this before the midterm!  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Thinking about Matewan, I started to get the idea that this movie was kind of like a Western, at least in the conventions it used. You have the lone lawman standing up to ruthless oppressors in Chief Hatfield. Kenehan is the outsider who rides (though by rail) into town and stirs up trouble. There are the women who are basically just there to be manipulated or ignored by the men. The final shootout that the movie builds up to is just like any number of western shootouts. You could even argue that Few Clothes functions in a similar fashion to an Indian chief. I found it interesting to see the fight for unions and labor rights in Appalachia applied to traditional aspects of the western genre. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with this movie being slow but it is definitely one of the more accurate movies we&amp;#039;ve watched (company stores and the cruel/creepy bosses/Felts just to name a few). But, the music is awesome and I felt claustrophobic (esp during the opening credits) just watching this movie! -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thoght the use of the church to tell parts of the story was a very well done and really moved it along.--matt&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie does a good job at recreating the rugged life of a union mineworker.  Parts of the movie aid the historical accuracy in the film.  The viewer gets an idea of how rough life was for mineworkers by observing their union meetings.  Race relations are portrayed well by showing how the Africans and Italians resented each other, but in the end in order to strengthen the union they put their differences aside for the bigger picture.  Earl Jones refers to once being a member of the wobblies, which adds context to other labor movements.  Few Clothes Johnson as a strikebreaker turned union leader is accurate, along with the portrayal of hard life in coal mining towns.  Communism is also mentioned.  &lt;br /&gt;
The movie makes it seem like all mine workers took in some form on union, when only 1/3 were unionized and when 60% of coal came from non-union mines.  Also, it would have been nice to have seen more resistance from the coal miners portrayed in the movie, such as more coal mine explosions, shootouts, and strikers that have signs with large anti corporal print.  A scene portraying something similar to the 1921 10,000 man armed march on Logan WV would have added intensity.  –James Drury&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really do love this movie. I think it pretty much hit the nail on the historical head despite some of its issues. And really, do some of these issues matter too much in a general sense? How many people even knew about Matewan before this class? I had never heard of the town, and I certainly didn’t know about the strike. It wasn’t even a successful strike, and it didn’t really turn the tide either against or in favor of unions. On the subject of its pacing, I understand why some people might find it boring because it moves slowly and there isn’t always a lot of action, but I personally think that seeing character interactions and emotional responses make for stronger movies.  This movie definitely did well in getting across the emotions of these people, and I think that’s why it’s so good. The great acting certainly helps too, and there were some really amazing performances here. I could feel their complete powerlessness, victimization, desperation, and bitter rage. Heck, it makes me want to join a union to combat corporate injustice! I do think that this is also a terrible movie in that it is so depressing. While there are certainly heroic “hell yeah!” moments where it makes you proud to be a member of the human race (the police chief Hatfield in general, Danny informing the crowd of Joe’s innocence through a sermon, Elma shooting the Baldwin-Felts jerk), there are a lot more “people are jerks, life sucks and you can’t do anything about it” parts (I think special mention goes to the murder of poor Hillard). At the very least, the movie makes it clear that whether unions are successful or not, they can provide a sense of hope and community among different people, which was maybe John Sayles’ message, as Matewan was made during the 1980s when union membership and political power was declining. --Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-29T02:03:13Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them.  They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job.  Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems.  The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real?  I do not remember talking about him in class at all?  Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving  our luxury theatre. So here&amp;#039;s my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of &amp;quot;There Will Be Blood,&amp;quot; a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out &amp;quot;I abandoned my boy!&amp;quot; There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 10 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-29T01:59:28Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them.  They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job.  Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems.  The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real?  I do not remember talking about him in class at all?  Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving  our luxury theatre. So here&amp;#039;s my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of &amp;quot;There Will Be Blood,&amp;quot; a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. When the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out &amp;quot;I Abandoned My Boy!&amp;quot; There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the largely ensemble cast of character, please do, and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. The sound was a bit crappy, and no one can understand a Western Virginian accent but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we&amp;#039;ve watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-23T07:03:12Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...The names were right.  And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;d like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target.  I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West.  Also, even though the Clanton family didn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;rustle&amp;quot; the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Problems of the Old West&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 198).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie correctly portrayed Doc Holiday&amp;#039;s character as suffering from Tuberculosis.  Such as the movie depicted, this condition led to Doc Holiday&amp;#039;s move out west, where the climate was warmer and drier.  This was a common strategy for many who suffered from the illness in the 19th century. Not wishing to suffer the painful slow death of consumption, Doc Holiday led a reckless life, thinking death by gun or knife to be better.  Another common treatment for consumption was a special kind of liquor used to control the cough - this was also depicted in the movie, when Holiday takes a sip from the bottle on his night stand, given to him by his lady friend Chihuahua(what a name for a prostitute!) ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of my favorite moments was when Wyatt buffaloed one of the Tombstone Cowboys. It was actually accurate, as we mentioned Earp’s love of pistol whipping people in class. And it was totally awesome! --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The little details are touchingly accurate.  In the church scene, a pair of American flags is visible, displaying the correct star configuration for the early 1880s. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First Off - the song &amp;quot;Oh my Darling, Clementine,&amp;quot; the movie&amp;#039;s namesake - not a song about a prim and proper nurse who travels west from town to town to find her long last doctor love, only to be scorned by the new woman in his life.  The song is about the daughter of a miner in the California Gold Rush of 1949, who falls into the water and drowns.  So why, oh why, invent the title character Clementine and open up the movie with the song? The fictional character Clementine Carter in the movie didn&amp;#039;t even have anything to do with the hostile dynamics between the Clantons and Earps, and certainly nothing to do with the OK Corral.  So, how does the title of the movie, &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; even relate to the main plot of the movie? ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona&amp;#039;s heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West?  Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then.  Were hospitals built?  If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong.  Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of &amp;#039;hero&amp;#039; in class on Tuesday, but that&amp;#039;s how he is portrayed in the film.  Also... I don&amp;#039;t remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier.  Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone?  This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have &amp;#039;heard&amp;#039; of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie.  It was very stereotypical of westerns.  It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn&amp;#039;t even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did the director kill of poor James Earp? as far as i can tell he was one of the only good brothers. I don&amp;#039;t understand why a director changes history in order to make a story work. The director apparently only want to have a classic western then an actually historical story. The Clanton&amp;#039;s are immediately made the villains and the Earp&amp;#039;s are the righteous heroes.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another major problem in this movies historical accuracy is the relationship between Doc Holliday and Wyatt Erp. They were already friends before they even came to Tombstone. They also had their own women and their wasn&amp;#039;t a rivalry between them like the movie portrays. Morgan dosen&amp;#039;t die to after the showdown not before. Wheres Wyatt&amp;#039;s pistol whipping. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt just wanted to play a nice game of honest poker and he basically quit after finding out about Chihuahua helping his rivals was just cute. He totally seemed like such an upstanding guy that he would never put up with that. He easily wins over the prettiest, smartest girl, doesn&amp;#039;t take up with the prostitute, and is only trying to avenge his family. What a vision of the Old West! -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wyatt Earp: The Classic Western Hero. He’s just a noble, avenging passerby who comes in to clean up an immoral and violent little town and seek justice for his brother. After he’s done what he set out to do he leaves as quickly as he swept in. He’s played as the traditional stock cowboy hero that can be seen in most Westerns. The problem is the real Wyatt Earp wasn’t much like that. He was a drinking, gambling vagrant who could be just as immoral as the towns he was acting as marshal for. But it’s Henry Fonda, and who wants to see wholesome Henry Fonda as a scoundrel? I&amp;#039;m scarred enough from seeing Gregory Peck in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Boys from Brazil&amp;#039;&amp;#039;… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What was up with Clementine and Chihuahua? Are they based on the various ladies we talked about in class? It’s no wonder Chihuahua died though, with a dentist (at least that’s what Doc Holliday really was) doing surgery on her. And the ages of the brothers were all messed up. The movie made Wyatt seem like the oldest, but James was actually the oldest. And where was Warren Earp, the youngest brother? Also, James wasn’t killed. In fact, Morgan was the only brother who got killed. It’s kind of terrible actually, because the inside slip that comes with my DVD says that the real life feuding was “initially set in motion by the slaying of James Earp, Wyatt’s younger brother.” Yeah… okay. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One major issue I had with the character of Clementine is that she didn&amp;#039;t look at all like she had just traveled from Boston to Arizona.  She was completely put together and clean-cut and was also beyond thrilled to have arrived.  I feel that for a young woman to make that trip on her own would have been completely unrealistic.  With the amount of baggage she had with her (which, yes most women do tend to bring when packing for trips) that trip solo would have been nearly impossible.  Especially to keep up her physical appearance. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Century of Dishonor&amp;#039;&amp;#039;). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;were&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the &amp;quot;Indian Department&amp;quot; help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage&amp;quot; at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as &amp;quot;naturally warlike&amp;quot; so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edward Gould Buffum&amp;#039;s Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to  a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out.  McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn&amp;#039;t have the skill, he couldn&amp;#039;t control the cattle and they would run away.  It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps&amp;#039; cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere.  Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother&amp;#039;s death.  Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle.  Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading &amp;quot;Major Problems in the American West&amp;quot; does mention vigilante action taken up for cattle rustling, and mentions Roosevelt&amp;#039;s advocacy. We definitely see plenty of vigilante action somewhat connected to rustling. The reading on women in the West makes conditions seem totally unfavorable and a rough life. It seems wrong that Clementine would be so clean, even-tempered and patient after such a long, roundabout, and seemingly dangerous journey. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to Amanda&amp;#039;s comment, in Sister Monica&amp;#039;s Diary of a Journey to Arizona, the Sister talks about how harsh the trip westward actually was - she mentions frequently all the graves and dead animals she passes.  She mentions the wildness of  the men they encounter, she mentions how arduous the trip could be, as food and supplies run out.  The Sister was successful in her journey because of the Driver and the resourcefulness of the other women with her.  There would be absolutely no way a woman, like Clementine, could make that journey alone.  Not to mention - a single female traveling alone from one frontier town to the next would be extremely vulnerable to the darker nature of man and most likely would never actually reach her destination, and as Amanda said, certainly not looking as she did when she arrived. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m reading a book about John Ford&amp;#039;s films because I am analyzing The Grapes of Wrath for my research project. For My Darling Clementine the author makes the argument that the film is almost allegorical in its set-up. It says, &amp;quot;Wyatt Earp (the U.S.) gives up marshalling in Dodge City (World War I), but takes up arms again to combat the Clantons (WWII) to make the world safe. Victory is horrible, and Wyatt must return to the wilderness, to his father (confession; reconstruction), leaving innocence, hope, and civilization (Clementine) behind, a distant memory (the long road) in Tombstone (the world of 1946).&amp;quot; --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 21:50, 22 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my research for The Searchers I too have noticed the same pattern, as Ethan Edwards upon returning Debby to white civilization does not enter through the door, left to roam the country alone. The man taking up arms to make the world safe patter is also evident in Ford&amp;#039;s The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. From what I have read it was also a part of Stagecoach, but I could be wrong. -B Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says &amp;quot;Some day, this country&amp;#039;s gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come.&amp;quot; These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt kicks out the drunk indian reflects stereotypes and racism towards Indians during the time period. As far as history about the times goes this scene seems unusual because as racist as people were towards Indians at that time period it seems more likely that the people would have ganged up and killed the Indian and it seems unusual that there was even an Indian in the town in the first place. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The choice to cast a white woman, Linda Darnell, as the Hispanic Chihuahua (nice name) seems to reflect a general trend in Hollywood at this time.  Dr. McClurken mentioned in class that Gone With the Wind was unusual in that it featured African-American actors instead of white actors in blackface.  That being said, I wasn&amp;#039;t at all surprised to see an Anglo-American with dark hair playing a Hispanic woman in My Darling Clementine.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What always strikes me about these older movies are the power punches pack. With one single blow Wyatt knocked Doc over and unconscious - Hollywood&amp;#039;s fist fights were always so clean and dramatic. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dear G-d John Ford! &amp;quot;What are you doing selling liquor to an Indian anyway?!&amp;quot;- Fonda... well I guess I should be happy the line didn&amp;#039;t read &amp;quot;Ingun&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;Redskin.&amp;quot; This kind of treatment is characteristic of all westerns throughout the big western movie era. Henry Fonda&amp;#039;s daughter, Jane Fonda, did a western spoof film in the late 60s called &amp;quot;Cat Balloo&amp;quot; &lt;br /&gt;
where they make fun of the classic films blatant racism and stereotyping of Native Americans. I think Blazing Saddles did this too in the late 60s or early 70s. At least some filmmakers, by the time of the civil rights movement were aware of this negative portrayal, but the only ones to point it out were comedies, which were not exactly correcting the stereotype. This film is praised as being one of John Ford&amp;#039;s most moralistic and sensitive films by its fans and look what kind of an example it is giving!--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This seems like the type of movie that was created for sheer entertainment purposes and not actually to retell a historical event.  Now, I&amp;#039;m not sure if that is an accurate assumption or not, but if so, then I&amp;#039;m not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;too concerned&amp;#039;&amp;#039; with what it relayed.  That being said, I definitely agree with Jason that it is a damaging portrayal of the American west and a group of men that actually lived the lifestyle.  You learn pretty much nothing about Wyatt Earp, except that he had three brothers and was a Marshall, and you learn only the names of pretty much everyone else involved in his life.  It&amp;#039;s an unrealistic depiction that shaped the way most Americans thought the west to be.  But, as we&amp;#039;ve learned this semester, it&amp;#039;s not the only movie to do that. And I also really like the movie so I can&amp;#039;t bash it too much.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My Darling Clementine succeeds only as a classic.  The movie does a mediocre job representing the historic context of Wyatt Earp’s story.  The portrayal of post civil war chaos in the movie is historically accurate as it shows that every man fended for himself and that unfocused violence was common.  The portrayal of westward migration is accurate, with the exception that the movie rarely shows other ethnicities who shared the same space.  Great movie, but overall historical accuracy seems to be secondary in the movie, as it provides us with entertainment, not facts.   James D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie wasn&amp;#039;t really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn&amp;#039;t about her?! -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson&amp;#039;s character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don&amp;#039;t know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris&amp;#039; character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing.  In this film and in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Tombstone&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (not sure about &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;&amp;#039; though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out.  I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling).  So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I watched this movie I kept thinking back to Tombstone. Tombstone was one of my favorite movies and so I found myself constantly comparing the two movies in my head while watching it. Tombstone really did a much better job at portraying the characters then My Darling Clementine. First off all the important characters were included in Tombstone while many characters were excluded in My Darling Clementine such as Maddie, Mayor Beahan, Johnny Ringo etc. Tombstone also portrayed Wyatt in a more accurate way as a gambler who would use pistol whipping violence to get what he wanted and was only really interested in justice when he had something personal at stake. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t understand why the director would change so many details about the shoot out. When we talked about it in class it seems to me the real thing would have been dramatic enough to make into to a film. There were the two sides, the hatred between the two sides, the love triangle, the event that sparks the need for the fight, and the eventual showdown. Why make up other people and events? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My research project is on The Searchers, another Ford Western, and in many texts Ford is lauded for bringing his sensibilities from the silent film era where he started into the more modern film era. I was curious if anyone picked up any techniques that were rooted in silent era practices? I don&amp;#039;t really have any exposure to silent films so I was curious if anyone was and picked up on anything?- B Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did wonder who ran/started the Oriental Saloon, when we clearly saw the sign but no trace of &amp;quot;Orientals.&amp;quot; Even the drunk Indian was seen in poor light and could have been any race from where I was sitting. I imagine this was purposefully done. I would like to think that it was because they did not want to show an actual Native American drunk and being shamed and kicked out of town, however, we know that Hollywood often has few qualms. Perhaps it was to maintain the lack of focus on anyone other than the whites? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Interesting fact (according to Wikipedia anyway) the Oriental Saloon in Tombstone was actually existed and was co-owned by Wyatt Earp, who ran the gambling concession there.~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine: Wasn&amp;#039;t this movie based off of the book, which was admitted to be entirely fiction?  I think the directors would be more likely to  use this known book with romance and drama (yes?) for their film in 1946 than do a bunch of research to find out what Earp&amp;#039;s true biography was and attempt any accuracy beyond the few names and general ideas that they used.  And whether or not they knew the facts about the shootout, one must admit that the film&amp;#039;s shootout out in the corral, with the fences to climb or dodge behind and the freaked-out horses to avoid, a long scene with strategy and multiple dramatic deaths, is much more entertaining to watch than 30 seconds of a 30 shots flying in a vacant lot with three &amp;quot;bad guys&amp;quot; dead and two who flee. However, I have never seen &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Tombstone&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, so I cannot compare them.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week.  Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?&amp;quot;  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan as something other than a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne&amp;#039;s westerns don&amp;#039;t lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don&amp;#039;t include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I&amp;#039;m guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it&amp;#039;s just a thought. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Boys, Boys. They are both racist assholes, so quit fighting. But Fonda was a pretty liberal guy for his day. In fact, Fonda (as a staunch Democrat) once got in an argument with his very good friend Jimmy Stewart (a staunch Republican) which led to a fist fight. They never discussed politics again). And I agree with the above comment, Victor Mature is totally sexier than Henry Fonda, what with all the brooding and being a misunderstood dentist (whoops, I mean SURGEON) Really, who expected him to be able to save Chihuahau? He only got his medical degree in ORAL surgery!--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I&amp;#039;ve been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone&amp;#039;s style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn&amp;#039;t expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is up with Chihuahua is she Latino? why not get an actually Hispanic actress instead of a white actress? I totally didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino until I looked it up on IMDB then I found out she didn&amp;#039;t even have a last name. That is just sad that a director introduces a character without at least giving it a last name. Seriously, I didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino except by her name, she just looked like a white lady that has never taken a bath.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt, I think she was supposed to. From her name and the fact that at one point, she called out &amp;quot;Mamacita!&amp;quot; (Mexican word for &amp;quot;little mother.&amp;quot; Note that it&amp;#039;s the Mexican Spanish. Spaniards would used &amp;quot;mamita.&amp;quot;) when she threw the bag of gold that Doc threw at her when he rushed off. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt, and Lauren, I don&amp;#039;t think Chihuahua is supposed to be Latino at all.  The name is just the name she has as an entertainer or whatever she can be classified as.  I don&amp;#039;t think it would have been uncommon to choose a Spanish word for a name (whether she or her employer did).  Chihuahua is actually a large state in northern Mexico.  Such a name might be considered exotic to a white man, although the girl isn&amp;#039;t (thus making her more desirable).  Also, just because she used &amp;quot;mamacita&amp;quot; doesn&amp;#039;t mean she has to be Latino.  We use Spanish expressions sometimes, too, and we&amp;#039;re not Latino!  And this is not the only instance in a film that a character is given only a first name because that&amp;#039;s all the only one mentioned in the movie! -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being a big fan of Tombstone really makes it hard for me to see this movie in a good way. Although Tombstone get several things wrong as well it portrayed the actual characters and situation far better than My Darling Clementine. Also the Doc Holliday in My Darling Clementine can never compare to Val Kilmers Doc Holliday from Tombstone. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. I have seen parts of old westerns before and so I had some knowledge of the style but I was expecting something more related to what we talked about in class on Tues. By the end of the movie I was very disappointed and couldn&amp;#039;t really understand what was supposed to be the plot, there were so many side plots. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anybody else notice the barbershop sign? Apparently, the barber and the dentist are the same man. While it’s certainly good for comic relief, I wonder if people actually did that in Western towns. I wouldn’t be surprised, as it seems like a good way to make more money and consolidate things in a small town. But really, what luck, two of the worst moments to be sitting in a bad chair: when you’re getting a shave and when you’re getting your teeth pulled. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve seen more than my fair share of Westerns in the last few months, and I gotta ask: am I the only one who wants to take up drinking whiskey after watching these movies? I am curious if these movies influenced whiskey consumption in the same way that cigarette use in older films likely made cigarettes &amp;quot;cool&amp;quot;? - B Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although we lampooned it a bit in class, I have to say that I much prefer Deadwood to this kind of Western.  Sensationalize the old West though it may, at least Deadwood is a phenomenal show.  And the very flawed Tombstone is entertaining sheerly because it is one of the cheesiest films ever made (so, so nineties).  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken in a vacuum, devoid of historical knowledge, comparison to other Wyatt Earp stories, or any other silly distractions, My Darling Clementine is great and entertaining, but going into the movie with the detailed character list we picked up in class, I was pretty disappointed  that the story didn&amp;#039;t stick closer to the truth.  The history was much more complicated, but so much more interesting.  It would have taken more than 90 minutes to tell the story as it happened, but we&amp;#039;ve seen Gone With the Wind, so we know America will pay to sit still for three hours and gobble up old stories. - JT Newcomb&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 9 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-23T06:34:14Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 6 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...The names were right.  And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;d like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target.  I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West.  Also, even though the Clanton family didn&amp;#039;t &amp;quot;rustle&amp;quot; the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Problems of the Old West&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, 198).  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie correctly portrayed Doc Holiday&amp;#039;s character as suffering from Tuberculosis.  Such as the movie depicted, this condition led to Doc Holiday&amp;#039;s move out west, where the climate was warmer and drier.  This was a common strategy for many who suffered from the illness in the 19th century. Not wishing to suffer the painful slow death of consumption, Doc Holiday led a reckless life, thinking death by gun or knife to be better.  Another common treatment for consumption was a special kind of liquor used to control the cough - this was also depicted in the movie, when Holiday takes a sip from the bottle on his night stand, given to him by his lady friend Chihuahua(what a name for a prostitute!) ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of my favorite moments was when Wyatt buffaloed one of the Tombstone Cowboys. It was actually accurate, as we mentioned Earp’s love of pistol whipping people in class. And it was totally awesome! --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The little details are touchingly accurate.  In the church scene, a pair of American flags is visible, displaying the correct star configuration for the early 1880s. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
WOW! Where to start with this movie! &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; rivals &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.&lt;br /&gt;
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. &lt;br /&gt;
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.&lt;br /&gt;
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. &lt;br /&gt;
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?&lt;br /&gt;
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???&lt;br /&gt;
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. &lt;br /&gt;
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans.  The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
First Off - the song &amp;quot;Oh my Darling, Clementine,&amp;quot; the movie&amp;#039;s namesake - not a song about a prim and proper nurse who travels west from town to town to find her long last doctor love, only to be scorned by the new woman in his life.  The song is about the daughter of a miner in the California Gold Rush of 1949, who falls into the water and drowns.  So why, oh why, invent the title character Clementine and open up the movie with the song? The fictional character Clementine Carter in the movie didn&amp;#039;t even have anything to do with the hostile dynamics between the Clantons and Earps, and certainly nothing to do with the OK Corral.  So, how does the title of the movie, &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; even relate to the main plot of the movie? ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on &amp;quot;ER&amp;quot; who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don&amp;#039;t see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, &amp;quot;Oui, Mademoiselle&amp;quot; about Doc&amp;#039;s health. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona&amp;#039;s heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand.  The film&amp;#039;s representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town.  We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town&amp;#039;s establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they&amp;#039;ve been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West?  Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then.  Were hospitals built?  If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong.  Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of &amp;#039;hero&amp;#039; in class on Tuesday, but that&amp;#039;s how he is portrayed in the film.  Also... I don&amp;#039;t remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier.  Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone?  This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have &amp;#039;heard&amp;#039; of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie.  It was very stereotypical of westerns.  It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn&amp;#039;t even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why did the director kill of poor James Earp? as far as i can tell he was one of the only good brothers. I don&amp;#039;t understand why a director changes history in order to make a story work. The director apparently only want to have a classic western then an actually historical story. The Clanton&amp;#039;s are immediately made the villains and the Earp&amp;#039;s are the righteous heroes.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another major problem in this movies historical accuracy is the relationship between Doc Holliday and Wyatt Erp. They were already friends before they even came to Tombstone. They also had their own women and their wasn&amp;#039;t a rivalry between them like the movie portrays. Morgan dosen&amp;#039;t die to after the showdown not before. Wheres Wyatt&amp;#039;s pistol whipping. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt just wanted to play a nice game of honest poker and he basically quit after finding out about Chihuahua helping his rivals was just cute. He totally seemed like such an upstanding guy that he would never put up with that. He easily wins over the prettiest, smartest girl, doesn&amp;#039;t take up with the prostitute, and is only trying to avenge his family. What a vision of the Old West! -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wyatt Earp: The Classic Western Hero. He’s just a noble, avenging passerby who comes in to clean up an immoral and violent little town and seek justice for his brother. After he’s done what he set out to do he leaves as quickly as he swept in. He’s played as the traditional stock cowboy hero that can be seen in most Westerns. The problem is the real Wyatt Earp wasn’t much like that. He was a drinking, gambling vagrant who could be just as immoral as the towns he was acting as marshal for. But it’s Henry Fonda, and who wants to see wholesome Henry Fonda as a scoundrel? I&amp;#039;m scarred enough from seeing Gregory Peck in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Boys from Brazil&amp;#039;&amp;#039;… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What was up with Clementine and Chihuahua? Are they based on the various ladies we talked about in class? It’s no wonder Chihuahua died though, with a dentist (at least that’s what Doc Holliday really was) doing surgery on her. And the ages of the brothers were all messed up. The movie made Wyatt seem like the oldest, but James was actually the oldest. And where was Warren Earp, the youngest brother? Also, James wasn’t killed. In fact, Morgan was the only brother who got killed. It’s kind of terrible actually, because the inside slip that comes with my DVD says that the real life feuding was “initially set in motion by the slaying of James Earp, Wyatt’s younger brother.” Yeah… okay. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One major issue I had with the character of Clementine is that she didn&amp;#039;t look at all like she had just traveled from Boston to Arizona.  She was completely put together and clean-cut and was also beyond thrilled to have arrived.  I feel that for a young woman to make that trip on her own would have been completely unrealistic.  With the amount of baggage she had with her (which, yes most women do tend to bring when packing for trips) that trip solo would have been nearly impossible.  Especially to keep up her physical appearance. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;A Century of Dishonor&amp;#039;&amp;#039;). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives &amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;were&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the &amp;quot;Indian Department&amp;quot; help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage&amp;quot; at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as &amp;quot;naturally warlike&amp;quot; so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;An Overland Journey&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Edward Gould Buffum&amp;#039;s Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to  a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out.  McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn&amp;#039;t have the skill, he couldn&amp;#039;t control the cattle and they would run away.  It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps&amp;#039; cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere.  Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother&amp;#039;s death.  Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle.  Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading &amp;quot;Major Problems in the American West&amp;quot; does mention vigilante action taken up for cattle rustling, and mentions Roosevelt&amp;#039;s advocacy. We definitely see plenty of vigilante action somewhat connected to rustling. The reading on women in the West makes conditions seem totally unfavorable and a rough life. It seems wrong that Clementine would be so clean, even-tempered and patient after such a long, roundabout, and seemingly dangerous journey. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To add to Amanda&amp;#039;s comment, in Sister Monica&amp;#039;s Diary of a Journey to Arizona, the Sister talks about how harsh the trip westward actually was - she mentions frequently all the graves and dead animals she passes.  She mentions the wildness of  the men they encounter, she mentions how arduous the trip could be, as food and supplies run out.  The Sister was successful in her journey because of the Driver and the resourcefulness of the other women with her.  There would be absolutely no way a woman, like Clementine, could make that journey alone.  Not to mention - a single female traveling alone from one frontier town to the next would be extremely vulnerable to the darker nature of man and most likely would never actually reach her destination, and as Amanda said, certainly not looking as she did when she arrived. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m reading a book about John Ford&amp;#039;s films because I am analyzing The Grapes of Wrath for my research project. For My Darling Clementine the author makes the argument that the film is almost allegorical in its set-up. It says, &amp;quot;Wyatt Earp (the U.S.) gives up marshalling in Dodge City (World War I), but takes up arms again to combat the Clantons (WWII) to make the world safe. Victory is horrible, and Wyatt must return to the wilderness, to his father (confession; reconstruction), leaving innocence, hope, and civilization (Clementine) behind, a distant memory (the long road) in Tombstone (the world of 1946).&amp;quot; --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 21:50, 22 October 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In my research for The Searchers I too have noticed the same pattern, as Ethan Edwards upon returning Debby to white civilization does not enter through the door, left to roam the country alone. The man taking up arms to make the world safe patter is also evident in Ford&amp;#039;s The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. From what I have read it was also a part of Stagecoach, but I could be wrong. -B Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better  time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I&amp;#039;m gonna be around here for a while. Can&amp;#039;t tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says &amp;quot;Some day, this country&amp;#039;s gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come.&amp;quot; These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene where Wyatt kicks out the drunk indian reflects stereotypes and racism towards Indians during the time period. As far as history about the times goes this scene seems unusual because as racist as people were towards Indians at that time period it seems more likely that the people would have ganged up and killed the Indian and it seems unusual that there was even an Indian in the town in the first place. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The choice to cast a white woman, Linda Darnell, as the Hispanic Chihuahua (nice name) seems to reflect a general trend in Hollywood at this time.  Dr. McClurken mentioned in class that Gone With the Wind was unusual in that it featured African-American actors instead of white actors in blackface.  That being said, I wasn&amp;#039;t at all surprised to see an Anglo-American with dark hair playing a Hispanic woman in My Darling Clementine.  -  Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What always strikes me about these older movies are the power punches pack. With one single blow Wyatt knocked Doc over and unconscious - Hollywood&amp;#039;s fist fights were always so clean and dramatic. ~Juliann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films.  What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;My Darling Clementine&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is as damaging as &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, but less definitive. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This seems like the type of movie that was created for sheer entertainment purposes and not actually to retell a historical event.  Now, I&amp;#039;m not sure if that is an accurate assumption or not, but if so, then I&amp;#039;m not &amp;#039;&amp;#039;too concerned&amp;#039;&amp;#039; with what it relayed.  That being said, I definitely agree with Jason that it is a damaging portrayal of the American west and a group of men that actually lived the lifestyle.  You learn pretty much nothing about Wyatt Earp, except that he had three brothers and was a Marshall, and you learn only the names of pretty much everyone else involved in his life.  It&amp;#039;s an unrealistic depiction that shaped the way most Americans thought the west to be.  But, as we&amp;#039;ve learned this semester, it&amp;#039;s not the only movie to do that. And I also really like the movie so I can&amp;#039;t bash it too much.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My Darling Clementine succeeds only as a classic.  The movie does a mediocre job representing the historic context of Wyatt Earp’s story.  The portrayal of post civil war chaos in the movie is historically accurate as it shows that every man fended for himself and that unfocused violence was common.  The portrayal of westward migration is accurate, with the exception that the movie rarely shows other ethnicities who shared the same space.  Great movie, but overall historical accuracy seems to be secondary in the movie, as it provides us with entertainment, not facts.   James D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie wasn&amp;#039;t really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard &amp;quot;My Darling Clementine&amp;quot; in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn&amp;#039;t about her?! -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson&amp;#039;s character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don&amp;#039;t know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris&amp;#039; character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing.  In this film and in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Tombstone&amp;#039;&amp;#039; (not sure about &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;&amp;#039; though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out.  I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling).  So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When I watched this movie I kept thinking back to Tombstone. Tombstone was one of my favorite movies and so I found myself constantly comparing the two movies in my head while watching it. Tombstone really did a much better job at portraying the characters then My Darling Clementine. First off all the important characters were included in Tombstone while many characters were excluded in My Darling Clementine such as Maddie, Mayor Beahan, Johnny Ringo etc. Tombstone also portrayed Wyatt in a more accurate way as a gambler who would use pistol whipping violence to get what he wanted and was only really interested in justice when he had something personal at stake. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t understand why the director would change so many details about the shoot out. When we talked about it in class it seems to me the real thing would have been dramatic enough to make into to a film. There were the two sides, the hatred between the two sides, the love triangle, the event that sparks the need for the fight, and the eventual showdown. Why make up other people and events? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
My research project is on The Searchers, another Ford Western, and in many texts Ford is lauded for bringing his sensibilities from the silent film era where he started into the more modern film era. I was curious if anyone picked up any techniques that were rooted in silent era practices? I don&amp;#039;t really have any exposure to silent films so I was curious if anyone was and picked up on anything?- B Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did wonder who ran/started the Oriental Saloon, when we clearly saw the sign but no trace of &amp;quot;Orientals.&amp;quot; Even the drunk Indian was seen in poor light and could have been any race from where I was sitting. I imagine this was purposefully done. I would like to think that it was because they did not want to show an actual Native American drunk and being shamed and kicked out of town, however, we know that Hollywood often has few qualms. Perhaps it was to maintain the lack of focus on anyone other than the whites? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Christine: Wasn&amp;#039;t this movie based off of the book, which was admitted to be entirely fiction?  I think the directors would be more likely to  use this known book with romance and drama (yes?) for their film in 1946 than do a bunch of research to find out what Earp&amp;#039;s true biography was and attempt any accuracy beyond the few names and general ideas that they used.  And whether or not they knew the facts about the shootout, one must admit that the film&amp;#039;s shootout out in the corral, with the fences to climb or dodge behind and the freaked-out horses to avoid, a long scene with strategy and multiple dramatic deaths, is much more entertaining to watch than 30 seconds of a 30 shots flying in a vacant lot with three &amp;quot;bad guys&amp;quot; dead and two who flee. However, I have never seen &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Wyatt Earp&amp;#039;&amp;#039; or &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Tombstone&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, so I cannot compare them.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week.  Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb.  Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to &amp;quot;Oh My Darling Clementine?&amp;quot;  They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including &amp;quot;dwelt a miner forty-niner&amp;quot;... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ.  And Clementine drowns.  And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don&amp;#039;t care about him (probably because I&amp;#039;ve never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan as something other than a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne&amp;#039;s westerns don&amp;#039;t lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don&amp;#039;t include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Bryan, I&amp;#039;m guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it&amp;#039;s just a thought. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Boys, Boys. They are both racist assholes, so quit fighting. But Fonda was a pretty liberal guy for his day. In fact, Fonda (as a staunch Democrat) once got in an argument with his very good friend Jimmy Stewart (a staunch Republican) which led to a fist fight. They never discussed politics again). And I agree with the above comment, Victor Mature is totally sexier than Henry Fonda, what with all the brooding and being a misunderstood dentist (whoops, I mean SURGEON) Really, who expected him to be able to save Chihuahau? He only got his medical degree in ORAL surgery!--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I&amp;#039;ve been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone&amp;#039;s style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn&amp;#039;t expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What is up with Chihuahua is she Latino? why not get an actually Hispanic actress instead of a white actress? I totally didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino until I looked it up on IMDB then I found out she didn&amp;#039;t even have a last name. That is just sad that a director introduces a character without at least giving it a last name. Seriously, I didn&amp;#039;t understand that she was Latino except by her name, she just looked like a white lady that has never taken a bath.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt, I think she was supposed to. From her name and the fact that at one point, she called out &amp;quot;Mamacita!&amp;quot; (Mexican word for &amp;quot;little mother.&amp;quot; Note that it&amp;#039;s the Mexican Spanish. Spaniards would used &amp;quot;mamita.&amp;quot;) when she threw the bag of gold that Doc threw at her when he rushed off. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Matt, and Lauren, I don&amp;#039;t think Chihuahua is supposed to be Latino at all.  The name is just the name she has as an entertainer or whatever she can be classified as.  I don&amp;#039;t think it would have been uncommon to choose a Spanish word for a name (whether she or her employer did).  Chihuahua is actually a large state in northern Mexico.  Such a name might be considered exotic to a white man, although the girl isn&amp;#039;t (thus making her more desirable).  Also, just because she used &amp;quot;mamacita&amp;quot; doesn&amp;#039;t mean she has to be Latino.  We use Spanish expressions sometimes, too, and we&amp;#039;re not Latino!  And this is not the only instance in a film that a character is given only a first name because that&amp;#039;s all the only one mentioned in the movie! -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Being a big fan of Tombstone really makes it hard for me to see this movie in a good way. Although Tombstone get several things wrong as well it portrayed the actual characters and situation far better than My Darling Clementine. Also the Doc Holliday in My Darling Clementine can never compare to Val Kilmers Doc Holliday from Tombstone. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really did not like this movie. I have seen parts of old westerns before and so I had some knowledge of the style but I was expecting something more related to what we talked about in class on Tues. By the end of the movie I was very disappointed and couldn&amp;#039;t really understand what was supposed to be the plot, there were so many side plots. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anybody else notice the barbershop sign? Apparently, the barber and the dentist are the same man. While it’s certainly good for comic relief, I wonder if people actually did that in Western towns. I wouldn’t be surprised, as it seems like a good way to make more money and consolidate things in a small town. But really, what luck, two of the worst moments to be sitting in a bad chair: when you’re getting a shave and when you’re getting your teeth pulled. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;ve seen more than my fair share of Westerns in the last few months, and I gotta ask: am I the only one who wants to take up drinking whiskey after watching these movies? I am curious if these movies influenced whiskey consumption in the same way that cigarette use in older films likely made cigarettes &amp;quot;cool&amp;quot;? - B Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although we lampooned it a bit in class, I have to say that I much prefer Deadwood to this kind of Western.  Sensationalize the old West though it may, at least Deadwood is a phenomenal show.  And the very flawed Tombstone is entertaining sheerly because it is one of the cheesiest films ever made (so, so nineties).  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Taken in a vacuum, devoid of historical knowledge, comparison to other Wyatt Earp stories, or any other silly distractions, My Darling Clementine is great and entertaining, but going into the movie with the detailed character list we picked up in class, I was pretty disappointed  that the story didn&amp;#039;t stick closer to the truth.  The history was much more complicated, but so much more interesting.  It would have taken more than 90 minutes to tell the story as it happened, but we&amp;#039;ve seen Gone With the Wind, so we know America will pay to sit still for three hours and gobble up old stories. - JT Newcomb&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-09T04:09:03Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Denzel Washington, as Private Trip, pulls off his shirt to receive his punishment after his apparent &amp;quot;desertion&amp;quot; the lash scars already on his back is what most, if not all, slaves had. It was rare that a slave did not feel the tip of a whip nor was it rare that a master or an overseer would use it or threaten to use it. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the movie shows the black soldiers initially as manual laborers, as Dr. M said today in the lecture today, was accurate. The men were hauling logs, I believe, when the white troops passed them. Although the work was not what they wanted, it enabled more white soldiers to the battle front. Related to the black soldiers, the fact that Shaw was shown to work &amp;#039;&amp;#039;hard&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in order to get his men to the battlefield, was exactly what Shaw had to do. Arming black men was not a popular idea with white people on both sides of the war. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To tag onto Lauren&amp;#039;s comment a bit - I felt that the confrontation between white union soldiers and the 54th regiment was realistic, as well as the trouble that Shaw and company encountered in convincing the supplier to give them shoes etc. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although many think that the 54th MA was the first black regiment in the Civil War, as it is more symbolic and is the one Glory is all about, the filmmakers try to prevent that misperception.  When Shaw meets Montgomery, he is asked something like, &amp;quot;you didn&amp;#039;t think yours was the only colored regiment, did you?&amp;quot; and we learn that the 2d SC existed before the 54th MA did. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tagging onto Whitney&amp;#039;s comment - I disagree that the film makers did other black regiments justice - they didn&amp;#039;t acknowledge other blacks actually fighting, and they portrayed them as &amp;quot;chimps in uniform&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;children&amp;quot; in the scene where they ransack the town of the &amp;#039;cessors. The movie seemed to make the 54th regiment the ONE exception to the rule and Shaw a great hero for respecting and believing in his black troops. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That&amp;#039;s a very good point, Elle. It was portrayed very negatively. -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am going to disagree with you two. The film says in the closing subtitles that more troops, 180,000 black men enlisting, were created after the Emancipation Proclamation. Suggesting that there were more Black troops and they certainly could have engaged in battle. The negative portrayal was not only cinematically beneficial, but it also helped tell a well-rounded history, and not simply glorify (pardon the word choice) the whole thing. The undisciplined troop spoke more to the white officers&amp;#039; views who commanded them rather than the quality of the enlisted men themselves. Shaw and the 54th, on the contrary, showed the positive results of black and white cooperation and respect. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that they brought up the fact that the union officers were appointed by social status. Shawl pretty much declares it in his letter when he said they made him captain of man who are older then him.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a great movie and one thing that really stood out to me was how accurately Shaw&amp;#039;s post traumatic stress disorder was portrayed. Towards the beginning of the movie when Shaw returns to Boston and is talking to Thomas at the gathering with his family,  a maid closes the window, which causes a loud BANG similar to a gunshot and Shaw jumps; showing how emotionally disturbed and on edge he is from having been to war. The disorder is also shown during the scene when the regiment first receive their guns and are pretending to fight one another, the look in Shaw&amp;#039;s eyes and on his face it is evident that he is still coping with having been in battle and almost killed. Post traumatic stress was a very common repercussion of war that isn&amp;#039;t always discussed so having it play a part in the film makes the movie, for me personally, more accurate. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also used one quote that we talked about during class.  One of the white Union soldiers made a comment about the 54th MA when they first assembled, and he said something along the lines of how the black soldiers were even more useless than a hog, because you at least eat a hog, you can&amp;#039;t eat a black person. By using an actual quote from the time period shows that the writers really did their research.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how the movie included black culture.  As Shaw is narrating his letters he is saying how he &amp;quot;doesn&amp;#039;t get the black people&amp;quot; and how they behave.  I don&amp;#039;t think this is out of anger but because he feels that in order to successfully lead an army, he needs to understand his troops (this comes into play when he punishes Denzel&amp;#039;s character, as discussed above).  Furthermore, before the final battle scene at Fort Wagner, the movie shows a touching scene as the soldiers are singing in prayer, preparing for battle. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the things the movie does best is show the overall treatment of blacks by the North. In the movie, they are discriminated against by receiving lesser pay and are slow to be provided with supplies. They are not allowed into battle and left to dig trenches and work as manual laborers. They are also mistreated and mocked by some unenthusiastic racist Northerners. As time passes, however, their discipline becomes clear, and they are allowed into battle where they prove their capabilities. The Northerners grow to respect the blacks and see them as actual people. The movie also does a fair job in expressing blacks’ reasons for volunteering. Their desire to prove themselves as equal to whites and fight for their people’s freedom is very clear. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; accurately depicts black regiments and their impact on blacks and Northerners in a larger historical context. At the very least, the larger historical picture is represented better in this movie than in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, which tried to play the trial off as more important than it really was. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing the movie does especially well is the battle scenes. It is quite clear that the tactics used by the Union and Confederate armies don’t match up to the technology they are using, resulting in terrible casualties and horrific injuries. The small glimpse of hospitals is pretty gruesome and accurate, especially the unsanitary conditions and the amputation scene.  Also, in the movie, Shaw seems to suffer from a bit of PTSD, which wasn’t uncommon for Civil War soldiers, though it certainly wasn’t diagnosed as PTSD until Vietnam. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was impressed at the horrific depiction of the hospital scenes. It was essentially an updated version of the one from Gone with the Wind. It was loud, there were shortages of chloroform and nearly everyone in the hospital left without a limb. I was also struck by the subtle play to the lack of understanding of cleanliness when one of the surgeons dropped a knife into a basin full of bloody water. No wonder disease was such a killer! Also, I thought that depiction of the strategies being behind the times was evident both at the beginning and ending of the movie. In the beginning at Antietam Shaw and his men slowly march into established confederate positions only to be mowed down. Also one can not help to take the final scene as being mildly absurd. Not because of poor acting, but because that was the type of thing that really happened in the Civil War. Men were sent straight into the teeth of enemy lines and fortifications with little hope of success (much like Fredericksburg, Pickett&amp;#039;s Charge etc.). This is reinforced in the final text letting you know that half of the regiment was killed and that the attack on the fort was a failure.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, you gotta love the reference to the battle of Fredericksburg. Go Mary Wash!- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elle on the filmmakers not portraying other black troops fighting. It showed that the 54th was the only black group that was capable of fighting the war.  There were other black troops that fought just as well. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing that really bothers me in this movie is the cliche characterization of characters. You have the traditional scene of one soldier who dislikes another soldier only to be saved by that soldier in the end. You also have the 1 wise reliable soldier (the non commissioned officer). The movie really focuses on just a few cast members and does not really give you the true composition of the army such as there were several prominent black abolitionists fighting in the 54th when the movie only portrays just one. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anybody else notice how perfect the feet of the dead men on the beach were?  Pretty good healing after nasty feet from not having had boots. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, just like in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039; a different character was used when the historical character would have been perfectly acceptable.  In class, we learned that General Benjamin Butler created the idea of the contraband.  If you can recall from the movie, Colonel James Montgomery conveniently created the idea of the contraband.  I think it&amp;#039;s a tad ridiculous that they changed the actual figure for this one in order to, in my opinion, create a villain.  The contrabands were also then shown in a beyond negative light, acting as Col. Montgomery called them, &amp;quot;little monkey children.&amp;quot;  I&amp;#039;m also seeing a pattern of villains burning down homes for no reason. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to Kelly&amp;#039;s last point: But Union troops did burn down Southern plantation homes and so forth, it was common amongst white troops too. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class we learned that in the North there were many different perspectives that dictated how Lincoln would respond to slavery and the treatment of blacks. I feel as though the movie did not show the balancing act at all. The movie showed tolerant whites and racist whites, it did not discuss Northern Democrats, the zealots of abolition, or President Lincoln’s strategic approach to emancipation. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was no emphasis on restoring the union like we discussed in class. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I don&amp;#039;t really think that was a priority of the movie or necessary with its themes Jason. But, they did allude to the problems in that area when Brodrick and D. Washington have their heart-to-heart. Denzel says nobody&amp;#039;s gonna win. And Matt naively says, someone has to win. And then Denzel goes into the hypothetical future and asks rhetorically if African Americans have any hope of winning in either case. But within this dramatic moment, we see the Northern upper-crust perspective of winning a war and bringing the union back together, North and South under one great nation, but it is obvious this is going to be very hard even if the Union does win. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would the union army ransack and burn a village in the south regardless of political allegiance? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Runaway slaves were not discussed, or at least not properly. Yes, men like trip were runaways, as were many of the other men, but because there was no mention of runaways “not making it” the viewer is led to believe that all slaves who escaped to the North were somehow in a safe haven. Where was the sad reality of the fugitive slave act? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was the fugitive slave act in effect at this point?  After all, runaway slaves could easily say that their masters were confederate conspirators against the union, a statement that would free them in the union&amp;#039;s eyes.  The slaves also had a few laws protecting them from the fugitive slave act, such as one passed in March 1862, Confiscation Acts, and fragmented versions of preliminary emancipation. --James D.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about the Southern perspective? We did not hear from Southern unionists, slave holders, or slaves currently in bondage. Without these perspectives being represented the reality of the immense struggle for union and emancipation is distorted. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was in the beginning of the movie when all the black soldiers have just enlisted and are getting organized was how they were all told to report to the officers according to what it said on their muster sheets. Weren&amp;#039;t most blacks illiterate at this time, and therefore not able to report to their officers? The movie showed this not being a problem for them.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I actually have a question.  In the movie, Shaw has to essentially blackmail the General in order to get the orders to let his men fight in a battle.  Did Shaw really have to pull strings in order to get his men out there?  Or was this all for dramatic effect?  I mean, it definitely emphasized how difficult it was for black soldiers to originally see a battlefield, but I felt like this was a bit extreme. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a series of somewhat small nitpicks that I’ll just group together in one paragraph of whining. Wasn’t the 54th Regiment made up mostly of free black men from Massachusetts? Aside from Thomas, basically all of the men shown seemed to have once been slaves. On Colonel Montgomery, as far as I understand, he was a staunch abolitionist, so I find it unlikely that he would consider the men under his command apelike simpletons. For that matter, would abolitionist Colonel Shaw have supported whipping a “deserter” like a slave driver would? There’s also the small issue of the living situation. According to one of the readings, the men were in barracks, not the tents shown in the movie. In the battle at Fort Wagner, one of the readings states that it was Shaw who actually picked up the flag and charged, only to be shot once in the chest. Assuming this is an accurate account, the movie didn’t quite follow along with that either. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may be wrong but in the first battle scene with the 54th they went from being bayonet-less and firing to then meeting the confederate charge with one of their own, bayonets fixed. I thought it was strange seeing as how otherwise they were pretty good about showing the multi-step process of loading and firing. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Christine’s question; did the white soldiers support the black soldiers by refusing to receive pay if both races didn’t receive the same amount? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the black soldiers were very stereotypical.  While yes there were a variety of characters, they all seemed to follow some kind of stereotype. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gooding&amp;#039;s first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; don&amp;#039;t act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving &amp;quot;to make themselves a people.&amp;quot; --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Gooding&amp;#039;s letters of the spring of 1863, he expresses disappointment at the small numbers of &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men volunteering for the 54th MA Regt., from first in March when there were not enough for a company, less than half a regiment in a month, and that that it was not filled until May.  However, Glory gives us the impression that as soon as the call for &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men was put forth, enough enlisted to fill a regiment.  This seems to be for the effect of making the 54th look even more heroic, with all its troops willing to sacrifice for their freedom and country from the very start, rather than gradually recruiting enough over more than two months. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Colors: in Gooding&amp;#039;s June 20 letter, he describes the attack on Ft. Wagner, including that Shaw took up the State colors after the first bearer was killed on the parapet, and that once he was killed a Sgt. Carney saved the colors, and even said the flag never touched the ground.  Yet the movie portrays it very differently!  Not only do we see both the US and the regimental flag on the ground when the 54th is taking cover behind a dune once the battle starts, but then we see Shaw assessing the situation and the US flag on the ground in front of him.  Ironically, once he and the colorer-bearer get up and the latter is shot, Shaw, rather than pick up the colors, surges on, is shot, and dies falling onto the fallen colors!  I don&amp;#039;t know why it wouldn&amp;#039;t have been heroic to show Shaw carrying the colors AND dying on them.  After Denzel unsuccessfully tries to rescue the flag, we see both flags conspicuously in the picture gaining ground until the end, all the while both fully intact.  The filmmakers took license in order to show the character of Private Trip, who has a change of heart and will carry the colors after all.  And what can be more symbolic than for Old Glory to always be seen and to make it as far as the farthest soldier onto the fort? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the readings it mentioned how great the regiment was discipline wise and were great with marching etc... I felt that the movie correctly portrayed how quickly they learned the discipline of military stuffs as was mentioned in the readings --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading “Retaliation in Camp” with Halton and Union troops stated that the colored troops would still fight for the government even though the government didn’t want them. I think the movie portrays this well when Colonel Shaw read the paper stating that if blacks are found on Union lines they could be killed or brought back to their masters and that if the Union leaders were commanding the black troops they also could be tried and killed.  All the colored men stayed and were still risking their lives to fight; even the white majors and colonels stayed such as Shaw and Forbes. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a bit cheeky, but this movie shows the popular white male actors of the 1980s, Ferris Bueller (Broderick) and Westley (Elwes) of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Princess Bride.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...As well as the popular black male actors of the last 20 years, Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The argument where Morgan verbal owns Denzel is very interesting to the time period and the present. The N-word is discussed and Morgan Freeman says &amp;quot;the only N---- here is you&amp;quot; to Denzel. It is dealing with a perception of black people by whites and blacks themselves that is super relevant today. Morgan calls Denzel out on his anger and hatred and callousness toward everybody, telling him basically that he just hates himself. Using the N-word is debated amongst blacks, some for it, taking it back, others against it, saying it is self-deprecating, like in this case with Denzel&amp;#039;s character. Most of these themey, dramatic, pointed moments in the film are kind of cheesey, but this scene was amazing and very effective.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; seemed to generally be received well by the public.  It has been dubbed as the most &amp;quot;technically realistic and memorable Civil War reenactment.&amp;quot;  Denzel Washington received his first Oscar in the Supporting Actor category.  Glory could be argued for in being the best film of the year (it wasn&amp;#039;t nominated for Best Picture), but if you look at the films it would have to compete against - Born on the Fourth of July, Driving Miss Daisy (the winner), and Field of Dreams - it would be a tough argument.  The other movies mentioned also dealt with the themes of War and Racism (except for Field of Dreams), something Glory needed to combine.  You would think with the star power the film had (Matthew Broderick/Ferris Bueller and Morgan Freeman, who ended up being nominated for Lead Actor for Driving Miss Daisy) that it should have gotten more recognition by the public.  Or, maybe this movie should be one for historians to claim and praise for themselves. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The stutter really got to me - I felt like some of the stereotypes hindered the films purpose of glorifying the dedicated soldiers, and  actually made me think of mammy and sissy from Gone with the Wind. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, there is just no pleasing you, is there? I personally thought the movie was one of the first examples in this class that showed a well-rounded, diverse group of people in one particular place and time period. There was minimal stock character presence or cheap stereotyping. And really, do people have to get uppity every time a minority is portrayed as a villain, or as stupid, or as handicapped, or as ignorant, or as poor...? White dudes get portrayed in these ways too in movies. In fact, some white dudes in this movie fall into one or more of the previously mentioned qualities! --Jackie Reed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Characterization is something that bothers me with this movie. The movie really focuses on just a few characters ignoring pretty much everyone else. The confederates who were the enemies were never really characterized as anything more than fodder. While I suppose this is better than characterizing characters in a stereotypical or false way it really limits the scope of history this movie presents. The movie is show entirely through a few member of the 54th division and ends up giving a really limited scope causing the movie to miss out on presenting a broader picture of what was going on during the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing about the stereotype that amuses me is that once the 54th is in SC, a slave is talking to the Northern, educated, &amp;quot;Snowflake&amp;quot; Thomas, and he needs the wise old Freeman to interpret the dialect for him!  But maybe I just like that because I like linguistics. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I couldn&amp;#039;t help but notice that the music sounded familiar. It sounded very similar to the music in Apollo 13. I did some investigation (thanks to IMDB) and discovered that both movies have the same musical composer. While I do think the composer could have been a little more original in Apollo 13, since this movie came out first, they&amp;#039;re still great songs. This is just something I found pretty interesting. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As it pertains to War Movie Scores, when I was typing one of my posts the Gettysburg Theme by John Williams came on my ipod. I love the music in that movie, and I love that movie. I say this because after this week we leave the Civil War era and I wanted to acknowledge it. I suppose this is a question more directed at Dr. McClurken but open to anyone, how does that movie rank in terms of historical accuracy? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning there was a scene with Union troops playing baseball, would they have played baseball during the war at their camps? Also, later in the film I noticed the golden eagle statue on the top of the flap poles, was the eagle already adopted as the nation&amp;#039;s symbol? If so, was it already being used and displayed on flags as such?--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked this in my blog, but I&amp;#039;m going to ask it here too.  Wasn&amp;#039;t flogging actually illegal in the US Military before the Civil War?  I thought you couldn&amp;#039;t whip in the Army anymore but they obviously punished Trip in that fashion.  I could be wrong though.  --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did blacks really treat each other differently based upon education? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
I loved the symbolism at the end with Denzel Washington hugging Matthew Broderick after they&amp;#039;re thrown into the heap of dead bodies. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just have to say, especially since we&amp;#039;re not having class tomorrow, I can&amp;#039;t stand Matthew Broderick&amp;#039;s little goatee-like thing.  I think just the mustache would have sufficed. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before they go into Battle Shaw asks who will bear the colors if they are to fall, Thomas says that he will. When the colors do fall in battle, Thomas and Trip look at one another and Thomas gives Trip a look that says &amp;quot;well, I&amp;#039;m not going to pick them up&amp;quot; so Trip gallantly recovers them. Thomas is portrayed as a coward who would not live up to his word, fight heroically for his country, or avenge the death of Shaw who had treated him with nothing but fairness (even though it is understandable if Thomas felt slighted by that treatment). The fact that Trip takes the colors shows that a former slave who had every reason to resent whites, was so inspired by the promise of winning the war and gaining equality that he would die for the cause. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first time I saw this movie was in middle school. We had to watch this movie and Gettysburg (pending parental permission of course) in our lessons on the Civil War. I find it interesting remembering that much of what I took to know about the war in regards to slavery came from this movie up until high school. For those who haven&amp;#039;t really studied the Civil War, movies like this may be all that they have to go on.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that the other black regiments wore red paints instead of the blue ones is that used to dissern the regiments apart or was that a common thing in the union forces?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember loving this movie in 7th grade when I first saw it. I have to say now, after a more in depth education on the civil war, I don&amp;#039;t really like it as much. It just doesn&amp;#039;t have the same meaning that it used to hold. - Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-09T04:01:05Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Denzel Washington, as Private Trip, pulls off his shirt to receive his punishment after his apparent &amp;quot;desertion&amp;quot; the lash scars already on his back is what most, if not all, slaves had. It was rare that a slave did not feel the tip of a whip nor was it rare that a master or an overseer would use it or threaten to use it. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the movie shows the black soldiers initially as manual laborers, as Dr. M said today in the lecture today, was accurate. The men were hauling logs, I believe, when the white troops passed them. Although the work was not what they wanted, it enabled more white soldiers to the battle front. Related to the black soldiers, the fact that Shaw was shown to work &amp;#039;&amp;#039;hard&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in order to get his men to the battlefield, was exactly what Shaw had to do. Arming black men was not a popular idea with white people on both sides of the war. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To tag onto Lauren&amp;#039;s comment a bit - I felt that the confrontation between white union soldiers and the 54th regiment was realistic, as well as the trouble that Shaw and company encountered in convincing the supplier to give them shoes etc. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although many think that the 54th MA was the first black regiment in the Civil War, as it is more symbolic and is the one Glory is all about, the filmmakers try to prevent that misperception.  When Shaw meets Montgomery, he is asked something like, &amp;quot;you didn&amp;#039;t think yours was the only colored regiment, did you?&amp;quot; and we learn that the 2d SC existed before the 54th MA did. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tagging onto Whitney&amp;#039;s comment - I disagree that the film makers did other black regiments justice - they didn&amp;#039;t acknowledge other blacks actually fighting, and they portrayed them as &amp;quot;chimps in uniform&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;children&amp;quot; in the scene where they ransack the town of the &amp;#039;cessors. The movie seemed to make the 54th regiment the ONE exception to the rule and Shaw a great hero for respecting and believing in his black troops. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That&amp;#039;s a very good point, Elle. It was portrayed very negatively. -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am going to disagree with you two. The film says in the closing subtitles that more troops, 180,000 black men enlisting, were created after the Emancipation Proclamation. Suggesting that there were more Black troops and they certainly could have engaged in battle. The negative portrayal was not only cinematically beneficial, but it also helped tell a well-rounded history, and not simply glorify (pardon the word choice) the whole thing. The undisciplined troop spoke more to the white officers&amp;#039; views who commanded them rather than the quality of the enlisted men themselves. Shaw and the 54th, on the contrary, showed the positive results of black and white cooperation and respect. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that they brought up the fact that the union officers were appointed by social status. Shawl pretty much declares it in his letter when he said they made him captain of man who are older then him.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a great movie and one thing that really stood out to me was how accurately Shaw&amp;#039;s post traumatic stress disorder was portrayed. Towards the beginning of the movie when Shaw returns to Boston and is talking to Thomas at the gathering with his family,  a maid closes the window, which causes a loud BANG similar to a gunshot and Shaw jumps; showing how emotionally disturbed and on edge he is from having been to war. The disorder is also shown during the scene when the regiment first receive their guns and are pretending to fight one another, the look in Shaw&amp;#039;s eyes and on his face it is evident that he is still coping with having been in battle and almost killed. Post traumatic stress was a very common repercussion of war that isn&amp;#039;t always discussed so having it play a part in the film makes the movie, for me personally, more accurate. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also used one quote that we talked about during class.  One of the white Union soldiers made a comment about the 54th MA when they first assembled, and he said something along the lines of how the black soldiers were even more useless than a hog, because you at least eat a hog, you can&amp;#039;t eat a black person. By using an actual quote from the time period shows that the writers really did their research.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how the movie included black culture.  As Shaw is narrating his letters he is saying how he &amp;quot;doesn&amp;#039;t get the black people&amp;quot; and how they behave.  I don&amp;#039;t think this is out of anger but because he feels that in order to successfully lead an army, he needs to understand his troops (this comes into play when he punishes Denzel&amp;#039;s character, as discussed above).  Furthermore, before the final battle scene at Fort Wagner, the movie shows a touching scene as the soldiers are singing in prayer, preparing for battle. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the things the movie does best is show the overall treatment of blacks by the North. In the movie, they are discriminated against by receiving lesser pay and are slow to be provided with supplies. They are not allowed into battle and left to dig trenches and work as manual laborers. They are also mistreated and mocked by some unenthusiastic racist Northerners. As time passes, however, their discipline becomes clear, and they are allowed into battle where they prove their capabilities. The Northerners grow to respect the blacks and see them as actual people. The movie also does a fair job in expressing blacks’ reasons for volunteering. Their desire to prove themselves as equal to whites and fight for their people’s freedom is very clear. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; accurately depicts black regiments and their impact on blacks and Northerners in a larger historical context. At the very least, the larger historical picture is represented better in this movie than in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, which tried to play the trial off as more important than it really was. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing the movie does especially well is the battle scenes. It is quite clear that the tactics used by the Union and Confederate armies don’t match up to the technology they are using, resulting in terrible casualties and horrific injuries. The small glimpse of hospitals is pretty gruesome and accurate, especially the unsanitary conditions and the amputation scene.  Also, in the movie, Shaw seems to suffer from a bit of PTSD, which wasn’t uncommon for Civil War soldiers, though it certainly wasn’t diagnosed as PTSD until Vietnam. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was impressed at the horrific depiction of the hospital scenes. It was essentially an updated version of the one from Gone with the Wind. It was loud, there were shortages of chloroform and nearly everyone in the hospital left without a limb. I was also struck by the subtle play to the lack of understanding of cleanliness when one of the surgeons dropped a knife into a basin full of bloody water. No wonder disease was such a killer! Also, I thought that depiction of the strategies being behind the times was evident both at the beginning and ending of the movie. In the beginning at Antietam Shaw and his men slowly march into established confederate positions only to be mowed down. Also one can not help to take the final scene as being mildly absurd. Not because of poor acting, but because that was the type of thing that really happened in the Civil War. Men were sent straight into the teeth of enemy lines and fortifications with little hope of success (much like Fredericksburg, Pickett&amp;#039;s Charge etc.). This is reinforced in the final text letting you know that half of the regiment was killed and that the attack on the fort was a failure.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, you gotta love the reference to the battle of Fredericksburg. Go Mary Wash!- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elle on the filmmakers not portraying other black troops fighting. It showed that the 54th was the only black group that was capable of fighting the war.  There were other black troops that fought just as well. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing that really bothers me in this movie is the cliche characterization of characters. You have the traditional scene of one soldier who dislikes another soldier only to be saved by that soldier in the end. You also have the 1 wise reliable soldier (the non commissioned officer). The movie really focuses on just a few cast members and does not really give you the true composition of the army such as there were several prominent black abolitionists fighting in the 54th when the movie only portrays just one. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anybody else notice how perfect the feet of the dead men on the beach were?  Pretty good healing after nasty feet from not having had boots. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, just like in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039; a different character was used when the historical character would have been perfectly acceptable.  In class, we learned that General Benjamin Butler created the idea of the contraband.  If you can recall from the movie, Colonel James Montgomery conveniently created the idea of the contraband.  I think it&amp;#039;s a tad ridiculous that they changed the actual figure for this one in order to, in my opinion, create a villain.  The contrabands were also then shown in a beyond negative light, acting as Col. Montgomery called them, &amp;quot;little monkey children.&amp;quot;  I&amp;#039;m also seeing a pattern of villains burning down homes for no reason. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to Kelly&amp;#039;s last point: But Union troops did burn down Southern plantation homes and so forth, it was common amongst white troops too. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class we learned that in the North there were many different perspectives that dictated how Lincoln would respond to slavery and the treatment of blacks. I feel as though the movie did not show the balancing act at all. The movie showed tolerant whites and racist whites, it did not discuss Northern Democrats, the zealots of abolition, or President Lincoln’s strategic approach to emancipation. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was no emphasis on restoring the union like we discussed in class. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I don&amp;#039;t really think that was a priority of the movie or necessary with its themes Jason. But, they did allude to the problems in that area when Brodrick and D. Washington have their heart-to-heart. Denzel says nobody&amp;#039;s gonna win. And Matt naively says, someone has to win. And then Denzel goes into the hypothetical future and asks rhetorically if African Americans have any hope of winning in either case. But within this dramatic moment, we see the Northern upper-crust perspective of winning a war and bringing the union back together, North and South under one great nation, but it is obvious this is going to be very hard even if the Union does win. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would the union army ransack and burn a village in the south regardless of political allegiance? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Runaway slaves were not discussed, or at least not properly. Yes, men like trip were runaways, as were many of the other men, but because there was no mention of runaways “not making it” the viewer is led to believe that all slaves who escaped to the North were somehow in a safe haven. Where was the sad reality of the fugitive slave act? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was the fugitive slave act in effect at this point?  After all, runaway slaves could easily say that their masters were confederate conspirators against the union, a statement that would free them in the union&amp;#039;s eyes.  The slaves also had a few laws protecting them from the fugitive slave act, such as one passed in March 1862, Confiscation Acts, and fragmented versions of preliminary emancipation. --James D.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about the Southern perspective? We did not hear from Southern unionists, slave holders, or slaves currently in bondage. Without these perspectives being represented the reality of the immense struggle for union and emancipation is distorted. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was in the beginning of the movie when all the black soldiers have just enlisted and are getting organized was how they were all told to report to the officers according to what it said on their muster sheets. Weren&amp;#039;t most blacks illiterate at this time, and therefore not able to report to their officers? The movie showed this not being a problem for them.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I actually have a question.  In the movie, Shaw has to essentially blackmail the General in order to get the orders to let his men fight in a battle.  Did Shaw really have to pull strings in order to get his men out there?  Or was this all for dramatic effect?  I mean, it definitely emphasized how difficult it was for black soldiers to originally see a battlefield, but I felt like this was a bit extreme. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a series of somewhat small nitpicks that I’ll just group together in one paragraph of whining. Wasn’t the 54th Regiment made up mostly of free black men from Massachusetts? Aside from Thomas, basically all of the men shown seemed to have once been slaves. On Colonel Montgomery, as far as I understand, he was a staunch abolitionist, so I find it unlikely that he would consider the men under his command apelike simpletons. For that matter, would abolitionist Colonel Shaw have supported whipping a “deserter” like a slave driver would? There’s also the small issue of the living situation. According to one of the readings, the men were in barracks, not the tents shown in the movie. In the battle at Fort Wagner, one of the readings states that it was Shaw who actually picked up the flag and charged, only to be shot once in the chest. Assuming this is an accurate account, the movie didn’t quite follow along with that either. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may be wrong but in the first battle scene with the 54th they went from being bayonet-less and firing to then meeting the confederate charge with one of their own, bayonets fixed. I thought it was strange seeing as how otherwise they were pretty good about showing the multi-step process of loading and firing. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Christine’s question; did the white soldiers support the black soldiers by refusing to receive pay if both races didn’t receive the same amount? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the black soldiers were very stereotypical.  While yes there were a variety of characters, they all seemed to follow some kind of stereotype. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gooding&amp;#039;s first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; don&amp;#039;t act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving &amp;quot;to make themselves a people.&amp;quot; --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Gooding&amp;#039;s letters of the spring of 1863, he expresses disappointment at the small numbers of &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men volunteering for the 54th MA Regt., from first in March when there were not enough for a company, less than half a regiment in a month, and that that it was not filled until May.  However, Glory gives us the impression that as soon as the call for &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men was put forth, enough enlisted to fill a regiment.  This seems to be for the effect of making the 54th look even more heroic, with all its troops willing to sacrifice for their freedom and country from the very start, rather than gradually recruiting enough over more than two months. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Colors: in Gooding&amp;#039;s June 20 letter, he describes the attack on Ft. Wagner, including that Shaw took up the State colors after the first bearer was killed on the parapet, and that once he was killed a Sgt. Carney saved the colors, and even said the flag never touched the ground.  Yet the movie portrays it very differently!  Not only do we see both the US and the regimental flag on the ground when the 54th is taking cover behind a dune once the battle starts, but then we see Shaw assessing the situation and the US flag on the ground in front of him.  Ironically, once he and the colorer-bearer get up and the latter is shot, Shaw, rather than pick up the colors, surges on, is shot, and dies falling onto the fallen colors!  I don&amp;#039;t know why it wouldn&amp;#039;t have been heroic to show Shaw carrying the colors AND dying on them.  After Denzel unsuccessfully tries to rescue the flag, we see both flags conspicuously in the picture gaining ground until the end, all the while both fully intact.  The filmmakers took license in order to show the character of Private Trip, who has a change of heart and will carry the colors after all.  And what can be more symbolic than for Old Glory to always be seen and to make it as far as the farthest soldier onto the fort? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the readings it mentioned how great the regiment was discipline wise and were great with marching etc... I felt that the movie correctly portrayed how quickly they learned the discipline of military stuffs as was mentioned in the readings --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading “Retaliation in Camp” with Halton and Union troops stated that the colored troops would still fight for the government even though the government didn’t want them. I think the movie portrays this well when Colonel Shaw read the paper stating that if blacks are found on Union lines they could be killed or brought back to their masters and that if the Union leaders were commanding the black troops they also could be tried and killed.  All the colored men stayed and were still risking their lives to fight; even the white majors and colonels stayed such as Shaw and Forbes. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a bit cheeky, but this movie shows the popular white male actors of the 1980s, Ferris Bueller (Broderick) and Westley (Elwes) of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Princess Bride.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...As well as the popular black male actors of the last 20 years, Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; seemed to generally be received well by the public.  It has been dubbed as the most &amp;quot;technically realistic and memorable Civil War reenactment.&amp;quot;  Denzel Washington received his first Oscar in the Supporting Actor category.  Glory could be argued for in being the best film of the year (it wasn&amp;#039;t nominated for Best Picture), but if you look at the films it would have to compete against - Born on the Fourth of July, Driving Miss Daisy (the winner), and Field of Dreams - it would be a tough argument.  The other movies mentioned also dealt with the themes of War and Racism (except for Field of Dreams), something Glory needed to combine.  You would think with the star power the film had (Matthew Broderick/Ferris Bueller and Morgan Freeman, who ended up being nominated for Lead Actor for Driving Miss Daisy) that it should have gotten more recognition by the public.  Or, maybe this movie should be one for historians to claim and praise for themselves. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The stutter really got to me - I felt like some of the stereotypes hindered the films purpose of glorifying the dedicated soldiers, and  actually made me think of mammy and sissy from Gone with the Wind. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, there is just no pleasing you, is there? I personally thought the movie was one of the first examples in this class that showed a well-rounded, diverse group of people in one particular place and time period. There was minimal stock character presence or cheap stereotyping. And really, do people have to get uppity every time a minority is portrayed as a villain, or as stupid, or as handicapped, or as ignorant, or as poor...? White dudes get portrayed in these ways too in movies. In fact, some white dudes in this movie fall into one or more of the previously mentioned qualities! --Jackie Reed &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Characterization is something that bothers me with this movie. The movie really focuses on just a few characters ignoring pretty much everyone else. The confederates who were the enemies were never really characterized as anything more than fodder. While I suppose this is better than characterizing characters in a stereotypical or false way it really limits the scope of history this movie presents. The movie is show entirely through a few member of the 54th division and ends up giving a really limited scope causing the movie to miss out on presenting a broader picture of what was going on during the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing about the stereotype that amuses me is that once the 54th is in SC, a slave is talking to the Northern, educated, &amp;quot;Snowflake&amp;quot; Thomas, and he needs the wise old Freeman to interpret the dialect for him!  But maybe I just like that because I like linguistics. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I couldn&amp;#039;t help but notice that the music sounded familiar. It sounded very similar to the music in Apollo 13. I did some investigation (thanks to IMDB) and discovered that both movies have the same musical composer. While I do think the composer could have been a little more original in Apollo 13, since this movie came out first, they&amp;#039;re still great songs. This is just something I found pretty interesting. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As it pertains to War Movie Scores, when I was typing one of my posts the Gettysburg Theme by John Williams came on my ipod. I love the music in that movie, and I love that movie. I say this because after this week we leave the Civil War era and I wanted to acknowledge it. I suppose this is a question more directed at Dr. McClurken but open to anyone, how does that movie rank in terms of historical accuracy? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning there was a scene with Union troops playing baseball, would they have played baseball during the war at their camps? Also, later in the film I noticed the golden eagle statue on the top of the flap poles, was the eagle already adopted as the nation&amp;#039;s symbol? If so, was it already being used and displayed on flags as such?--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked this in my blog, but I&amp;#039;m going to ask it here too.  Wasn&amp;#039;t flogging actually illegal in the US Military before the Civil War?  I thought you couldn&amp;#039;t whip in the Army anymore but they obviously punished Trip in that fashion.  I could be wrong though.  --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did blacks really treat each other differently based upon education? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
I loved the symbolism at the end with Denzel Washington hugging Matthew Broderick after they&amp;#039;re thrown into the heap of dead bodies. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just have to say, especially since we&amp;#039;re not having class tomorrow, I can&amp;#039;t stand Matthew Broderick&amp;#039;s little goatee-like thing.  I think just the mustache would have sufficed. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before they go into Battle Shaw asks who will bear the colors if they are to fall, Thomas says that he will. When the colors do fall in battle, Thomas and Trip look at one another and Thomas gives Trip a look that says &amp;quot;well, I&amp;#039;m not going to pick them up&amp;quot; so Trip gallantly recovers them. Thomas is portrayed as a coward who would not live up to his word, fight heroically for his country, or avenge the death of Shaw who had treated him with nothing but fairness (even though it is understandable if Thomas felt slighted by that treatment). The fact that Trip takes the colors shows that a former slave who had every reason to resent whites, was so inspired by the promise of winning the war and gaining equality that he would die for the cause. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first time I saw this movie was in middle school. We had to watch this movie and Gettysburg (pending parental permission of course) in our lessons on the Civil War. I find it interesting remembering that much of what I took to know about the war in regards to slavery came from this movie up until high school. For those who haven&amp;#039;t really studied the Civil War, movies like this may be all that they have to go on.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that the other black regiments wore red paints instead of the blue ones is that used to dissern the regiments apart or was that a common thing in the union forces?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember loving this movie in 7th grade when I first saw it. I have to say now, after a more in depth education on the civil war, I don&amp;#039;t really like it as much. It just doesn&amp;#039;t have the same meaning that it used to hold. - Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-09T03:50:32Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Denzel Washington, as Private Trip, pulls off his shirt to receive his punishment after his apparent &amp;quot;desertion&amp;quot; the lash scars already on his back is what most, if not all, slaves had. It was rare that a slave did not feel the tip of a whip nor was it rare that a master or an overseer would use it or threaten to use it. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the movie shows the black soldiers initially as manual laborers, as Dr. M said today in the lecture today, was accurate. The men were hauling logs, I believe, when the white troops passed them. Although the work was not what they wanted, it enabled more white soldiers to the battle front. Related to the black soldiers, the fact that Shaw was shown to work &amp;#039;&amp;#039;hard&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in order to get his men to the battlefield, was exactly what Shaw had to do. Arming black men was not a popular idea with white people on both sides of the war. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To tag onto Lauren&amp;#039;s comment a bit - I felt that the confrontation between white union soldiers and the 54th regiment was realistic, as well as the trouble that Shaw and company encountered in convincing the supplier to give them shoes etc. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although many think that the 54th MA was the first black regiment in the Civil War, as it is more symbolic and is the one Glory is all about, the filmmakers try to prevent that misperception.  When Shaw meets Montgomery, he is asked something like, &amp;quot;you didn&amp;#039;t think yours was the only colored regiment, did you?&amp;quot; and we learn that the 2d SC existed before the 54th MA did. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tagging onto Whitney&amp;#039;s comment - I disagree that the film makers did other black regiments justice - they didn&amp;#039;t acknowledge other blacks actually fighting, and they portrayed them as &amp;quot;chimps in uniform&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;children&amp;quot; in the scene where they ransack the town of the &amp;#039;cessors. The movie seemed to make the 54th regiment the ONE exception to the rule and Shaw a great hero for respecting and believing in his black troops. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That&amp;#039;s a very good point, Elle. It was portrayed very negatively. -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am going to disagree with you two. The film says in the closing subtitles that more troops, 180,000 black men enlisting, were created after the Emancipation Proclamation. Suggesting that there were more Black troops and they certainly could have engaged in battle. The negative portrayal was not only cinematically beneficial, but it also helped tell a well-rounded history, and not simply glorify (pardon the word choice) the whole thing. The undisciplined troop spoke more to the white officers&amp;#039; views who commanded them rather than the quality of the enlisted men themselves. Shaw and the 54th, on the contrary, showed the positive results of black and white cooperation and respect. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that they brought up the fact that the union officers were appointed by social status. Shawl pretty much declares it in his letter when he said they made him captain of man who are older then him.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a great movie and one thing that really stood out to me was how accurately Shaw&amp;#039;s post traumatic stress disorder was portrayed. Towards the beginning of the movie when Shaw returns to Boston and is talking to Thomas at the gathering with his family,  a maid closes the window, which causes a loud BANG similar to a gunshot and Shaw jumps; showing how emotionally disturbed and on edge he is from having been to war. The disorder is also shown during the scene when the regiment first receive their guns and are pretending to fight one another, the look in Shaw&amp;#039;s eyes and on his face it is evident that he is still coping with having been in battle and almost killed. Post traumatic stress was a very common repercussion of war that isn&amp;#039;t always discussed so having it play a part in the film makes the movie, for me personally, more accurate. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also used one quote that we talked about during class.  One of the white Union soldiers made a comment about the 54th MA when they first assembled, and he said something along the lines of how the black soldiers were even more useless than a hog, because you at least eat a hog, you can&amp;#039;t eat a black person. By using an actual quote from the time period shows that the writers really did their research.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how the movie included black culture.  As Shaw is narrating his letters he is saying how he &amp;quot;doesn&amp;#039;t get the black people&amp;quot; and how they behave.  I don&amp;#039;t think this is out of anger but because he feels that in order to successfully lead an army, he needs to understand his troops (this comes into play when he punishes Denzel&amp;#039;s character, as discussed above).  Furthermore, before the final battle scene at Fort Wagner, the movie shows a touching scene as the soldiers are singing in prayer, preparing for battle. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the things the movie does best is show the overall treatment of blacks by the North. In the movie, they are discriminated against by receiving lesser pay and are slow to be provided with supplies. They are not allowed into battle and left to dig trenches and work as manual laborers. They are also mistreated and mocked by some unenthusiastic racist Northerners. As time passes, however, their discipline becomes clear, and they are allowed into battle where they prove their capabilities. The Northerners grow to respect the blacks and see them as actual people. The movie also does a fair job in expressing blacks’ reasons for volunteering. Their desire to prove themselves as equal to whites and fight for their people’s freedom is very clear. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; accurately depicts black regiments and their impact on blacks and Northerners in a larger historical context. At the very least, the larger historical picture is represented better in this movie than in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, which tried to play the trial off as more important than it really was. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing the movie does especially well is the battle scenes. It is quite clear that the tactics used by the Union and Confederate armies don’t match up to the technology they are using, resulting in terrible casualties and horrific injuries. The small glimpse of hospitals is pretty gruesome and accurate, especially the unsanitary conditions and the amputation scene.  Also, in the movie, Shaw seems to suffer from a bit of PTSD, which wasn’t uncommon for Civil War soldiers, though it certainly wasn’t diagnosed as PTSD until Vietnam. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was impressed at the horrific depiction of the hospital scenes. It was essentially an updated version of the one from Gone with the Wind. It was loud, there were shortages of chloroform and nearly everyone in the hospital left without a limb. I was also struck by the subtle play to the lack of understanding of cleanliness when one of the surgeons dropped a knife into a basin full of bloody water. No wonder disease was such a killer! Also, I thought that depiction of the strategies being behind the times was evident both at the beginning and ending of the movie. In the beginning at Antietam Shaw and his men slowly march into established confederate positions only to be mowed down. Also one can not help to take the final scene as being mildly absurd. Not because of poor acting, but because that was the type of thing that really happened in the Civil War. Men were sent straight into the teeth of enemy lines and fortifications with little hope of success (much like Fredericksburg, Pickett&amp;#039;s Charge etc.). This is reinforced in the final text letting you know that half of the regiment was killed and that the attack on the fort was a failure.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, you gotta love the reference to the battle of Fredericksburg. Go Mary Wash!- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elle on the filmmakers not portraying other black troops fighting. It showed that the 54th was the only black group that was capable of fighting the war.  There were other black troops that fought just as well. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing that really bothers me in this movie is the cliche characterization of characters. You have the traditional scene of one soldier who dislikes another soldier only to be saved by that soldier in the end. You also have the 1 wise reliable soldier (the non commissioned officer). The movie really focuses on just a few cast members and does not really give you the true composition of the army such as there were several prominent black abolitionists fighting in the 54th when the movie only portrays just one. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anybody else notice how perfect the feet of the dead men on the beach were?  Pretty good healing after nasty feet from not having had boots. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, just like in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039; a different character was used when the historical character would have been perfectly acceptable.  In class, we learned that General Benjamin Butler created the idea of the contraband.  If you can recall from the movie, Colonel James Montgomery conveniently created the idea of the contraband.  I think it&amp;#039;s a tad ridiculous that they changed the actual figure for this one in order to, in my opinion, create a villain.  The contrabands were also then shown in a beyond negative light, acting as Col. Montgomery called them, &amp;quot;little monkey children.&amp;quot;  I&amp;#039;m also seeing a pattern of villains burning down homes for no reason. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In contrast to Kelly&amp;#039;s last point: But Union troops did burn down Southern plantation homes and so forth, it was common amongst white troops too. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class we learned that in the North there were many different perspectives that dictated how Lincoln would respond to slavery and the treatment of blacks. I feel as though the movie did not show the balancing act at all. The movie showed tolerant whites and racist whites, it did not discuss Northern Democrats, the zealots of abolition, or President Lincoln’s strategic approach to emancipation. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was no emphasis on restoring the union like we discussed in class. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, I don&amp;#039;t really think that was a priority of the movie or necessary with its themes Jason. But, they did allude to the problems in that area when Brodrick and D. Washington have their heart-to-heart. Denzel says nobody&amp;#039;s gonna win. And Matt naively says, someone has to win. And then Denzel goes into the hypothetical future and asks rhetorically if African Americans have any hope of winning in either case. But within this dramatic moment, we see the Northern upper-crust perspective of winning a war and bringing the union back together, North and South under one great nation, but it is obvious this is going to be very hard even if the Union does win. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would the union army ransack and burn a village in the south regardless of political allegiance? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Runaway slaves were not discussed, or at least not properly. Yes, men like trip were runaways, as were many of the other men, but because there was no mention of runaways “not making it” the viewer is led to believe that all slaves who escaped to the North were somehow in a safe haven. Where was the sad reality of the fugitive slave act? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was the fugitive slave act in effect at this point?  After all, runaway slaves could easily say that their masters were confederate conspirators against the union, a statement that would free them in the union&amp;#039;s eyes.  The slaves also had a few laws protecting them from the fugitive slave act, such as one passed in March 1862, Confiscation Acts, and fragmented versions of preliminary emancipation. --James D.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about the Southern perspective? We did not hear from Southern unionists, slave holders, or slaves currently in bondage. Without these perspectives being represented the reality of the immense struggle for union and emancipation is distorted. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was in the beginning of the movie when all the black soldiers have just enlisted and are getting organized was how they were all told to report to the officers according to what it said on their muster sheets. Weren&amp;#039;t most blacks illiterate at this time, and therefore not able to report to their officers? The movie showed this not being a problem for them.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I actually have a question.  In the movie, Shaw has to essentially blackmail the General in order to get the orders to let his men fight in a battle.  Did Shaw really have to pull strings in order to get his men out there?  Or was this all for dramatic effect?  I mean, it definitely emphasized how difficult it was for black soldiers to originally see a battlefield, but I felt like this was a bit extreme. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a series of somewhat small nitpicks that I’ll just group together in one paragraph of whining. Wasn’t the 54th Regiment made up mostly of free black men from Massachusetts? Aside from Thomas, basically all of the men shown seemed to have once been slaves. On Colonel Montgomery, as far as I understand, he was a staunch abolitionist, so I find it unlikely that he would consider the men under his command apelike simpletons. For that matter, would abolitionist Colonel Shaw have supported whipping a “deserter” like a slave driver would? There’s also the small issue of the living situation. According to one of the readings, the men were in barracks, not the tents shown in the movie. In the battle at Fort Wagner, one of the readings states that it was Shaw who actually picked up the flag and charged, only to be shot once in the chest. Assuming this is an accurate account, the movie didn’t quite follow along with that either. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may be wrong but in the first battle scene with the 54th they went from being bayonet-less and firing to then meeting the confederate charge with one of their own, bayonets fixed. I thought it was strange seeing as how otherwise they were pretty good about showing the multi-step process of loading and firing. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Christine’s question; did the white soldiers support the black soldiers by refusing to receive pay if both races didn’t receive the same amount? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the black soldiers were very stereotypical.  While yes there were a variety of characters, they all seemed to follow some kind of stereotype. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gooding&amp;#039;s first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; don&amp;#039;t act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving &amp;quot;to make themselves a people.&amp;quot; --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Gooding&amp;#039;s letters of the spring of 1863, he expresses disappointment at the small numbers of &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men volunteering for the 54th MA Regt., from first in March when there were not enough for a company, less than half a regiment in a month, and that that it was not filled until May.  However, Glory gives us the impression that as soon as the call for &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men was put forth, enough enlisted to fill a regiment.  This seems to be for the effect of making the 54th look even more heroic, with all its troops willing to sacrifice for their freedom and country from the very start, rather than gradually recruiting enough over more than two months. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Colors: in Gooding&amp;#039;s June 20 letter, he describes the attack on Ft. Wagner, including that Shaw took up the State colors after the first bearer was killed on the parapet, and that once he was killed a Sgt. Carney saved the colors, and even said the flag never touched the ground.  Yet the movie portrays it very differently!  Not only do we see both the US and the regimental flag on the ground when the 54th is taking cover behind a dune once the battle starts, but then we see Shaw assessing the situation and the US flag on the ground in front of him.  Ironically, once he and the colorer-bearer get up and the latter is shot, Shaw, rather than pick up the colors, surges on, is shot, and dies falling onto the fallen colors!  I don&amp;#039;t know why it wouldn&amp;#039;t have been heroic to show Shaw carrying the colors AND dying on them.  After Denzel unsuccessfully tries to rescue the flag, we see both flags conspicuously in the picture gaining ground until the end, all the while both fully intact.  The filmmakers took license in order to show the character of Private Trip, who has a change of heart and will carry the colors after all.  And what can be more symbolic than for Old Glory to always be seen and to make it as far as the farthest soldier onto the fort? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the readings it mentioned how great the regiment was discipline wise and were great with marching etc... I felt that the movie correctly portrayed how quickly they learned the discipline of military stuffs as was mentioned in the readings --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading “Retaliation in Camp” with Halton and Union troops stated that the colored troops would still fight for the government even though the government didn’t want them. I think the movie portrays this well when Colonel Shaw read the paper stating that if blacks are found on Union lines they could be killed or brought back to their masters and that if the Union leaders were commanding the black troops they also could be tried and killed.  All the colored men stayed and were still risking their lives to fight; even the white majors and colonels stayed such as Shaw and Forbes. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a bit cheeky, but this movie shows the popular white male actors of the 1980s, Ferris Bueller (Broderick) and Westley (Elwes) of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Princess Bride.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...As well as the popular black male actors of the last 20 years, Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; seemed to generally be received well by the public.  It has been dubbed as the most &amp;quot;technically realistic and memorable Civil War reenactment.&amp;quot;  Denzel Washington received his first Oscar in the Supporting Actor category.  Glory could be argued for in being the best film of the year (it wasn&amp;#039;t nominated for Best Picture), but if you look at the films it would have to compete against - Born on the Fourth of July, Driving Miss Daisy (the winner), and Field of Dreams - it would be a tough argument.  The other movies mentioned also dealt with the themes of War and Racism (except for Field of Dreams), something Glory needed to combine.  You would think with the star power the film had (Matthew Broderick/Ferris Bueller and Morgan Freeman, who ended up being nominated for Lead Actor for Driving Miss Daisy) that it should have gotten more recognition by the public.  Or, maybe this movie should be one for historians to claim and praise for themselves. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The stutter really got to me - I felt like some of the stereotypes hindered the films purpose of glorifying the dedicated soldiers, and  actually made me think of mammy and sissy from Gone with the Wind. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Characterization is something that bothers me with this movie. The movie really focuses on just a few characters ignoring pretty much everyone else. The confederates who were the enemies were never really characterized as anything more than fodder. While I suppose this is better than characterizing characters in a stereotypical or false way it really limits the scope of history this movie presents. The movie is show entirely through a few member of the 54th division and ends up giving a really limited scope causing the movie to miss out on presenting a broader picture of what was going on during the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing about the stereotype that amuses me is that once the 54th is in SC, a slave is talking to the Northern, educated, &amp;quot;Snowflake&amp;quot; Thomas, and he needs the wise old Freeman to interpret the dialect for him!  But maybe I just like that because I like linguistics. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I couldn&amp;#039;t help but notice that the music sounded familiar. It sounded very similar to the music in Apollo 13. I did some investigation (thanks to IMDB) and discovered that both movies have the same musical composer. While I do think the composer could have been a little more original in Apollo 13, since this movie came out first, they&amp;#039;re still great songs. This is just something I found pretty interesting. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As it pertains to War Movie Scores, when I was typing one of my posts the Gettysburg Theme by John Williams came on my ipod. I love the music in that movie, and I love that movie. I say this because after this week we leave the Civil War era and I wanted to acknowledge it. I suppose this is a question more directed at Dr. McClurken but open to anyone, how does that movie rank in terms of historical accuracy? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning there was a scene with Union troops playing baseball, would they have played baseball during the war at their camps? Also, later in the film I noticed the golden eagle statue on the top of the flap poles, was the eagle already adopted as the nation&amp;#039;s symbol? If so, was it already being used and displayed on flags as such?--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked this in my blog, but I&amp;#039;m going to ask it here too.  Wasn&amp;#039;t flogging actually illegal in the US Military before the Civil War?  I thought you couldn&amp;#039;t whip in the Army anymore but they obviously punished Trip in that fashion.  I could be wrong though.  --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did blacks really treat each other differently based upon education? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
I loved the symbolism at the end with Denzel Washington hugging Matthew Broderick after they&amp;#039;re thrown into the heap of dead bodies. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just have to say, especially since we&amp;#039;re not having class tomorrow, I can&amp;#039;t stand Matthew Broderick&amp;#039;s little goatee-like thing.  I think just the mustache would have sufficed. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before they go into Battle Shaw asks who will bear the colors if they are to fall, Thomas says that he will. When the colors do fall in battle, Thomas and Trip look at one another and Thomas gives Trip a look that says &amp;quot;well, I&amp;#039;m not going to pick them up&amp;quot; so Trip gallantly recovers them. Thomas is portrayed as a coward who would not live up to his word, fight heroically for his country, or avenge the death of Shaw who had treated him with nothing but fairness (even though it is understandable if Thomas felt slighted by that treatment). The fact that Trip takes the colors shows that a former slave who had every reason to resent whites, was so inspired by the promise of winning the war and gaining equality that he would die for the cause. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first time I saw this movie was in middle school. We had to watch this movie and Gettysburg (pending parental permission of course) in our lessons on the Civil War. I find it interesting remembering that much of what I took to know about the war in regards to slavery came from this movie up until high school. For those who haven&amp;#039;t really studied the Civil War, movies like this may be all that they have to go on.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that the other black regiments wore red paints instead of the blue ones is that used to dissern the regiments apart or was that a common thing in the union forces?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember loving this movie in 7th grade when I first saw it. I have to say now, after a more in depth education on the civil war, I don&amp;#039;t really like it as much. It just doesn&amp;#039;t have the same meaning that it used to hold. - Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 7 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-09T03:38:12Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When Denzel Washington, as Private Trip, pulls off his shirt to receive his punishment after his apparent &amp;quot;desertion&amp;quot; the lash scars already on his back is what most, if not all, slaves had. It was rare that a slave did not feel the tip of a whip nor was it rare that a master or an overseer would use it or threaten to use it. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The fact that the movie shows the black soldiers initially as manual laborers, as Dr. M said today in the lecture today, was accurate. The men were hauling logs, I believe, when the white troops passed them. Although the work was not what they wanted, it enabled more white soldiers to the battle front. Related to the black soldiers, the fact that Shaw was shown to work &amp;#039;&amp;#039;hard&amp;#039;&amp;#039; in order to get his men to the battlefield, was exactly what Shaw had to do. Arming black men was not a popular idea with white people on both sides of the war. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To tag onto Lauren&amp;#039;s comment a bit - I felt that the confrontation between white union soldiers and the 54th regiment was realistic, as well as the trouble that Shaw and company encountered in convincing the supplier to give them shoes etc. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Although many think that the 54th MA was the first black regiment in the Civil War, as it is more symbolic and is the one Glory is all about, the filmmakers try to prevent that misperception.  When Shaw meets Montgomery, he is asked something like, &amp;quot;you didn&amp;#039;t think yours was the only colored regiment, did you?&amp;quot; and we learn that the 2d SC existed before the 54th MA did. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tagging onto Whitney&amp;#039;s comment - I disagree that the film makers did other black regiments justice - they didn&amp;#039;t acknowledge other blacks actually fighting, and they portrayed them as &amp;quot;chimps in uniform&amp;quot; or &amp;quot;children&amp;quot; in the scene where they ransack the town of the &amp;#039;cessors. The movie seemed to make the 54th regiment the ONE exception to the rule and Shaw a great hero for respecting and believing in his black troops. - Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That&amp;#039;s a very good point, Elle. It was portrayed very negatively. -Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I am going to disagree with you two. The film says in the closing subtitles that more troops, 180,000 black men enlisting, were created after the Emancipation Proclamation. Suggesting that there were more Black troops and they certainly could have engaged in battle. The negative portrayal was not only cinematically beneficial, but it also helped tell a well-rounded history, and not simply glorify (pardon the word choice) the whole thing. The undisciplined troop spoke more to the white officers&amp;#039; views who commanded them rather than the quality of the enlisted men themselves. Shaw and the 54th, on the contrary, showed the positive results of black and white cooperation and respect. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I like that they brought up the fact that the union officers were appointed by social status. Shawl pretty much declares it in his letter when he said they made him captain of man who are older then him.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is a great movie and one thing that really stood out to me was how accurately Shaw&amp;#039;s post traumatic stress disorder was portrayed. Towards the beginning of the movie when Shaw returns to Boston and is talking to Thomas at the gathering with his family,  a maid closes the window, which causes a loud BANG similar to a gunshot and Shaw jumps; showing how emotionally disturbed and on edge he is from having been to war. The disorder is also shown during the scene when the regiment first receive their guns and are pretending to fight one another, the look in Shaw&amp;#039;s eyes and on his face it is evident that he is still coping with having been in battle and almost killed. Post traumatic stress was a very common repercussion of war that isn&amp;#039;t always discussed so having it play a part in the film makes the movie, for me personally, more accurate. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie also used one quote that we talked about during class.  One of the white Union soldiers made a comment about the 54th MA when they first assembled, and he said something along the lines of how the black soldiers were even more useless than a hog, because you at least eat a hog, you can&amp;#039;t eat a black person. By using an actual quote from the time period shows that the writers really did their research.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I liked how the movie included black culture.  As Shaw is narrating his letters he is saying how he &amp;quot;doesn&amp;#039;t get the black people&amp;quot; and how they behave.  I don&amp;#039;t think this is out of anger but because he feels that in order to successfully lead an army, he needs to understand his troops (this comes into play when he punishes Denzel&amp;#039;s character, as discussed above).  Furthermore, before the final battle scene at Fort Wagner, the movie shows a touching scene as the soldiers are singing in prayer, preparing for battle. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think one of the things the movie does best is show the overall treatment of blacks by the North. In the movie, they are discriminated against by receiving lesser pay and are slow to be provided with supplies. They are not allowed into battle and left to dig trenches and work as manual laborers. They are also mistreated and mocked by some unenthusiastic racist Northerners. As time passes, however, their discipline becomes clear, and they are allowed into battle where they prove their capabilities. The Northerners grow to respect the blacks and see them as actual people. The movie also does a fair job in expressing blacks’ reasons for volunteering. Their desire to prove themselves as equal to whites and fight for their people’s freedom is very clear. I think &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; accurately depicts black regiments and their impact on blacks and Northerners in a larger historical context. At the very least, the larger historical picture is represented better in this movie than in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, which tried to play the trial off as more important than it really was. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing the movie does especially well is the battle scenes. It is quite clear that the tactics used by the Union and Confederate armies don’t match up to the technology they are using, resulting in terrible casualties and horrific injuries. The small glimpse of hospitals is pretty gruesome and accurate, especially the unsanitary conditions and the amputation scene.  Also, in the movie, Shaw seems to suffer from a bit of PTSD, which wasn’t uncommon for Civil War soldiers, though it certainly wasn’t diagnosed as PTSD until Vietnam. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I too was impressed at the horrific depiction of the hospital scenes. It was essentially an updated version of the one from Gone with the Wind. It was loud, there were shortages of chloroform and nearly everyone in the hospital left without a limb. I was also struck by the subtle play to the lack of understanding of cleanliness when one of the surgeons dropped a knife into a basin full of bloody water. No wonder disease was such a killer! Also, I thought that depiction of the strategies being behind the times was evident both at the beginning and ending of the movie. In the beginning at Antietam Shaw and his men slowly march into established confederate positions only to be mowed down. Also one can not help to take the final scene as being mildly absurd. Not because of poor acting, but because that was the type of thing that really happened in the Civil War. Men were sent straight into the teeth of enemy lines and fortifications with little hope of success (much like Fredericksburg, Pickett&amp;#039;s Charge etc.). This is reinforced in the final text letting you know that half of the regiment was killed and that the attack on the fort was a failure.- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Also, you gotta love the reference to the battle of Fredericksburg. Go Mary Wash!- Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Elle on the filmmakers not portraying other black troops fighting. It showed that the 54th was the only black group that was capable of fighting the war.  There were other black troops that fought just as well. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn&amp;#039;t they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn&amp;#039;t it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The one thing that really bothers me in this movie is the cliche characterization of characters. You have the traditional scene of one soldier who dislikes another soldier only to be saved by that soldier in the end. You also have the 1 wise reliable soldier (the non commissioned officer). The movie really focuses on just a few cast members and does not really give you the true composition of the army such as there were several prominent black abolitionists fighting in the 54th when the movie only portrays just one. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did anybody else notice how perfect the feet of the dead men on the beach were?  Pretty good healing after nasty feet from not having had boots. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, just like in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Amistad&amp;#039;&amp;#039; a different character was used when the historical character would have been perfectly acceptable.  In class, we learned that General Benjamin Butler created the idea of the contraband.  If you can recall from the movie, Colonel James Montgomery conveniently created the idea of the contraband.  I think it&amp;#039;s a tad ridiculous that they changed the actual figure for this one in order to, in my opinion, create a villain.  The contrabands were also then shown in a beyond negative light, acting as Col. Montgomery called them, &amp;quot;little monkey children.&amp;quot;  I&amp;#039;m also seeing a pattern of villains burning down homes for no reason. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class we learned that in the North there were many different perspectives that dictated how Lincoln would respond to slavery and the treatment of blacks. I feel as though the movie did not show the balancing act at all. The movie showed tolerant whites and racist whites, it did not discuss Northern Democrats, the zealots of abolition, or President Lincoln’s strategic approach to emancipation. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was no emphasis on restoring the union like we discussed in class. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would the union army ransack and burn a village in the south regardless of political allegiance? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Runaway slaves were not discussed, or at least not properly. Yes, men like trip were runaways, as were many of the other men, but because there was no mention of runaways “not making it” the viewer is led to believe that all slaves who escaped to the North were somehow in a safe haven. Where was the sad reality of the fugitive slave act? – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was the fugitive slave act in effect at this point?  After all, runaway slaves could easily say that their masters were confederate conspirators against the union, a statement that would free them in the union&amp;#039;s eyes.  The slaves also had a few laws protecting them from the fugitive slave act, such as one passed in March 1862, Confiscation Acts, and fragmented versions of preliminary emancipation. --James D.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What about the Southern perspective? We did not hear from Southern unionists, slave holders, or slaves currently in bondage. Without these perspectives being represented the reality of the immense struggle for union and emancipation is distorted. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed was in the beginning of the movie when all the black soldiers have just enlisted and are getting organized was how they were all told to report to the officers according to what it said on their muster sheets. Weren&amp;#039;t most blacks illiterate at this time, and therefore not able to report to their officers? The movie showed this not being a problem for them.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I actually have a question.  In the movie, Shaw has to essentially blackmail the General in order to get the orders to let his men fight in a battle.  Did Shaw really have to pull strings in order to get his men out there?  Or was this all for dramatic effect?  I mean, it definitely emphasized how difficult it was for black soldiers to originally see a battlefield, but I felt like this was a bit extreme. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a series of somewhat small nitpicks that I’ll just group together in one paragraph of whining. Wasn’t the 54th Regiment made up mostly of free black men from Massachusetts? Aside from Thomas, basically all of the men shown seemed to have once been slaves. On Colonel Montgomery, as far as I understand, he was a staunch abolitionist, so I find it unlikely that he would consider the men under his command apelike simpletons. For that matter, would abolitionist Colonel Shaw have supported whipping a “deserter” like a slave driver would? There’s also the small issue of the living situation. According to one of the readings, the men were in barracks, not the tents shown in the movie. In the battle at Fort Wagner, one of the readings states that it was Shaw who actually picked up the flag and charged, only to be shot once in the chest. Assuming this is an accurate account, the movie didn’t quite follow along with that either. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I may be wrong but in the first battle scene with the 54th they went from being bayonet-less and firing to then meeting the confederate charge with one of their own, bayonets fixed. I thought it was strange seeing as how otherwise they were pretty good about showing the multi-step process of loading and firing. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Christine’s question; did the white soldiers support the black soldiers by refusing to receive pay if both races didn’t receive the same amount? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the black soldiers were very stereotypical.  While yes there were a variety of characters, they all seemed to follow some kind of stereotype. - Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Gooding&amp;#039;s first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in &amp;quot;Glory&amp;quot; don&amp;#039;t act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving &amp;quot;to make themselves a people.&amp;quot; --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
From Gooding&amp;#039;s letters of the spring of 1863, he expresses disappointment at the small numbers of &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men volunteering for the 54th MA Regt., from first in March when there were not enough for a company, less than half a regiment in a month, and that that it was not filled until May.  However, Glory gives us the impression that as soon as the call for &amp;quot;colored&amp;quot; men was put forth, enough enlisted to fill a regiment.  This seems to be for the effect of making the 54th look even more heroic, with all its troops willing to sacrifice for their freedom and country from the very start, rather than gradually recruiting enough over more than two months. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Colors: in Gooding&amp;#039;s June 20 letter, he describes the attack on Ft. Wagner, including that Shaw took up the State colors after the first bearer was killed on the parapet, and that once he was killed a Sgt. Carney saved the colors, and even said the flag never touched the ground.  Yet the movie portrays it very differently!  Not only do we see both the US and the regimental flag on the ground when the 54th is taking cover behind a dune once the battle starts, but then we see Shaw assessing the situation and the US flag on the ground in front of him.  Ironically, once he and the colorer-bearer get up and the latter is shot, Shaw, rather than pick up the colors, surges on, is shot, and dies falling onto the fallen colors!  I don&amp;#039;t know why it wouldn&amp;#039;t have been heroic to show Shaw carrying the colors AND dying on them.  After Denzel unsuccessfully tries to rescue the flag, we see both flags conspicuously in the picture gaining ground until the end, all the while both fully intact.  The filmmakers took license in order to show the character of Private Trip, who has a change of heart and will carry the colors after all.  And what can be more symbolic than for Old Glory to always be seen and to make it as far as the farthest soldier onto the fort? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the readings it mentioned how great the regiment was discipline wise and were great with marching etc... I felt that the movie correctly portrayed how quickly they learned the discipline of military stuffs as was mentioned in the readings --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading “Retaliation in Camp” with Halton and Union troops stated that the colored troops would still fight for the government even though the government didn’t want them. I think the movie portrays this well when Colonel Shaw read the paper stating that if blacks are found on Union lines they could be killed or brought back to their masters and that if the Union leaders were commanding the black troops they also could be tried and killed.  All the colored men stayed and were still risking their lives to fight; even the white majors and colonels stayed such as Shaw and Forbes. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is a bit cheeky, but this movie shows the popular white male actors of the 1980s, Ferris Bueller (Broderick) and Westley (Elwes) of the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Princess Bride.&amp;#039;&amp;#039; -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
...As well as the popular black male actors of the last 20 years, Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039; seemed to generally be received well by the public.  It has been dubbed as the most &amp;quot;technically realistic and memorable Civil War reenactment.&amp;quot;  Denzel Washington received his first Oscar in the Supporting Actor category.  Glory could be argued for in being the best film of the year (it wasn&amp;#039;t nominated for Best Picture), but if you look at the films it would have to compete against - Born on the Fourth of July, Driving Miss Daisy (the winner), and Field of Dreams - it would be a tough argument.  The other movies mentioned also dealt with the themes of War and Racism (except for Field of Dreams), something Glory needed to combine.  You would think with the star power the film had (Matthew Broderick/Ferris Bueller and Morgan Freeman, who ended up being nominated for Lead Actor for Driving Miss Daisy) that it should have gotten more recognition by the public.  Or, maybe this movie should be one for historians to claim and praise for themselves. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The stutter really got to me - I felt like some of the stereotypes hindered the films purpose of glorifying the dedicated soldiers, and  actually made me think of mammy and sissy from Gone with the Wind. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Characterization is something that bothers me with this movie. The movie really focuses on just a few characters ignoring pretty much everyone else. The confederates who were the enemies were never really characterized as anything more than fodder. While I suppose this is better than characterizing characters in a stereotypical or false way it really limits the scope of history this movie presents. The movie is show entirely through a few member of the 54th division and ends up giving a really limited scope causing the movie to miss out on presenting a broader picture of what was going on during the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing about the stereotype that amuses me is that once the 54th is in SC, a slave is talking to the Northern, educated, &amp;quot;Snowflake&amp;quot; Thomas, and he needs the wise old Freeman to interpret the dialect for him!  But maybe I just like that because I like linguistics. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Glory&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, I couldn&amp;#039;t help but notice that the music sounded familiar. It sounded very similar to the music in Apollo 13. I did some investigation (thanks to IMDB) and discovered that both movies have the same musical composer. While I do think the composer could have been a little more original in Apollo 13, since this movie came out first, they&amp;#039;re still great songs. This is just something I found pretty interesting. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As it pertains to War Movie Scores, when I was typing one of my posts the Gettysburg Theme by John Williams came on my ipod. I love the music in that movie, and I love that movie. I say this because after this week we leave the Civil War era and I wanted to acknowledge it. I suppose this is a question more directed at Dr. McClurken but open to anyone, how does that movie rank in terms of historical accuracy? - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the beginning there was a scene with Union troops playing baseball, would they have played baseball during the war at their camps? Also, later in the film I noticed the golden eagle statue on the top of the flap poles, was the eagle already adopted as the nation&amp;#039;s symbol? If so, was it already being used and displayed on flags as such?--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I asked this in my blog, but I&amp;#039;m going to ask it here too.  Wasn&amp;#039;t flogging actually illegal in the US Military before the Civil War?  I thought you couldn&amp;#039;t whip in the Army anymore but they obviously punished Trip in that fashion.  I could be wrong though.  --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did blacks really treat each other differently based upon education? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
I loved the symbolism at the end with Denzel Washington hugging Matthew Broderick after they&amp;#039;re thrown into the heap of dead bodies. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I just have to say, especially since we&amp;#039;re not having class tomorrow, I can&amp;#039;t stand Matthew Broderick&amp;#039;s little goatee-like thing.  I think just the mustache would have sufficed. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Before they go into Battle Shaw asks who will bear the colors if they are to fall, Thomas says that he will. When the colors do fall in battle, Thomas and Trip look at one another and Thomas gives Trip a look that says &amp;quot;well, I&amp;#039;m not going to pick them up&amp;quot; so Trip gallantly recovers them. Thomas is portrayed as a coward who would not live up to his word, fight heroically for his country, or avenge the death of Shaw who had treated him with nothing but fairness (even though it is understandable if Thomas felt slighted by that treatment). The fact that Trip takes the colors shows that a former slave who had every reason to resent whites, was so inspired by the promise of winning the war and gaining equality that he would die for the cause. – Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The first time I saw this movie was in middle school. We had to watch this movie and Gettysburg (pending parental permission of course) in our lessons on the Civil War. I find it interesting remembering that much of what I took to know about the war in regards to slavery came from this movie up until high school. For those who haven&amp;#039;t really studied the Civil War, movies like this may be all that they have to go on.-Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I noticed that the other black regiments wore red paints instead of the blue ones is that used to dissern the regiments apart or was that a common thing in the union forces?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember loving this movie in 7th grade when I first saw it. I have to say now, after a more in depth education on the civil war, I don&amp;#039;t really like it as much. It just doesn&amp;#039;t have the same meaning that it used to hold. - Kellye Sorber&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-01T07:34:33Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things had turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat and he believes they have no hope for victory, which was true after Gettysburg. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers and the burning of plantation homes, but that &amp;quot;nearly every home in the county&amp;quot; lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless and without income. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren&amp;#039;t totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now &amp;quot;gone with the wind,&amp;quot; never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jackie said, there were a lot of things that the movie did get right, such as one scene where Rhett tells Scarlett that she has to date him because &amp;quot;there is no one else around older than 16 and younger than 60 to show [her] a good time.&amp;quot;  As we discussed in class, most of the men in the South during the Civil War between those ages were off fighting, and many of them died, posing a problem for the women back at home.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Rhett Butler&amp;#039;s first lines in this film is him explaining how the North was better equipped than the South, a reason why they shouldn&amp;#039;t have gone into war in the first place.  He states that while the North was armed with factories, superior weapons, and coal mines, all the South had were &amp;quot;slaves, cotton, and arrogance.&amp;quot;  This is a nice summary of the South&amp;#039;s economic dependence on the production of cotton, which is of course directly dependent on slave labor.  Furthermore, the &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; can be interpreted as their belief in white supremacy and how that may have driven the South to go to war (which the movie eventually proved to be destructive to them). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the depiction of the civil war &amp;quot;hospitals&amp;quot; to be at least mildly accurate. They gave no sense of cleanliness or sterility, and were at times gruesome as Scarlett couldn&amp;#039;t handle bearing witness to the amputation sans chloroform. Perhaps there were some instances of nurse touching in the movie which was not allowed in real life, but it did portray one lady writing a letter for an incapacitated man as mentioned in the lecture. Also there was some sense that disease played just as important a role in the death toll as the war wounds. Scarlett&amp;#039;s first husband falls to pneumonia, her mother to typhoid, and there were allusions to lice and other diseases in the &amp;quot;hospitals.&amp;quot; -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I&amp;#039;d like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing.  There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Props to alluding to the KKK. But Great and Unbelievable Condemnation to making it seem glorious and righteous! Yeah that&amp;#039;s maybe what the bitter white dudes who created it thought but the movie makes it seem so gentile, defending their women from rape. Never mind that slave women had been sexually abused and taken advantage of for years and years before the war and then too, they were in danger during the war. The only thing the film or the book for that matter worries about is the virtue of white Ladies like Scarlet who goes off into the backwoods where poor criminal men (black and white) live and almost gets raped. The movie portrays her attacker as white and her savior as a former slave who had always been treated with respect and who in turn cared highly for his former mistress. This type of justification and wacky self-righteousness was ever present in the 20th century. The South had recently experienced a resurgence of the KKK- and black men who often lynched under the excuse that they had assaulted a white woman (usually if it had any truth at all it was consensual). The movie treads so lightly on the subject (even less than the book) that what was really going on is practically undetectable. It&amp;#039;s been a while since my sister had seen the film but even, now I had to explain to her that &amp;quot;illegal raid&amp;quot; was the KKK in action and as characters we are made to feel completely fond of or sympathetic for. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be nit-picky, but the scenes where Scarlett and Melanie are working as nurses for the wounded soldiers, they are bandaging the soldiers and taking their temperatures.  As we discussed in class, female nurses at this time would not be doing things like that; it would have been considered inappropriate, and they would have been doing tasks such as writing letters home for soldiers.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to women’s roles, it is apparent that Scarlet takes full advantage of the men being away. She keeps her role even when they return, managing the farm, the mill, the store, and her countless husbands. This example is of a truly one of a kind woman, and I don’t think (from my knowledge on gender roles etc.) that many women welcomed that much more responsibility, or were bold enough to take it into their own hands. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to mention Sherman’s march – sure Sherman wasn’t the nicest, but the Yankees are so villain-ized that it proves how much hatred there really was between the confederates and Yankees. Even from what is considered a southern state, Virginia, I was never taught such a one sided account. One thing that was overlooked that we discussed in class was the Confederates’ path of destruction as well – they tried to eliminate food sources that the Yankees could later stumble upon. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie&amp;#039;s romanticizing of the antebellum South, it appeared to me that the movie completely glossed over whites who were not in the planter class elite. There were no representations of the poor whites, or really any whites who owned less than a score of slaves who were not city dwellers. Also, though there was a mention of some of the O&amp;#039;Hara slaves running off, many slaves chose to remain very loyal to the family despite the South&amp;#039;s tenuous hold on slavery. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Melanie supposed to be absolutely ignorant that Scarlett loves Ashley?  She and Scarlett were very close since Charles died and Scarlett moved in with her and her aunt, but part of Scarlett&amp;#039;s friendship is just a facade, because she promised her love that she&amp;#039;d look after Melanie.  You&amp;#039;d think that it wouldn&amp;#039;t take 8 or so years for someone to see Scarlett in Ashley&amp;#039;s arms and pick up on something. - Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the deal with Scarlett&amp;#039;s cleavage?  Every other woman is dressed modestly except for Belle (no coincidence).  Once Scarlett returns to Tara and her father, she takes to wearing her pink dress WAY unbuttoned, and after that it seems like the only time you don&amp;#039;t see bare chest is when she&amp;#039;s in mourning!  But when she gets money and all these nice new clothes she does buy some dresses that cover her up more.  This all seems quite scandalous to be in a movie in 1939.  Someone mentioned &amp;quot;Aviator&amp;quot;--do you remember the cleavage discussion that went on with the board of censors? Yeah.  How easy was it to get that much on screen for GWTW? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as censor issues go for this movie, I mostly think language and content was the issue--not cleavage. When comparing the chest size of Hughe&amp;#039;s muse Jane Russell and Vivien Leigh it doesn&amp;#039;t seem to be as big a deal you know? They weren&amp;#039;t pushing the envelope much more than anyone else was back then. And plus, this was a BIG budget movie that was highly publicized and popular before filming even began so censors would not have even had much power over it. Alos keep in mind, they were probably sending things to the Prod. Code Office for approval throughout production. The two censor issues I know of were the lines &amp;quot;I don&amp;#039;t give a damn&amp;quot; (got away with it cuz the emphasis was on &amp;quot;give&amp;quot; and not &amp;quot;damn&amp;quot;  and the line &amp;quot;maybe you&amp;#039;ll get luck and have an miscarriage&amp;quot; which had to be changed to &amp;quot;have an accident.&amp;quot;--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
George Fitzhugh’s “The Blessings of Slavery” shows how ignorant white southern slave owners can be. The idea that a person is more happy in forced servitude than as a free citizen is ridiculous. Beyond that, it  meshes with stories of other slaveholders that were surprised when their slaves ran away – treating slaves well is better than treating them terribly, but they are still slaves. Gone with the Wind falls into this ignorance. Like most film productions where southern whites are slaveholders, the slaves love their masters like family. Mammy, Sissy, etc. (I can’t help but flashback to the Patriot as Mel helps his free black friends plow the field). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
So apparently the Civil War only affected white people....  Mammy and Prissy and the other old slave man all stay with Miss Scarlet and her family throughout the whole movie.  Not once is there mention of slaves being emancipated, and not once do the slaves mention being free (although we do see Old Sam is living away from them now, since he became a trench digger).  Through all that post-war poverty, and being the only blacks left on Tara, they stayed loyal.  But of course!  They&amp;#039;d always been treated and fed well and loved their white family and would never think of anything but staying. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The addressing of racial issues in Gone With The Wind was equally infuriating and heartbreaking. The thought that kept rushing through my head during the scenes with Mammy, Pris and Pork was it&amp;#039;s similarity to 1915&amp;#039;s Birth Of A Nation, which cost $110,000 to make and grossed $3 million in the US and $10 million worldwide. Gone With The Wind, to date, has grossed nearly $200 million dollars, after taking just under $4 million to produce. While BOAN was released 24 years previous to GWTW, it is clear that this racism is still prevalent and, as the above numbers show, commercially viable. In both films, the black characters were satirical caricatures of the southern slave population and were often seen not only as members of an inferior race but sometimes even as nothing more than loyal dogs. Human Beings or Man&amp;#039;s Best Friend? Unfortunately, this was clearly the southern attitude towards the black population. I suppose this racism is a great history lesson for those curious about race relations during the antebellum, in-war and post-war years, but it makes both films vastly uncomfortable viewing. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Gone With the Wind&amp;quot; is beautifully filmed and edited.  The use of color, music and other forms of mise en scene are spectacular, which a whole other class period could be devoted to for discussion.  One of  the scenes that stood out to me was when one of the soldiers comes back from battle and exclaims &amp;quot;It&amp;#039;s over, the war is over, we surrendered!&amp;quot;  Immediately after this, the spectrum of reactions from the south is expressed in only a matter of seconds through a couple of lines (these lines are of course paraphrased to the best of my memory):  &amp;quot;Why did we ever go to war?&amp;quot; (feeling of reluctance and regret), &amp;quot;Oh (insert name of husband) is coming home!&amp;quot; (relief that a loved one made it alive), &amp;quot;We surrendered?!?!&amp;quot; (shock of losing the war). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say - the first half.... LONG and BORING. The second half - on the edge of my seat at times. I had to leave for a club meeting (for literally 5 minutes) and it was hard to pry myself away. I must say NOT what I expected. Also, I totally called the deaths of Bonnie (foreshadowing) and Melanie (classic Little Women-like Beth character). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more thing - symbolism... I felt that Scarlet&amp;#039;s love for Ashley (which tragically ended at the end at his wife&amp;#039;s death, when Scarlet finally really gets a clue and realizes Ashley has loved his wife all along) was symbolic for the death of the south. Not a very uplifting ending. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very nice insights, Elle.  I was just wondering the likelihood of someone like Scarlett&amp;#039;s character truly existing during the Civil War.  Her extremely demanding personality gave me no choice but to stereotype all white women in the south during that time; but, I still feel that nobody that hysterical could really be based off a real person(s).  I know a lot of it probably has to do with dramatic effect, but generalizing off of Elle&amp;#039;s interpretation of Scarlett&amp;#039;s love for Ashley symbolizing the death of the south, is Scarlett&amp;#039;s personality representative of the arrogance of the South and how that lead to severe psychological repercussions?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What a demeaning image of a southern white lady, and how awful to have to play that role and reinforce this stereotype!  Scarlett is purely selfish, immature, whiny, vain, stubborn, hysterical, greedy...the list goes on.  Uggh!  And how she is in the beginning turning from one guy to another, entirely insincere and loving attention.  She marries to help herself and spite other men, and it takes until the loving, perfect Melanie dies for her to realize that Ashley was right when he said that he loved his wife and not her, and to realize that Rhett also loved her, like he always said he did.  And I don&amp;#039;t even need to go into her spending habits.  Frankly, I couldn&amp;#039;t give a damn what she did without Rhett, either.  To sum it up, as Elle said, &amp;quot;God, she&amp;#039;s pathetic.&amp;quot; -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is Rhett supposed to have become and stayed a millionaire? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I beg to differ on several of the above comments. First off, I LOVE AND WILL FOREVER LOVE THIS STORY!!!!!! The film is amazing in so many ways in its own right but the story Margaret Mitchell invented is beautiful. The characters are each tragically flawed in just the perfect way to make you love them, but mostly hate them and yet keeps you wanting to read it. I went as Scarlet in the red &amp;quot;look your part&amp;quot; dress in 2nd grade, so yeah, I am an undying fan. Scarlet is all of those horrible things but Rhett is a lot of them too. He just admits to them instead of trying to adhere to the hypocrisy of that society until Bonnie comes along. And the movie is ridiculously sad at the end, giving you zero time to breath in between Rhett&amp;#039;s devastation over Scarlet&amp;#039;s miscarriage (a word that they were not allowed to say in 1939 Code Hollywood), to Bonnie&amp;#039;s death and then Melanie&amp;#039;s death and then the final blow of Rhett leaving Scarlet at the precise moment she has her freakin&amp;#039; epiphany. But I love all these characters, even Scarlet- because Melanie (even though she deludes herself into thinking that Scarlet is not in love with Ashley) does see the good qualities of Scarlet, her sense of loyalty and the constant protection she provides to her family. It all seems selfish and she whines to some about having to do it, but in the end she goes back to Tara, the place that gives her strength because it is apart of her identity as the daughter of an Irish man, as a Southerner, as passionate person who demands control over her own life and destiny and will prevail &amp;quot;as God as her witness&amp;quot; even under all the tragedies of the world. It is actually an inspiring character, because she does change in the end (though you can debate that point) for the better. She gains a bit of insight and learns to love those she has taken for granted, and let go of others she had no right to love in the first place (got over her silly girlhood crush basically). I could quote this TIMELESS FILM all night long so I&amp;#039;ll stop before I do.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving?  We&amp;#039;re they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes?  If so, would there had been any radishes left?  I&amp;#039;ve only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing is explained, but somehow they do manage enough food to even feed returning soldiers too, though much to selfish Scarlet&amp;#039;s dismay.--Jackie Reed&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-01T07:20:07Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things had turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat and he believes they have no hope for victory, which was true after Gettysburg. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers and the burning of plantation homes, but that &amp;quot;nearly every home in the county&amp;quot; lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless and without income. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren&amp;#039;t totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now &amp;quot;gone with the wind,&amp;quot; never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As Jackie said, there were a lot of things that the movie did get right, such as one scene where Rhett tells Scarlett that she has to date him because &amp;quot;there is no one else around older than 16 and younger than 60 to show [her] a good time.&amp;quot;  As we discussed in class, most of the men in the South during the Civil War between those ages were off fighting, and many of them died, posing a problem for the women back at home.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of Rhett Butler&amp;#039;s first lines in this film is him explaining how the North was better equipped than the South, a reason why they shouldn&amp;#039;t have gone into war in the first place.  He states that while the North was armed with factories, superior weapons, and coal mines, all the South had were &amp;quot;slaves, cotton, and arrogance.&amp;quot;  This is a nice summary of the South&amp;#039;s economic dependence on the production of cotton, which is of course directly dependent on slave labor.  Furthermore, the &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; can be interpreted as their belief in white supremacy and how that may have driven the South to go to war (which the movie eventually proved to be destructive to them). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I found the depiction of the civil war &amp;quot;hospitals&amp;quot; to be at least mildly accurate. They gave no sense of cleanliness or sterility, and were at times gruesome as Scarlett couldn&amp;#039;t handle bearing witness to the amputation sans chloroform. Perhaps there were some instances of nurse touching in the movie which was not allowed in real life, but it did portray one lady writing a letter for an incapacitated man as mentioned in the lecture. Also there was some sense that disease played just as important a role in the death toll as the war wounds. Scarlett&amp;#039;s first husband falls to pneumonia, her mother to typhoid, and there were allusions to lice and other diseases in the &amp;quot;hospitals.&amp;quot; -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I&amp;#039;d like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing.  There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Props to alluding to the KKK. But Great and Unbelievable Condemnation to making it seem glorious and righteous! Yeah that&amp;#039;s maybe what the bitter white dudes who created it thought but the movie makes it seem so gentile, defending their women from rape. Never mind that slave women had been sexually abused and taken advantage of for years and years before the war and then too, they were in danger during the war. The only thing the film or the book for that matter worries about is the virtue of white Ladies like Scarlet who goes off into the backwoods where poor criminal men (black and white) live and almost gets raped. The movie portrays her attacker as white and her savior as a former slave who had always been treated with respect and who in turn cared highly for his former mistress. This type of justification and wacky self-righteousness was ever present in the 20th century. The South had recently experienced a resurgence of the KKK- and black men who often lynched under the excuse that they had assaulted a white woman (usually if it had any truth at all it was consensual). The movie treads so lightly on the subject (even less than the book) that what was really going on is practically undetectable. It&amp;#039;s been a while since my sister had seen the film but even, now I had to explain to her that &amp;quot;illegal raid&amp;quot; was the KKK in action and as characters we are made to feel completely fond of or sympathetic for. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This might be nit-picky, but the scenes where Scarlett and Melanie are working as nurses for the wounded soldiers, they are bandaging the soldiers and taking their temperatures.  As we discussed in class, female nurses at this time would not be doing things like that; it would have been considered inappropriate, and they would have been doing tasks such as writing letters home for soldiers.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In regards to women’s roles, it is apparent that Scarlet takes full advantage of the men being away. She keeps her role even when they return, managing the farm, the mill, the store, and her countless husbands. This example is of a truly one of a kind woman, and I don’t think (from my knowledge on gender roles etc.) that many women welcomed that much more responsibility, or were bold enough to take it into their own hands. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to mention Sherman’s march – sure Sherman wasn’t the nicest, but the Yankees are so villain-ized that it proves how much hatred there really was between the confederates and Yankees. Even from what is considered a southern state, Virginia, I was never taught such a one sided account. One thing that was overlooked that we discussed in class was the Confederates’ path of destruction as well – they tried to eliminate food sources that the Yankees could later stumble upon. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the movie&amp;#039;s romanticizing of the antebellum South, it appeared to me that the movie completely glossed over whites who were not in the planter class elite. There were no representations of the poor whites, or really any whites who owned less than a score of slaves who were not city dwellers. Also, though there was a mention of some of the O&amp;#039;Hara slaves running off, many slaves chose to remain very loyal to the family despite the South&amp;#039;s tenuous hold on slavery. - Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Is Melanie supposed to be absolutely ignorant that Scarlett loves Ashley?  She and Scarlett were very close since Charles died and Scarlett moved in with her and her aunt, but part of Scarlett&amp;#039;s friendship is just a facade, because she promised her love that she&amp;#039;d look after Melanie.  You&amp;#039;d think that it wouldn&amp;#039;t take 8 or so years for someone to see Scarlett in Ashley&amp;#039;s arms and pick up on something. - Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What the deal with Scarlett&amp;#039;s cleavage?  Every other woman is dressed modestly except for Belle (no coincidence).  Once Scarlett returns to Tara and her father, she takes to wearing her pink dress WAY unbuttoned, and after that it seems like the only time you don&amp;#039;t see bare chest is when she&amp;#039;s in mourning!  But when she gets money and all these nice new clothes she does buy some dresses that cover her up more.  This all seems quite scandalous to be in a movie in 1939.  Someone mentioned &amp;quot;Aviator&amp;quot;--do you remember the cleavage discussion that went on with the board of censors? Yeah.  How easy was it to get that much on screen for GWTW? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
George Fitzhugh’s “The Blessings of Slavery” shows how ignorant white southern slave owners can be. The idea that a person is more happy in forced servitude than as a free citizen is ridiculous. Beyond that, it  meshes with stories of other slaveholders that were surprised when their slaves ran away – treating slaves well is better than treating them terribly, but they are still slaves. Gone with the Wind falls into this ignorance. Like most film productions where southern whites are slaveholders, the slaves love their masters like family. Mammy, Sissy, etc. (I can’t help but flashback to the Patriot as Mel helps his free black friends plow the field). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
So apparently the Civil War only affected white people....  Mammy and Prissy and the other old slave man all stay with Miss Scarlet and her family throughout the whole movie.  Not once is there mention of slaves being emancipated, and not once do the slaves mention being free (although we do see Old Sam is living away from them now, since he became a trench digger).  Through all that post-war poverty, and being the only blacks left on Tara, they stayed loyal.  But of course!  They&amp;#039;d always been treated and fed well and loved their white family and would never think of anything but staying. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The addressing of racial issues in Gone With The Wind was equally infuriating and heartbreaking. The thought that kept rushing through my head during the scenes with Mammy, Pris and Pork was it&amp;#039;s similarity to 1915&amp;#039;s Birth Of A Nation, which cost $110,000 to make and grossed $3 million in the US and $10 million worldwide. Gone With The Wind, to date, has grossed nearly $200 million dollars, after taking just under $4 million to produce. While BOAN was released 24 years previous to GWTW, it is clear that this racism is still prevalent and, as the above numbers show, commercially viable. In both films, the black characters were satirical caricatures of the southern slave population and were often seen not only as members of an inferior race but sometimes even as nothing more than loyal dogs. Human Beings or Man&amp;#039;s Best Friend? Unfortunately, this was clearly the southern attitude towards the black population. I suppose this racism is a great history lesson for those curious about race relations during the antebellum, in-war and post-war years, but it makes both films vastly uncomfortable viewing. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;quot;Gone With the Wind&amp;quot; is beautifully filmed and edited.  The use of color, music and other forms of mise en scene are spectacular, which a whole other class period could be devoted to for discussion.  One of  the scenes that stood out to me was when one of the soldiers comes back from battle and exclaims &amp;quot;It&amp;#039;s over, the war is over, we surrendered!&amp;quot;  Immediately after this, the spectrum of reactions from the south is expressed in only a matter of seconds through a couple of lines (these lines are of course paraphrased to the best of my memory):  &amp;quot;Why did we ever go to war?&amp;quot; (feeling of reluctance and regret), &amp;quot;Oh (insert name of husband) is coming home!&amp;quot; (relief that a loved one made it alive), &amp;quot;We surrendered?!?!&amp;quot; (shock of losing the war). - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to say - the first half.... LONG and BORING. The second half - on the edge of my seat at times. I had to leave for a club meeting (for literally 5 minutes) and it was hard to pry myself away. I must say NOT what I expected. Also, I totally called the deaths of Bonnie (foreshadowing) and Melanie (classic Little Women-like Beth character). -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more thing - symbolism... I felt that Scarlet&amp;#039;s love for Ashley (which tragically ended at the end at his wife&amp;#039;s death, when Scarlet finally really gets a clue and realizes Ashley has loved his wife all along) was symbolic for the death of the south. Not a very uplifting ending. -Elle&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Very nice insights, Elle.  I was just wondering the likelihood of someone like Scarlett&amp;#039;s character truly existing during the Civil War.  Her extremely demanding personality gave me no choice but to stereotype all white women in the south during that time; but, I still feel that nobody that hysterical could really be based off a real person(s).  I know a lot of it probably has to do with dramatic effect, but generalizing off of Elle&amp;#039;s interpretation of Scarlett&amp;#039;s love for Ashley symbolizing the death of the south, is Scarlett&amp;#039;s personality representative of the arrogance of the South and how that lead to severe psychological repercussions?  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
What a demeaning image of a southern white lady, and how awful to have to play that role and reinforce this stereotype!  Scarlett is purely selfish, immature, whiny, vain, stubborn, hysterical, greedy...the list goes on.  Uggh!  And how she is in the beginning turning from one guy to another, entirely insincere and loving attention.  She marries to help herself and spite other men, and it takes until the loving, perfect Melanie dies for her to realize that Ashley was right when he said that he loved his wife and not her, and to realize that Rhett also loved her, like he always said he did.  And I don&amp;#039;t even need to go into her spending habits.  Frankly, I couldn&amp;#039;t give a damn what she did without Rhett, either.  To sum it up, as Elle said, &amp;quot;God, she&amp;#039;s pathetic.&amp;quot; -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
How is Rhett supposed to have become and stayed a millionaire? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I beg to differ on several of the above comments. First off, I LOVE AND WILL FOREVER LOVE THIS STORY!!!!!! The film is amazing in so many ways in its own right but the story Margaret Mitchell invented is beautiful. The characters are each tragically flawed in just the perfect way to make you love them, but mostly hate them and yet keeps you wanting to read it. I went as Scarlet in the red &amp;quot;look your part&amp;quot; dress in 2nd grade, so yeah, I am an undying fan. Scarlet is all of those horrible things but Rhett is a lot of them too. He just admits to them instead of trying to adhere to the hypocrisy of that society until Bonnie comes along. And the movie is ridiculously sad at the end, giving you zero time to breath in between Rhett&amp;#039;s devastation over Scarlet&amp;#039;s miscarriage (a word that they were not allowed to say in 1939 Code Hollywood), to Bonnie&amp;#039;s death and then Melanie&amp;#039;s death and then the final blow of Rhett leaving Scarlet at the precise moment she has her freakin&amp;#039; epiphany. But I love all these characters, even Scarlet- because Melanie (even though she deludes herself into thinking that Scarlet is not in love with Ashley) does see the good qualities of Scarlet, her sense of loyalty and the constant protection she provides to her family. It all seems selfish and she whines to some about having to do it, but in the end she goes back to Tara, the place that gives her strength because it is apart of her identity as the daughter of an Irish man, as a Southerner, as passionate person who demands control over her own life and destiny and will prevail &amp;quot;as God as her witness&amp;quot; even under all the tragedies of the world. It is actually an inspiring character, because she does change in the end (though you can debate that point) for the better. She gains a bit of insight and learns to love those she has taken for granted, and let go of others she had no right to love in the first place (got over her silly girlhood crush basically). I could quote this TIMELESS FILM all night long so I&amp;#039;ll stop before I do.--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving?  We&amp;#039;re they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes?  If so, would there had been any radishes left?  I&amp;#039;ve only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing is explained, but somehow they do manage enough food to even feed returning soldiers too, though much to selfish Scarlet&amp;#039;s dismay.--Jackie Reed&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-01T02:08:51Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 6 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things had turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat and he believes they have no hope for victory, which was true after Gettysburg. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers and the burning of plantation homes, but that &amp;quot;nearly every home in the county&amp;quot; lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless and without income. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren&amp;#039;t totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now &amp;quot;gone with the wind,&amp;quot; never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I&amp;#039;d like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing.  There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Props to alluding to the KKK. But Great and Unbelievable Condemnation to making it seem glorious and righteous! Yeah that&amp;#039;s maybe what the bitter white dudes who created it thought but the movie makes it seem so gentile, defending their women from rape. Never mind that slave women had been sexually abused and taken advantage of for years and years before the war and then too, they were in danger during the war. The only thing the film or the book for that matter worries about is the virtue of white Ladies like Scarlet who goes off into the backwoods where poor criminal men (black and white) live and almost gets raped. The movie portrays her attacker as white and her savior as a former slave who had always been treated with respect and who in turn cared highly for his former mistress. This type of justification and wacky self-righteousness was ever present in the 20th century. The South had recently experienced a resurgence of the KKK- and black men who often lynched under the excuse that they had assaulted a white woman (usually if it had any truth at all it was consensual). The movie treads so lightly on the subject (even less than the book) that what was really going on is practically undetectable. It&amp;#039;s been a while since my sister had seen the film but even, now I had to explain to her that &amp;quot;illegal raid&amp;quot; was the KKK in action and as characters we are made to feel completely fond of or sympathetic for. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving?  We&amp;#039;re they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes?  If so, would there had been any radishes left?  I&amp;#039;ve only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Nothing is explained, but somehow they do manage enough food to even feed returning soldiers too, though much to selfish Scarlet&amp;#039;s dismay.--Jackie Reed&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-01T02:06:44Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things had turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat and he believes they have no hope for victory, which was true after Gettysburg. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers and the burning of plantation homes, but that &amp;quot;nearly every home in the county&amp;quot; lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless and without income. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren&amp;#039;t totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now &amp;quot;gone with the wind,&amp;quot; never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I&amp;#039;d like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing.  There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Props to alluding to the KKK. But Great and Unbelievable Condemnation to making it seem glorious and righteous! Yeah that&amp;#039;s maybe what the bitter white dudes who created it thought but the movie makes it seem so gentile, defending their women from rape. Never mind that slave women had been sexually abused and taken advantage of for years and years before the war and then too, they were in danger during the war. The only thing the film or the book for that matter worries about is the virtue of white Ladies like Scarlet who goes off into the backwoods where poor criminal men (black and white) live and almost gets raped. The movie portrays her attacker as white and her savior as a former slave who had always been treated with respect and who in turn cared highly for his former mistress. This type of justification and wacky self-righteousness was ever present in the 20th century. The South had recently experienced a resurgence of the KKK- and black men who often lynched under the excuse that they had assaulted a white woman (usually if it had any truth at all it was consensual). The movie treads so lightly on the subject (even less than the book) that what was really going on is practically undetectable. It&amp;#039;s been a while since my sister had seen the film but even, now I had to explain to her that &amp;quot;illegal raid&amp;quot; was the KKK in action and as characters we are made to feel completely fond of or sympathetic for. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving?  We&amp;#039;re they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes?  If so, would there had been any radishes left?  I&amp;#039;ve only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-01T01:26:22Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
There are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things had turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat and he believes they have no hope for victory, which was true after Gettysburg. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers and the burning of plantation homes, but that &amp;quot;nearly every home in the county&amp;quot; lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless and without income. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren&amp;#039;t totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now &amp;quot;gone with the wind,&amp;quot; never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I&amp;#039;d like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing.  There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving?  We&amp;#039;re they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes?  If so, would there had been any radishes left?  I&amp;#039;ve only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 6 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-10-01T01:22:59Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
The are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things have turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat he believes they have no hope for victory. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much &amp;quot;arrogance&amp;quot; as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers, but that &amp;quot;nearly every home in the county&amp;quot; lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless from the burnings by the Union. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren&amp;#039;t totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now &amp;quot;gone with the wind,&amp;quot; never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I&amp;#039;d like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing.  There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving?  We&amp;#039;re they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes?  If so, would there had been any radishes left?  I&amp;#039;ve only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-24T06:05:35Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve discussed in class the importance of the language barrier between two cultures and how well have movies portrayed this (or not portrayed it at well).  Past movies we&amp;#039;ve watched such as Pocahontas brought up questions such as how does everyone, including the Native Americans, know English even before the British arrived in the New World.  Having the Mendes speak in their native tongue provides an authentic feel to the movie, but also conveys an important factor during these trials.  The fact that the Mendes neither spoke English nor Spanish made it difficult for communication between Baldwin and Cinque and in court, which the movie gets right...even adding a touch of humor to this aspect.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aagh! You totally stole my comment! I agree, Amistad was an amazing way to show how addressing language barrier can actually strengthen a movie&amp;#039;s plot and themes. Not only do we see how Baldwin and Cinque struggle to understand one another (sometimes comedically, sometimes seriously) but we see how it helps the grow as people through understanding each other&amp;#039;s cultures, and it also is used as evidence that the Mendi are born Africans. This leads to themes- like a people who can&amp;#039;t speak for themselves, but overcome the impossible injustices they face as free people. I thought it was a fascinating directorial choice to not use subtitles for the Mendi until about 20-30 min. into the film. The Spanish get subtitles but audience is purposely put in the dark about what the Mendi are saying until people start to really try to talk to them. It makes it take longer for the viewer to understand and get to know the Mendi. It makes them seem foreign, and bewildering, and a bit nonsensical too, like we are looking from the point of view of the Americans who are either ignoring them as intelligent people of another culture or as the Americans who are trying to help them but can&amp;#039;t communicate with them. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right - still going off the same thing... I am a little more skeptical - the humor that D-Flo refers to sticks out in my mind. When Baldwin and Cinque are both saying &amp;quot;how do I find out where you&amp;#039;re from&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;how can I tell you where I&amp;#039;m from&amp;quot; I am just a little skeptical. I like to think that through language barriers we all can think similarly and problem solve though. Another instance is when Cinque is asking all the questions via the translator to JQA. I thought it was interesting to note that JQA&amp;#039;s argument did end up being  in essence Cinque&amp;#039;s words. To summarize - I felt that Amistad did a good job of portraying the language barrier, but did have a few inconsistencies in this area (which were most likely purposeful for entertainment value). -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the point where Holabird is questioning Cinque about slavery within Africa, there is trouble in translation because &amp;#039;slave&amp;#039; can only be translated as &amp;#039;worker.&amp;#039;  We see an example of this when Olaudah Equiano writes of slavery in Africa as an entirely different concept--workers or servants, and he was well-treated and included--than what started happening once he got to the coast. However, with Holabird&amp;#039;s argument that whether it&amp;#039;s slavery or indentured servitude, the concept is the same, the film gives little indication to the viewer that the concept truly is different. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s good to have the British captain confirm to Holabird in testimony that Cinque&amp;#039;s account of the captives&amp;#039; treatment was a common occurrence, so the viewer understands that as well. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed about Dr. M&amp;#039;s lecture was the overwhelming amount of historical figures involved with the trial surrounding the Amistad slaves.  So a question I asked myself before watching the movie was which historical characters would the movie focus on.  The most obvious is Joseph Cinque (but I probably would not have known this if I haven&amp;#039;t heard of this film before), but I think you could argue that every other name Dr. M mentioned in class deserved much focus in order to understand the history of the Amistad trial.  Roger Baldwin and JQA are the other two figures the movie gives more screen time to, but I feel like much more important figures deserve greater insight and character development.  For example, President Van Buren would have had much to say about the trial since he was up for re-election during this time period.  Also, I initially thought Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character was a reflection of James Pennington, but after reading &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; I discovered that Theodore was fictitious and that the movie was actually criticized for not including those prominent blacks involved with the abolition movement (71).  Additionally, other important historical figures such as Queen Isabella of Spain (at least I think she was a Queen in the movie) and the Grimke sisters needed more emphasis to understand this historical event.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a few things to say about the characters. Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s character of Roger Baldwin was full humor, but I thought that depiction was inaccurate. Dr. M said the real Baldwin was in his 40&amp;#039;s, whereas in the movie, he was depicted as a young, fresh, and inexperienced lawyer. It can be argued that he was this movie&amp;#039;s eye candy, as Jackie might say. His important role in the trials was right, but it was he who talked to John Quincy Adams in the movie to get involved in the trials, not Lewis Tappan, as it was in reality. As for Queen Isabella, was she really eleven or was she younger? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually I would say the eye candy of this movie was either Cinque, who was constantly shirtless, or Covey, who was just so damn pretty- but my silliness aside, I thought this was one of Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s finer roles. And between his costume (shabby dress and sideburns) and his convincing performance as a compelling lawyer (though inexperienced in the courtroom) I think his usual stereotype as a leading man hottie is irrelevant here as is his age, since he still came across as serious as and as strong as Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins. But, I was also peeved by the Morgan Freeman character fabrication issue. &amp;quot;Of course it&amp;#039;s him!&amp;quot; I said to myself as soon as I heard the voice. If there is going to be a wise, cunning, and quietly righteous black man in a period film, it is going to be played by Freeman! But when you&amp;#039;ve got such a fail-safe stock character like that, why bother trying portray the connections to the real freed black abolitionist, James Pennington? And how about those female speaking roles... or should I say role! I can understand when a movie is made about a time when women weren&amp;#039;t put in the history books, but there WERE the Grimke sisters, who were certainly more prominent in the publicity around the case than a man who never existed (Freeman)! The only individual female character we see is the self-centered, pre-teen Queen Isabela II. Way to make women look good Hollywood! But hey, at least they didn&amp;#039;t invent or fabricate a love story for once!--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Lewis Tappan Document describes the jail arrangements of the Amistad captives. In this source Cinque is jailed with other criminals separate from his people. He is also not allowed to be removed from said cell because he was not trusted. This is VERY different in the film, in which Cinque leaves the cell on many occasions and is even unchained in the presence of John Quincy Adams in his study. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question - How many women and children were aboard the Amistad and made it out alive? It struck me as odd that there would be young and female survivors of this entire ordeal - given Cinque&amp;#039;s account of killing off/starving/drowning the weak and less profitable slaves on the original journey, tacked onto the fact that the majority of slaves in the trade were men in the first place. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Answer: I thought there were a few women and children survivors that made it onto the Amistad. As for why they would be there in the first place, I imagine, is because (with a mix of men and women) slaveowners would hope that they would procreate and then their children would become the property of the slave-owners who bought them (free slaves basically).--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So we know that they really appealed to the District Court, and didn&amp;#039;t replace the judge, and that they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, too.  But what&amp;#039;s the deal with the trial?  It looks like Adams gives a little, powerful speech based on Cinque&amp;#039;s words...nothing close to an 8.5-hour oratory.  Are we supposed to assume that the arguments made in lesser courts are also made before the Supreme Court before what we see, or that Adams&amp;#039;s little bit was all it took for the court to hear the case and rule on it? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wait. Whitney. Did you really want the movie to go on for another 8.5 hrs? Baldwin gave a speech and testimony (repeating mostly what he had already argued in lower courts) over a period of two days, but ALL of that happened off camera. I think we should cut the filmmakers some slack on summary of Adams&amp;#039; real speech. --Jackie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal of Cinque fit the description of him by Lewis Tappan. Tappan described Cinque as having &amp;quot;a good deal of gracefulness and native diginity (Tappan, p. 351).&amp;quot; In the movie, Djimon Hounsou who played Cinque was able to get that description across great. His presence was so strong and that of a leader. He looked like he was born to the position that he achieved as his character. He was dignified as he walked about and testified in the courts, even in shackles. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hounsou&amp;#039;s Cinque has grace and dignity sometimes, particularly in court, with Adams, and telling his lion story, but a good deal of the time he is shouting with eyes wide and nostrils flared-whether on the Amistad or riled up in jail. In combination with certain postures and grunts at various points, that&amp;#039;s more like raw African savage than the graceful and dignified native we see later. However, when Baldwin is trying to tell him that the other Mende captives look up to him, he is very modest, saying he cannot speak for them and telling his lion story. It is made clear that he hasn&amp;#039;t always been their leader, when he&amp;#039;s first arguing with Fala after the mutiny, who he continues to have tension with in the jail. However, at one point in the trial, Cinque notices all the fidgeting in the court and looks like he&amp;#039;s about to lose it, but then stands up and starts saying &amp;quot;Give us, us free!&amp;quot;  He is really made noble here, because not only is he holding out his manacled hands in front of him, but the sunlight is streaming through the window onto the Mendi just so, accompanied by angelic singing. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maritime History was a popular subject for films of 1997... Titanic anyone. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As was mentioned in class this morning, I wonder why the story of Amistad and the film are not more well known. With the extraordinary cast, director, and overall impact of the film, it&amp;#039;s strange that it did not receive more recognition. Also, given that politicians were looking at this case as a monumental turning point to begin the civil war, how is it not more integral in our nation&amp;#039;s history?  Something that stuck with me was a line of JQA, something along the lines of - &amp;quot;I want the next generation to know the name Cinque as well as Patrick Henry.&amp;quot; Why don&amp;#039;t we? -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excellent points Elle! I am recommending this 10 year old movie to everyone I know cuz I only just found out how great it is! I think the history books gloss over the Amistad case in high schools because there wasn&amp;#039;t just one action or event that sparked the Civil War. So many little things (though usually monument, like this, when looked at individually) lead to the impossible tension that caused the war to be arguably inevitable. But, I think what the movie is trying to show, is that nobody wanted that inevitable clash of the south and north to be on their head (as Calhoun says to van Buren in the film). As for the Patrick Henry thing, I think its hilarious that while we remember a man who famously spoke words that were not his own, we forget the man who had to have his own important words spoken by a translator (if that makes any sense)- what I mean to say is, that I believe the Cinque&amp;#039;s sentiments on rights to freedom, heard second-hand, are better worth remembering than Patrick Henry&amp;#039;s plagiarized speech, but only Antebellum African Americans they ever bother to teach are Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tudman --Jackie Reed&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-24T05:56:19Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve discussed in class the importance of the language barrier between two cultures and how well have movies portrayed this (or not portrayed it at well).  Past movies we&amp;#039;ve watched such as Pocahontas brought up questions such as how does everyone, including the Native Americans, know English even before the British arrived in the New World.  Having the Mendes speak in their native tongue provides an authentic feel to the movie, but also conveys an important factor during these trials.  The fact that the Mendes neither spoke English nor Spanish made it difficult for communication between Baldwin and Cinque and in court, which the movie gets right...even adding a touch of humor to this aspect.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aagh! You totally stole my comment! I agree, Amistad was an amazing way to show how addressing language barrier can actually strengthen a movie&amp;#039;s plot and themes. Not only do we see how Baldwin and Cinque struggle to understand one another (sometimes comedically, sometimes seriously) but we see how it helps the grow as people through understanding each other&amp;#039;s cultures, and it also is used as evidence that the Mendi are born Africans. This leads to themes- like a people who can&amp;#039;t speak for themselves, but overcome the impossible injustices they face as free people. I thought it was a fascinating directorial choice to not use subtitles for the Mendi until about 20-30 min. into the film. The Spanish get subtitles but audience is purposely put in the dark about what the Mendi are saying until people start to really try to talk to them. It makes it take longer for the viewer to understand and get to know the Mendi. It makes them seem foreign, and bewildering, and a bit nonsensical too, like we are looking from the point of view of the Americans who are either ignoring them as intelligent people of another culture or as the Americans who are trying to help them but can&amp;#039;t communicate with them. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right - still going off the same thing... I am a little more skeptical - the humor that D-Flo refers to sticks out in my mind. When Baldwin and Cinque are both saying &amp;quot;how do I find out where you&amp;#039;re from&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;how can I tell you where I&amp;#039;m from&amp;quot; I am just a little skeptical. I like to think that through language barriers we all can think similarly and problem solve though. Another instance is when Cinque is asking all the questions via the translator to JQA. I thought it was interesting to note that JQA&amp;#039;s argument did end up being  in essence Cinque&amp;#039;s words. To summarize - I felt that Amistad did a good job of portraying the language barrier, but did have a few inconsistencies in this area (which were most likely purposeful for entertainment value). -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the point where Holabird is questioning Cinque about slavery within Africa, there is trouble in translation because &amp;#039;slave&amp;#039; can only be translated as &amp;#039;worker.&amp;#039;  We see an example of this when Olaudah Equiano writes of slavery in Africa as an entirely different concept--workers or servants, and he was well-treated and included--than what started happening once he got to the coast. However, with Holabird&amp;#039;s argument that whether it&amp;#039;s slavery or indentured servitude, the concept is the same, the film gives little indication to the viewer that the concept truly is different. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It&amp;#039;s good to have the British captain confirm to Holabird in testimony that Cinque&amp;#039;s account of the captives&amp;#039; treatment was a common occurrence, so the viewer understands that as well. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed about Dr. M&amp;#039;s lecture was the overwhelming amount of historical figures involved with the trial surrounding the Amistad slaves.  So a question I asked myself before watching the movie was which historical characters would the movie focus on.  The most obvious is Joseph Cinque (but I probably would not have known this if I haven&amp;#039;t heard of this film before), but I think you could argue that every other name Dr. M mentioned in class deserved much focus in order to understand the history of the Amistad trial.  Roger Baldwin and JQA are the other two figures the movie gives more screen time to, but I feel like much more important figures deserve greater insight and character development.  For example, President Van Buren would have had much to say about the trial since he was up for re-election during this time period.  Also, I initially thought Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character was a reflection of James Pennington, but after reading &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; I discovered that Theodore was fictitious and that the movie was actually criticized for not including those prominent blacks involved with the abolition movement (71).  Additionally, other important historical figures such as Queen Isabella of Spain (at least I think she was a Queen in the movie) and the Grimke sisters needed more emphasis to understand this historical event.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a few things to say about the characters. Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s character of Roger Baldwin was full humor, but I thought that depiction was inaccurate. Dr. M said the real Baldwin was in his 40&amp;#039;s, whereas in the movie, he was depicted as a young, fresh, and inexperienced lawyer. It can be argued that he was this movie&amp;#039;s eye candy, as Jackie might say. His important role in the trials was right, but it was he who talked to John Quincy Adams in the movie to get involved in the trials, not Lewis Tappan, as it was in reality. As for Queen Isabella, was she really eleven or was she younger? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually I would say the eye candy of this movie was either Cinque, who was constantly shirtless, or Covey, who was just so damn pretty- but my silliness aside, I thought this was one of Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s finer roles. And between his costume (shabby dress and sideburns) and his convincing performance as a compelling lawyer (though inexperienced in the courtroom) I think his usual stereotype as a leading man hottie is irrelevant here as is his age, since he still came across as serious as and as strong as Morgan Freeman or the actor playing John Quincy Adams. But, I was also peeved by the Morgan Freeman character fabrication issue. &amp;quot;Of course it&amp;#039;s him!&amp;quot; I said to myself as soon as I heard the voice. If there is going to be a wise, cunning, and quietly righteous black man in a period film, it is going to be played by Freeman! I also noticed, while watching that his name and actions didn&amp;#039;t match up to the historical figure Dr. M talked about in class- I felt like this was a classic Hollywood cheat! And how about those female speaking roles... or should I say role! I can understand when a movie is made about a time when women weren&amp;#039;t put in the history books, but there WERE the Grimke sisters, who were certainly more prominent in the publicity around the case than a man who never existed (Freeman)! The only individual female character we see is the self-centered, pre-teen Queen Isabela II. Way to make women look good Hollywood! But hey, at least they didn&amp;#039;t invent or fabricate a love story for once!--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Lewis Tappan Document describes the jail arrangements of the Amistad captives. In this source Cinque is jailed with other criminals separate from his people. He is also not allowed to be removed from said cell because he was not trusted. This is VERY different in the film, in which Cinque leaves the cell on many occasions and is even unchained in the presence of John Quincy Adams in his study. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question - How many women and children were aboard the Amistad and made it out alive? It struck me as odd that there would be young and female survivors of this entire ordeal - given Cinque&amp;#039;s account of killing off/starving/drowning the weak and less profitable slaves on the original journey, tacked onto the fact that the majority of slaves in the trade were men in the first place. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Answer: I thought there were a few women and children survivors that made it onto the Amistad. As for why they would be there in the first place, I imagine, is because (with a mix of men and women) slaveowners would hope that they would procreate and then their children would become the property of the slave-owners who bought them (free slaves basically).--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So we know that they really appealed to the District Court, and didn&amp;#039;t replace the judge, and that they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, too.  But what&amp;#039;s the deal with the trial?  It looks like Adams gives a little, powerful speech based on Cinque&amp;#039;s words...nothing close to an 8.5-hour oratory.  Are we supposed to assume that the arguments made in lesser courts are also made before the Supreme Court before what we see, or that Adams&amp;#039;s little bit was all it took for the court to hear the case and rule on it? -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Wait. Whitney. Did you really want the movie to go on for another 8.5 hrs? Baldwin gave a speech and testimony (repeating mostly what he had already argued in lower courts) over a period of two days, but ALL of that happened off camera. I think we should cut the filmmakers some slack on summary of Adams&amp;#039; real speech. --Jackie&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal of Cinque fit the description of him by Lewis Tappan. Tappan described Cinque as having &amp;quot;a good deal of gracefulness and native diginity (Tappan, p. 351).&amp;quot; In the movie, Djimon Hounsou who played Cinque was able to get that description across great. His presence was so strong and that of a leader. He looked like he was born to the position that he achieved as his character. He was dignified as he walked about and testified in the courts, even in shackles. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hounsou&amp;#039;s Cinque has grace and dignity sometimes, particularly in court, with Adams, and telling his lion story, but a good deal of the time he is shouting with eyes wide and nostrils flared-whether on the Amistad or riled up in jail. In combination with certain postures and grunts at various points, that&amp;#039;s more like raw African savage than the graceful and dignified native we see later. However, when Baldwin is trying to tell him that the other Mende captives look up to him, he is very modest, saying he cannot speak for them and telling his lion story. It is made clear that he hasn&amp;#039;t always been their leader, when he&amp;#039;s first arguing with Fala after the mutiny, who he continues to have tension with in the jail. However, at one point in the trial, Cinque notices all the fidgeting in the court and looks like he&amp;#039;s about to lose it, but then stands up and starts saying &amp;quot;Give us, us free!&amp;quot;  He is really made noble here, because not only is he holding out his manacled hands in front of him, but the sunlight is streaming through the window onto the Mendi just so, accompanied by angelic singing. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maritime History was a popular subject for films of 1997... Titanic anyone. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As was mentioned in class this morning, I wonder why the story of Amistad and the film are not more well known. With the extraordinary cast, director, and overall impact of the film, it&amp;#039;s strange that it did not receive more recognition. Also, given that politicians were looking at this case as a monumental turning point to begin the civil war, how is it not more integral in our nation&amp;#039;s history?  Something that stuck with me was a line of JQA, something along the lines of - &amp;quot;I want the next generation to know the name Cinque as well as Patrick Henry.&amp;quot; Why don&amp;#039;t we? -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excellent points Elle! I am recommending this 10 year old movie to everyone I know cuz I only just found out how great it is! I think the history books gloss over the Amistad case in high schools because there wasn&amp;#039;t just one action or event that sparked the Civil War. So many little things (though usually monument, like this, when looked at individually) lead to the impossible tension that caused the war to be arguably inevitable. But, I think what the movie is trying to show, is that nobody wanted that inevitable clash of the south and north to be on their head (as Calhoun says to van Buren in the film). As for the Patrick Henry thing, I think its hilarious that while we remember a man who famously spoke words that were not his own, we forget the man who had to have his own important words spoken by a translator (if that makes any sense)- what I mean to say is, that I believe the Cinque&amp;#039;s sentiments on rights to freedom, heard second-hand, are better worth remembering than Patrick Henry&amp;#039;s plagiarized speech, but only Antebellum African Americans they ever bother to teach are Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tudman --Jackie Reed&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-24T05:19:39Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 6 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve discussed in class the importance of the language barrier between two cultures and how well have movies portrayed this (or not portrayed it at well).  Past movies we&amp;#039;ve watched such as Pocahontas brought up questions such as how does everyone, including the Native Americans, know English even before the British arrived in the New World.  Having the Mendes speak in their native tongue provides an authentic feel to the movie, but also conveys an important factor during these trials.  The fact that the Mendes neither spoke English nor Spanish made it difficult for communication between Baldwin and Cinque and in court, which the movie gets right...even adding a touch of humor to this aspect.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aagh! You totally stole my comment! I agree, Amistad was an amazing way to show how addressing language barrier can actually strengthen a movie&amp;#039;s plot and themes. Not only do we see how Baldwin and Cinque struggle to understand one another (sometimes comedically, sometimes seriously) but we see how it helps the grow as people through understanding each other&amp;#039;s cultures, and it also is used as evidence that the Mendi are born Africans. This leads to themes- like a people who can&amp;#039;t speak for themselves, but overcome the impossible injustices they face as free people. I thought it was a fascinating directorial choice to not use subtitles for the Mendi until about 20-30 min. into the film. The Spanish get subtitles but audience is purposely put in the dark about what the Mendi are saying until people start to really try to talk to them. It makes it take longer for the viewer to understand and get to know the Mendi. It makes them seem foreign, and bewildering, and a bit nonsensical too, like we are looking from the point of view of the Americans who are either ignoring them as intelligent people of another culture or as the Americans who are trying to help them but can&amp;#039;t communicate with them. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right - still going off the same thing... I am a little more skeptical - the humor that D-Flo refers to sticks out in my mind. When Baldwin and Cinque are both saying &amp;quot;how do I find out where you&amp;#039;re from&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;how can I tell you where I&amp;#039;m from&amp;quot; I am just a little skeptical. I like to think that through language barriers we all can think similarly and problem solve though. Another instance is when Cinque is asking all the questions via the translator to JQA. I thought it was interesting to note that JQA&amp;#039;s argument did end up being  in essence Cinque&amp;#039;s words. To summarize - I felt that Amistad did a good job of portraying the language barrier, but did have a few inconsistencies in this area (which were most likely purposeful for entertainment value). -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the point where Holabird is questioning Cinque about slavery within Africa, there is trouble in translation because &amp;#039;slave&amp;#039; can only be translated as &amp;#039;worker.&amp;#039;  We see an example of this when Olaudah Equiano writes of slavery in Africa as an entirely different concept--workers or servants, and he was well-treated and included--than what started happening once he got to the coast. However, with Holabird&amp;#039;s argument that whether it&amp;#039;s slavery or indentured servitude, the concept is the same, the film gives little indication to the viewer that the concept truly is different. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed about Dr. M&amp;#039;s lecture was the overwhelming amount of historical figures involved with the trial surrounding the Amistad slaves.  So a question I asked myself before watching the movie was which historical characters would the movie focus on.  The most obvious is Joseph Cinque (but I probably would not have known this if I haven&amp;#039;t heard of this film before), but I think you could argue that every other name Dr. M mentioned in class deserved much focus in order to understand the history of the Amistad trial.  Roger Baldwin and JQA are the other two figures the movie gives more screen time to, but I feel like much more important figures deserve greater insight and character development.  For example, President Van Buren would have had much to say about the trial since he was up for re-election during this time period.  Also, I initially thought Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character was a reflection of James Pennington, but after reading &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; I discovered that Theodore was fictitious and that the movie was actually criticized for not including those prominent blacks involved with the abolition movement (71).  Additionally, other important historical figures such as Queen Isabella of Spain (at least I think she was a Queen in the movie) and the Grimke sisters needed more emphasis to understand this historical event.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a few things to say about the characters. Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s character of Roger Baldwin was full humor, but I thought that depiction was inaccurate. Dr. M said the real Baldwin was in his 40&amp;#039;s, whereas in the movie, he was depicted as a young, fresh, and inexperienced lawyer. It can be argued that he was this movie&amp;#039;s eye candy, as Jackie might say. His important role in the trials was right, but it was he who talked to John Quincy Adams in the movie to get involved in the trials, not Lewis Tappan, as it was in reality. As for Queen Isabella, was she really eleven or was she younger? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually I would say the eye candy of this movie was either Cinque, who was constantly shirtless, or Covey, who was just so damn pretty- but my silliness aside, I thought this was one of Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s finer roles. And between his costume (shabby dress and sideburns) and his convincing performance as a compelling lawyer (though inexperienced in the courtroom) I think his usual stereotype as a leading man hottie is irrelevant here as is his age, since he still came across as serious as and as strong as Morgan Freeman or the actor playing John Quincy Adams. But, I was also peeved by the Morgan Freeman character fabrication issue. &amp;quot;Of course it&amp;#039;s him!&amp;quot; I said to myself as soon as I heard the voice. If there is going to be a wise, cunning, and quietly righteous black man in a period film, it is going to be played by Freeman! I also noticed, while watching that his name and actions didn&amp;#039;t match up to the historical figure Dr. M talked about in class- I felt like this was a classic Hollywood cheat! And how about those female speaking roles... or should I say role! I can understand when a movie is made about a time when women weren&amp;#039;t put in the history books, but there WERE the Grimke sisters, who were certainly more prominent in the publicity around the case than a man who never existed (Freeman)! The only individual female character we see is the self-centered, pre-teen Queen Isabela II. Way to make women look good Hollywood! But hey, at least they didn&amp;#039;t invent or fabricate a love story for once!--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Lewis Tappan Document describes the jail arrangements of the Amistad captives. In this source Cinque is jailed with other criminals separate from his people. He is also not allowed to be removed from said cell because he was not trusted. This is VERY different in the film, in which Cinque leaves the cell on many occasions and is even unchained in the presence of John Quincy Adams in his study. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question - How many women and children were aboard the Amistad and made it out alive? It struck me as odd that there would be young and female survivors of this entire ordeal - given Cinque&amp;#039;s account of killing off/starving/drowning the weak and less profitable slaves on the original journey, tacked onto the fact that the majority of slaves in the trade were men in the first place. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal of Cinque fit the description of him by Lewis Tappan. Tappan described Cinque as having &amp;quot;a good deal of gracefulness and native diginity (Tappan, p. 351).&amp;quot; In the movie, Djimon Hounsou who played Cinque was able to get that description across great. His presence was so strong and that of a leader. He looked like he was born to the position that he achieved as his character. He was dignified as he walked about and testified in the courts, even in shackles. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hounsou&amp;#039;s Cinque has grace and dignity sometimes, particularly in court, with Adams, and telling his lion story, but a good deal of the time he is shouting with eyes wide and nostrils flared-whether on the Amistad or riled up in jail. In combination with certain postures and grunts at various points, that&amp;#039;s more like raw African savage than the graceful and dignified native we see later. However, when Baldwin is trying to tell him that the other Mende captives look up to him, he is very modest, saying he cannot speak for them and telling his lion story. It is made clear that he hasn&amp;#039;t always been their leader, when he&amp;#039;s first arguing with Fala after the mutiny, who he continues to have tension with in the jail. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maritime History was a popular subject for films of 1997... Titanic anyone. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As was mentioned in class this morning, I wonder why the story of Amistad and the film are not more well known. With the extraordinary cast, director, and overall impact of the film, it&amp;#039;s strange that it did not receive more recognition. Also, given that politicians were looking at this case as a monumental turning point to begin the civil war, how is it not more integral in our nation&amp;#039;s history?  Something that stuck with me was a line of JQA, something along the lines of - &amp;quot;I want the next generation to know the name Cinque as well as Patrick Henry.&amp;quot; Why don&amp;#039;t we? -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Excellent points Elle! I am recommending this 10 year old movie to everyone I know cuz I only just found out how great it is! I think the history books gloss over the Amistad case in high schools because there wasn&amp;#039;t just one action or event that sparked the Civil War. So many little things (though usually monument, like this, when looked at individually) lead to the impossible tension that caused the war to be arguably inevitable. But, I think what the movie is trying to show, is that nobody wanted that inevitable clash of the south and north to be on their head (as Calhoun says to van Buren in the film). As for the Patrick Henry thing, I think its hilarious that while we remember a man who famously spoke words that were not his own, we forget the man who had to have his own important words spoken by a translator (if that makes any sense)- what I mean to say is, that I believe the Cinque&amp;#039;s sentiments on rights to freedom, heard second-hand, are better worth remembering than Patrick Henry&amp;#039;s plagiarized speech, but only Antebellum African Americans they ever bother to teach are Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tudman --Jackie Reed&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-24T05:02:24Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve discussed in class the importance of the language barrier between two cultures and how well have movies portrayed this (or not portrayed it at well).  Past movies we&amp;#039;ve watched such as Pocahontas brought up questions such as how does everyone, including the Native Americans, know English even before the British arrived in the New World.  Having the Mendes speak in their native tongue provides an authentic feel to the movie, but also conveys an important factor during these trials.  The fact that the Mendes neither spoke English nor Spanish made it difficult for communication between Baldwin and Cinque and in court, which the movie gets right...even adding a touch of humor to this aspect.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aagh! You totally stole my comment! I agree, Amistad was an amazing way to show how addressing language barrier can actually strengthen a movie&amp;#039;s plot and themes. Not only do we see how Baldwin and Cinque struggle to understand one another (sometimes comedically, sometimes seriously) but we see how it helps the grow as people through understanding each other&amp;#039;s cultures, and it also is used as evidence that the Mendi are born Africans. This leads to themes- like a people who can&amp;#039;t speak for themselves, but overcome the impossible injustices they face as free people. I thought it was a fascinating directorial choice to not use subtitles for the Mendi until about 20-30 min. into the film. The Spanish get subtitles but audience is purposely put in the dark about what the Mendi are saying until people start to really try to talk to them. It makes it take longer for the viewer to understand and get to know the Mendi. It makes them seem foreign, and bewildering, and a bit nonsensical too, like we are looking from the point of view of the Americans who are either ignoring them as intelligent people of another culture or as the Americans who are trying to help them but can&amp;#039;t communicate with them. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right - still going off the same thing... I am a little more skeptical - the humor that D-Flo refers to sticks out in my mind. When Baldwin and Cinque are both saying &amp;quot;how do I find out where you&amp;#039;re from&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;how can I tell you where I&amp;#039;m from&amp;quot; I am just a little skeptical. I like to think that through language barriers we all can think similarly and problem solve though. Another instance is when Cinque is asking all the questions via the translator to JQA. I thought it was interesting to note that JQA&amp;#039;s argument did end up being  in essence Cinque&amp;#039;s words. To summarize - I felt that Amistad did a good job of portraying the language barrier, but did have a few inconsistencies in this area (which were most likely purposeful for entertainment value). -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed about Dr. M&amp;#039;s lecture was the overwhelming amount of historical figures involved with the trial surrounding the Amistad slaves.  So a question I asked myself before watching the movie was which historical characters would the movie focus on.  The most obvious is Joseph Cinque (but I probably would not have known this if I haven&amp;#039;t heard of this film before), but I think you could argue that every other name Dr. M mentioned in class deserved much focus in order to understand the history of the Amistad trial.  Roger Baldwin and JQA are the other two figures the movie gives more screen time to, but I feel like much more important figures deserve greater insight and character development.  For example, President Van Buren would have had much to say about the trial since he was up for re-election during this time period.  Also, I initially thought Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character was a reflection of James Pennington, but after reading &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; I discovered that Theodore was fictitious and that the movie was actually criticized for not including those prominent blacks involved with the abolition movement (71).  Additionally, other important historical figures such as Queen Isabella of Spain (at least I think she was a Queen in the movie) and the Grimke sisters needed more emphasis to understand this historical event.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a few things to say about the characters. Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s character of Roger Baldwin was full humor, but I thought that depiction was inaccurate. Dr. M said the real Baldwin was in his 40&amp;#039;s, whereas in the movie, he was depicted as a young, fresh, and inexperienced lawyer. It can be argued that he was this movie&amp;#039;s eye candy, as Jackie might say. His important role in the trials was right, but it was he who talked to John Quincy Adams in the movie to get involved in the trials, not Lewis Tappan, as it was in reality. As for Queen Isabella, was she really eleven or was she younger? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually I would say the eye candy of this movie was either Cinque, who was constantly shirtless, or Covey, who was just so damn pretty- but my silliness aside, I thought this was one of Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s finer roles. And between his costume (shabby dress and sideburns) and his convincing performance as a compelling lawyer (though inexperienced in the courtroom) I think his usual stereotype as a leading man hottie is irrelevant here as is his age, since he still came across as serious as and as strong as Morgan Freeman or the actor playing John Quincy Adams. But, I was also peeved by the Morgan Freeman character fabrication issue. &amp;quot;Of course it&amp;#039;s him!&amp;quot; I said to myself as soon as I heard the voice. If there is going to be a wise, cunning, and quietly righteous black man in a period film, it is going to be played by Freeman! I also noticed, while watching that his name and actions didn&amp;#039;t match up to the historical figure Dr. M talked about in class- I felt like this was a classic Hollywood cheat! And how about those female speaking roles... or should I say role! I can understand when a movie is made about a time when women weren&amp;#039;t put in the history books, but there WERE the Grimke sisters, who were certainly more prominent in the publicity around the case than a man who never existed (Freeman)! The only individual female character we see is the self-centered, pre-teen Queen Isabela II. Way to make women look good Hollywood! But hey, at least they didn&amp;#039;t invent or fabricate a love story for once!--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Lewis Tappan Document describes the jail arrangements of the Amistad captives. In this source Cinque is jailed with other criminals separate from his people. He is also not allowed to be removed from said cell because he was not trusted. This is VERY different in the film, in which Cinque leaves the cell on many occasions and is even unchained in the presence of John Quincy Adams in his study. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question - How many women and children were aboard the Amistad and made it out alive? It struck me as odd that there would be young and female survivors of this entire ordeal - given Cinque&amp;#039;s account of killing off/starving/drowning the weak and less profitable slaves on the original journey, tacked onto the fact that the majority of slaves in the trade were men in the first place. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal of Cinque fit the description of him by Lewis Tappan. Tappan described Cinque as having &amp;quot;a good deal of gracefulness and native diginity (Tappan, p. 351).&amp;quot; In the movie, Djimon Hounsou who played Cinque was able to get that description across great. His presence was so strong and that of a leader. He looked like he was born to the position that he achieved as his character. He was dignified as he walked about and testified in the courts, even in shackles. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hounsou&amp;#039;s Cinque has grace and dignity sometimes, particularly in court, with Adams, and telling his lion story, but a good deal of the time he is shouting with eyes wide and nostrils flared-whether on the Amistad or riled up in jail.  In combination with certain postures and grunts at various points, that&amp;#039;s more like raw African savage than the graceful and dignified native we see later.  However, when Baldwin is trying to tell him that the other Mende captives look up to him, he is very modest, saying he cannot speak for them and telling his lion story.  It is made clear that he hasn&amp;#039;t always been their leader, when he&amp;#039;s first arguing with Fala after the mutiny, who he continues to have tension with in the jail. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Maritime History was a popular subject for films of 1997... Titanic anyone. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As was mentioned in class this morning, I wonder why the story of Amistad and the film are not more well known. With the extraordinary cast, director, and overall impact of the film, it&amp;#039;s strange that it did not receive more recognition. Also, given that politicians were looking at this case as a monumental turning point to begin the civil war, how is it not more integral in our nation&amp;#039;s history?  Something that stuck with me was a line of JQA, something along the lines of - &amp;quot;I want the next generation to know the name Cinque as well as Patrick Henry.&amp;quot; Why don&amp;#039;t we? -Elle Weaver&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-24T04:59:31Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve discussed in class the importance of the language barrier between two cultures and how well have movies portrayed this (or not portrayed it at well).  Past movies we&amp;#039;ve watched such as Pocahontas brought up questions such as how does everyone, including the Native Americans, know English even before the British arrived in the New World.  Having the Mendes speak in their native tongue provides an authentic feel to the movie, but also conveys an important factor during these trials.  The fact that the Mendes neither spoke English nor Spanish made it difficult for communication between Baldwin and Cinque and in court, which the movie gets right...even adding a touch of humor to this aspect.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aagh! You totally stole my comment! I agree, Amistad was an amazing way to show how addressing language barrier can actually strengthen a movie&amp;#039;s plot and themes. Not only do we see how Baldwin and Cinque struggle to understand one another (sometimes comedically, sometimes seriously) but we see how it helps the grow as people through understanding each other&amp;#039;s cultures, and it also is used as evidence that the Mendi are born Africans. This leads to themes- like a people who can&amp;#039;t speak for themselves, but overcome the impossible injustices they face as free people. I thought it was a fascinating directorial choice to not use subtitles for the Mendi until about 20-30 min. into the film. The Spanish get subtitles but audience is purposely put in the dark about what the Mendi are saying until people start to really try to talk to them. It makes it take longer for the viewer to understand and get to know the Mendi. It makes them seem foreign, and bewildering, and a bit nonsensical too, like we are looking from the point of view of the Americans who are either ignoring them as intelligent people of another culture or as the Americans who are trying to help them but can&amp;#039;t communicate with them. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Right - still going off the same thing... I am a little more skeptical - the humor that D-Flo refers to sticks out in my mind. When Baldwin and Cinque are both saying &amp;quot;how do I find out where you&amp;#039;re from&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;how can I tell you where I&amp;#039;m from&amp;quot; I am just a little skeptical. I like to think that through language barriers we all can think similarly and problem solve though. Another instance is when Cinque is asking all the questions via the translator to JQA. I thought it was interesting to note that JQA&amp;#039;s argument did end up being  in essence Cinque&amp;#039;s words. To summarize - I felt that Amistad did a good job of portraying the language barrier, but did have a few inconsistencies in this area (which were most likely purposeful for entertainment value). -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed about Dr. M&amp;#039;s lecture was the overwhelming amount of historical figures involved with the trial surrounding the Amistad slaves.  So a question I asked myself before watching the movie was which historical characters would the movie focus on.  The most obvious is Joseph Cinque (but I probably would not have known this if I haven&amp;#039;t heard of this film before), but I think you could argue that every other name Dr. M mentioned in class deserved much focus in order to understand the history of the Amistad trial.  Roger Baldwin and JQA are the other two figures the movie gives more screen time to, but I feel like much more important figures deserve greater insight and character development.  For example, President Van Buren would have had much to say about the trial since he was up for re-election during this time period.  Also, I initially thought Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character was a reflection of James Pennington, but after reading &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; I discovered that Theodore was fictitious and that the movie was actually criticized for not including those prominent blacks involved with the abolition movement (71).  Additionally, other important historical figures such as Queen Isabella of Spain (at least I think she was a Queen in the movie) and the Grimke sisters needed more emphasis to understand this historical event.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a few things to say about the characters. Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s character of Roger Baldwin was full humor, but I thought that depiction was inaccurate. Dr. M said the real Baldwin was in his 40&amp;#039;s, whereas in the movie, he was depicted as a young, fresh, and inexperienced lawyer. It can be argued that he was this movie&amp;#039;s eye candy, as Jackie might say. His important role in the trials was right, but it was he who talked to John Quincy Adams in the movie to get involved in the trials, not Lewis Tappan, as it was in reality. As for Queen Isabella, was she really eleven or was she younger? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Actually I would say the eye candy of this movie was either Cinque, who was constantly shirtless, or Covey, who was just so damn pretty- but my silliness aside, I thought this was one of Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s finer roles. And between his costume (shabby dress and sideburns) and his convincing performance as a compelling lawyer (though inexperienced in the courtroom) I think his usual stereotype as a leading man hottie is irrelevant here as is his age, since he still came across as serious as and as strong as Morgan Freeman or the actor playing John Quincy Adams. But, I was also peeved by the Morgan Freeman character fabrication issue. &amp;quot;Of course it&amp;#039;s him!&amp;quot; I said to myself as soon as I heard the voice. If there is going to be a wise, cunning, and quietly righteous black man in a period film, it is going to be played by Freeman! I also noticed, while watching that his name and actions didn&amp;#039;t match up to the historical figure Dr. M talked about in class- I felt like this was a classic Hollywood cheat! And how about those female speaking roles... or should I say role! I can understand when a movie is made about a time when women weren&amp;#039;t put in the history books, but there WERE the Grimke sisters, who were certainly more prominent in the publicity around the case than a man who never existed (Freeman)! The only individual female character we see is the self-centered, pre-teen Queen Isabela II. Way to make women look good Hollywood! But hey, at least they didn&amp;#039;t invent or fabricate a love story for once!--Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Lewis Tappan Document describes the jail arrangements of the Amistad captives. In this source Cinque is jailed with other criminals separate from his people. He is also not allowed to be removed from said cell because he was not trusted. This is VERY different in the film, in which Cinque leaves the cell on many occasions and is even unchained in the presence of John Quincy Adams in his study. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question - How many women and children were aboard the Amistad and made it out alive? It struck me as odd that there would be young and female survivors of this entire ordeal - given Cinque&amp;#039;s account of killing off/starving/drowning the weak and less profitable slaves on the original journey, tacked onto the fact that the majority of slaves in the trade were men in the first place. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal of Cinque fit the description of him by Lewis Tappan. Tappan described Cinque as having &amp;quot;a good deal of gracefulness and native diginity (Tappan, p. 351).&amp;quot; In the movie, Djimon Hounsou who played Cinque was able to get that description across great. His presence was so strong and that of a leader. He looked like he was born to the position that he achieved as his character. He was dignified as he walked about and testified in the courts, even in shackles. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Hounsou&amp;#039;s Cinque has grace and dignity sometimes, particularly in court, with Adams, and telling his lion story, but a good deal of the time he is shouting with eyes wide and nostrils flared-whether on the Amistad or riled up in jail.  In combination with certain postures and grunts at various points, that&amp;#039;s more like raw African savage than the graceful and dignified native we see later.  However, when Baldwin is trying to tell him that the other Mende captives look up to him, he is very modest, saying he cannot speak for them and telling his lion story.  It is made clear that he hasn&amp;#039;t always been their leader, when he&amp;#039;s first arguing with Fala after the mutiny, who he continues to have tension with in the jail. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As was mentioned in class this morning, I wonder why the story of Amistad and the film are not more well known. With the extraordinary cast, director, and overall impact of the film, it&amp;#039;s strange that it did not receive more recognition. Also, given that politicians were looking at this case as a monumental turning point to begin the civil war, how is it not more integral in our nation&amp;#039;s history?  Something that stuck with me was a line of JQA, something along the lines of - &amp;quot;I want the next generation to know the name Cinque as well as Patrick Henry.&amp;quot; Why don&amp;#039;t we? -Elle Weaver&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 5 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-24T04:08:49Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
We&amp;#039;ve discussed in class the importance of the language barrier between two cultures and how well have movies portrayed this (or not portrayed it at well).  Past movies we&amp;#039;ve watched such as Pocahontas brought up questions such as how does everyone, including the Native Americans, know English even before the British arrived in the New World.  Having the Mendes speak in their native tongue provides an authentic feel to the movie, but also conveys an important factor during these trials.  The fact that the Mendes neither spoke English nor Spanish made it difficult for communication between Baldwin and Cinque and in court, which the movie gets right...even adding a touch of humor to this aspect.  - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Aagh! You totally stole my comment! I agree, Amistad was an amazing way to show how addressing language barrier can actually strengthen a movie&amp;#039;s plot and themes. Not only do we see how Baldwin and Cinque struggle to understand one another (sometimes comedically, sometimes seriously) but we see how it helps the grow as people through understanding each other&amp;#039;s cultures, and it also is used as evidence that the Mendi are born Africans. This leads to themes- like a people who can&amp;#039;t speak for themselves, but overcome the impossible injustices they face as free people. I thought it was a fascinating directorial choice to not use subtitles for the Mendi until about 20-30 min. into the film. The Spanish get subtitles but audience is purposely put in the dark about what the Mendi are saying until people start to really try to talk to them. It makes it take longer for the viewer to understand and get to know the Mendi. It makes them seem foreign, and bewildering, and a bit nonsensical too, like we are looking from the point of view of the Americans who are either ignoring them as intelligent people of another culture or as the Americans who are trying to help them but can&amp;#039;t communicate with them. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed about Dr. M&amp;#039;s lecture was the overwhelming amount of historical figures involved with the trial surrounding the Amistad slaves.  So a question I asked myself before watching the movie was which historical characters would the movie focus on.  The most obvious is Joseph Cinque (but I probably would not have known this if I haven&amp;#039;t heard of this film before), but I think you could argue that every other name Dr. M mentioned in class deserved much focus in order to understand the history of the Amistad trial.  Roger Baldwin and JQA are the other two figures the movie gives more screen time to, but I feel like much more important figures deserve greater insight and character development.  For example, President Van Buren would have had much to say about the trial since he was up for re-election during this time period.  Also, I initially thought Morgan Freeman&amp;#039;s character was a reflection of James Pennington, but after reading &amp;quot;Reel History,&amp;quot; I discovered that Theodore was fictitious and that the movie was actually criticized for not including those prominent blacks involved with the abolition movement (71).  Additionally, other important historical figures such as Queen Isabella of Spain (at least I think she was a Queen in the movie) and the Grimke sisters needed more emphasis to understand this historical event.  - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have a few things to say about the characters. Matthew McConaughey&amp;#039;s character of Roger Baldwin was full humor, but I thought that depiction was inaccurate. Dr. M said the real Baldwin was in his 40&amp;#039;s, whereas in the movie, he was depicted as a young, fresh, and inexperienced lawyer. It can be argued that he was this movie&amp;#039;s eye candy, as Jackie might say. His important role in the trials was right, but it was he who talked to John Quincy Adams in the movie to get involved in the trials, not Lewis Tappan, as it was in reality. As for Queen Isabella, was she really eleven or was she younger? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The portrayal of Cinque fit the description of him by Lewis Tappan. Tappan described Cinque as having &amp;quot;a good deal of gracefulness and native diginity (Tappan, p. 351).&amp;quot; In the movie, Djimon Hounsou who played Cinque was able to get that description across great. His presence was so strong and that of a leader. He looked like he was born to the position that he achieved as his character. He was dignified as he walked about and testified in the courts, even in shackles. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 6 Overall ==&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-18T09:33:18Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 4 Public reaction/impact */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is just a minor note, but the corn isn&amp;#039;t perfect, so that is at least correct. Also (and I&amp;#039;m still in the beginning of the movie while I write this), the son Gaberial (in the Continental Army)had no gloves, but cloth wraps on his hands.  That shows that there was not enough to go around, even so early in the war.--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the dinner table, while the armies are moving closer to the household, the one son mentions &amp;quot;Lord knows what they&amp;#039;ll do to you women.&amp;quot;  That means that the movie at least wants to convey the impression that soldiers did harm to the women. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
American devotion to The Cause struck me as very accurate. From everything I have learned in class, the colonists were quite willing to lay down their lives for the sake of their new land. While their motives may not have been as naive as expressed in the film, I do not believe it would have been seen as blind patriotism either. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I feel as though this is by far the most accurate movie that we have watched yet. I watched a special making of feature on my DVD and was surprised at the amount of effort the movie&amp;#039;s creators took to ensure that the costumes were as accurate as possible.  The ideas for the uniforms came from actual revolutionary uniforms at the Smithsonian Museum.  The featurette after the movie also talked about the basis for several of the main characters including Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character being based off of Thomas Sumter, Andrew Pickens and Francis Marion. It also mentioned Tarrington being based off of the real Tarleton. It seems to me that this movie did a good job with accuracy. While some of the actual battles may not be real they did mostly depict backwoods skirmishes.-- Kelly Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rules of war really astonished me. I cant believe that men really would go after the officers first. I thought that this was just something the movie did to show Benjamin Martins hatred toward the British officers. I was surprised to read about this in this weeks readings. But I guess when you think about the &amp;quot;rules of war&amp;quot; didn&amp;#039;t really apply to this war when so many officers ordered the killing of women and children. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shocked to read about how some men really did aim for the officers because in the movie there is a scene where Mel tells his sons to start with the officers and work their way down. I always thought this was just a way to show how distraught Mel was over the killing of his son. It also makes me question the brutality in the rest of the movie. Was it accurate or exaggerated to show the hatred between Mel and Tavington. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, I was pretty surprised that it actually happened like that but it does make sense to do so in terms of causing the most damage to enemy forces.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the movie I watched a one of the bonus features of the movie called True Patriot. In it the writers, producers, and other people who worked on the movie talked about the research they did in order to be historically accurate. It was really interesting to hear that the half built house the former militia members were working on at the end was meant to symbolize the building of a new nation and how the hardest part was going to be the issue of slavery. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie also did a much better job of showing the passage of time. As you watch you can really believe several years have passed during the course of the movie. The romances are also more believable at least Gabriel&amp;#039;s (Heath Ledger) was, Mel&amp;#039;s was a little bit more questionable. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed in the movie that we discussed in class was how some white soldiers disapproved of black men being allowed to enlist in the militia.  There was one scene in particular which I thought the movie got right where one of the white soldiers made a snide comment on how he believed that black soldiers should not be given weapons. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, this movie does a good job at portraying the events that happened during the Revolutionary War through its accurate representation of clothing, military formations, style of combat, gender roles, and depictions of the British and colonists in general.  The movie also does a good job at providing an overall background for what was happening elsewhere during the Revolution, doing this by making up conversations (usually with messengers) about what else was going on up north, with Washington’s army, and with other factors involved in the war.  The movie also provides insight about how slaves, neutral colonists, fathers and sons, and women thought about the war.  However, it occurs that this movie seems a little biased toward the British because the movie’s point of view portrays the British as the evil and sinister empire that brutally destroys everything in sight, and the turn of unfortunate events experienced by the patriot militia automatically gears the viewer to root for the Patriots.  Point is; if the British made a movie about the same events, would they have depicted them and portrayed them the same way this movie has?   Would the British capitalize on making the Patriots out to be the evil, sinister, disobeying, disloyal debtors?  &lt;br /&gt;
–James D.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I think one things this movie touched on well was the scarier side to having the &amp;quot;home field advantage.&amp;quot;  Often in history classes the notion that the Patriots had the battle fought on their own soil is praised and often accredited with aiding the Patriots when it came to winning the war.  And while this may be true, the darker aspects to having this advantage are often overlooked.  In the movie, it became clearer how violent the opposing armies were and how close these battles came to homes.  I think this is an aspect often overlooked and it&amp;#039;s a scary notion that battles were being fought literally in backyards.  The British were able to avoid a number civilian deaths on their side for this very reason (Excluding the Loyalists.) --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wonder how much respect the militia men actually have. Were they thought of second rate soldiers as the movie portrayed Cornwalis to believe? I also wonder if they were given the respect on their own side - if there was no real Benjamin Martin, who was the leader of this militia and were they the center of the line in the epic battle scene? -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do like the French comments and banter... would a French leader really fight with a militia from SC? I do think that this rivalry would be appropriate given the French and Indian war history. And it added a level of humor that was refreshing. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the readings, it seems that The Patriot does a great job of capturing colonial attitudes towards the British, and vice versa.  One thing that the &amp;quot;Boisterous Sea of Liberty&amp;quot; article explicitly states is the colonist feeling of being under tyranny and oppression by a king thousands of miles away.  The film conveys this same attitude throughout.  The other reading, &amp;quot;Rise of Partisan Warfare,&amp;quot; mentioned how British prisoners were horribly treated by colonials.  This sort of parallels a scene in the movie where some of the militia killed British soldiers who were about to surrender (and then the reverend explains how this behavior was &amp;quot;madness&amp;quot; and should not be tolerated). - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing I liked about this movie were the characters in the film.  Dr. M mentioned how there were three groups of people during this time period:  patriots, loyalists, and neutrals.  Within the patriots, there were subgroups, and I think we saw some of these people in the movie.  Mel Gibson was someone who believed in achieving independence by any means except war.  Obviously, his views shift after the death of his son.  Additionally, the character of Capt. Wilkens is someone who is torn between the views of the patriots and the loyalists.  He is first scene in the court room advocating that S.C. go to war, only to defect to the British because his &amp;quot;loyalty lies with the King.&amp;quot;  After he is forced to burn the church down with all of the innocent people still inside, he realizes how extreme his general&amp;#039;s tactics were.  I think the movie does a good job reflecting the diversity of the beliefs, personality, and attitudes of the people during the Revolutionary War. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the expense of it being long, I think this movie was very good at portraying sides and events of the Revolution accurately (if not very cheesily at the beginning). The eagerness of youth to fight vs. the reservations and reluctance of an older man who sees what&amp;#039;s to loose is fairly timeless. Also, though I don&amp;#039;t think the British were portrayed too unfairly, the movie went a bit easy on the militia&amp;#039;s tactics and ethics at times. The towns people&amp;#039;s reaction to how the swamp tramps fought (killing surrendering soldiers) seems accurate. But then they got all noble of course. As the primary sources point out, militia would shoot wounded enemy soldiers dead, just as Col. Tavington&amp;#039;s character had done. Also, in concern to Tavington, though exceptionally evil, I thought he got across some accurate perspectives. His self interest in terms of how British social ladder worked was true and his menacing mention of Ohio was a bit funny, but I like its mention all the same. Of course the racists, close-minded patriot who represented the hypocritical attitudes towards black and slave soldiers learned to respect the black guy in the end (because maybe America wasn&amp;#039;t always perfect, but we had heart damn it!).  On the flip side, the British forced blacks (slave or freed) to join the King&amp;#039;s Army (over simplification maybe, but also not that inaccurate, cuz it&amp;#039;s not like the British actually cared about the Blacks in America who they kidnapped and sold in the first place). I thought it was good that they showed the civilian suffering. They were brutal scenes, but that&amp;#039;s what war usually comes to. Cornwallis chastised Tavington for his brutality at first though, acknowledging the honor of war. I also like that the Loyalist, though he was ashamed of the brutality he was pressured to commit, didn&amp;#039;t make any last ditch/uncharacteristic acts of nobility like Duncan did in Mohicans, but rather, carried out the burning he was ordered to do. I also liked how you could feel the turning points in the war through the movie, as well as feel the losses on both sides. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know this is going to be discussed quite a bit, but it really does bear mentioning: Mel Gibson must have been the first real American hero. It&amp;#039;s the only possible reason for that godawful accent (he could have at least kept the Australian and been &amp;#039;&amp;#039;something&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that existed at the time!) --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were incidents of excessive cruelty, such as the one where all the townspeople are told to go into the church, and are locked up and then the church is burned down with them still in the church, common, or were incidents like that one in the movie used just for dramatic effect in the movie? ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for how the upper-class are portrayed in this movie, I think the British upper-class were portrayed as rather silly, and air-headed.  An example of this is when Benjamin Martin and his men dress up as British soldiers, and burn down the British ship that is docked while the British are having a party.  As the ship bursts into flames, one of the ladies at the party looks at the ship, laughs, and squeals &amp;quot;Ooh fireworks!&amp;quot;, indicating that she clearly has no idea what was happening.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katherine, I think I remember the woman holding a seeing glass. Could it be the she couldn&amp;#039;t see very well?-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question about Charlotte: Did she happen to own that plantation herself? Inheritance? Was she widowed?  It doesn&amp;#039;t appear she had anyone with her there or in town except slaves, and there is no indication that a husband or brother was away fighting. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoy this movie but there are a few things that I have to point out that did not fit. Amanda has already touched on this but many of the characters have different accents. Benjamin - Americanized English, Gabriel- Australian and then the younger son, Thomas - British. All the while various characters in the movie have different accents. Also, I believe two young, unwed people kissing in public would have been frowned upon, i.e. Gabriel and Anne. - Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While watching the movie it seemed to me that most young men were extremely eager to join up with the Regulars.  Was this an honest representation?  I can understand Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s point of view and not wanting his sons to join up, but Gabriel and Thomas seemed more than ready to run off to the camps.  I didn&amp;#039;t think men were that eager to be volunteering. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more question - Were the Militias the groups of men using the guerrilla tactics?  I noticed there was a difference between the Regulars and the Militia but I wasn&amp;#039;t sure if that was the difference between the two. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did a good job of showing how uniformed and precise the British Army was, which is also seen in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. The movie also portrays the brutality of the war, not only the soldiers who suffered fighting on the line and endured harsh winters, but also the effect the war had on civilians. Much of the fighting was done on farms and in front/ behind people&amp;#039;s homes which ultimately led to many homes being destroyed. I am curious though, would the militia also have had uniforms? And how were they funded?  --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the portrayals of colonial ex-soldiers who fought for the British during the French and Indian War, is it realistic to have a man stand up before a crowd and exclaim his grievances against the British Crown? He said his leg was cut off by the British after the war and proclaimed another limb was cut off metaphorically by the taxes! Was his leg really chopped off by the British or taken off because of war casualties? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, Mel Gibson slaughtered innocents at a Disney resort and campground? That &amp;#039;&amp;#039;is&amp;#039;&amp;#039; sinful. Seriously, that’s the only Fort Wilderness I’ve ever heard of… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as attacking and hurting the common people was this true? Did they burn down churches, homes, and kill the Continental Army’s family? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the British Col. Tavington would have been reprimanded more for how he treated the militias even if they are traitors to the crown? killing them all seems like a war crime, And less likely to happen. wouldn&amp;#039;t they want to hang them for treason?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were women allowed into General Assembly meetings? Were there really Black communities of freed or runaway slaves out on the open beach? That seems like a bad place to hang out, being in plain sight and what not. Weren’t most of those communities in various swamps? Also, why did Gabriel have such a low opinion of the guys who joined the militia? Wasn’t the Continental Army mostly made up of rabble and outcasts too? On the subject of the Continental Army, I always wonder at its depictions in paintings and other media. Considering they were often poorly supplied and oft-butt whupped by the British, what are the chances they would have fancy matching uniforms? Heck, at Valley Forge a lot soldiers were without the very basics (like shoes and coats), let alone pretty uniforms. Most importantly, were the British ever that brutal during the Revolution? Like, Naziesque burning people in a church brutal? I think not. People actually took note of the laws of war at that time. Anyway, wasn’t it the American guerilla forces who were committing the atrocities? --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing that bothers me in this movie is that although this is an age of high child mortalities and illnesses are a serious problem, none of this is portrayed at all. All of the characters in the movie are shown as perfectly healthy. Combat and war was certainly not the only danger and conflict to the people at the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene in the Patriot when the young woman is speaking to the crowd in church, this seems inaccurate because women were not allowed to speak their minds. They had to sit still and be quite. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning at the SC Assembly in Charles Town, one man says that we are &amp;quot;one nation, an American Nation,&amp;quot; and someone says that they are &amp;quot;citizens of an American Nation.&amp;quot;  But at this point they were still considering themselves citizens of individual colonies, right?  None of this one nation business, but thirteen colonies to become independent from Britain. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Repeated Inaccuracies: a) Once again, throughout the whole movie, we see amazing accuracy in shooting with muskets.  Accuracy is vague when it gets to the face-to-face in lines on a field kind of fighting, but when the militia, and even Samuel and Nathan early on, are shooting, they&amp;#039;re much better shots than the British regulars. b) really early on, when we see Continental soldiers (?) opening up nice, huge, sheaves of yellow, genetically engineered corn. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would women be allowed in a meeting of the legislature? When Gabriel comes to the church to enlist the men of the village and none of them made any moves to get up and go, Anne called them out. Was it probable for a woman to do this?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was no widespread loyalism shown in the movie, in fact, Wilkins is the only loyalist that springs to mind.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Is that how prisoner exchange worked? Wouldn&amp;#039;t the British have sent someone out first to verify &amp;quot;the ghost&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; claims?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One issue I have with the time progression is that Cornwallis was in South Carolina for about the entire movie. Even if that is true, the Storyline would have us believe that Martin and his band of renegades were the only force keeping the British in South Carolina. The only mention they make of the regulars after a while was that Gates was a &amp;quot;damn fool&amp;quot;, and there is no mention of fellow patriotic militia groups doing their part to chip away at the British force. It just seems like Martin&amp;#039;s group of militia was singlehandedly preventing British advancement. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie made it seem as though the Americans and the French had patched up all of their old wounds and that the fraternity of being soldiers together would last forever. The Letter from George Mason in the reading, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Boisterous Sea of Liberty&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, painted a different picture. Mason said that Virginians did not trust the French and that they expected the French to exploit post- war American weaknesses. These fears were real enough to lead the Americans to sign a separate peace with England.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is incredibly nitpicky, but I&amp;#039;m pretty sure the Classical Revival style (the style of many of the film&amp;#039;s plantation houses) wasn&amp;#039;t used until the nineteenth century. - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benjamin Martin says in the movie “why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?” Was there any idea that the new government would be a democracy at the time and if there was, was that decided? If anyone knows, please post. I would imagine that the idea of making it a democracy (Or more technically a republic) existed but it was far from decided. –Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Patriot was weighed down by it&amp;#039;s occasional absurdities, like the representative in the legislature declaring &amp;quot;we are citizens of and American nation&amp;quot;... The film likewise made more slight faults for the sake of drama.  I don&amp;#039;t believe Tavington would have questioned why his new cavalry recruit from the loyalist militia would turn against his neighbors.  We know Loyalists were as easy to find as Patriots.  The Patriot seemed very hung up on an idea that there was universal support for the separatist cause. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mel Gibson could not be the beloved American hero if he owned slaves, but really, how likely was it that his character would not have? Of course he also never once lost his patience with the 7 children he was raising on his own, except to poignantly yell &amp;quot;You&amp;#039;re my child!&amp;quot; at Heath/Gabriel. Was this the distressed, mourning father of the 1770&amp;#039;s South or a Dad on a Disney Channel show gone Rambo when his sons are killed?  --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The question of slaves ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benjamin Martin doesn’t own slaves. They are freedmen and willingly work for him. He helps them plow the land. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Of course&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. After all, what kind of action hero can own slaves? Apparently, we want our heroes with pure intentions. Was this a situation that happened at all? Sure, the movie had some mentions of slavery and racism, but it was so secondary you’d almost forget the setting is South Carolina. It was nice to see that there were some blacks in the British lines during the final battle, though. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the slave joined the militia it didn&amp;#039;t seem like he would be accepted just like that. Let alone be viewed as a free man by that one colonist.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the situation with the slave being signed up for militia service by his master is true, and I also believe that the militia man who acted extremely racist was accurate as well. I think the film tried to casually indicate that opinions could be changed regarding blind hatred and racism, and by fighting together, and risking their lives for one another, these men saw that there is more to a man than his race. I DO see that this racism was a lot less severe than SC probably had back then, but it is important to note that the subject was addressed in some way at all. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To comment on the portrayal of the blacks, the women looked like the stereotypical Mammies, albeit, not as plump as Scarlett O&amp;#039;Hara&amp;#039;s mammy, but looking similar in dress and head covering. The women were shown to be obedient and efficient in their care for the children of their white masters. The men were all content in the movie as well, especially when the British came to &amp;quot;set them free.&amp;quot; The blacks literally were dragged away from their white owners or landowners. Even though the black men were free, there weas no distinguishing for the British. Occam, the black militiaman, seems fine enough to serve in his master&amp;#039;s stead. His master describes him as not smart but strong. The man&amp;#039;s build is stereotypical of the African man made to laborious work, not for intellectual discussions. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning when the British come to Martin&amp;#039;s home the officer tells the slaves that if they go to join with the British they will be granted freedom.  One of the slaves says that they are already freemen.  Is this true?  Are his slaves really free or are they just saying that?  If they are really free how common was that for the free slaves to stay and work on a southern plantation? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are many things I felt that were deeply wrong portayals of history in the movie. The portrayal of peoples atitutudes toward slavery is majorly flawed with everybody, but one person (who comes to be tolerant later) treating slaves as equals. This is colonial South Carolina yet all the colonials are portrayed as all accepting and understanding of each other. Additionally the way Gabriel speaks up to his father and his father giving in is pretty absurd considering South Carolina during the colonial period is highly patriarchal. The scene where Mel Gibson massacres a bunch of soldiers with only a tomahawk does not help the movies realism factor ether. For people in South Carolina during the war it is not likely that they would have a strong national identity, but rather be focused on regional identities. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Patriot, it seems that Mel Gibson would not just have free colored people working in his fields especially in the south. Also were the slaves really freed, or were most of them forced to join the British Army? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One could say that the movie treated the issue of slavery with kid gloves, but that is likely an understatement. Perhaps &amp;quot;infant gloves,&amp;quot; would be a better way to put the way that this film portrayed colonial attitudes toward blacks. The likelihood that a South Carolina man of stature would have zero slaves out of an all black workforce struck me as far fetched at best. Also, upon given the chance for freedom, it seems unlikely that these same workers would resist in the manner that Martins men resisted Tavington&amp;#039;s offer of freedom in exchange for service. Then there is Occam, the stoic slave offered up to Martin&amp;#039;s militia. The idea that only one man in the militia would harass him seems absurd. Most of the militia were men of the lower class and these men typically were some of the bigger proponents of slavery, simply so that they could stay above someone in the social order. Though there were many historical liberties taken with this film, the gross misrepresentation of colonial era slavery was the most egregious of the inaccuracies. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was that a maroon community that we saw? Was it an accurate depiction?- Jason Ward &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tacking onto Jason&amp;#039;s question - How thrilled would these free blacks in the beach-side maroon community be to see runaway whites who may have easily been followed by redcoats? Besides those who had been close the family previously, there seemed to be an immediate sense of community between all of them... a little unbelievable to me personally. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Howard speaks of fighting for the American Nation.  No one would have thought in those terms at that time.  That is us in the present inserting an idea into the past that doesn’t belong.  – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of people have brought up the scene where Ben Martin&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;volunteer labor force&amp;quot; responded to the British general saying &amp;quot;we are not slaves...we work this land for free.&amp;quot;  In class Dr. M. said that 40% of the South&amp;#039;s slave labor were located in South Carolina alone.  So, I think the likely-hood of a black person in S.C. working on a white person&amp;#039;s land on their own accord is fairly low.  Taylor made a good point that someone like Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character should not own slaves purely for dramatic reasons, so I think we should let the film slide on this one. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot;, Toplin discusses how some historical movies have done poorly due to the fact that they have not had a clear-cut villain. However, in my opinion, this movie suffers from an almost Disney-like black and white villain portayal. We can obviously never know if the real Tarleton was as cold blooded or murderous, but it is not a stretch to assume that it was more for the benefit of the audience&amp;#039;s entertainment rather than historical accuracy. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing the movie particularly glances over is that slavery was a big issue in the rhetoric of colonists fighting the war. The documents have frequent references to British policy as being slavery on Americans. This point is, however completely lost in this movie because of the movies false portrayal of peoples attitudes towards slavery. Slaves and free blacks were a very badly treated group in the South especially South Carolina, but the slaves and masters in the movie are shown living happily together with little or new tension between them. People in the colonies compared British actions to slavery precisely because they knew it would be absolutely horrible to be a slave. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this was true in the &amp;#039;time period of the movie&amp;#039; but a trait that emerges from the year of the movie being made tried is a man can be proud and raise a family on his own without a wife.  Single-parent homes are increasing nowadays, but they are not just headed by the mother now, there has been an increase in single parents father households.  Yes I know the wife had died in the movie, but just saying that that is an aspect of today&amp;#039;s time that comes out in the movie, at least to me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it&amp;#039;s kind of funny that a movie that so embodies the American national myth was directed by a German and starred two Australians.  But seriously, The Patriot is such a perfect representation of what late twentieth and twenty-first century Americans want American history to be.  The Revolution (yes, with a capital R) was in large part saved by a group of plucky, underdog militia.  The British were either quaint and out of touch (Cornwallis) or ruthlessly evil (Tavington).  And, of course, racism was overcome and the American Revolution created a new sense of equality...that wouldn&amp;#039;t be put into effect until the 1960s.  Whoops.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that this movie serves as an excellent primary source about how we reimagine our history. That reimagining allows us to view our nation as having really existed, in a unified form since the Revolutionary War. For instance, sure there are race problems at that time but as Gabriel says, we’ll be able to build a new world. We’re clearly passed all that now. Similarly, it’s ridiculous when Charlotte says “it’s a free world, or it will be.” – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The original question I posted here was just retarded after I thought about it.  So now, my new question to post here, did the Continental Army really treat the &amp;#039;militia&amp;#039; like that too?  It seemed they had a superiority complex as well.--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the British really randomly burn fields and houses and kill all the livestock like that?  That&amp;#039;s just retarded if they did!  Did they think &amp;quot;oh we can do whatever the hell we want and the people will still love us?&amp;quot; Bullshit!  That&amp;#039;ll just make people want to stand up against you because you destroyed their lives!  What the fuck would they have left to worry about if you start doing that shit??  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since this is a reaction I felt it fit here, the one British Colonel bothered me on familiarity, and then I placed it!  Colonel William Tavington (The jerk) of the British militia, also plays Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter movies.  I find it funny that Jason Isaacs plays a &amp;#039;evil&amp;#039; and &amp;#039;asshole&amp;#039; character.  &amp;gt;^.^&amp;lt;  I think Jason has a pattern building. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I kept watching this movie and thinking &amp;quot;At least Tom Wilkinson would eventually make Michael Clayton. At least Heath Ledger would eventually make Dark Knight. At least Mel Gibson would eventually direct a movie that was perfectly satirized by South Park.&amp;quot; -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was the first R Rated film I was allowed to see in the theater. So of course at the time I thought it was totally rad, what with the cannonball and tomahawk scenes. But I also remember the History Channel doing a round table discussion over its historical merits or lack thereof. And in this program I think I remember the panel pretty much eviscerating its historical accuracy, but I could be wrong. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, who else thinks that maybe George Bush REALLY liked this film? Notice how many times they repeat, &amp;quot;Stay the Course&amp;quot;? I think the Bush Administration has Movie Mondays sometimes. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I LOVE violent war/action films! This movie didn&amp;#039;t have any merit for me until graphic deaths and fast-paced battle scenes got underway about a 1/2 hour in. This is the only reason I excuse the rediculousness of the fighter&amp;#039;s accuracy. Sure, the primary sources support that guerilla tactics worked BETTER than traditional fighting against the British, but Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s fight scenes (especially in his first action sequence) show some striking and unforgivable cinematic exaggerations that were almost identical to that of Daniel Day Lewis&amp;#039; in &amp;quot;Mohicans.&amp;quot; Notice first, Mel Gibson (or his prepubescent sons) doesn&amp;#039;t miss a single shot in the woods- even with his skill, anger, and strategic preparation this is unrealistic. And then (how typical is this?) there is an identical sequence in Mohicans and Patriot...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohicans:&lt;br /&gt;
The movie&amp;#039;s sexy eye candy is held at knife point to her throat--&lt;br /&gt;
Po sees this, and instead of taking precaution, runs straight for her to save her--&lt;br /&gt;
While distracted, Po takes down 3 attackers on his way to save Cora with perfect precision--&lt;br /&gt;
He is able to shoot Cora&amp;#039;s attacker without him slitting her throat just in the nick of time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Patriot: &lt;br /&gt;
The movie&amp;#039;s sexy eye candy is held at knife point to his throat--&lt;br /&gt;
Martin sees this, and instead of taking precaution, runs straight for him to save him--&lt;br /&gt;
While distracted, Martin takes down 3 attackers on his way to save his son with perfect precision, even disarming a man and shooting him with his own gun- He is able to throw a tomahawk in the attacker&amp;#039;s face before he can slit his son&amp;#039;s throat. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Do you think any animal rights people got angry about Mel Gibson using the Betsy Ross flag of America to impale a horse? That was brutal and surprising- totally forgot he did that! --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t help but make some references to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Braveheart&amp;#039;&amp;#039; while watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039;: When Mel Gibson is running out of his burning house with weapons in hand and also towards the end when Mel Gibson is riding on his horse with the colonist&amp;#039;s flag waving behind, he is riding up and down the line of soldiers, just as William Wallace did. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The naivete and childish humor of Heath Ledger and Lisa Brenner&amp;#039;s romance really detracted from the mood and flow of the film. I don&amp;#039;t necessarily want a dour, atmospheric nightmare vision of the Revolutionary War, but I don&amp;#039;t want a cheeky RomCom either. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Cash&amp;#039;s comment - How else would boys convince girls to watch this movie, I personally liked that cheeky side swapping ink spit etc. I have to say the bundle bag tradition is intriguing - True or not? - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following along with Christine&amp;#039;s comment, I don&amp;#039;t care if these sorts of romances actually happened, but seriously.  She was his dead wife&amp;#039;s sister. If that was just a way for the filmmakers to grant Mel Gibson a leading lady, then they should have just opted out of that one.  Too creepy for my taste, thank you. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly- The Ben-Charlotte deal didn&amp;#039;t actually seem so unrealistic to me.  If Charlotte was single or widowed or whatever, and Ben was widowered as well, it might make sense at that time from a financial/economic standpoint for the two of them to get together.  Knowing this already, it doesn&amp;#039;t seem that far out that they might start to like each other.  And she reminds him a lot of his wife (even that she had to remind him she was not her sister). - Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, the movie wasn’t bad. It was fairly entertaining, and the cast was made up of some pretty awesome actors, like Jason Isaacs (always playing the bad guy) and Rene Auberjonois. However, the romance was cliché. I had a sinking feeling of dread that Ben and Aunt Charlotte would get together the first time they stood in the same vicinity as each other. And so it was. Then we have Benjamin Martin not willing to fight the British, but when his son is killed we see him go into &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Action Hero Rambo&amp;#039;&amp;#039; mode where he beats down twenty redcoats with a little help from his younger sons. That was definitely in the vein of Hollywood revenge/action flicks of the... well, for many years now. And let&amp;#039;s not talk about those parenting skills. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was it soooooo long?! Sure it was able to do a good job at portraying various sides of the Revolution (mostly focusing on the south), but dear god, I swear I could have edited that movie better myself! Oi! The best parts included Heath and when he died I just didn&amp;#039;t care anymore. And then of course Jason Isaacs did create a truly wonderfully evil villain as usual, playing Luscious Malfoy...oops...I mean Col. Tavington. --Jackie Reed&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-18T09:30:21Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 1a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is just a minor note, but the corn isn&amp;#039;t perfect, so that is at least correct. Also (and I&amp;#039;m still in the beginning of the movie while I write this), the son Gaberial (in the Continental Army)had no gloves, but cloth wraps on his hands.  That shows that there was not enough to go around, even so early in the war.--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the dinner table, while the armies are moving closer to the household, the one son mentions &amp;quot;Lord knows what they&amp;#039;ll do to you women.&amp;quot;  That means that the movie at least wants to convey the impression that soldiers did harm to the women. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
American devotion to The Cause struck me as very accurate. From everything I have learned in class, the colonists were quite willing to lay down their lives for the sake of their new land. While their motives may not have been as naive as expressed in the film, I do not believe it would have been seen as blind patriotism either. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I feel as though this is by far the most accurate movie that we have watched yet. I watched a special making of feature on my DVD and was surprised at the amount of effort the movie&amp;#039;s creators took to ensure that the costumes were as accurate as possible.  The ideas for the uniforms came from actual revolutionary uniforms at the Smithsonian Museum.  The featurette after the movie also talked about the basis for several of the main characters including Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character being based off of Thomas Sumter, Andrew Pickens and Francis Marion. It also mentioned Tarrington being based off of the real Tarleton. It seems to me that this movie did a good job with accuracy. While some of the actual battles may not be real they did mostly depict backwoods skirmishes.-- Kelly Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rules of war really astonished me. I cant believe that men really would go after the officers first. I thought that this was just something the movie did to show Benjamin Martins hatred toward the British officers. I was surprised to read about this in this weeks readings. But I guess when you think about the &amp;quot;rules of war&amp;quot; didn&amp;#039;t really apply to this war when so many officers ordered the killing of women and children. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shocked to read about how some men really did aim for the officers because in the movie there is a scene where Mel tells his sons to start with the officers and work their way down. I always thought this was just a way to show how distraught Mel was over the killing of his son. It also makes me question the brutality in the rest of the movie. Was it accurate or exaggerated to show the hatred between Mel and Tavington. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, I was pretty surprised that it actually happened like that but it does make sense to do so in terms of causing the most damage to enemy forces.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the movie I watched a one of the bonus features of the movie called True Patriot. In it the writers, producers, and other people who worked on the movie talked about the research they did in order to be historically accurate. It was really interesting to hear that the half built house the former militia members were working on at the end was meant to symbolize the building of a new nation and how the hardest part was going to be the issue of slavery. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie also did a much better job of showing the passage of time. As you watch you can really believe several years have passed during the course of the movie. The romances are also more believable at least Gabriel&amp;#039;s (Heath Ledger) was, Mel&amp;#039;s was a little bit more questionable. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed in the movie that we discussed in class was how some white soldiers disapproved of black men being allowed to enlist in the militia.  There was one scene in particular which I thought the movie got right where one of the white soldiers made a snide comment on how he believed that black soldiers should not be given weapons. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, this movie does a good job at portraying the events that happened during the Revolutionary War through its accurate representation of clothing, military formations, style of combat, gender roles, and depictions of the British and colonists in general.  The movie also does a good job at providing an overall background for what was happening elsewhere during the Revolution, doing this by making up conversations (usually with messengers) about what else was going on up north, with Washington’s army, and with other factors involved in the war.  The movie also provides insight about how slaves, neutral colonists, fathers and sons, and women thought about the war.  However, it occurs that this movie seems a little biased toward the British because the movie’s point of view portrays the British as the evil and sinister empire that brutally destroys everything in sight, and the turn of unfortunate events experienced by the patriot militia automatically gears the viewer to root for the Patriots.  Point is; if the British made a movie about the same events, would they have depicted them and portrayed them the same way this movie has?   Would the British capitalize on making the Patriots out to be the evil, sinister, disobeying, disloyal debtors?  &lt;br /&gt;
–James D.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I think one things this movie touched on well was the scarier side to having the &amp;quot;home field advantage.&amp;quot;  Often in history classes the notion that the Patriots had the battle fought on their own soil is praised and often accredited with aiding the Patriots when it came to winning the war.  And while this may be true, the darker aspects to having this advantage are often overlooked.  In the movie, it became clearer how violent the opposing armies were and how close these battles came to homes.  I think this is an aspect often overlooked and it&amp;#039;s a scary notion that battles were being fought literally in backyards.  The British were able to avoid a number civilian deaths on their side for this very reason (Excluding the Loyalists.) --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wonder how much respect the militia men actually have. Were they thought of second rate soldiers as the movie portrayed Cornwalis to believe? I also wonder if they were given the respect on their own side - if there was no real Benjamin Martin, who was the leader of this militia and were they the center of the line in the epic battle scene? -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do like the French comments and banter... would a French leader really fight with a militia from SC? I do think that this rivalry would be appropriate given the French and Indian war history. And it added a level of humor that was refreshing. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the readings, it seems that The Patriot does a great job of capturing colonial attitudes towards the British, and vice versa.  One thing that the &amp;quot;Boisterous Sea of Liberty&amp;quot; article explicitly states is the colonist feeling of being under tyranny and oppression by a king thousands of miles away.  The film conveys this same attitude throughout.  The other reading, &amp;quot;Rise of Partisan Warfare,&amp;quot; mentioned how British prisoners were horribly treated by colonials.  This sort of parallels a scene in the movie where some of the militia killed British soldiers who were about to surrender (and then the reverend explains how this behavior was &amp;quot;madness&amp;quot; and should not be tolerated). - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing I liked about this movie were the characters in the film.  Dr. M mentioned how there were three groups of people during this time period:  patriots, loyalists, and neutrals.  Within the patriots, there were subgroups, and I think we saw some of these people in the movie.  Mel Gibson was someone who believed in achieving independence by any means except war.  Obviously, his views shift after the death of his son.  Additionally, the character of Capt. Wilkens is someone who is torn between the views of the patriots and the loyalists.  He is first scene in the court room advocating that S.C. go to war, only to defect to the British because his &amp;quot;loyalty lies with the King.&amp;quot;  After he is forced to burn the church down with all of the innocent people still inside, he realizes how extreme his general&amp;#039;s tactics were.  I think the movie does a good job reflecting the diversity of the beliefs, personality, and attitudes of the people during the Revolutionary War. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the expense of it being long, I think this movie was very good at portraying sides and events of the Revolution accurately (if not very cheesily at the beginning). The eagerness of youth to fight vs. the reservations and reluctance of an older man who sees what&amp;#039;s to loose is fairly timeless. Also, though I don&amp;#039;t think the British were portrayed too unfairly, the movie went a bit easy on the militia&amp;#039;s tactics and ethics at times. The towns people&amp;#039;s reaction to how the swamp tramps fought (killing surrendering soldiers) seems accurate. But then they got all noble of course. As the primary sources point out, militia would shoot wounded enemy soldiers dead, just as Col. Tavington&amp;#039;s character had done. Also, in concern to Tavington, though exceptionally evil, I thought he got across some accurate perspectives. His self interest in terms of how British social ladder worked was true and his menacing mention of Ohio was a bit funny, but I like its mention all the same. Of course the racists, close-minded patriot who represented the hypocritical attitudes towards black and slave soldiers learned to respect the black guy in the end (because maybe America wasn&amp;#039;t always perfect, but we had heart damn it!).  On the flip side, the British forced blacks (slave or freed) to join the King&amp;#039;s Army (over simplification maybe, but also not that inaccurate, cuz it&amp;#039;s not like the British actually cared about the Blacks in America who they kidnapped and sold in the first place). I thought it was good that they showed the civilian suffering. They were brutal scenes, but that&amp;#039;s what war usually comes to. Cornwallis chastised Tavington for his brutality at first though, acknowledging the honor of war. I also like that the Loyalist, though he was ashamed of the brutality he was pressured to commit, didn&amp;#039;t make any last ditch/uncharacteristic acts of nobility like Duncan did in Mohicans, but rather, carried out the burning he was ordered to do. I also liked how you could feel the turning points in the war through the movie, as well as feel the losses on both sides. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know this is going to be discussed quite a bit, but it really does bear mentioning: Mel Gibson must have been the first real American hero. It&amp;#039;s the only possible reason for that godawful accent (he could have at least kept the Australian and been &amp;#039;&amp;#039;something&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that existed at the time!) --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were incidents of excessive cruelty, such as the one where all the townspeople are told to go into the church, and are locked up and then the church is burned down with them still in the church, common, or were incidents like that one in the movie used just for dramatic effect in the movie? ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for how the upper-class are portrayed in this movie, I think the British upper-class were portrayed as rather silly, and air-headed.  An example of this is when Benjamin Martin and his men dress up as British soldiers, and burn down the British ship that is docked while the British are having a party.  As the ship bursts into flames, one of the ladies at the party looks at the ship, laughs, and squeals &amp;quot;Ooh fireworks!&amp;quot;, indicating that she clearly has no idea what was happening.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katherine, I think I remember the woman holding a seeing glass. Could it be the she couldn&amp;#039;t see very well?-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question about Charlotte: Did she happen to own that plantation herself? Inheritance? Was she widowed?  It doesn&amp;#039;t appear she had anyone with her there or in town except slaves, and there is no indication that a husband or brother was away fighting. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoy this movie but there are a few things that I have to point out that did not fit. Amanda has already touched on this but many of the characters have different accents. Benjamin - Americanized English, Gabriel- Australian and then the younger son, Thomas - British. All the while various characters in the movie have different accents. Also, I believe two young, unwed people kissing in public would have been frowned upon, i.e. Gabriel and Anne. - Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While watching the movie it seemed to me that most young men were extremely eager to join up with the Regulars.  Was this an honest representation?  I can understand Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s point of view and not wanting his sons to join up, but Gabriel and Thomas seemed more than ready to run off to the camps.  I didn&amp;#039;t think men were that eager to be volunteering. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more question - Were the Militias the groups of men using the guerrilla tactics?  I noticed there was a difference between the Regulars and the Militia but I wasn&amp;#039;t sure if that was the difference between the two. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did a good job of showing how uniformed and precise the British Army was, which is also seen in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. The movie also portrays the brutality of the war, not only the soldiers who suffered fighting on the line and endured harsh winters, but also the effect the war had on civilians. Much of the fighting was done on farms and in front/ behind people&amp;#039;s homes which ultimately led to many homes being destroyed. I am curious though, would the militia also have had uniforms? And how were they funded?  --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the portrayals of colonial ex-soldiers who fought for the British during the French and Indian War, is it realistic to have a man stand up before a crowd and exclaim his grievances against the British Crown? He said his leg was cut off by the British after the war and proclaimed another limb was cut off metaphorically by the taxes! Was his leg really chopped off by the British or taken off because of war casualties? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, Mel Gibson slaughtered innocents at a Disney resort and campground? That &amp;#039;&amp;#039;is&amp;#039;&amp;#039; sinful. Seriously, that’s the only Fort Wilderness I’ve ever heard of… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as attacking and hurting the common people was this true? Did they burn down churches, homes, and kill the Continental Army’s family? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the British Col. Tavington would have been reprimanded more for how he treated the militias even if they are traitors to the crown? killing them all seems like a war crime, And less likely to happen. wouldn&amp;#039;t they want to hang them for treason?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were women allowed into General Assembly meetings? Were there really Black communities of freed or runaway slaves out on the open beach? That seems like a bad place to hang out, being in plain sight and what not. Weren’t most of those communities in various swamps? Also, why did Gabriel have such a low opinion of the guys who joined the militia? Wasn’t the Continental Army mostly made up of rabble and outcasts too? On the subject of the Continental Army, I always wonder at its depictions in paintings and other media. Considering they were often poorly supplied and oft-butt whupped by the British, what are the chances they would have fancy matching uniforms? Heck, at Valley Forge a lot soldiers were without the very basics (like shoes and coats), let alone pretty uniforms. Most importantly, were the British ever that brutal during the Revolution? Like, Naziesque burning people in a church brutal? I think not. People actually took note of the laws of war at that time. Anyway, wasn’t it the American guerilla forces who were committing the atrocities? --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing that bothers me in this movie is that although this is an age of high child mortalities and illnesses are a serious problem, none of this is portrayed at all. All of the characters in the movie are shown as perfectly healthy. Combat and war was certainly not the only danger and conflict to the people at the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene in the Patriot when the young woman is speaking to the crowd in church, this seems inaccurate because women were not allowed to speak their minds. They had to sit still and be quite. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning at the SC Assembly in Charles Town, one man says that we are &amp;quot;one nation, an American Nation,&amp;quot; and someone says that they are &amp;quot;citizens of an American Nation.&amp;quot;  But at this point they were still considering themselves citizens of individual colonies, right?  None of this one nation business, but thirteen colonies to become independent from Britain. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Repeated Inaccuracies: a) Once again, throughout the whole movie, we see amazing accuracy in shooting with muskets.  Accuracy is vague when it gets to the face-to-face in lines on a field kind of fighting, but when the militia, and even Samuel and Nathan early on, are shooting, they&amp;#039;re much better shots than the British regulars. b) really early on, when we see Continental soldiers (?) opening up nice, huge, sheaves of yellow, genetically engineered corn. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would women be allowed in a meeting of the legislature? When Gabriel comes to the church to enlist the men of the village and none of them made any moves to get up and go, Anne called them out. Was it probable for a woman to do this?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was no widespread loyalism shown in the movie, in fact, Wilkins is the only loyalist that springs to mind.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Is that how prisoner exchange worked? Wouldn&amp;#039;t the British have sent someone out first to verify &amp;quot;the ghost&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; claims?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One issue I have with the time progression is that Cornwallis was in South Carolina for about the entire movie. Even if that is true, the Storyline would have us believe that Martin and his band of renegades were the only force keeping the British in South Carolina. The only mention they make of the regulars after a while was that Gates was a &amp;quot;damn fool&amp;quot;, and there is no mention of fellow patriotic militia groups doing their part to chip away at the British force. It just seems like Martin&amp;#039;s group of militia was singlehandedly preventing British advancement. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie made it seem as though the Americans and the French had patched up all of their old wounds and that the fraternity of being soldiers together would last forever. The Letter from George Mason in the reading, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Boisterous Sea of Liberty&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, painted a different picture. Mason said that Virginians did not trust the French and that they expected the French to exploit post- war American weaknesses. These fears were real enough to lead the Americans to sign a separate peace with England.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is incredibly nitpicky, but I&amp;#039;m pretty sure the Classical Revival style (the style of many of the film&amp;#039;s plantation houses) wasn&amp;#039;t used until the nineteenth century. - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benjamin Martin says in the movie “why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?” Was there any idea that the new government would be a democracy at the time and if there was, was that decided? If anyone knows, please post. I would imagine that the idea of making it a democracy (Or more technically a republic) existed but it was far from decided. –Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Patriot was weighed down by it&amp;#039;s occasional absurdities, like the representative in the legislature declaring &amp;quot;we are citizens of and American nation&amp;quot;... The film likewise made more slight faults for the sake of drama.  I don&amp;#039;t believe Tavington would have questioned why his new cavalry recruit from the loyalist militia would turn against his neighbors.  We know Loyalists were as easy to find as Patriots.  The Patriot seemed very hung up on an idea that there was universal support for the separatist cause. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mel Gibson could not be the beloved American hero if he owned slaves, but really, how likely was it that his character would not have? Of course he also never once lost his patience with the 7 children he was raising on his own, except to poignantly yell &amp;quot;You&amp;#039;re my child!&amp;quot; at Heath/Gabriel. Was this the distressed, mourning father of the 1770&amp;#039;s South or a Dad on a Disney Channel show gone Rambo when his sons are killed?  --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The question of slaves ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benjamin Martin doesn’t own slaves. They are freedmen and willingly work for him. He helps them plow the land. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Of course&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. After all, what kind of action hero can own slaves? Apparently, we want our heroes with pure intentions. Was this a situation that happened at all? Sure, the movie had some mentions of slavery and racism, but it was so secondary you’d almost forget the setting is South Carolina. It was nice to see that there were some blacks in the British lines during the final battle, though. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the slave joined the militia it didn&amp;#039;t seem like he would be accepted just like that. Let alone be viewed as a free man by that one colonist.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the situation with the slave being signed up for militia service by his master is true, and I also believe that the militia man who acted extremely racist was accurate as well. I think the film tried to casually indicate that opinions could be changed regarding blind hatred and racism, and by fighting together, and risking their lives for one another, these men saw that there is more to a man than his race. I DO see that this racism was a lot less severe than SC probably had back then, but it is important to note that the subject was addressed in some way at all. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To comment on the portrayal of the blacks, the women looked like the stereotypical Mammies, albeit, not as plump as Scarlett O&amp;#039;Hara&amp;#039;s mammy, but looking similar in dress and head covering. The women were shown to be obedient and efficient in their care for the children of their white masters. The men were all content in the movie as well, especially when the British came to &amp;quot;set them free.&amp;quot; The blacks literally were dragged away from their white owners or landowners. Even though the black men were free, there weas no distinguishing for the British. Occam, the black militiaman, seems fine enough to serve in his master&amp;#039;s stead. His master describes him as not smart but strong. The man&amp;#039;s build is stereotypical of the African man made to laborious work, not for intellectual discussions. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning when the British come to Martin&amp;#039;s home the officer tells the slaves that if they go to join with the British they will be granted freedom.  One of the slaves says that they are already freemen.  Is this true?  Are his slaves really free or are they just saying that?  If they are really free how common was that for the free slaves to stay and work on a southern plantation? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are many things I felt that were deeply wrong portayals of history in the movie. The portrayal of peoples atitutudes toward slavery is majorly flawed with everybody, but one person (who comes to be tolerant later) treating slaves as equals. This is colonial South Carolina yet all the colonials are portrayed as all accepting and understanding of each other. Additionally the way Gabriel speaks up to his father and his father giving in is pretty absurd considering South Carolina during the colonial period is highly patriarchal. The scene where Mel Gibson massacres a bunch of soldiers with only a tomahawk does not help the movies realism factor ether. For people in South Carolina during the war it is not likely that they would have a strong national identity, but rather be focused on regional identities. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Patriot, it seems that Mel Gibson would not just have free colored people working in his fields especially in the south. Also were the slaves really freed, or were most of them forced to join the British Army? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One could say that the movie treated the issue of slavery with kid gloves, but that is likely an understatement. Perhaps &amp;quot;infant gloves,&amp;quot; would be a better way to put the way that this film portrayed colonial attitudes toward blacks. The likelihood that a South Carolina man of stature would have zero slaves out of an all black workforce struck me as far fetched at best. Also, upon given the chance for freedom, it seems unlikely that these same workers would resist in the manner that Martins men resisted Tavington&amp;#039;s offer of freedom in exchange for service. Then there is Occam, the stoic slave offered up to Martin&amp;#039;s militia. The idea that only one man in the militia would harass him seems absurd. Most of the militia were men of the lower class and these men typically were some of the bigger proponents of slavery, simply so that they could stay above someone in the social order. Though there were many historical liberties taken with this film, the gross misrepresentation of colonial era slavery was the most egregious of the inaccuracies. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was that a maroon community that we saw? Was it an accurate depiction?- Jason Ward &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tacking onto Jason&amp;#039;s question - How thrilled would these free blacks in the beach-side maroon community be to see runaway whites who may have easily been followed by redcoats? Besides those who had been close the family previously, there seemed to be an immediate sense of community between all of them... a little unbelievable to me personally. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Howard speaks of fighting for the American Nation.  No one would have thought in those terms at that time.  That is us in the present inserting an idea into the past that doesn’t belong.  – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of people have brought up the scene where Ben Martin&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;volunteer labor force&amp;quot; responded to the British general saying &amp;quot;we are not slaves...we work this land for free.&amp;quot;  In class Dr. M. said that 40% of the South&amp;#039;s slave labor were located in South Carolina alone.  So, I think the likely-hood of a black person in S.C. working on a white person&amp;#039;s land on their own accord is fairly low.  Taylor made a good point that someone like Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character should not own slaves purely for dramatic reasons, so I think we should let the film slide on this one. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot;, Toplin discusses how some historical movies have done poorly due to the fact that they have not had a clear-cut villain. However, in my opinion, this movie suffers from an almost Disney-like black and white villain portayal. We can obviously never know if the real Tarleton was as cold blooded or murderous, but it is not a stretch to assume that it was more for the benefit of the audience&amp;#039;s entertainment rather than historical accuracy. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing the movie particularly glances over is that slavery was a big issue in the rhetoric of colonists fighting the war. The documents have frequent references to British policy as being slavery on Americans. This point is, however completely lost in this movie because of the movies false portrayal of peoples attitudes towards slavery. Slaves and free blacks were a very badly treated group in the South especially South Carolina, but the slaves and masters in the movie are shown living happily together with little or new tension between them. People in the colonies compared British actions to slavery precisely because they knew it would be absolutely horrible to be a slave. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this was true in the &amp;#039;time period of the movie&amp;#039; but a trait that emerges from the year of the movie being made tried is a man can be proud and raise a family on his own without a wife.  Single-parent homes are increasing nowadays, but they are not just headed by the mother now, there has been an increase in single parents father households.  Yes I know the wife had died in the movie, but just saying that that is an aspect of today&amp;#039;s time that comes out in the movie, at least to me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it&amp;#039;s kind of funny that a movie that so embodies the American national myth was directed by a German and starred two Australians.  But seriously, The Patriot is such a perfect representation of what late twentieth and twenty-first century Americans want American history to be.  The Revolution (yes, with a capital R) was in large part saved by a group of plucky, underdog militia.  The British were either quaint and out of touch (Cornwallis) or ruthlessly evil (Tavington).  And, of course, racism was overcome and the American Revolution created a new sense of equality...that wouldn&amp;#039;t be put into effect until the 1960s.  Whoops.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that this movie serves as an excellent primary source about how we reimagine our history. That reimagining allows us to view our nation as having really existed, in a unified form since the Revolutionary War. For instance, sure there are race problems at that time but as Gabriel says, we’ll be able to build a new world. We’re clearly passed all that now. Similarly, it’s ridiculous when Charlotte says “it’s a free world, or it will be.” – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The original question I posted here was just retarded after I thought about it.  So now, my new question to post here, did the Continental Army really treat the &amp;#039;militia&amp;#039; like that too?  It seemed they had a superiority complex as well.--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the British really randomly burn fields and houses and kill all the livestock like that?  That&amp;#039;s just retarded if they did!  Did they think &amp;quot;oh we can do whatever the hell we want and the people will still love us?&amp;quot; Bullshit!  That&amp;#039;ll just make people want to stand up against you because you destroyed their lives!  What the fuck would they have left to worry about if you start doing that shit??  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since this is a reaction I felt it fit here, the one British Colonel bothered me on familiarity, and then I placed it!  Colonel William Tavington (The jerk) of the British militia, also plays Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter movies.  I find it funny that Jason Isaacs plays a &amp;#039;evil&amp;#039; and &amp;#039;asshole&amp;#039; character.  &amp;gt;^.^&amp;lt;  I think Jason has a pattern building. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I kept watching this movie and thinking &amp;quot;At least Tom Wilkinson would eventually make Michael Clayton. At least Heath Ledger would eventually make Dark Knight. At least Mel Gibson would eventually direct a movie that was perfectly satirized by South Park.&amp;quot; -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was the first R Rated film I was allowed to see in the theater. So of course at the time I thought it was totally rad, what with the cannonball and tomahawk scenes. But I also remember the History Channel doing a round table discussion over its historical merits or lack thereof. And in this program I think I remember the panel pretty much eviscerating its historical accuracy, but I could be wrong. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, who else thinks that maybe George Bush REALLY liked this film? Notice how many times they repeat, &amp;quot;Stay the Course&amp;quot;? I think the Bush Administration has Movie Mondays sometimes. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I LOVE violent war/action films! This movie didn&amp;#039;t have any merit for me until graphic deaths and fast-paced battle scenes got underway about a 1/2 hour in. This is the only reason I excuse the rediculousness of the fighter&amp;#039;s accuracy. Sure, the primary sources support that guerilla tactics worked BETTER than traditional fighting against the British, but Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s fight scenes (especially in his first action sequence) show some striking and unforgivable cinematic exaggerations that were almost identical to that of Daniel Day Lewis&amp;#039; in &amp;quot;Mohicans.&amp;quot; Notice first, Mel Gibson (or his prepubescent sons) doesn&amp;#039;t miss a single shot in the woods- even with his skill, anger, and strategic preparation this is unrealistic. And then (how typical is this?) there is an identical sequence in Mohicans and Patriot...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohicans:&lt;br /&gt;
The movie&amp;#039;s sexy eye candy is held at knife point to her throat--&lt;br /&gt;
Po sees this, and instead of taking precaution, runs straight for her to save her--&lt;br /&gt;
While distracted, Po takes down 3 attackers on his way to save Cora with perfect precision--&lt;br /&gt;
He is able to shoot Cora&amp;#039;s attacker without him slitting her throat just in the nick of time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Patriot: &lt;br /&gt;
The movie&amp;#039;s sexy eye candy is held at knife point to his throat--&lt;br /&gt;
Martin sees this, and instead of taking precaution, runs straight for him to save him--&lt;br /&gt;
While distracted, Martin takes down 3 attackers on his way to save his son with perfect precision, even disarming a man and shooting him with his own gun- He is able to throw a tomahawk in the attacker&amp;#039;s face before he can slit his son&amp;#039;s throat. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t help but make some references to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Braveheart&amp;#039;&amp;#039; while watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039;: When Mel Gibson is running out of his burning house with weapons in hand and also towards the end when Mel Gibson is riding on his horse with the colonist&amp;#039;s flag waving behind, he is riding up and down the line of soldiers, just as William Wallace did. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The naivete and childish humor of Heath Ledger and Lisa Brenner&amp;#039;s romance really detracted from the mood and flow of the film. I don&amp;#039;t necessarily want a dour, atmospheric nightmare vision of the Revolutionary War, but I don&amp;#039;t want a cheeky RomCom either. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Cash&amp;#039;s comment - How else would boys convince girls to watch this movie, I personally liked that cheeky side swapping ink spit etc. I have to say the bundle bag tradition is intriguing - True or not? - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following along with Christine&amp;#039;s comment, I don&amp;#039;t care if these sorts of romances actually happened, but seriously.  She was his dead wife&amp;#039;s sister. If that was just a way for the filmmakers to grant Mel Gibson a leading lady, then they should have just opted out of that one.  Too creepy for my taste, thank you. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly- The Ben-Charlotte deal didn&amp;#039;t actually seem so unrealistic to me.  If Charlotte was single or widowed or whatever, and Ben was widowered as well, it might make sense at that time from a financial/economic standpoint for the two of them to get together.  Knowing this already, it doesn&amp;#039;t seem that far out that they might start to like each other.  And she reminds him a lot of his wife (even that she had to remind him she was not her sister). - Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, the movie wasn’t bad. It was fairly entertaining, and the cast was made up of some pretty awesome actors, like Jason Isaacs (always playing the bad guy) and Rene Auberjonois. However, the romance was cliché. I had a sinking feeling of dread that Ben and Aunt Charlotte would get together the first time they stood in the same vicinity as each other. And so it was. Then we have Benjamin Martin not willing to fight the British, but when his son is killed we see him go into &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Action Hero Rambo&amp;#039;&amp;#039; mode where he beats down twenty redcoats with a little help from his younger sons. That was definitely in the vein of Hollywood revenge/action flicks of the... well, for many years now. And let&amp;#039;s not talk about those parenting skills. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was it soooooo long?! Sure it was able to do a good job at portraying various sides of the Revolution (mostly focusing on the south), but dear god, I swear I could have edited that movie better myself! Oi! The best parts included Heath and when he died I just didn&amp;#039;t care anymore. And then of course Jason Isaacs did create a truly wonderfully evil villain as usual, playing Luscious Malfoy...oops...I mean Col. Tavington. --Jackie Reed&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-18T09:10:21Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 5 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is just a minor note, but the corn isn&amp;#039;t perfect, so that is at least correct. Also (and I&amp;#039;m still in the beginning of the movie while I write this), the son Gaberial (in the Continental Army)had no gloves, but cloth wraps on his hands.  That shows that there was not enough to go around, even so early in the war.--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the dinner table, while the armies are moving closer to the household, the one son mentions &amp;quot;Lord knows what they&amp;#039;ll do to you women.&amp;quot;  That means that the movie at least wants to convey the impression that soldiers did harm to the women. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
American devotion to The Cause struck me as very accurate. From everything I have learned in class, the colonists were quite willing to lay down their lives for the sake of their new land. While their motives may not have been as naive as expressed in the film, I do not believe it would have been seen as blind patriotism either. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I feel as though this is by far the most accurate movie that we have watched yet. I watched a special making of feature on my DVD and was surprised at the amount of effort the movie&amp;#039;s creators took to ensure that the costumes were as accurate as possible.  The ideas for the uniforms came from actual revolutionary uniforms at the Smithsonian Museum.  The featurette after the movie also talked about the basis for several of the main characters including Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character being based off of Thomas Sumter, Andrew Pickens and Francis Marion. It also mentioned Tarrington being based off of the real Tarleton. It seems to me that this movie did a good job with accuracy. While some of the actual battles may not be real they did mostly depict backwoods skirmishes.-- Kelly Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rules of war really astonished me. I cant believe that men really would go after the officers first. I thought that this was just something the movie did to show Benjamin Martins hatred toward the British officers. I was surprised to read about this in this weeks readings. But I guess when you think about the &amp;quot;rules of war&amp;quot; didn&amp;#039;t really apply to this war when so many officers ordered the killing of women and children. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shocked to read about how some men really did aim for the officers because in the movie there is a scene where Mel tells his sons to start with the officers and work their way down. I always thought this was just a way to show how distraught Mel was over the killing of his son. It also makes me question the brutality in the rest of the movie. Was it accurate or exaggerated to show the hatred between Mel and Tavington. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, I was pretty surprised that it actually happened like that but it does make sense to do so in terms of causing the most damage to enemy forces.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the movie I watched a one of the bonus features of the movie called True Patriot. In it the writers, producers, and other people who worked on the movie talked about the research they did in order to be historically accurate. It was really interesting to hear that the half built house the former militia members were working on at the end was meant to symbolize the building of a new nation and how the hardest part was going to be the issue of slavery. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie also did a much better job of showing the passage of time. As you watch you can really believe several years have passed during the course of the movie. The romances are also more believable at least Gabriel&amp;#039;s (Heath Ledger) was, Mel&amp;#039;s was a little bit more questionable. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed in the movie that we discussed in class was how some white soldiers disapproved of black men being allowed to enlist in the militia.  There was one scene in particular which I thought the movie got right where one of the white soldiers made a snide comment on how he believed that black soldiers should not be given weapons. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, this movie does a good job at portraying the events that happened during the Revolutionary War through its accurate representation of clothing, military formations, style of combat, gender roles, and depictions of the British and colonists in general.  The movie also does a good job at providing an overall background for what was happening elsewhere during the Revolution, doing this by making up conversations (usually with messengers) about what else was going on up north, with Washington’s army, and with other factors involved in the war.  The movie also provides insight about how slaves, neutral colonists, fathers and sons, and women thought about the war.  However, it occurs that this movie seems a little biased toward the British because the movie’s point of view portrays the British as the evil and sinister empire that brutally destroys everything in sight, and the turn of unfortunate events experienced by the patriot militia automatically gears the viewer to root for the Patriots.  Point is; if the British made a movie about the same events, would they have depicted them and portrayed them the same way this movie has?   Would the British capitalize on making the Patriots out to be the evil, sinister, disobeying, disloyal debtors?  &lt;br /&gt;
–James D.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I think one things this movie touched on well was the scarier side to having the &amp;quot;home field advantage.&amp;quot;  Often in history classes the notion that the Patriots had the battle fought on their own soil is praised and often accredited with aiding the Patriots when it came to winning the war.  And while this may be true, the darker aspects to having this advantage are often overlooked.  In the movie, it became clearer how violent the opposing armies were and how close these battles came to homes.  I think this is an aspect often overlooked and it&amp;#039;s a scary notion that battles were being fought literally in backyards.  The British were able to avoid a number civilian deaths on their side for this very reason (Excluding the Loyalists.) --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wonder how much respect the militia men actually have. Were they thought of second rate soldiers as the movie portrayed Cornwalis to believe? I also wonder if they were given the respect on their own side - if there was no real Benjamin Martin, who was the leader of this militia and were they the center of the line in the epic battle scene? -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do like the French comments and banter... would a French leader really fight with a militia from SC? I do think that this rivalry would be appropriate given the French and Indian war history. And it added a level of humor that was refreshing. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the readings, it seems that The Patriot does a great job of capturing colonial attitudes towards the British, and vice versa.  One thing that the &amp;quot;Boisterous Sea of Liberty&amp;quot; article explicitly states is the colonist feeling of being under tyranny and oppression by a king thousands of miles away.  The film conveys this same attitude throughout.  The other reading, &amp;quot;Rise of Partisan Warfare,&amp;quot; mentioned how British prisoners were horribly treated by colonials.  This sort of parallels a scene in the movie where some of the militia killed British soldiers who were about to surrender (and then the reverend explains how this behavior was &amp;quot;madness&amp;quot; and should not be tolerated). - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing I liked about this movie were the characters in the film.  Dr. M mentioned how there were three groups of people during this time period:  patriots, loyalists, and neutrals.  Within the patriots, there were subgroups, and I think we saw some of these people in the movie.  Mel Gibson was someone who believed in achieving independence by any means except war.  Obviously, his views shift after the death of his son.  Additionally, the character of Capt. Wilkens is someone who is torn between the views of the patriots and the loyalists.  He is first scene in the court room advocating that S.C. go to war, only to defect to the British because his &amp;quot;loyalty lies with the King.&amp;quot;  After he is forced to burn the church down with all of the innocent people still inside, he realizes how extreme his general&amp;#039;s tactics were.  I think the movie does a good job reflecting the diversity of the beliefs, personality, and attitudes of the people during the Revolutionary War. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know this is going to be discussed quite a bit, but it really does bear mentioning: Mel Gibson must have been the first real American hero. It&amp;#039;s the only possible reason for that godawful accent (he could have at least kept the Australian and been &amp;#039;&amp;#039;something&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that existed at the time!) --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were incidents of excessive cruelty, such as the one where all the townspeople are told to go into the church, and are locked up and then the church is burned down with them still in the church, common, or were incidents like that one in the movie used just for dramatic effect in the movie? ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for how the upper-class are portrayed in this movie, I think the British upper-class were portrayed as rather silly, and air-headed.  An example of this is when Benjamin Martin and his men dress up as British soldiers, and burn down the British ship that is docked while the British are having a party.  As the ship bursts into flames, one of the ladies at the party looks at the ship, laughs, and squeals &amp;quot;Ooh fireworks!&amp;quot;, indicating that she clearly has no idea what was happening.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katherine, I think I remember the woman holding a seeing glass. Could it be the she couldn&amp;#039;t see very well?-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question about Charlotte: Did she happen to own that plantation herself? Inheritance? Was she widowed?  It doesn&amp;#039;t appear she had anyone with her there or in town except slaves, and there is no indication that a husband or brother was away fighting. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoy this movie but there are a few things that I have to point out that did not fit. Amanda has already touched on this but many of the characters have different accents. Benjamin - Americanized English, Gabriel- Australian and then the younger son, Thomas - British. All the while various characters in the movie have different accents. Also, I believe two young, unwed people kissing in public would have been frowned upon, i.e. Gabriel and Anne. - Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While watching the movie it seemed to me that most young men were extremely eager to join up with the Regulars.  Was this an honest representation?  I can understand Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s point of view and not wanting his sons to join up, but Gabriel and Thomas seemed more than ready to run off to the camps.  I didn&amp;#039;t think men were that eager to be volunteering. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more question - Were the Militias the groups of men using the guerrilla tactics?  I noticed there was a difference between the Regulars and the Militia but I wasn&amp;#039;t sure if that was the difference between the two. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did a good job of showing how uniformed and precise the British Army was, which is also seen in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. The movie also portrays the brutality of the war, not only the soldiers who suffered fighting on the line and endured harsh winters, but also the effect the war had on civilians. Much of the fighting was done on farms and in front/ behind people&amp;#039;s homes which ultimately led to many homes being destroyed. I am curious though, would the militia also have had uniforms? And how were they funded?  --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the portrayals of colonial ex-soldiers who fought for the British during the French and Indian War, is it realistic to have a man stand up before a crowd and exclaim his grievances against the British Crown? He said his leg was cut off by the British after the war and proclaimed another limb was cut off metaphorically by the taxes! Was his leg really chopped off by the British or taken off because of war casualties? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, Mel Gibson slaughtered innocents at a Disney resort and campground? That &amp;#039;&amp;#039;is&amp;#039;&amp;#039; sinful. Seriously, that’s the only Fort Wilderness I’ve ever heard of… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as attacking and hurting the common people was this true? Did they burn down churches, homes, and kill the Continental Army’s family? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the British Col. Tavington would have been reprimanded more for how he treated the militias even if they are traitors to the crown? killing them all seems like a war crime, And less likely to happen. wouldn&amp;#039;t they want to hang them for treason?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were women allowed into General Assembly meetings? Were there really Black communities of freed or runaway slaves out on the open beach? That seems like a bad place to hang out, being in plain sight and what not. Weren’t most of those communities in various swamps? Also, why did Gabriel have such a low opinion of the guys who joined the militia? Wasn’t the Continental Army mostly made up of rabble and outcasts too? On the subject of the Continental Army, I always wonder at its depictions in paintings and other media. Considering they were often poorly supplied and oft-butt whupped by the British, what are the chances they would have fancy matching uniforms? Heck, at Valley Forge a lot soldiers were without the very basics (like shoes and coats), let alone pretty uniforms. Most importantly, were the British ever that brutal during the Revolution? Like, Naziesque burning people in a church brutal? I think not. People actually took note of the laws of war at that time. Anyway, wasn’t it the American guerilla forces who were committing the atrocities? --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing that bothers me in this movie is that although this is an age of high child mortalities and illnesses are a serious problem, none of this is portrayed at all. All of the characters in the movie are shown as perfectly healthy. Combat and war was certainly not the only danger and conflict to the people at the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene in the Patriot when the young woman is speaking to the crowd in church, this seems inaccurate because women were not allowed to speak their minds. They had to sit still and be quite. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning at the SC Assembly in Charles Town, one man says that we are &amp;quot;one nation, an American Nation,&amp;quot; and someone says that they are &amp;quot;citizens of an American Nation.&amp;quot;  But at this point they were still considering themselves citizens of individual colonies, right?  None of this one nation business, but thirteen colonies to become independent from Britain. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Repeated Inaccuracies: a) Once again, throughout the whole movie, we see amazing accuracy in shooting with muskets.  Accuracy is vague when it gets to the face-to-face in lines on a field kind of fighting, but when the militia, and even Samuel and Nathan early on, are shooting, they&amp;#039;re much better shots than the British regulars. b) really early on, when we see Continental soldiers (?) opening up nice, huge, sheaves of yellow, genetically engineered corn. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would women be allowed in a meeting of the legislature? When Gabriel comes to the church to enlist the men of the village and none of them made any moves to get up and go, Anne called them out. Was it probable for a woman to do this?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was no widespread loyalism shown in the movie, in fact, Wilkins is the only loyalist that springs to mind.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Is that how prisoner exchange worked? Wouldn&amp;#039;t the British have sent someone out first to verify &amp;quot;the ghost&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; claims?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One issue I have with the time progression is that Cornwallis was in South Carolina for about the entire movie. Even if that is true, the Storyline would have us believe that Martin and his band of renegades were the only force keeping the British in South Carolina. The only mention they make of the regulars after a while was that Gates was a &amp;quot;damn fool&amp;quot;, and there is no mention of fellow patriotic militia groups doing their part to chip away at the British force. It just seems like Martin&amp;#039;s group of militia was singlehandedly preventing British advancement. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie made it seem as though the Americans and the French had patched up all of their old wounds and that the fraternity of being soldiers together would last forever. The Letter from George Mason in the reading, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Boisterous Sea of Liberty&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, painted a different picture. Mason said that Virginians did not trust the French and that they expected the French to exploit post- war American weaknesses. These fears were real enough to lead the Americans to sign a separate peace with England.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is incredibly nitpicky, but I&amp;#039;m pretty sure the Classical Revival style (the style of many of the film&amp;#039;s plantation houses) wasn&amp;#039;t used until the nineteenth century. - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benjamin Martin says in the movie “why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?” Was there any idea that the new government would be a democracy at the time and if there was, was that decided? If anyone knows, please post. I would imagine that the idea of making it a democracy (Or more technically a republic) existed but it was far from decided. –Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Patriot was weighed down by it&amp;#039;s occasional absurdities, like the representative in the legislature declaring &amp;quot;we are citizens of and American nation&amp;quot;... The film likewise made more slight faults for the sake of drama.  I don&amp;#039;t believe Tavington would have questioned why his new cavalry recruit from the loyalist militia would turn against his neighbors.  We know Loyalists were as easy to find as Patriots.  The Patriot seemed very hung up on an idea that there was universal support for the separatist cause. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mel Gibson could not be the beloved American hero if he owned slaves, but really, how likely was it that his character would not have? Of course he also never once lost his patience with the 7 children he was raising on his own, except to poignantly yell &amp;quot;You&amp;#039;re my child!&amp;quot; at Heath/Gabriel. Was this the distressed, mourning father of the 1770&amp;#039;s South or a Dad on a Disney Channel show gone Rambo when his sons are killed?  --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The question of slaves ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benjamin Martin doesn’t own slaves. They are freedmen and willingly work for him. He helps them plow the land. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Of course&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. After all, what kind of action hero can own slaves? Apparently, we want our heroes with pure intentions. Was this a situation that happened at all? Sure, the movie had some mentions of slavery and racism, but it was so secondary you’d almost forget the setting is South Carolina. It was nice to see that there were some blacks in the British lines during the final battle, though. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the slave joined the militia it didn&amp;#039;t seem like he would be accepted just like that. Let alone be viewed as a free man by that one colonist.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the situation with the slave being signed up for militia service by his master is true, and I also believe that the militia man who acted extremely racist was accurate as well. I think the film tried to casually indicate that opinions could be changed regarding blind hatred and racism, and by fighting together, and risking their lives for one another, these men saw that there is more to a man than his race. I DO see that this racism was a lot less severe than SC probably had back then, but it is important to note that the subject was addressed in some way at all. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To comment on the portrayal of the blacks, the women looked like the stereotypical Mammies, albeit, not as plump as Scarlett O&amp;#039;Hara&amp;#039;s mammy, but looking similar in dress and head covering. The women were shown to be obedient and efficient in their care for the children of their white masters. The men were all content in the movie as well, especially when the British came to &amp;quot;set them free.&amp;quot; The blacks literally were dragged away from their white owners or landowners. Even though the black men were free, there weas no distinguishing for the British. Occam, the black militiaman, seems fine enough to serve in his master&amp;#039;s stead. His master describes him as not smart but strong. The man&amp;#039;s build is stereotypical of the African man made to laborious work, not for intellectual discussions. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning when the British come to Martin&amp;#039;s home the officer tells the slaves that if they go to join with the British they will be granted freedom.  One of the slaves says that they are already freemen.  Is this true?  Are his slaves really free or are they just saying that?  If they are really free how common was that for the free slaves to stay and work on a southern plantation? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are many things I felt that were deeply wrong portayals of history in the movie. The portrayal of peoples atitutudes toward slavery is majorly flawed with everybody, but one person (who comes to be tolerant later) treating slaves as equals. This is colonial South Carolina yet all the colonials are portrayed as all accepting and understanding of each other. Additionally the way Gabriel speaks up to his father and his father giving in is pretty absurd considering South Carolina during the colonial period is highly patriarchal. The scene where Mel Gibson massacres a bunch of soldiers with only a tomahawk does not help the movies realism factor ether. For people in South Carolina during the war it is not likely that they would have a strong national identity, but rather be focused on regional identities. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Patriot, it seems that Mel Gibson would not just have free colored people working in his fields especially in the south. Also were the slaves really freed, or were most of them forced to join the British Army? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One could say that the movie treated the issue of slavery with kid gloves, but that is likely an understatement. Perhaps &amp;quot;infant gloves,&amp;quot; would be a better way to put the way that this film portrayed colonial attitudes toward blacks. The likelihood that a South Carolina man of stature would have zero slaves out of an all black workforce struck me as far fetched at best. Also, upon given the chance for freedom, it seems unlikely that these same workers would resist in the manner that Martins men resisted Tavington&amp;#039;s offer of freedom in exchange for service. Then there is Occam, the stoic slave offered up to Martin&amp;#039;s militia. The idea that only one man in the militia would harass him seems absurd. Most of the militia were men of the lower class and these men typically were some of the bigger proponents of slavery, simply so that they could stay above someone in the social order. Though there were many historical liberties taken with this film, the gross misrepresentation of colonial era slavery was the most egregious of the inaccuracies. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was that a maroon community that we saw? Was it an accurate depiction?- Jason Ward &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tacking onto Jason&amp;#039;s question - How thrilled would these free blacks in the beach-side maroon community be to see runaway whites who may have easily been followed by redcoats? Besides those who had been close the family previously, there seemed to be an immediate sense of community between all of them... a little unbelievable to me personally. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Howard speaks of fighting for the American Nation.  No one would have thought in those terms at that time.  That is us in the present inserting an idea into the past that doesn’t belong.  – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of people have brought up the scene where Ben Martin&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;volunteer labor force&amp;quot; responded to the British general saying &amp;quot;we are not slaves...we work this land for free.&amp;quot;  In class Dr. M. said that 40% of the South&amp;#039;s slave labor were located in South Carolina alone.  So, I think the likely-hood of a black person in S.C. working on a white person&amp;#039;s land on their own accord is fairly low.  Taylor made a good point that someone like Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character should not own slaves purely for dramatic reasons, so I think we should let the film slide on this one. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot;, Toplin discusses how some historical movies have done poorly due to the fact that they have not had a clear-cut villain. However, in my opinion, this movie suffers from an almost Disney-like black and white villain portayal. We can obviously never know if the real Tarleton was as cold blooded or murderous, but it is not a stretch to assume that it was more for the benefit of the audience&amp;#039;s entertainment rather than historical accuracy. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing the movie particularly glances over is that slavery was a big issue in the rhetoric of colonists fighting the war. The documents have frequent references to British policy as being slavery on Americans. This point is, however completely lost in this movie because of the movies false portrayal of peoples attitudes towards slavery. Slaves and free blacks were a very badly treated group in the South especially South Carolina, but the slaves and masters in the movie are shown living happily together with little or new tension between them. People in the colonies compared British actions to slavery precisely because they knew it would be absolutely horrible to be a slave. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this was true in the &amp;#039;time period of the movie&amp;#039; but a trait that emerges from the year of the movie being made tried is a man can be proud and raise a family on his own without a wife.  Single-parent homes are increasing nowadays, but they are not just headed by the mother now, there has been an increase in single parents father households.  Yes I know the wife had died in the movie, but just saying that that is an aspect of today&amp;#039;s time that comes out in the movie, at least to me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it&amp;#039;s kind of funny that a movie that so embodies the American national myth was directed by a German and starred two Australians.  But seriously, The Patriot is such a perfect representation of what late twentieth and twenty-first century Americans want American history to be.  The Revolution (yes, with a capital R) was in large part saved by a group of plucky, underdog militia.  The British were either quaint and out of touch (Cornwallis) or ruthlessly evil (Tavington).  And, of course, racism was overcome and the American Revolution created a new sense of equality...that wouldn&amp;#039;t be put into effect until the 1960s.  Whoops.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that this movie serves as an excellent primary source about how we reimagine our history. That reimagining allows us to view our nation as having really existed, in a unified form since the Revolutionary War. For instance, sure there are race problems at that time but as Gabriel says, we’ll be able to build a new world. We’re clearly passed all that now. Similarly, it’s ridiculous when Charlotte says “it’s a free world, or it will be.” – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The original question I posted here was just retarded after I thought about it.  So now, my new question to post here, did the Continental Army really treat the &amp;#039;militia&amp;#039; like that too?  It seemed they had a superiority complex as well.--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the British really randomly burn fields and houses and kill all the livestock like that?  That&amp;#039;s just retarded if they did!  Did they think &amp;quot;oh we can do whatever the hell we want and the people will still love us?&amp;quot; Bullshit!  That&amp;#039;ll just make people want to stand up against you because you destroyed their lives!  What the fuck would they have left to worry about if you start doing that shit??  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since this is a reaction I felt it fit here, the one British Colonel bothered me on familiarity, and then I placed it!  Colonel William Tavington (The jerk) of the British militia, also plays Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter movies.  I find it funny that Jason Isaacs plays a &amp;#039;evil&amp;#039; and &amp;#039;asshole&amp;#039; character.  &amp;gt;^.^&amp;lt;  I think Jason has a pattern building. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I kept watching this movie and thinking &amp;quot;At least Tom Wilkinson would eventually make Michael Clayton. At least Heath Ledger would eventually make Dark Knight. At least Mel Gibson would eventually direct a movie that was perfectly satirized by South Park.&amp;quot; -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was the first R Rated film I was allowed to see in the theater. So of course at the time I thought it was totally rad, what with the cannonball and tomahawk scenes. But I also remember the History Channel doing a round table discussion over its historical merits or lack thereof. And in this program I think I remember the panel pretty much eviscerating its historical accuracy, but I could be wrong. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, who else thinks that maybe George Bush REALLY liked this film? Notice how many times they repeat, &amp;quot;Stay the Course&amp;quot;? I think the Bush Administration has Movie Mondays sometimes. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I LOVE violent war/action films! This movie didn&amp;#039;t have any merit for me until graphic deaths and fast-paced battle scenes got underway about a 1/2 hour in. This is the only reason I excuse the rediculousness of the fighter&amp;#039;s accuracy. Sure, the primary sources support that guerilla tactics worked BETTER than traditional fighting against the British, but Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s fight scenes (especially in his first action sequence) show some striking and unforgivable cinematic exaggerations that were almost identical to that of Daniel Day Lewis&amp;#039; in &amp;quot;Mohicans.&amp;quot; Notice first, Mel Gibson (or his prepubescent sons) doesn&amp;#039;t miss a single shot in the woods- even with his skill, anger, and strategic preparation this is unrealistic. And then (how typical is this?) there is an identical sequence in Mohicans and Patriot...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohicans:&lt;br /&gt;
The movie&amp;#039;s sexy eye candy is held at knife point to her throat--&lt;br /&gt;
Po sees this, and instead of taking precaution, runs straight for her to save her--&lt;br /&gt;
While distracted, Po takes down 3 attackers on his way to save Cora with perfect precision--&lt;br /&gt;
He is able to shoot Cora&amp;#039;s attacker without him slitting her throat just in the nick of time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Patriot: &lt;br /&gt;
The movie&amp;#039;s sexy eye candy is held at knife point to his throat--&lt;br /&gt;
Martin sees this, and instead of taking precaution, runs straight for him to save him--&lt;br /&gt;
While distracted, Martin takes down 3 attackers on his way to save his son with perfect precision, even disarming a man and shooting him with his own gun- He is able to throw a tomahawk in the attacker&amp;#039;s face before he can slit his son&amp;#039;s throat. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t help but make some references to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Braveheart&amp;#039;&amp;#039; while watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039;: When Mel Gibson is running out of his burning house with weapons in hand and also towards the end when Mel Gibson is riding on his horse with the colonist&amp;#039;s flag waving behind, he is riding up and down the line of soldiers, just as William Wallace did. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The naivete and childish humor of Heath Ledger and Lisa Brenner&amp;#039;s romance really detracted from the mood and flow of the film. I don&amp;#039;t necessarily want a dour, atmospheric nightmare vision of the Revolutionary War, but I don&amp;#039;t want a cheeky RomCom either. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Cash&amp;#039;s comment - How else would boys convince girls to watch this movie, I personally liked that cheeky side swapping ink spit etc. I have to say the bundle bag tradition is intriguing - True or not? - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following along with Christine&amp;#039;s comment, I don&amp;#039;t care if these sorts of romances actually happened, but seriously.  She was his dead wife&amp;#039;s sister. If that was just a way for the filmmakers to grant Mel Gibson a leading lady, then they should have just opted out of that one.  Too creepy for my taste, thank you. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly- The Ben-Charlotte deal didn&amp;#039;t actually seem so unrealistic to me.  If Charlotte was single or widowed or whatever, and Ben was widowered as well, it might make sense at that time from a financial/economic standpoint for the two of them to get together.  Knowing this already, it doesn&amp;#039;t seem that far out that they might start to like each other.  And she reminds him a lot of his wife (even that she had to remind him she was not her sister). - Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, the movie wasn’t bad. It was fairly entertaining, and the cast was made up of some pretty awesome actors, like Jason Isaacs (always playing the bad guy) and Rene Auberjonois. However, the romance was cliché. I had a sinking feeling of dread that Ben and Aunt Charlotte would get together the first time they stood in the same vicinity as each other. And so it was. Then we have Benjamin Martin not willing to fight the British, but when his son is killed we see him go into &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Action Hero Rambo&amp;#039;&amp;#039; mode where he beats down twenty redcoats with a little help from his younger sons. That was definitely in the vein of Hollywood revenge/action flicks of the... well, for many years now. And let&amp;#039;s not talk about those parenting skills. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Why was it soooooo long?! Sure it was able to do a good job at portraying various sides of the Revolution (mostly focusing on the south), but dear god, I swear I could have edited that movie better myself! Oi! The best parts included Heath and when he died I just didn&amp;#039;t care anymore. And then of course Jason Isaacs did create a truly wonderfully evil villain as usual, playing Luscious Malfoy...oops...I mean Col. Tavington. --Jackie Reed&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-18T09:03:26Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 4 Public reaction/impact */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is just a minor note, but the corn isn&amp;#039;t perfect, so that is at least correct. Also (and I&amp;#039;m still in the beginning of the movie while I write this), the son Gaberial (in the Continental Army)had no gloves, but cloth wraps on his hands.  That shows that there was not enough to go around, even so early in the war.--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the dinner table, while the armies are moving closer to the household, the one son mentions &amp;quot;Lord knows what they&amp;#039;ll do to you women.&amp;quot;  That means that the movie at least wants to convey the impression that soldiers did harm to the women. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
American devotion to The Cause struck me as very accurate. From everything I have learned in class, the colonists were quite willing to lay down their lives for the sake of their new land. While their motives may not have been as naive as expressed in the film, I do not believe it would have been seen as blind patriotism either. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I feel as though this is by far the most accurate movie that we have watched yet. I watched a special making of feature on my DVD and was surprised at the amount of effort the movie&amp;#039;s creators took to ensure that the costumes were as accurate as possible.  The ideas for the uniforms came from actual revolutionary uniforms at the Smithsonian Museum.  The featurette after the movie also talked about the basis for several of the main characters including Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character being based off of Thomas Sumter, Andrew Pickens and Francis Marion. It also mentioned Tarrington being based off of the real Tarleton. It seems to me that this movie did a good job with accuracy. While some of the actual battles may not be real they did mostly depict backwoods skirmishes.-- Kelly Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rules of war really astonished me. I cant believe that men really would go after the officers first. I thought that this was just something the movie did to show Benjamin Martins hatred toward the British officers. I was surprised to read about this in this weeks readings. But I guess when you think about the &amp;quot;rules of war&amp;quot; didn&amp;#039;t really apply to this war when so many officers ordered the killing of women and children. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shocked to read about how some men really did aim for the officers because in the movie there is a scene where Mel tells his sons to start with the officers and work their way down. I always thought this was just a way to show how distraught Mel was over the killing of his son. It also makes me question the brutality in the rest of the movie. Was it accurate or exaggerated to show the hatred between Mel and Tavington. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, I was pretty surprised that it actually happened like that but it does make sense to do so in terms of causing the most damage to enemy forces.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the movie I watched a one of the bonus features of the movie called True Patriot. In it the writers, producers, and other people who worked on the movie talked about the research they did in order to be historically accurate. It was really interesting to hear that the half built house the former militia members were working on at the end was meant to symbolize the building of a new nation and how the hardest part was going to be the issue of slavery. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie also did a much better job of showing the passage of time. As you watch you can really believe several years have passed during the course of the movie. The romances are also more believable at least Gabriel&amp;#039;s (Heath Ledger) was, Mel&amp;#039;s was a little bit more questionable. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed in the movie that we discussed in class was how some white soldiers disapproved of black men being allowed to enlist in the militia.  There was one scene in particular which I thought the movie got right where one of the white soldiers made a snide comment on how he believed that black soldiers should not be given weapons. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, this movie does a good job at portraying the events that happened during the Revolutionary War through its accurate representation of clothing, military formations, style of combat, gender roles, and depictions of the British and colonists in general.  The movie also does a good job at providing an overall background for what was happening elsewhere during the Revolution, doing this by making up conversations (usually with messengers) about what else was going on up north, with Washington’s army, and with other factors involved in the war.  The movie also provides insight about how slaves, neutral colonists, fathers and sons, and women thought about the war.  However, it occurs that this movie seems a little biased toward the British because the movie’s point of view portrays the British as the evil and sinister empire that brutally destroys everything in sight, and the turn of unfortunate events experienced by the patriot militia automatically gears the viewer to root for the Patriots.  Point is; if the British made a movie about the same events, would they have depicted them and portrayed them the same way this movie has?   Would the British capitalize on making the Patriots out to be the evil, sinister, disobeying, disloyal debtors?  &lt;br /&gt;
–James D.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I think one things this movie touched on well was the scarier side to having the &amp;quot;home field advantage.&amp;quot;  Often in history classes the notion that the Patriots had the battle fought on their own soil is praised and often accredited with aiding the Patriots when it came to winning the war.  And while this may be true, the darker aspects to having this advantage are often overlooked.  In the movie, it became clearer how violent the opposing armies were and how close these battles came to homes.  I think this is an aspect often overlooked and it&amp;#039;s a scary notion that battles were being fought literally in backyards.  The British were able to avoid a number civilian deaths on their side for this very reason (Excluding the Loyalists.) --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wonder how much respect the militia men actually have. Were they thought of second rate soldiers as the movie portrayed Cornwalis to believe? I also wonder if they were given the respect on their own side - if there was no real Benjamin Martin, who was the leader of this militia and were they the center of the line in the epic battle scene? -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do like the French comments and banter... would a French leader really fight with a militia from SC? I do think that this rivalry would be appropriate given the French and Indian war history. And it added a level of humor that was refreshing. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the readings, it seems that The Patriot does a great job of capturing colonial attitudes towards the British, and vice versa.  One thing that the &amp;quot;Boisterous Sea of Liberty&amp;quot; article explicitly states is the colonist feeling of being under tyranny and oppression by a king thousands of miles away.  The film conveys this same attitude throughout.  The other reading, &amp;quot;Rise of Partisan Warfare,&amp;quot; mentioned how British prisoners were horribly treated by colonials.  This sort of parallels a scene in the movie where some of the militia killed British soldiers who were about to surrender (and then the reverend explains how this behavior was &amp;quot;madness&amp;quot; and should not be tolerated). - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing I liked about this movie were the characters in the film.  Dr. M mentioned how there were three groups of people during this time period:  patriots, loyalists, and neutrals.  Within the patriots, there were subgroups, and I think we saw some of these people in the movie.  Mel Gibson was someone who believed in achieving independence by any means except war.  Obviously, his views shift after the death of his son.  Additionally, the character of Capt. Wilkens is someone who is torn between the views of the patriots and the loyalists.  He is first scene in the court room advocating that S.C. go to war, only to defect to the British because his &amp;quot;loyalty lies with the King.&amp;quot;  After he is forced to burn the church down with all of the innocent people still inside, he realizes how extreme his general&amp;#039;s tactics were.  I think the movie does a good job reflecting the diversity of the beliefs, personality, and attitudes of the people during the Revolutionary War. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know this is going to be discussed quite a bit, but it really does bear mentioning: Mel Gibson must have been the first real American hero. It&amp;#039;s the only possible reason for that godawful accent (he could have at least kept the Australian and been &amp;#039;&amp;#039;something&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that existed at the time!) --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were incidents of excessive cruelty, such as the one where all the townspeople are told to go into the church, and are locked up and then the church is burned down with them still in the church, common, or were incidents like that one in the movie used just for dramatic effect in the movie? ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for how the upper-class are portrayed in this movie, I think the British upper-class were portrayed as rather silly, and air-headed.  An example of this is when Benjamin Martin and his men dress up as British soldiers, and burn down the British ship that is docked while the British are having a party.  As the ship bursts into flames, one of the ladies at the party looks at the ship, laughs, and squeals &amp;quot;Ooh fireworks!&amp;quot;, indicating that she clearly has no idea what was happening.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katherine, I think I remember the woman holding a seeing glass. Could it be the she couldn&amp;#039;t see very well?-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question about Charlotte: Did she happen to own that plantation herself? Inheritance? Was she widowed?  It doesn&amp;#039;t appear she had anyone with her there or in town except slaves, and there is no indication that a husband or brother was away fighting. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoy this movie but there are a few things that I have to point out that did not fit. Amanda has already touched on this but many of the characters have different accents. Benjamin - Americanized English, Gabriel- Australian and then the younger son, Thomas - British. All the while various characters in the movie have different accents. Also, I believe two young, unwed people kissing in public would have been frowned upon, i.e. Gabriel and Anne. - Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While watching the movie it seemed to me that most young men were extremely eager to join up with the Regulars.  Was this an honest representation?  I can understand Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s point of view and not wanting his sons to join up, but Gabriel and Thomas seemed more than ready to run off to the camps.  I didn&amp;#039;t think men were that eager to be volunteering. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more question - Were the Militias the groups of men using the guerrilla tactics?  I noticed there was a difference between the Regulars and the Militia but I wasn&amp;#039;t sure if that was the difference between the two. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did a good job of showing how uniformed and precise the British Army was, which is also seen in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. The movie also portrays the brutality of the war, not only the soldiers who suffered fighting on the line and endured harsh winters, but also the effect the war had on civilians. Much of the fighting was done on farms and in front/ behind people&amp;#039;s homes which ultimately led to many homes being destroyed. I am curious though, would the militia also have had uniforms? And how were they funded?  --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the portrayals of colonial ex-soldiers who fought for the British during the French and Indian War, is it realistic to have a man stand up before a crowd and exclaim his grievances against the British Crown? He said his leg was cut off by the British after the war and proclaimed another limb was cut off metaphorically by the taxes! Was his leg really chopped off by the British or taken off because of war casualties? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, Mel Gibson slaughtered innocents at a Disney resort and campground? That &amp;#039;&amp;#039;is&amp;#039;&amp;#039; sinful. Seriously, that’s the only Fort Wilderness I’ve ever heard of… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as attacking and hurting the common people was this true? Did they burn down churches, homes, and kill the Continental Army’s family? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the British Col. Tavington would have been reprimanded more for how he treated the militias even if they are traitors to the crown? killing them all seems like a war crime, And less likely to happen. wouldn&amp;#039;t they want to hang them for treason?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were women allowed into General Assembly meetings? Were there really Black communities of freed or runaway slaves out on the open beach? That seems like a bad place to hang out, being in plain sight and what not. Weren’t most of those communities in various swamps? Also, why did Gabriel have such a low opinion of the guys who joined the militia? Wasn’t the Continental Army mostly made up of rabble and outcasts too? On the subject of the Continental Army, I always wonder at its depictions in paintings and other media. Considering they were often poorly supplied and oft-butt whupped by the British, what are the chances they would have fancy matching uniforms? Heck, at Valley Forge a lot soldiers were without the very basics (like shoes and coats), let alone pretty uniforms. Most importantly, were the British ever that brutal during the Revolution? Like, Naziesque burning people in a church brutal? I think not. People actually took note of the laws of war at that time. Anyway, wasn’t it the American guerilla forces who were committing the atrocities? --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing that bothers me in this movie is that although this is an age of high child mortalities and illnesses are a serious problem, none of this is portrayed at all. All of the characters in the movie are shown as perfectly healthy. Combat and war was certainly not the only danger and conflict to the people at the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene in the Patriot when the young woman is speaking to the crowd in church, this seems inaccurate because women were not allowed to speak their minds. They had to sit still and be quite. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning at the SC Assembly in Charles Town, one man says that we are &amp;quot;one nation, an American Nation,&amp;quot; and someone says that they are &amp;quot;citizens of an American Nation.&amp;quot;  But at this point they were still considering themselves citizens of individual colonies, right?  None of this one nation business, but thirteen colonies to become independent from Britain. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Repeated Inaccuracies: a) Once again, throughout the whole movie, we see amazing accuracy in shooting with muskets.  Accuracy is vague when it gets to the face-to-face in lines on a field kind of fighting, but when the militia, and even Samuel and Nathan early on, are shooting, they&amp;#039;re much better shots than the British regulars. b) really early on, when we see Continental soldiers (?) opening up nice, huge, sheaves of yellow, genetically engineered corn. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would women be allowed in a meeting of the legislature? When Gabriel comes to the church to enlist the men of the village and none of them made any moves to get up and go, Anne called them out. Was it probable for a woman to do this?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was no widespread loyalism shown in the movie, in fact, Wilkins is the only loyalist that springs to mind.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Is that how prisoner exchange worked? Wouldn&amp;#039;t the British have sent someone out first to verify &amp;quot;the ghost&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; claims?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One issue I have with the time progression is that Cornwallis was in South Carolina for about the entire movie. Even if that is true, the Storyline would have us believe that Martin and his band of renegades were the only force keeping the British in South Carolina. The only mention they make of the regulars after a while was that Gates was a &amp;quot;damn fool&amp;quot;, and there is no mention of fellow patriotic militia groups doing their part to chip away at the British force. It just seems like Martin&amp;#039;s group of militia was singlehandedly preventing British advancement. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie made it seem as though the Americans and the French had patched up all of their old wounds and that the fraternity of being soldiers together would last forever. The Letter from George Mason in the reading, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Boisterous Sea of Liberty&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, painted a different picture. Mason said that Virginians did not trust the French and that they expected the French to exploit post- war American weaknesses. These fears were real enough to lead the Americans to sign a separate peace with England.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is incredibly nitpicky, but I&amp;#039;m pretty sure the Classical Revival style (the style of many of the film&amp;#039;s plantation houses) wasn&amp;#039;t used until the nineteenth century. - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benjamin Martin says in the movie “why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?” Was there any idea that the new government would be a democracy at the time and if there was, was that decided? If anyone knows, please post. I would imagine that the idea of making it a democracy (Or more technically a republic) existed but it was far from decided. –Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Patriot was weighed down by it&amp;#039;s occasional absurdities, like the representative in the legislature declaring &amp;quot;we are citizens of and American nation&amp;quot;... The film likewise made more slight faults for the sake of drama.  I don&amp;#039;t believe Tavington would have questioned why his new cavalry recruit from the loyalist militia would turn against his neighbors.  We know Loyalists were as easy to find as Patriots.  The Patriot seemed very hung up on an idea that there was universal support for the separatist cause. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mel Gibson could not be the beloved American hero if he owned slaves, but really, how likely was it that his character would not have? Of course he also never once lost his patience with the 7 children he was raising on his own, except to poignantly yell &amp;quot;You&amp;#039;re my child!&amp;quot; at Heath/Gabriel. Was this the distressed, mourning father of the 1770&amp;#039;s South or a Dad on a Disney Channel show gone Rambo when his sons are killed?  --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The question of slaves ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benjamin Martin doesn’t own slaves. They are freedmen and willingly work for him. He helps them plow the land. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Of course&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. After all, what kind of action hero can own slaves? Apparently, we want our heroes with pure intentions. Was this a situation that happened at all? Sure, the movie had some mentions of slavery and racism, but it was so secondary you’d almost forget the setting is South Carolina. It was nice to see that there were some blacks in the British lines during the final battle, though. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the slave joined the militia it didn&amp;#039;t seem like he would be accepted just like that. Let alone be viewed as a free man by that one colonist.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the situation with the slave being signed up for militia service by his master is true, and I also believe that the militia man who acted extremely racist was accurate as well. I think the film tried to casually indicate that opinions could be changed regarding blind hatred and racism, and by fighting together, and risking their lives for one another, these men saw that there is more to a man than his race. I DO see that this racism was a lot less severe than SC probably had back then, but it is important to note that the subject was addressed in some way at all. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To comment on the portrayal of the blacks, the women looked like the stereotypical Mammies, albeit, not as plump as Scarlett O&amp;#039;Hara&amp;#039;s mammy, but looking similar in dress and head covering. The women were shown to be obedient and efficient in their care for the children of their white masters. The men were all content in the movie as well, especially when the British came to &amp;quot;set them free.&amp;quot; The blacks literally were dragged away from their white owners or landowners. Even though the black men were free, there weas no distinguishing for the British. Occam, the black militiaman, seems fine enough to serve in his master&amp;#039;s stead. His master describes him as not smart but strong. The man&amp;#039;s build is stereotypical of the African man made to laborious work, not for intellectual discussions. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning when the British come to Martin&amp;#039;s home the officer tells the slaves that if they go to join with the British they will be granted freedom.  One of the slaves says that they are already freemen.  Is this true?  Are his slaves really free or are they just saying that?  If they are really free how common was that for the free slaves to stay and work on a southern plantation? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are many things I felt that were deeply wrong portayals of history in the movie. The portrayal of peoples atitutudes toward slavery is majorly flawed with everybody, but one person (who comes to be tolerant later) treating slaves as equals. This is colonial South Carolina yet all the colonials are portrayed as all accepting and understanding of each other. Additionally the way Gabriel speaks up to his father and his father giving in is pretty absurd considering South Carolina during the colonial period is highly patriarchal. The scene where Mel Gibson massacres a bunch of soldiers with only a tomahawk does not help the movies realism factor ether. For people in South Carolina during the war it is not likely that they would have a strong national identity, but rather be focused on regional identities. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Patriot, it seems that Mel Gibson would not just have free colored people working in his fields especially in the south. Also were the slaves really freed, or were most of them forced to join the British Army? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One could say that the movie treated the issue of slavery with kid gloves, but that is likely an understatement. Perhaps &amp;quot;infant gloves,&amp;quot; would be a better way to put the way that this film portrayed colonial attitudes toward blacks. The likelihood that a South Carolina man of stature would have zero slaves out of an all black workforce struck me as far fetched at best. Also, upon given the chance for freedom, it seems unlikely that these same workers would resist in the manner that Martins men resisted Tavington&amp;#039;s offer of freedom in exchange for service. Then there is Occam, the stoic slave offered up to Martin&amp;#039;s militia. The idea that only one man in the militia would harass him seems absurd. Most of the militia were men of the lower class and these men typically were some of the bigger proponents of slavery, simply so that they could stay above someone in the social order. Though there were many historical liberties taken with this film, the gross misrepresentation of colonial era slavery was the most egregious of the inaccuracies. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was that a maroon community that we saw? Was it an accurate depiction?- Jason Ward &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tacking onto Jason&amp;#039;s question - How thrilled would these free blacks in the beach-side maroon community be to see runaway whites who may have easily been followed by redcoats? Besides those who had been close the family previously, there seemed to be an immediate sense of community between all of them... a little unbelievable to me personally. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Howard speaks of fighting for the American Nation.  No one would have thought in those terms at that time.  That is us in the present inserting an idea into the past that doesn’t belong.  – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of people have brought up the scene where Ben Martin&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;volunteer labor force&amp;quot; responded to the British general saying &amp;quot;we are not slaves...we work this land for free.&amp;quot;  In class Dr. M. said that 40% of the South&amp;#039;s slave labor were located in South Carolina alone.  So, I think the likely-hood of a black person in S.C. working on a white person&amp;#039;s land on their own accord is fairly low.  Taylor made a good point that someone like Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character should not own slaves purely for dramatic reasons, so I think we should let the film slide on this one. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot;, Toplin discusses how some historical movies have done poorly due to the fact that they have not had a clear-cut villain. However, in my opinion, this movie suffers from an almost Disney-like black and white villain portayal. We can obviously never know if the real Tarleton was as cold blooded or murderous, but it is not a stretch to assume that it was more for the benefit of the audience&amp;#039;s entertainment rather than historical accuracy. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing the movie particularly glances over is that slavery was a big issue in the rhetoric of colonists fighting the war. The documents have frequent references to British policy as being slavery on Americans. This point is, however completely lost in this movie because of the movies false portrayal of peoples attitudes towards slavery. Slaves and free blacks were a very badly treated group in the South especially South Carolina, but the slaves and masters in the movie are shown living happily together with little or new tension between them. People in the colonies compared British actions to slavery precisely because they knew it would be absolutely horrible to be a slave. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this was true in the &amp;#039;time period of the movie&amp;#039; but a trait that emerges from the year of the movie being made tried is a man can be proud and raise a family on his own without a wife.  Single-parent homes are increasing nowadays, but they are not just headed by the mother now, there has been an increase in single parents father households.  Yes I know the wife had died in the movie, but just saying that that is an aspect of today&amp;#039;s time that comes out in the movie, at least to me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it&amp;#039;s kind of funny that a movie that so embodies the American national myth was directed by a German and starred two Australians.  But seriously, The Patriot is such a perfect representation of what late twentieth and twenty-first century Americans want American history to be.  The Revolution (yes, with a capital R) was in large part saved by a group of plucky, underdog militia.  The British were either quaint and out of touch (Cornwallis) or ruthlessly evil (Tavington).  And, of course, racism was overcome and the American Revolution created a new sense of equality...that wouldn&amp;#039;t be put into effect until the 1960s.  Whoops.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that this movie serves as an excellent primary source about how we reimagine our history. That reimagining allows us to view our nation as having really existed, in a unified form since the Revolutionary War. For instance, sure there are race problems at that time but as Gabriel says, we’ll be able to build a new world. We’re clearly passed all that now. Similarly, it’s ridiculous when Charlotte says “it’s a free world, or it will be.” – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The original question I posted here was just retarded after I thought about it.  So now, my new question to post here, did the Continental Army really treat the &amp;#039;militia&amp;#039; like that too?  It seemed they had a superiority complex as well.--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the British really randomly burn fields and houses and kill all the livestock like that?  That&amp;#039;s just retarded if they did!  Did they think &amp;quot;oh we can do whatever the hell we want and the people will still love us?&amp;quot; Bullshit!  That&amp;#039;ll just make people want to stand up against you because you destroyed their lives!  What the fuck would they have left to worry about if you start doing that shit??  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since this is a reaction I felt it fit here, the one British Colonel bothered me on familiarity, and then I placed it!  Colonel William Tavington (The jerk) of the British militia, also plays Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter movies.  I find it funny that Jason Isaacs plays a &amp;#039;evil&amp;#039; and &amp;#039;asshole&amp;#039; character.  &amp;gt;^.^&amp;lt;  I think Jason has a pattern building. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I kept watching this movie and thinking &amp;quot;At least Tom Wilkinson would eventually make Michael Clayton. At least Heath Ledger would eventually make Dark Knight. At least Mel Gibson would eventually direct a movie that was perfectly satirized by South Park.&amp;quot; -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was the first R Rated film I was allowed to see in the theater. So of course at the time I thought it was totally rad, what with the cannonball and tomahawk scenes. But I also remember the History Channel doing a round table discussion over its historical merits or lack thereof. And in this program I think I remember the panel pretty much eviscerating its historical accuracy, but I could be wrong. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay, who else thinks that maybe George Bush REALLY liked this film? Notice how many times they repeat, &amp;quot;Stay the Course&amp;quot;? I think the Bush Administration has Movie Mondays sometimes. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I LOVE violent war/action films! This movie didn&amp;#039;t have any merit for me until graphic deaths and fast-paced battle scenes got underway about a 1/2 hour in. This is the only reason I excuse the rediculousness of the fighter&amp;#039;s accuracy. Sure, the primary sources support that guerilla tactics worked BETTER than traditional fighting against the British, but Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s fight scenes (especially in his first action sequence) show some striking and unforgivable cinematic exaggerations that were almost identical to that of Daniel Day Lewis&amp;#039; in &amp;quot;Mohicans.&amp;quot; Notice first, Mel Gibson (or his prepubescent sons) doesn&amp;#039;t miss a single shot in the woods- even with his skill, anger, and strategic preparation this is unrealistic. And then (how typical is this?) there is an identical sequence in Mohicans and Patriot...&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mohicans:&lt;br /&gt;
The movie&amp;#039;s sexy eye candy is held at knife point to her throat--&lt;br /&gt;
Po sees this, and instead of taking precaution, runs straight for her to save her--&lt;br /&gt;
While distracted, Po takes down 3 attackers on his way to save Cora with perfect precision--&lt;br /&gt;
He is able to shoot Cora&amp;#039;s attacker without him slitting her throat just in the nick of time.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Patriot: &lt;br /&gt;
The movie&amp;#039;s sexy eye candy is held at knife point to his throat--&lt;br /&gt;
Martin sees this, and instead of taking precaution, runs straight for him to save him--&lt;br /&gt;
While distracted, Martin takes down 3 attackers on his way to save his son with perfect precision, even disarming a man and shooting him with his own gun- He is able to throw a tomahawk in the attacker&amp;#039;s face before he can slit his son&amp;#039;s throat. --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t help but make some references to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Braveheart&amp;#039;&amp;#039; while watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039;: When Mel Gibson is running out of his burning house with weapons in hand and also towards the end when Mel Gibson is riding on his horse with the colonist&amp;#039;s flag waving behind, he is riding up and down the line of soldiers, just as William Wallace did. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The naivete and childish humor of Heath Ledger and Lisa Brenner&amp;#039;s romance really detracted from the mood and flow of the film. I don&amp;#039;t necessarily want a dour, atmospheric nightmare vision of the Revolutionary War, but I don&amp;#039;t want a cheeky RomCom either. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Cash&amp;#039;s comment - How else would boys convince girls to watch this movie, I personally liked that cheeky side swapping ink spit etc. I have to say the bundle bag tradition is intriguing - True or not? - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following along with Christine&amp;#039;s comment, I don&amp;#039;t care if these sorts of romances actually happened, but seriously.  She was his dead wife&amp;#039;s sister. If that was just a way for the filmmakers to grant Mel Gibson a leading lady, then they should have just opted out of that one.  Too creepy for my taste, thank you. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly- The Ben-Charlotte deal didn&amp;#039;t actually seem so unrealistic to me.  If Charlotte was single or widowed or whatever, and Ben was widowered as well, it might make sense at that time from a financial/economic standpoint for the two of them to get together.  Knowing this already, it doesn&amp;#039;t seem that far out that they might start to like each other.  And she reminds him a lot of his wife (even that she had to remind him she was not her sister). - Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, the movie wasn’t bad. It was fairly entertaining, and the cast was made up of some pretty awesome actors, like Jason Isaacs (always playing the bad guy) and Rene Auberjonois. However, the romance was cliché. I had a sinking feeling of dread that Ben and Aunt Charlotte would get together the first time they stood in the same vicinity as each other. And so it was. Then we have Benjamin Martin not willing to fight the British, but when his son is killed we see him go into &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Action Hero Rambo&amp;#039;&amp;#039; mode where he beats down twenty redcoats with a little help from his younger sons. That was definitely in the vein of Hollywood revenge/action flicks of the... well, for many years now. And let&amp;#039;s not talk about those parenting skills. --Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 4 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-18T08:44:42Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 1b Inaccurate/issues: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is just a minor note, but the corn isn&amp;#039;t perfect, so that is at least correct. Also (and I&amp;#039;m still in the beginning of the movie while I write this), the son Gaberial (in the Continental Army)had no gloves, but cloth wraps on his hands.  That shows that there was not enough to go around, even so early in the war.--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
At the dinner table, while the armies are moving closer to the household, the one son mentions &amp;quot;Lord knows what they&amp;#039;ll do to you women.&amp;quot;  That means that the movie at least wants to convey the impression that soldiers did harm to the women. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
American devotion to The Cause struck me as very accurate. From everything I have learned in class, the colonists were quite willing to lay down their lives for the sake of their new land. While their motives may not have been as naive as expressed in the film, I do not believe it would have been seen as blind patriotism either. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall I feel as though this is by far the most accurate movie that we have watched yet. I watched a special making of feature on my DVD and was surprised at the amount of effort the movie&amp;#039;s creators took to ensure that the costumes were as accurate as possible.  The ideas for the uniforms came from actual revolutionary uniforms at the Smithsonian Museum.  The featurette after the movie also talked about the basis for several of the main characters including Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character being based off of Thomas Sumter, Andrew Pickens and Francis Marion. It also mentioned Tarrington being based off of the real Tarleton. It seems to me that this movie did a good job with accuracy. While some of the actual battles may not be real they did mostly depict backwoods skirmishes.-- Kelly Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The rules of war really astonished me. I cant believe that men really would go after the officers first. I thought that this was just something the movie did to show Benjamin Martins hatred toward the British officers. I was surprised to read about this in this weeks readings. But I guess when you think about the &amp;quot;rules of war&amp;quot; didn&amp;#039;t really apply to this war when so many officers ordered the killing of women and children. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was shocked to read about how some men really did aim for the officers because in the movie there is a scene where Mel tells his sons to start with the officers and work their way down. I always thought this was just a way to show how distraught Mel was over the killing of his son. It also makes me question the brutality in the rest of the movie. Was it accurate or exaggerated to show the hatred between Mel and Tavington. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree, I was pretty surprised that it actually happened like that but it does make sense to do so in terms of causing the most damage to enemy forces.  - Elle W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After the movie I watched a one of the bonus features of the movie called True Patriot. In it the writers, producers, and other people who worked on the movie talked about the research they did in order to be historically accurate. It was really interesting to hear that the half built house the former militia members were working on at the end was meant to symbolize the building of a new nation and how the hardest part was going to be the issue of slavery. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie also did a much better job of showing the passage of time. As you watch you can really believe several years have passed during the course of the movie. The romances are also more believable at least Gabriel&amp;#039;s (Heath Ledger) was, Mel&amp;#039;s was a little bit more questionable. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing I noticed in the movie that we discussed in class was how some white soldiers disapproved of black men being allowed to enlist in the militia.  There was one scene in particular which I thought the movie got right where one of the white soldiers made a snide comment on how he believed that black soldiers should not be given weapons. ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, this movie does a good job at portraying the events that happened during the Revolutionary War through its accurate representation of clothing, military formations, style of combat, gender roles, and depictions of the British and colonists in general.  The movie also does a good job at providing an overall background for what was happening elsewhere during the Revolution, doing this by making up conversations (usually with messengers) about what else was going on up north, with Washington’s army, and with other factors involved in the war.  The movie also provides insight about how slaves, neutral colonists, fathers and sons, and women thought about the war.  However, it occurs that this movie seems a little biased toward the British because the movie’s point of view portrays the British as the evil and sinister empire that brutally destroys everything in sight, and the turn of unfortunate events experienced by the patriot militia automatically gears the viewer to root for the Patriots.  Point is; if the British made a movie about the same events, would they have depicted them and portrayed them the same way this movie has?   Would the British capitalize on making the Patriots out to be the evil, sinister, disobeying, disloyal debtors?  &lt;br /&gt;
–James D.&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
I think one things this movie touched on well was the scarier side to having the &amp;quot;home field advantage.&amp;quot;  Often in history classes the notion that the Patriots had the battle fought on their own soil is praised and often accredited with aiding the Patriots when it came to winning the war.  And while this may be true, the darker aspects to having this advantage are often overlooked.  In the movie, it became clearer how violent the opposing armies were and how close these battles came to homes.  I think this is an aspect often overlooked and it&amp;#039;s a scary notion that battles were being fought literally in backyards.  The British were able to avoid a number civilian deaths on their side for this very reason (Excluding the Loyalists.) --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I wonder how much respect the militia men actually have. Were they thought of second rate soldiers as the movie portrayed Cornwalis to believe? I also wonder if they were given the respect on their own side - if there was no real Benjamin Martin, who was the leader of this militia and were they the center of the line in the epic battle scene? -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I do like the French comments and banter... would a French leader really fight with a militia from SC? I do think that this rivalry would be appropriate given the French and Indian war history. And it added a level of humor that was refreshing. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the readings, it seems that The Patriot does a great job of capturing colonial attitudes towards the British, and vice versa.  One thing that the &amp;quot;Boisterous Sea of Liberty&amp;quot; article explicitly states is the colonist feeling of being under tyranny and oppression by a king thousands of miles away.  The film conveys this same attitude throughout.  The other reading, &amp;quot;Rise of Partisan Warfare,&amp;quot; mentioned how British prisoners were horribly treated by colonials.  This sort of parallels a scene in the movie where some of the militia killed British soldiers who were about to surrender (and then the reverend explains how this behavior was &amp;quot;madness&amp;quot; and should not be tolerated). - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing I liked about this movie were the characters in the film.  Dr. M mentioned how there were three groups of people during this time period:  patriots, loyalists, and neutrals.  Within the patriots, there were subgroups, and I think we saw some of these people in the movie.  Mel Gibson was someone who believed in achieving independence by any means except war.  Obviously, his views shift after the death of his son.  Additionally, the character of Capt. Wilkens is someone who is torn between the views of the patriots and the loyalists.  He is first scene in the court room advocating that S.C. go to war, only to defect to the British because his &amp;quot;loyalty lies with the King.&amp;quot;  After he is forced to burn the church down with all of the innocent people still inside, he realizes how extreme his general&amp;#039;s tactics were.  I think the movie does a good job reflecting the diversity of the beliefs, personality, and attitudes of the people during the Revolutionary War. - David F&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know this is going to be discussed quite a bit, but it really does bear mentioning: Mel Gibson must have been the first real American hero. It&amp;#039;s the only possible reason for that godawful accent (he could have at least kept the Australian and been &amp;#039;&amp;#039;something&amp;#039;&amp;#039; that existed at the time!) --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were incidents of excessive cruelty, such as the one where all the townspeople are told to go into the church, and are locked up and then the church is burned down with them still in the church, common, or were incidents like that one in the movie used just for dramatic effect in the movie? ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As for how the upper-class are portrayed in this movie, I think the British upper-class were portrayed as rather silly, and air-headed.  An example of this is when Benjamin Martin and his men dress up as British soldiers, and burn down the British ship that is docked while the British are having a party.  As the ship bursts into flames, one of the ladies at the party looks at the ship, laughs, and squeals &amp;quot;Ooh fireworks!&amp;quot;, indicating that she clearly has no idea what was happening.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katherine, I think I remember the woman holding a seeing glass. Could it be the she couldn&amp;#039;t see very well?-Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question about Charlotte: Did she happen to own that plantation herself? Inheritance? Was she widowed?  It doesn&amp;#039;t appear she had anyone with her there or in town except slaves, and there is no indication that a husband or brother was away fighting. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I really enjoy this movie but there are a few things that I have to point out that did not fit. Amanda has already touched on this but many of the characters have different accents. Benjamin - Americanized English, Gabriel- Australian and then the younger son, Thomas - British. All the while various characters in the movie have different accents. Also, I believe two young, unwed people kissing in public would have been frowned upon, i.e. Gabriel and Anne. - Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While watching the movie it seemed to me that most young men were extremely eager to join up with the Regulars.  Was this an honest representation?  I can understand Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s point of view and not wanting his sons to join up, but Gabriel and Thomas seemed more than ready to run off to the camps.  I didn&amp;#039;t think men were that eager to be volunteering. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One more question - Were the Militias the groups of men using the guerrilla tactics?  I noticed there was a difference between the Regulars and the Militia but I wasn&amp;#039;t sure if that was the difference between the two. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039; did a good job of showing how uniformed and precise the British Army was, which is also seen in &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. The movie also portrays the brutality of the war, not only the soldiers who suffered fighting on the line and endured harsh winters, but also the effect the war had on civilians. Much of the fighting was done on farms and in front/ behind people&amp;#039;s homes which ultimately led to many homes being destroyed. I am curious though, would the militia also have had uniforms? And how were they funded?  --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For the portrayals of colonial ex-soldiers who fought for the British during the French and Indian War, is it realistic to have a man stand up before a crowd and exclaim his grievances against the British Crown? He said his leg was cut off by the British after the war and proclaimed another limb was cut off metaphorically by the taxes! Was his leg really chopped off by the British or taken off because of war casualties? -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
So, Mel Gibson slaughtered innocents at a Disney resort and campground? That &amp;#039;&amp;#039;is&amp;#039;&amp;#039; sinful. Seriously, that’s the only Fort Wilderness I’ve ever heard of… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As far as attacking and hurting the common people was this true? Did they burn down churches, homes, and kill the Continental Army’s family? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I feel that the British Col. Tavington would have been reprimanded more for how he treated the militias even if they are traitors to the crown? killing them all seems like a war crime, And less likely to happen. wouldn&amp;#039;t they want to hang them for treason?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Were women allowed into General Assembly meetings? Were there really Black communities of freed or runaway slaves out on the open beach? That seems like a bad place to hang out, being in plain sight and what not. Weren’t most of those communities in various swamps? Also, why did Gabriel have such a low opinion of the guys who joined the militia? Wasn’t the Continental Army mostly made up of rabble and outcasts too? On the subject of the Continental Army, I always wonder at its depictions in paintings and other media. Considering they were often poorly supplied and oft-butt whupped by the British, what are the chances they would have fancy matching uniforms? Heck, at Valley Forge a lot soldiers were without the very basics (like shoes and coats), let alone pretty uniforms. Most importantly, were the British ever that brutal during the Revolution? Like, Naziesque burning people in a church brutal? I think not. People actually took note of the laws of war at that time. Anyway, wasn’t it the American guerilla forces who were committing the atrocities? --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Another thing that bothers me in this movie is that although this is an age of high child mortalities and illnesses are a serious problem, none of this is portrayed at all. All of the characters in the movie are shown as perfectly healthy. Combat and war was certainly not the only danger and conflict to the people at the time. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The scene in the Patriot when the young woman is speaking to the crowd in church, this seems inaccurate because women were not allowed to speak their minds. They had to sit still and be quite. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning at the SC Assembly in Charles Town, one man says that we are &amp;quot;one nation, an American Nation,&amp;quot; and someone says that they are &amp;quot;citizens of an American Nation.&amp;quot;  But at this point they were still considering themselves citizens of individual colonies, right?  None of this one nation business, but thirteen colonies to become independent from Britain. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Repeated Inaccuracies: a) Once again, throughout the whole movie, we see amazing accuracy in shooting with muskets.  Accuracy is vague when it gets to the face-to-face in lines on a field kind of fighting, but when the militia, and even Samuel and Nathan early on, are shooting, they&amp;#039;re much better shots than the British regulars. b) really early on, when we see Continental soldiers (?) opening up nice, huge, sheaves of yellow, genetically engineered corn. -Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Would women be allowed in a meeting of the legislature? When Gabriel comes to the church to enlist the men of the village and none of them made any moves to get up and go, Anne called them out. Was it probable for a woman to do this?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There was no widespread loyalism shown in the movie, in fact, Wilkins is the only loyalist that springs to mind.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Is that how prisoner exchange worked? Wouldn&amp;#039;t the British have sent someone out first to verify &amp;quot;the ghost&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; claims?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One issue I have with the time progression is that Cornwallis was in South Carolina for about the entire movie. Even if that is true, the Storyline would have us believe that Martin and his band of renegades were the only force keeping the British in South Carolina. The only mention they make of the regulars after a while was that Gates was a &amp;quot;damn fool&amp;quot;, and there is no mention of fellow patriotic militia groups doing their part to chip away at the British force. It just seems like Martin&amp;#039;s group of militia was singlehandedly preventing British advancement. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie made it seem as though the Americans and the French had patched up all of their old wounds and that the fraternity of being soldiers together would last forever. The Letter from George Mason in the reading, &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Boisterous Sea of Liberty&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, painted a different picture. Mason said that Virginians did not trust the French and that they expected the French to exploit post- war American weaknesses. These fears were real enough to lead the Americans to sign a separate peace with England.- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is incredibly nitpicky, but I&amp;#039;m pretty sure the Classical Revival style (the style of many of the film&amp;#039;s plantation houses) wasn&amp;#039;t used until the nineteenth century. - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benjamin Martin says in the movie “why should I trade one tyrant three thousand miles away for three thousand tyrants one mile away?” Was there any idea that the new government would be a democracy at the time and if there was, was that decided? If anyone knows, please post. I would imagine that the idea of making it a democracy (Or more technically a republic) existed but it was far from decided. –Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Patriot was weighed down by it&amp;#039;s occasional absurdities, like the representative in the legislature declaring &amp;quot;we are citizens of and American nation&amp;quot;... The film likewise made more slight faults for the sake of drama.  I don&amp;#039;t believe Tavington would have questioned why his new cavalry recruit from the loyalist militia would turn against his neighbors.  We know Loyalists were as easy to find as Patriots.  The Patriot seemed very hung up on an idea that there was universal support for the separatist cause. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that Mel Gibson could not be the beloved American hero if he owned slaves, but really, how likely was it that his character would not have? Of course he also never once lost his patience with the 7 children he was raising on his own, except to poignantly yell &amp;quot;You&amp;#039;re my child!&amp;quot; at Heath/Gabriel. Was this the distressed, mourning father of the 1770&amp;#039;s South or a Dad on a Disney Channel show gone Rambo when his sons are killed?  --Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== The question of slaves ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Benjamin Martin doesn’t own slaves. They are freedmen and willingly work for him. He helps them plow the land. &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Of course&amp;#039;&amp;#039;. After all, what kind of action hero can own slaves? Apparently, we want our heroes with pure intentions. Was this a situation that happened at all? Sure, the movie had some mentions of slavery and racism, but it was so secondary you’d almost forget the setting is South Carolina. It was nice to see that there were some blacks in the British lines during the final battle, though. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
When the slave joined the militia it didn&amp;#039;t seem like he would be accepted just like that. Let alone be viewed as a free man by that one colonist.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the situation with the slave being signed up for militia service by his master is true, and I also believe that the militia man who acted extremely racist was accurate as well. I think the film tried to casually indicate that opinions could be changed regarding blind hatred and racism, and by fighting together, and risking their lives for one another, these men saw that there is more to a man than his race. I DO see that this racism was a lot less severe than SC probably had back then, but it is important to note that the subject was addressed in some way at all. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To comment on the portrayal of the blacks, the women looked like the stereotypical Mammies, albeit, not as plump as Scarlett O&amp;#039;Hara&amp;#039;s mammy, but looking similar in dress and head covering. The women were shown to be obedient and efficient in their care for the children of their white masters. The men were all content in the movie as well, especially when the British came to &amp;quot;set them free.&amp;quot; The blacks literally were dragged away from their white owners or landowners. Even though the black men were free, there weas no distinguishing for the British. Occam, the black militiaman, seems fine enough to serve in his master&amp;#039;s stead. His master describes him as not smart but strong. The man&amp;#039;s build is stereotypical of the African man made to laborious work, not for intellectual discussions. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the beginning when the British come to Martin&amp;#039;s home the officer tells the slaves that if they go to join with the British they will be granted freedom.  One of the slaves says that they are already freemen.  Is this true?  Are his slaves really free or are they just saying that?  If they are really free how common was that for the free slaves to stay and work on a southern plantation? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There are many things I felt that were deeply wrong portayals of history in the movie. The portrayal of peoples atitutudes toward slavery is majorly flawed with everybody, but one person (who comes to be tolerant later) treating slaves as equals. This is colonial South Carolina yet all the colonials are portrayed as all accepting and understanding of each other. Additionally the way Gabriel speaks up to his father and his father giving in is pretty absurd considering South Carolina during the colonial period is highly patriarchal. The scene where Mel Gibson massacres a bunch of soldiers with only a tomahawk does not help the movies realism factor ether. For people in South Carolina during the war it is not likely that they would have a strong national identity, but rather be focused on regional identities. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In the Patriot, it seems that Mel Gibson would not just have free colored people working in his fields especially in the south. Also were the slaves really freed, or were most of them forced to join the British Army? –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One could say that the movie treated the issue of slavery with kid gloves, but that is likely an understatement. Perhaps &amp;quot;infant gloves,&amp;quot; would be a better way to put the way that this film portrayed colonial attitudes toward blacks. The likelihood that a South Carolina man of stature would have zero slaves out of an all black workforce struck me as far fetched at best. Also, upon given the chance for freedom, it seems unlikely that these same workers would resist in the manner that Martins men resisted Tavington&amp;#039;s offer of freedom in exchange for service. Then there is Occam, the stoic slave offered up to Martin&amp;#039;s militia. The idea that only one man in the militia would harass him seems absurd. Most of the militia were men of the lower class and these men typically were some of the bigger proponents of slavery, simply so that they could stay above someone in the social order. Though there were many historical liberties taken with this film, the gross misrepresentation of colonial era slavery was the most egregious of the inaccuracies. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Was that a maroon community that we saw? Was it an accurate depiction?- Jason Ward &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Tacking onto Jason&amp;#039;s question - How thrilled would these free blacks in the beach-side maroon community be to see runaway whites who may have easily been followed by redcoats? Besides those who had been close the family previously, there seemed to be an immediate sense of community between all of them... a little unbelievable to me personally. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Mr. Howard speaks of fighting for the American Nation.  No one would have thought in those terms at that time.  That is us in the present inserting an idea into the past that doesn’t belong.  – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A lot of people have brought up the scene where Ben Martin&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;volunteer labor force&amp;quot; responded to the British general saying &amp;quot;we are not slaves...we work this land for free.&amp;quot;  In class Dr. M. said that 40% of the South&amp;#039;s slave labor were located in South Carolina alone.  So, I think the likely-hood of a black person in S.C. working on a white person&amp;#039;s land on their own accord is fairly low.  Taylor made a good point that someone like Mel Gibson&amp;#039;s character should not own slaves purely for dramatic reasons, so I think we should let the film slide on this one. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In &amp;quot;Reel History&amp;quot;, Toplin discusses how some historical movies have done poorly due to the fact that they have not had a clear-cut villain. However, in my opinion, this movie suffers from an almost Disney-like black and white villain portayal. We can obviously never know if the real Tarleton was as cold blooded or murderous, but it is not a stretch to assume that it was more for the benefit of the audience&amp;#039;s entertainment rather than historical accuracy. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing the movie particularly glances over is that slavery was a big issue in the rhetoric of colonists fighting the war. The documents have frequent references to British policy as being slavery on Americans. This point is, however completely lost in this movie because of the movies false portrayal of peoples attitudes towards slavery. Slaves and free blacks were a very badly treated group in the South especially South Carolina, but the slaves and masters in the movie are shown living happily together with little or new tension between them. People in the colonies compared British actions to slavery precisely because they knew it would be absolutely horrible to be a slave. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I don&amp;#039;t know if this was true in the &amp;#039;time period of the movie&amp;#039; but a trait that emerges from the year of the movie being made tried is a man can be proud and raise a family on his own without a wife.  Single-parent homes are increasing nowadays, but they are not just headed by the mother now, there has been an increase in single parents father households.  Yes I know the wife had died in the movie, but just saying that that is an aspect of today&amp;#039;s time that comes out in the movie, at least to me. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it&amp;#039;s kind of funny that a movie that so embodies the American national myth was directed by a German and starred two Australians.  But seriously, The Patriot is such a perfect representation of what late twentieth and twenty-first century Americans want American history to be.  The Revolution (yes, with a capital R) was in large part saved by a group of plucky, underdog militia.  The British were either quaint and out of touch (Cornwallis) or ruthlessly evil (Tavington).  And, of course, racism was overcome and the American Revolution created a new sense of equality...that wouldn&amp;#039;t be put into effect until the 1960s.  Whoops.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It seems to me that this movie serves as an excellent primary source about how we reimagine our history. That reimagining allows us to view our nation as having really existed, in a unified form since the Revolutionary War. For instance, sure there are race problems at that time but as Gabriel says, we’ll be able to build a new world. We’re clearly passed all that now. Similarly, it’s ridiculous when Charlotte says “it’s a free world, or it will be.” – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The original question I posted here was just retarded after I thought about it.  So now, my new question to post here, did the Continental Army really treat the &amp;#039;militia&amp;#039; like that too?  It seemed they had a superiority complex as well.--Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did the British really randomly burn fields and houses and kill all the livestock like that?  That&amp;#039;s just retarded if they did!  Did they think &amp;quot;oh we can do whatever the hell we want and the people will still love us?&amp;quot; Bullshit!  That&amp;#039;ll just make people want to stand up against you because you destroyed their lives!  What the fuck would they have left to worry about if you start doing that shit??  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Since this is a reaction I felt it fit here, the one British Colonel bothered me on familiarity, and then I placed it!  Colonel William Tavington (The jerk) of the British militia, also plays Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter movies.  I find it funny that Jason Isaacs plays a &amp;#039;evil&amp;#039; and &amp;#039;asshole&amp;#039; character.  &amp;gt;^.^&amp;lt;  I think Jason has a pattern building. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I kept watching this movie and thinking &amp;quot;At least Tom Wilkinson would eventually make Michael Clayton. At least Heath Ledger would eventually make Dark Knight. At least Mel Gibson would eventually direct a movie that was perfectly satirized by South Park.&amp;quot; -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This was the first R Rated film I was allowed to see in the theater. So of course at the time I thought it was totally rad, what with the cannonball and tomahawk scenes. But I also remember the History Channel doing a round table discussion over its historical merits or lack thereof. And in this program I think I remember the panel pretty much eviscerating its historical accuracy, but I could be wrong. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I couldn&amp;#039;t help but make some references to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Braveheart&amp;#039;&amp;#039; while watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Patriot&amp;#039;&amp;#039;: When Mel Gibson is running out of his burning house with weapons in hand and also towards the end when Mel Gibson is riding on his horse with the colonist&amp;#039;s flag waving behind, he is riding up and down the line of soldiers, just as William Wallace did. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The naivete and childish humor of Heath Ledger and Lisa Brenner&amp;#039;s romance really detracted from the mood and flow of the film. I don&amp;#039;t necessarily want a dour, atmospheric nightmare vision of the Revolutionary War, but I don&amp;#039;t want a cheeky RomCom either. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Cash&amp;#039;s comment - How else would boys convince girls to watch this movie, I personally liked that cheeky side swapping ink spit etc. I have to say the bundle bag tradition is intriguing - True or not? - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Following along with Christine&amp;#039;s comment, I don&amp;#039;t care if these sorts of romances actually happened, but seriously.  She was his dead wife&amp;#039;s sister. If that was just a way for the filmmakers to grant Mel Gibson a leading lady, then they should have just opted out of that one.  Too creepy for my taste, thank you. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly- The Ben-Charlotte deal didn&amp;#039;t actually seem so unrealistic to me.  If Charlotte was single or widowed or whatever, and Ben was widowered as well, it might make sense at that time from a financial/economic standpoint for the two of them to get together.  Knowing this already, it doesn&amp;#039;t seem that far out that they might start to like each other.  And she reminds him a lot of his wife (even that she had to remind him she was not her sister). - Whitney H.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, the movie wasn’t bad. It was fairly entertaining, and the cast was made up of some pretty awesome actors, like Jason Isaacs (always playing the bad guy) and Rene Auberjonois. However, the romance was cliché. I had a sinking feeling of dread that Ben and Aunt Charlotte would get together the first time they stood in the same vicinity as each other. And so it was. Then we have Benjamin Martin not willing to fight the British, but when his son is killed we see him go into &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Action Hero Rambo&amp;#039;&amp;#039; mode where he beats down twenty redcoats with a little help from his younger sons. That was definitely in the vein of Hollywood revenge/action flicks of the... well, for many years now. And let&amp;#039;s not talk about those parenting skills. --Taylor Brann&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-11T07:26:52Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 1a Right: */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A common theme that is definitely true in real history (mentioned in lecture as well as World Turned Upside Down/Calloway article) as well as its portrayal in Last of the Mohicans, is that Native Americans gained little from interactions with Europeans, and they lost everything (their land, their race, their culture, their lives). Hence, the last of the Mohicans. In that respect this film did a good job of demonstrating (if even to the slightest degree) the plight of the Indian race due to European involvement. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cora had to ask Nathaniel why the murdered family was isolated, to which he responded that after 7 years of indentured servitude in VA, these people needed to go somewhere farther away to get any land.  That seems right that she, the daughter of a general, raised in London, would not be fully aware of the causes for some threats the settlers faced, of some of the less obvious issues that helped  make the war what it was. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can see why the Mohicans didn&amp;#039;t want to bury the family that they came across while they were running.  It makes sense that if they were to move them others would know that someone had been there. Was it common for the Native Americans to try to cover their tracks? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Last of the Mohicans does a good job at depicting the past as many examples arise in the movie, such as the costumes that are accurately portrayed, as well as the battle scenes (Indian guerilla warfare vs. the organized European style), along with the Indian and European interactions.  It was interesting to note that the movie shows the notion that Indians absorbed certain European ethics; For example, as the Indian reported to his chief with the women prisoners, he also ambitiously expressed his concerns about seizing and controlling other Indian territories while capitalizing on trade with the French.  His plans of takeover sound parallel the plan of the English.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indians probably viewed themselves differently after interacting with Europeans over a period of time, as Europeans have probably viewed themselves differently after interacting with the Indians.  The movie also does a good job at portraying how a European might have turned out if raised by Indians, and to a lesser extent, the movie slightly portrays what aspects may have attracted Europeans to the lifestyle of Indians, or in some cases, what may have repelled Europeans from wanting to live like some Indians.  Daniel Day seemed to have enjoyed living the Indian lifestyle, showing no desire to return to European ways, while on the other hand the little girl would rather have jumped off a cliff than have continued her journey with what she may have thought to be brutal savages.  Overall good movie and historically accurate.        James D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was also obvious in the movie how easily the Native Americans could play the settlers off of each other.  It was effortless, or so it seemed to us, for Magua to act as a scout for the British, but secretly support the French because of what he would get out of that relationship.  That was something we definitely studied and I thought the movie did a decent job representing that. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the backdrop of the movie was actually fairly historically accurate. It captured British superiority towards the colonists and the beginnings of the tensions that would lead to the Revolution. Also, the British did surrender to the French at Fort William Henry and they were attacked by the Indians as they left the area. Of course, the attack had more to do with the Natives wanting their promised war spoils rather than one vengeful leader, but the movie did show that the Indians started retracting their alliances with the French following the fort’s surrender. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;Right&amp;#039; in this case is totally different in regard to the original book or to history. While looking through some of the chapters of the book, I was actually shocked to know that they called Hawkeye &amp;#039;The Long Rifle.&amp;#039; I can&amp;#039;t lie, I thought that was totally 1990s Native American sexual innuendo. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The European mindset that they held the right to control the country and live on and dominate the land as they saw fit seemed pretty accurate to me, not to be too harsh. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mindset that the land was for the taking (by England).  The movie also managed the &amp;#039;superiority complex&amp;#039; of the British army towards the colonist militia.  The costuming and makeup departments seem to have been able to get the &amp;#039;look&amp;#039; of the Mohican as compared to the picture shown to us in class on Tuesday. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A far as the historical accuracy of the films is concerned, I was pleased to read in the articles that Indian adoptions of colonists were actually practiced.  This at least means the basis of Nathaniel as adopted is sound. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, the way the movie portrayed the Europeans and the Native Americans fighting was accurate.  They showed the Europeans fighting in neat, organized rows, with an officer telling them when to shoot, while the Native Americans were shown fighting all over, and without someone to tell them when and where to shoot.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To piggy back on what Katherine mentioned, I too agreed that the movie appeared to depict the manner in which the different groups fought rather well. As was mentioned in the lecture, the Native Americans adapted the technologies to their own liking. Thus they used rifles when applicable, but did not abandon their tomahawks or war clubs. Also it was accurate in the way in which the colonists were not treated well by the British regulars and it did well (though maybe a bit heavy-handed) to illustrate this tension. A last detail that the movie seemed to get right was the way in which both the French and the British used the various tribes with little regard for the Native Americans&amp;#039; interests. Mohicans are decimated and the Huron (and Magua) are left to act at the whim of the French. Though the tribes may have been allied with a European power the movie shows that in the end they were to be left out of the spoils of victory. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a few things that rang true to me throughout the movie. The mention that the tribes eventually played off each other and the warring Europeans was reinforced very well throughout the movie. Magua&amp;#039;s evil cunning was evidenced in all it&amp;#039;s brutal glory(?) as he literally hacked and slashed through anyone that opposed him, paying no mind to who he betrays in the process. The French-British and British-American hostilities also seemed very accurate to me. While Manifest Destiny would soon destroy much of the pre-existing diplomacy between the Americans and Indians, for now both sides fully understood that they had to be united to stave off any hostilities forced on them by the other Europeans. Finally, as Mallory said above, the European imperialism struck me as unfortunately accurate as well. As the intro text explained, it was a battle for control of the nation. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is kind of on the border between right and wrong, but when Hawkeye was walking toward the Sachem and was being &amp;quot;attacked&amp;quot; by the Huron, I think that was a sort of running the gauntlet. Although it was a bit more brutal than the one Susanna Johnson described, I could imagine they could possibly do something along those lines. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:36, 10 September 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the inaccuracies from this movie seem to come not from the actual facts themselves, but from the way the movie singles out certain aspects while leaving other aspects out. For instance it was true that militias had very unhappy men and in many cases were willing to desert. The movie, however seems to glorify these men by only showing this one aspect of the colonial family man just wanting to go home. This movie does incorporate several aspects that are true, but it conveniently leaves other facts out resulting in a false impression of what is actually going on. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie was incredibly accurate in overall use of little historical details mixed in.  The French success in forming Indian alliances through gift-giving was reflected in the earliest scene with Le Marquis, the movie made very clear how the Huron were hurt by the terms of surrender at Ft. William Henry, the Mohawk were shown to be the most cooperative nation of Iroquois with the British during the rally on the farm at the beginning of the movie, and so on... - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie is also a &amp;quot;success&amp;quot; in its historical accuracy overall. I mean, I think we can all see what is there primarily for cinematic effect. But, for as complicated as inter-tribe relations and Native American-Euro relations were by the mid 18th century, I think &amp;quot;Mohicans&amp;quot; did a commendable job at portraying these relationships, allegiances, and consequences well. Details of costuming and battle styles were pretty much spot on (except, as many have pointed out, in terms of Hawkeye&amp;#039;s 100% target accuracy). The attitudes of frontiersmen were portrayed (if not a little too obviously) accurately as well. My only question... How did a Scotsmen become a high ranking officer in the British army? I know Col. Munro was a historical figure, but I really would not expect that from the highly tyrannical and prejudice British at this time. Granted, maybe the Americas were a different story because I know of French rel. refugee who became a governor of Massachusetts ... but I am still curious. --A. Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- I know it was not all that uncommon for a Native American tribe to adopt “white sons” like Hawkeye or Nathaniel, but how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially. In this case the Mohicans had no women left and therefore had no other option, but I wondered if it was likely that Native Americans and white women would really get together. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- How rebellious were the settlers at this point toward the British crown rule? I felt that in the struggle between the British crown and the settlers, the mention of tyranny may have been a bit premature (at least to my knowledge on the topic), but I did like that there was a pre-revolution sense of injustice among the settlers. Was this premature or accurate for the time? - Elle Weaver &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remember that the British officers were condescending toward the colonial militia.  It&amp;#039;s not just the militiamen talking about the British tyranny that indicates the struggle.  First, when Duncan (Phelps?)tells Munro that the militiamen negotiated terms of service in the war, Munro responds something to the effect that that was just like them--the colonials think they can set their own terms.   And then, when Nathaniel is trying to tell Munro that  the militiamen&amp;#039;s families are either threatened or being killed, and they should be allowed to go back to defend, Munro says that they can&amp;#039;t go (they&amp;#039;d be shot if they did), because, essentially, that the threatened families are trivial in comparison to the army&amp;#039;s objectives.  He obviously sees himself/the army/the British in general as superior to them, and couldn&amp;#039;t care less about these men&amp;#039;s families.  This attitude is easy to recognize, and caps off the injustice.  But I think at that point the settlers wanted fair treatment and mainly hoped or believed that relations could still be mended with the mother country.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question:  is it at all a stretch that an angry Huron (Magwa) who wants revenge would want to cut out the heart of his enemy and burn his seed alive? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was wondering the same thing that Elle was about adopting white sons.  From what I remember learning in the past I don&amp;#039;t remember this.  What would make a tribe adopt members of the white race? What would make a white settler want to leave other colonists and join the Native Americans? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One issue I have with the movie is the accents.  I mean, what was going on with the different accents scattered throughout? Because based on Munro&amp;#039;s accent, he definitely did not raise his daughters and the colonists just seemed to be a bit off as well.  Was the &amp;quot;American accent&amp;quot; emerging this early? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- This may come across, unintentionally, as ignorant but were the Huron unusually violent? The reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;First Peoples&amp;#039;&amp;#039; explains that war parties came prepared with clothing and moccasins when abducting their captives which seems somewhat thoughtful. I know this doesn&amp;#039;t describe every war party, especially Magua&amp;#039;s tribe because we learn that he is going after Col. Munro in order to avenge his family&amp;#039;s death, but it was just something I kept in mind while watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039; since in the movie the Huron kill the settlers and pillage their homes. However, I chalked this up to being an example of the film&amp;#039;s historical inaccuracy. Again, this doesn&amp;#039;t pertain to all tribes but in the movie the women are called &amp;quot;dogs&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;slaves&amp;quot; were as in the reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;First Peoples&amp;#039;&amp;#039; it is said that women and children were treated well because they were being adopted into the  community. These two examples prove that the director&amp;#039;s main objective was to create an intriguing story. In my opinon, the movie was a little too concerned with the romantic aspect of history (i.e. good vs. evil), similar to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, rather than being a sound example of historical facts. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Minavavan reading focused on how the Algonkians had not accepted the English as the replacements for the French. Minavavan makes the distinction that just because the French might be out of the power struggle, the Algonkians were by no means going to cede their land and culture passively. &amp;quot;Englishmen, although you have conquered the French, you have not yet conquered us! We are not your slaves.&amp;quot; In the final sentences of Minavavan&amp;#039;s speech he insinuates a leeriness of the English, but acknowledges no aggression on their part- offering a peace pipe. Sadly, I think the movie took too much creative license and distorted the actual sentiments of the Native Americans (from what I can gather from this particular reading). In the movie the French and English made an agreement that the English would move on from the fort, but on their journey the English were ambushed by a band of native attackers. I think it is safe to say that the American Indians who had fought alongside the French would be upset with a changing of the guard, but I do not get the sense that they were willing to continue fighting independently. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: We&amp;#039;re guns already that accurate, in low light, at that point? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Ashley&amp;#039;s question - that is a big giant no.  I remember discussing the muskets used during this period in Dr. Hudgin&amp;#039;s  American Revolution class. At this period of time, a man was considered a good marksman if he could hit a barn door from 100 yards. When the weapons of this time period would fire, the bullet would shoot out of the barrel in a zig-zagging pattern, making it almost impossible to aim effectively. This means that Hawkeye&amp;#039;s heroic shooting of the ambushing Hurons as they tried to take out the messenger is just Hollywood&amp;#039;s creation of a good cinematic moment. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Abenakis Defy The English&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;: “When the United States held treaties with Indian Tribes in the nineteenth century, American Commissioners often dictated their terms and spoke down to Indian delegates with the arrogance of power. In colonial times the power balance was much more equal and Indian speakers often “gave as good as they got” in their negotiations with Europeans.”  I believe this movie is still portraying the Native- Euro relationship through the lens of the nineteenth century, as opposed to the relationship of the 17th and 18th centuries as conveyed in our primary source documents. At the end of the film when Hawkeye and his compatriots were going to rescue the Daughters Munro and Duncan the entire negotiation process was dominated by the romantic/ Anglo demands. The Sachem said that Cora was going to be put to death, but then Hawkeye and Duncan plead to get her off the hook. With seemingly no defense of his position, the sachem changes his mind. Firstly, the reading,  “A captive with the Abenakis” makes it seem as though death would not be the course of action taken against a captive, especially a woman. Secondly, I find it suspect that a Sachem would be so easily swayed in decision making.- Jason &lt;br /&gt;
Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Is this how we are now supposed to identify our &amp;quot;question&amp;quot; posts? I thought a simple question mark was a sufficient indicator. haha. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Answer: In response to Jason&amp;#039;s question, in terms of format it appears we are just sheep.  There is no official format, but amusing how it continues to be adopted ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Was the tribe fighting along the French in this film Patrilinial? Many times the Chief seemed to be obsessed with wiping out Munro&amp;#039;s seed. Or did he just understand that the English were Patrilinial and therefore wanted to make his contempt for Munro clear?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Watching the film it struck me how insistent Magua was about “wiping out the seed of the grey-haired man.”  It seemed unbelievable and if the Huron were matrilineal, it wouldn’t even make sense. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also liked how the movie portrayed the colonists as already at the time of the French and Indian War as having a national identity as basically Americans. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the film it seemed that the Native Americans mostly used guns at this point in time.  This doesn&amp;#039;t seem accurate; the film makes it seem like the Native Americans just dropped their native weapons and knew exactly how to shoot a gun within a few days.&lt;br /&gt;
--Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie seemed a bit off on any Native American sense of inevitability over colonist expansion over the continent, as we discussed in Tuesday&amp;#039;s lecture.  The Huron Sachem alluded to his tribe&amp;#039;s fears of white&amp;#039;s advancement, but Chingachgook&amp;#039;s speech just before the closing credits about how the land will change and everything in the future will belong to white men was incredibly heavy-handed. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing Dr. M told us to pay attention to was the dualist theme James Fenimore Cooper originally placed in his adventure tales.  A question arose when Alice (the other girl who is always with Cora) killed herself after the death of Uncas.  I wondered if the British really shared the same view of dying in honor as the Native Americans.  Alice dying in the same manner as Uncas seems like a very ritualistic, Native American style.  Was this scene implemented for dramatic effect or was the British-Mohican alliance that profound? - David Flores&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to David&amp;#039;s comment, this dramatic moment made little sense to me.  Although a flirtation had developed between Alice and Uncas throughout the course of the movie, there was no real development.  Once the sachem decided to spare the life of Alice and give her to Magua, Magua had become her master, and Alice part of the tribe. This meant that Magua would not consider raping her or inflicting harm. Once Alice jumped off the cliff, Magua didn&amp;#039;t seem to quite understand why she would do such a thing.  He even extended a hand out to her, to bring her back to the tribe once Uncas had been killed - but she of course chose to end her life, joining the fate of her doomed &amp;quot;lover&amp;quot; in dramatic Hollywood fashion.  ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye asked why the Indians would adopt white settlers. Calloway says on page 169 of &amp;quot;A Captive with the Abenakis,&amp;quot; the reason for the tribes to adopt white people was to replace those that had died, to balance out the population levels. The sachem of the Huron in which Magua belonged to in the movie seemed to adopt Alice into the tribe when he made her Magua&amp;#039;s wife to replace Magua&amp;#039;s dead children and to continue the Munro blood. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To comment on Elle’s question of “how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially,” I don’t think it was rare, for instance, on page 177 of  “A Captive with the Abenakis,” Susanna Willard mentions that her second master Gill married a woman of “true Indian blood.” Though Gill was well adopted into the Indian culture, he still had an interracial marriage. I think the issue is whether there were many intercultural marriages between captive whites and non-captive whites like the movie. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Last of the Mohicans there is a definite good vs. evil battle going on. There are good and bad Indians, the good being the 3 Mohicans who save everyone on countless occasions (who are also conveniently more civilized seeming and dressing) and the bad being the Hurons – especially Magwa. There are also clearly defined lines between colonial settlers and the British military. The military breaks its promises and uses the colonists for its own purposes, neglecting their rights to defend their families etc. They are of course not as bad as the French who work with the bad Indians who ambush the British. In short, there are any levels of good and evil but they are clearly defined. This could be an appropriate source to describe how settlers would feel about this conflict. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going off of Elle&amp;#039;s comment about &amp;quot;Good vs. Bad,&amp;quot; you could definitely see a bit of bias throughout the movie.  Magwa and the Huron&amp;#039;s were the &amp;quot;bad guys&amp;quot; in the film definitely indicating strong anti-French sentiments throughout.  It&amp;#039;s clear that, if this were based explicitly on Cooper&amp;#039;s novel, that it is definitely from the point of view of the British.  It just emphasizes that this war was fought on multiple levels and it shows how often the Native Americans were &amp;quot;trapped&amp;quot; into picking sides.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie had good insight as to how the settlers felt about fighting a British/French war. Where it was obvious that some showed a loyalty to Great Britain it was clear that most truly didn&amp;#039;t think of themselves as under British rule.  Many clearly didn&amp;#039;t want to fight but preferred to be with those on the frontier. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is more of a question about the Onandogas and Cayugas reading, but I noticed that they used the word &amp;quot;Sachem&amp;quot; frequently and even to describe some of the colonists.  I know sachems were like chieftans, so was this a term of respect in regards to the colonists as well? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, I interpret the usage of sachem by the Indians for the European authority figures as a sign of respect, but also their interpretation of what the equivalent position of the colonists. The Indians, from my understanding by the reading, didn&amp;#039;t have the hierarchy in the same way the Europeans did. Through interpretation,a word like general equaled sachem because there was no word for general in their language. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know Hawkeye’s past isn’t completely far-fetched, one of the readings even mentioned a fellow who had been captured by Indians as a boy and spent several years with them, but I wonder how common it was. How often did Natives accept white kids as their own? --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Captivity Narrative is a really great source to contrast with not just this movie, but any movie about Native American/white interactions at the time. The Natives sound to be about as nice as they could be, given the situation. While Susanna Johnson is quite whiny and put-upon, I don&amp;#039;t think the Natives were attempting to torture her. It was just a cultural difference, since English women were too dainty for forest travel (though giving birth in the woods is impressive). Interestingly, the main woman in the movie was quite a trooper (too much so?), especially when contrasted with this source. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Did they actually battle at night like that?  (Like around 37 minutes into the film) --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the film does show how seeds were laid in this war for the later American Revolution. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Comparing the film to the Captivity Narrative, the film showed mostly that Indians would torture their captives and burn them at stakes for sacrifices.  In the Captivity Narrative, it states that many of the tribes before the war would take you captive and adopt you into their families or replace a deceased relatives with you. How common was this?  --Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way the Indians treated prisoners in the reading seemed to ring in common with the movie except for one aspect it does not seem likely that the Indians would have though of burning the girl instead of the man in relation to the readings because they tended to treat women kindly. If they had a British officer it would be more likely they would ransom him rather than just let him go or kill him. When Mogwa took the women prisoner it did not seem he had any ill will towards her and seemed to treat her fairly well. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that bothered me throughout the movie was Duncan.  How could he openly lie to Munroe about the deal made with the colonists about being allowed to go back to the frontier if their homes were attacked?  This was a decision made by his superior officer and then he openly defied it when he lied to Munroe. Were such dynamics between British officers common? Of course, in grand Hollywood fashion, all of Duncan&amp;#039;s trespasses are forgiven when he surrenders himself to the Huron&amp;#039;s need for vengeance to save Alice.  Another point - would Native American tribes, like the Huron, ever choose to burn a British officer when they could instead ransom him? - Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie definitely represents the time in which it was made. First of all, the early to mid 1990s seemed to be a good time to make movies about Native Americans (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Geronimo, and probably more). One reason could be that, in 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was passed, as was the Native American Languages Act. While these weren&amp;#039;t really spectacularly progressive, our gov&amp;#039;t was at least showing a recognition of their rights. It seemed to be something of a turning point in the way we looked at Native Americans (or perhaps it made us look at them in the first place). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie represents classic American culture. That sense that we emerged from a nation of frontiersmen who had to fight for everything they wanted with their women right beside them. There&amp;#039;s Hawkeye who lives with the Indians and can shoot anything no matter how far away and right beside him is Cora who when the battle gets rough pulls out a gun and kills an Indian to save herself and her sister. However, her noticeably weaker sister doesn&amp;#039;t survive in the end. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Christine that the movie in many ways played into the traditional ideas of our frontier spirit in America, especially with the blonde frontiersman who appears to lead the militia. The movie also played into the idea of the noble savage in many ways. Hawkeye, though brought up by Native Americans, is of Anglo descent and served as a way for whites to envision themselves as Indians. But the true Indians in the movie, especially Magua and the Huron, embody the view of the natives as savages for their underhanded and brutal tactics in battle. Even the &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; Indians fall into the traditional &amp;quot;noble savage&amp;quot; paradigm as they rarely speak in the movie, only really at the end do you get an idea of what the Father is thinking. Ultimately this movie would fit right into the noble savage canon. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Last of the Mohicans is a good representation of how people in the 1990s liked their movies: epics with a historical setting, graphic violence, and a love story.  Braveheart, Dances With Wolves, even Titanic.  In Cooper&amp;#039;s novel, Hawkeye saves Col. Munro from Magua; in the film we get to see our main antagonist cut out the colonel&amp;#039;s heart.  Also in the book, Alice and Duncan live happily ever after, and Cora&amp;#039;s relationship with Hawkeye is nonexistent.  The sweeping, tragic ending of the 1992 adaptation was more palatable to modern audiences.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I see Last of the Mohicans as a film made for the baby boom generation. Most of who would be in their late 30s/mid 40s at this point. Films like this feature, as McClurken put it, the archetypal American hero that baby boomers grew up worshipping. I liken Hawkeye to the Lone Ranger. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:52, 10 September 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely see Dr. McClurken&amp;#039;s comparison to Mad Max. Daniel Day Lewis might as well have been making those miraculously accurate shots with two muskets in his hands on a motorcycle trapped in the Thunder Dome! The film was period-but the action scenes were for modern day viewers. We are still doing it. 300 (one of my all time favorite historically based action films) is an amazingly great film adaptation of a graphic novel for one, and two, it does a commendable job at portraying Spartan life socially, militarily, and legendarily. However, the cinematography and action sequences are meant to be more than simply accurate. Even if, like in the case of &amp;quot;Mohicans&amp;quot;, scalping is appropriately gruesome entertainment, the action needs to be cut and edited just so, in order to appeal to modern day audiences. Even in 1927, Howard Hughes knew it when filming his war epic &amp;quot;Hell&amp;#039;s Angels&amp;quot;. You can&amp;#039;t just show the feats of war and battle, you have to make it so grandiose that the viewer is there in the sense of their fear and adrenaline. I was disappointed in this aspect of the film. For an acclaimed method actor, Daniel Day Lewis sounded way to much like a 20th century, highly moral tough guy with a heart of gold but a chip on his shoulder, not a white guy raised by native Americans in the 18th century.  --A. Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to point this out - near the end please notice that there is an extremely fake rock that Nathaniel (AKA DDL) pushes off of in his hurry to stop his brother from attacking Magwa and company. It shakes but Daniel Day Lewis pays no mind - he can make rocks shake like that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, now I&amp;#039;m not sure if this is applicable to the discussion or not, but in my opinion this is the type of movie that causes people to stop watching historical films.  Yes, there were a lot of good things about it when it came to accuracy, but it was just so dull throughout.  Now, &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; may have been one of the least accurate movies ever created, but it had a more interesting (and I use that word loosely) storyline.  Do we think that there is a way to balance the two out?  Is it possible to have a historical movie that is both relatively accurate and entertaining? I understand that it may also be too early in the semester to judge since we&amp;#039;re only on our second movie, but I suppose it is something to think about. (Now, I could be alone in my critique of the movie because I had heard excellent reviews about it but I&amp;#039;m sorry, I don&amp;#039;t think you could get me to sit and watch it again.)  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to begin by saying that I love the music in this movie. However, it does not cancel out the way I feel about the rest of the movie. I agree with Kelly in that I don&amp;#039;t think I could watch it another time. Clips and pieces of the movie were interesting but overall I found it somewhat dry and boring. I wish the fight scene at the end was a little more dramatic and detailed but instead it just went by quickly. I guess that is up to the discretion of the director. The movie has it&amp;#039;s moments but at times I found myself wanting the movie to hurry up to the next scene. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with everyone so far. This movie was boring as sin, completely not what I expected. I had always heard people talk about it so well, like a classic! While it was pretty and the music was nice, it was dull (even the battles), graphic, and once again, almost everyone in the movie is fluent in at least 2-3 languages. The &amp;quot;love story&amp;quot; is ridiculously bad, much like John Smith/Pocahontas. Perhaps people did have lower standards back then, and didn&amp;#039;t take as much time to get to know each other, but this true love in only 24 hours phenom just makes movies seem more unrealistic. Besides, the good Indian v. bad Indian seemed a little heavy-handed. If we were to have a movie where a &amp;quot;savage&amp;quot; had killed the English governor&amp;#039;s daughter and wife and entire town, it would be a portrayal of a white guy seeking justice, NOT being an evil murderer. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just have to put this in here - I liked this movie.  In fact enough people seemed to like this movie enough to grant it re-run space on TNT. Certainly there was no &amp;quot;Color of the Wind&amp;quot; moments, but there is something just beautiful about Daniel Day Lewis running through the forest with a half torn shirt. ~Juliann Boyles &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually, there has to be a willing suspension of disbelief for movies, but I still couldn’t help but wonder what the chances were that the main characters would be the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;only&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ones to escape in both attacks. In this case, the expendable red shirts were literally wearing red shirts! Seriously though, what happened to the men in the canoe with Duncan during the massacre? I didn’t see them hiding out below the waterfall later on… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All in all, it could have been a good movie, but for one thing-- the contrived romance. It sorta of ruined the viewing pleasure for me, though it was pretty funny sometimes. After all, we had such gems as this exchange:&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora: What are you looking at?&lt;br /&gt;
        *long pause*&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye: I’m looking at you.&lt;br /&gt;
        *even longer pause*&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora stares at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora stares at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora smiles at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye smiles at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, that’s some great writing there. Really. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Haha, that&amp;#039;s funny.--Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember that I purchased this movie many years ago, however I never tried to look at it in any sort of historical aspect, so I viewed it from a different light this time.  I also hadn&amp;#039;t watched the movie in quite a while, so I had forgotten quite a bit of it.  Although something that I do find annoying in almost all films, the women can go through hell and back and only their hair is a little messed up but their make up still looks perfect.  Stupid films and trying to say that women need to be skinny with big chests with perfect hair and faces... -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay- some definitely poor writing here and there for sure... and Duncan all of a sudden becoming conveniently noble... and some hokey romantic moments where Cora&amp;#039;s like (paraphrased) &amp;quot;Wow, I really misjudged you&amp;quot; and Nathaniel Po is like &amp;quot;Yeah, so what?&amp;quot; and Cora, &amp;quot;You&amp;#039;re pretty deep aren&amp;#039;t you?&amp;quot; and then they make-out. But really I don&amp;#039;t blame them. What producer would okay the killing-off of the incredibly sexy Madeline Stowe? She is a super strong character without ever getting nearly as cheesey as Daniel Day&amp;#039;s character. She didn&amp;#039;t need to redeem herself by dying tragically, as we often require in a film like this (ergo the death of her pretty but much frailer sister). Any big box-office movie that is going to be violently graphic, therefore limiting the age of its audience, needs to attract as many viewers as possible, which means include plenty of sex appeal. We all know this.--A. Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Did Native Americans pose as a different tribe during the war like Magua did? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Because this movie was a book first and the movie is based on the book and subsequent movies should we be judging it for its historical accuracy or how well it followed the book? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though the book has a historical setting it is fiction and unlike Pocahontas is not based on anything specific so can we hold it to the same standards? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To answer Christine&amp;#039;s question, I don&amp;#039;t think this movie should be held to the same standards as movie such as Pocahontas since it is not based on one specific event.  And, as we discussed in class James Fenimore Cooper had never met a Native American before, and what he knew of them came from other people, so it&amp;#039;s understandable that he might have a skewed impression of Native Americans in his books.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely have to agree with Amanda&amp;#039;s point that all of the major Native American characters in the film are perfectly good or completely bad.  In fact, the only morally ambiguous characters in the entire film are Duncan and Col. Munro!  The Cora/Hawkeye love story, undoubtedly added to attract viewers, sometimes seems like comic relief.  Although I like the film, I recognize that it has numerous flaws.  Someone should have told the costume department that Daniel Day Lewis looked like he came straight off the cover of a romance novel, and not just in his shirtless scene.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The character of Mogwa was very interesting to me when I watched this movie. The movie portrays him as a monstrous savage and a villian, but if you actually pay attention to what he says about what happened to him how could one not feel just a little bit sympathetic for him. He obviously had some serious justifications for his rage although the movie focuses so much on his violence that he can be portrayed as just another bad guy. What really ends up striking me with this movie is how certain groups of people are glorified and others are condemned. -Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again I find the dialog a little stereotypical. Why does Col. Munro have a strong accent and his daughter do not. Why does Mogwa speak in third person?--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On those points of the dialogue, I disagree with you Matt. Col. Munro is a Scotsman with a heavy accent, while his daughters have clearly been portrayed to have been raised in the colonies so would not have the same accent. And I believe other Native Americans are portrayed to sometimes speak in third person. Although from the readings, it is clear that many native americans from various tribes who knew English were able to use proper subject tense, so maybe your right? I am not sure it is entirely inaccurate though. --A. Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the fighting tactics to be pretty accurate. The English really weren&amp;#039;t ready for that kind of fighting.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-11T06:57:27Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 5 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A common theme that is definitely true in real history (mentioned in lecture as well as World Turned Upside Down/Calloway article) as well as its portrayal in Last of the Mohicans, is that Native Americans gained little from interactions with Europeans, and they lost everything (their land, their race, their culture, their lives). Hence, the last of the Mohicans. In that respect this film did a good job of demonstrating (if even to the slightest degree) the plight of the Indian race due to European involvement. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cora had to ask Nathaniel why the murdered family was isolated, to which he responded that after 7 years of indentured servitude in VA, these people needed to go somewhere farther away to get any land.  That seems right that she, the daughter of a general, raised in London, would not be fully aware of the causes for some threats the settlers faced, of some of the less obvious issues that helped  make the war what it was. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can see why the Mohicans didn&amp;#039;t want to bury the family that they came across while they were running.  It makes sense that if they were to move them others would know that someone had been there. Was it common for the Native Americans to try to cover their tracks? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Last of the Mohicans does a good job at depicting the past as many examples arise in the movie, such as the costumes that are accurately portrayed, as well as the battle scenes (Indian guerilla warfare vs. the organized European style), along with the Indian and European interactions.  It was interesting to note that the movie shows the notion that Indians absorbed certain European ethics; For example, as the Indian reported to his chief with the women prisoners, he also ambitiously expressed his concerns about seizing and controlling other Indian territories while capitalizing on trade with the French.  His plans of takeover sound parallel the plan of the English.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indians probably viewed themselves differently after interacting with Europeans over a period of time, as Europeans have probably viewed themselves differently after interacting with the Indians.  The movie also does a good job at portraying how a European might have turned out if raised by Indians, and to a lesser extent, the movie slightly portrays what aspects may have attracted Europeans to the lifestyle of Indians, or in some cases, what may have repelled Europeans from wanting to live like some Indians.  Daniel Day seemed to have enjoyed living the Indian lifestyle, showing no desire to return to European ways, while on the other hand the little girl would rather have jumped off a cliff than have continued her journey with what she may have thought to be brutal savages.  Overall good movie and historically accurate.        James D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was also obvious in the movie how easily the Native Americans could play the settlers off of each other.  It was effortless, or so it seemed to us, for Magua to act as a scout for the British, but secretly support the French because of what he would get out of that relationship.  That was something we definitely studied and I thought the movie did a decent job representing that. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the backdrop of the movie was actually fairly historically accurate. It captured British superiority towards the colonists and the beginnings of the tensions that would lead to the Revolution. Also, the British did surrender to the French at Fort William Henry and they were attacked by the Indians as they left the area. Of course, the attack had more to do with the Natives wanting their promised war spoils rather than one vengeful leader, but the movie did show that the Indians started retracting their alliances with the French following the fort’s surrender. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;Right&amp;#039; in this case is totally different in regard to the original book or to history. While looking through some of the chapters of the book, I was actually shocked to know that they called Hawkeye &amp;#039;The Long Rifle.&amp;#039; I can&amp;#039;t lie, I thought that was totally 1990s Native American sexual innuendo. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The European mindset that they held the right to control the country and live on and dominate the land as they saw fit seemed pretty accurate to me, not to be too harsh. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mindset that the land was for the taking (by England).  The movie also managed the &amp;#039;superiority complex&amp;#039; of the British army towards the colonist militia.  The costuming and makeup departments seem to have been able to get the &amp;#039;look&amp;#039; of the Mohican as compared to the picture shown to us in class on Tuesday. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A far as the historical accuracy of the films is concerned, I was pleased to read in the articles that Indian adoptions of colonists were actually practiced.  This at least means the basis of Nathaniel as adopted is sound. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, the way the movie portrayed the Europeans and the Native Americans fighting was accurate.  They showed the Europeans fighting in neat, organized rows, with an officer telling them when to shoot, while the Native Americans were shown fighting all over, and without someone to tell them when and where to shoot.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To piggy back on what Katherine mentioned, I too agreed that the movie appeared to depict the manner in which the different groups fought rather well. As was mentioned in the lecture, the Native Americans adapted the technologies to their own liking. Thus they used rifles when applicable, but did not abandon their tomahawks or war clubs. Also it was accurate in the way in which the colonists were not treated well by the British regulars and it did well (though maybe a bit heavy-handed) to illustrate this tension. A last detail that the movie seemed to get right was the way in which both the French and the British used the various tribes with little regard for the Native Americans&amp;#039; interests. Mohicans are decimated and the Huron (and Magua) are left to act at the whim of the French. Though the tribes may have been allied with a European power the movie shows that in the end they were to be left out of the spoils of victory. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a few things that rang true to me throughout the movie. The mention that the tribes eventually played off each other and the warring Europeans was reinforced very well throughout the movie. Magua&amp;#039;s evil cunning was evidenced in all it&amp;#039;s brutal glory(?) as he literally hacked and slashed through anyone that opposed him, paying no mind to who he betrays in the process. The French-British and British-American hostilities also seemed very accurate to me. While Manifest Destiny would soon destroy much of the pre-existing diplomacy between the Americans and Indians, for now both sides fully understood that they had to be united to stave off any hostilities forced on them by the other Europeans. Finally, as Mallory said above, the European imperialism struck me as unfortunately accurate as well. As the intro text explained, it was a battle for control of the nation. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is kind of on the border between right and wrong, but when Hawkeye was walking toward the Sachem and was being &amp;quot;attacked&amp;quot; by the Huron, I think that was a sort of running the gauntlet. Although it was a bit more brutal than the one Susanna Johnson described, I could imagine they could possibly do something along those lines. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:36, 10 September 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the inaccuracies from this movie seem to come not from the actual facts themselves, but from the way the movie singles out certain aspects while leaving other aspects out. For instance it was true that militias had very unhappy men and in many cases were willing to desert. The movie, however seems to glorify these men by only showing this one aspect of the colonial family man just wanting to go home. This movie does incorporate several aspects that are true, but it conveniently leaves other facts out resulting in a false impression of what is actually going on. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie was incredibly accurate in overall use of little historical details mixed in.  The French success in forming Indian alliances through gift-giving was reflected in the earliest scene with Le Marquis, the movie made very clear how the Huron were hurt by the terms of surrender at Ft. William Henry, the Mohawk were shown to be the most cooperative nation of Iroquois with the British during the rally on the farm at the beginning of the movie, and so on... - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- I know it was not all that uncommon for a Native American tribe to adopt “white sons” like Hawkeye or Nathaniel, but how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially. In this case the Mohicans had no women left and therefore had no other option, but I wondered if it was likely that Native Americans and white women would really get together. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- How rebellious were the settlers at this point toward the British crown rule? I felt that in the struggle between the British crown and the settlers, the mention of tyranny may have been a bit premature (at least to my knowledge on the topic), but I did like that there was a pre-revolution sense of injustice among the settlers. Was this premature or accurate for the time? - Elle Weaver &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remember that the British officers were condescending toward the colonial militia.  It&amp;#039;s not just the militiamen talking about the British tyranny that indicates the struggle.  First, when Duncan (Phelps?)tells Munro that the militiamen negotiated terms of service in the war, Munro responds something to the effect that that was just like them--the colonials think they can set their own terms.   And then, when Nathaniel is trying to tell Munro that  the militiamen&amp;#039;s families are either threatened or being killed, and they should be allowed to go back to defend, Munro says that they can&amp;#039;t go (they&amp;#039;d be shot if they did), because, essentially, that the threatened families are trivial in comparison to the army&amp;#039;s objectives.  He obviously sees himself/the army/the British in general as superior to them, and couldn&amp;#039;t care less about these men&amp;#039;s families.  This attitude is easy to recognize, and caps off the injustice.  But I think at that point the settlers wanted fair treatment and mainly hoped or believed that relations could still be mended with the mother country.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question:  is it at all a stretch that an angry Huron (Magwa) who wants revenge would want to cut out the heart of his enemy and burn his seed alive? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was wondering the same thing that Elle was about adopting white sons.  From what I remember learning in the past I don&amp;#039;t remember this.  What would make a tribe adopt members of the white race? What would make a white settler want to leave other colonists and join the Native Americans? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One issue I have with the movie is the accents.  I mean, what was going on with the different accents scattered throughout? Because based on Munro&amp;#039;s accent, he definitely did not raise his daughters and the colonists just seemed to be a bit off as well.  Was the &amp;quot;American accent&amp;quot; emerging this early? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- This may come across, unintentionally, as ignorant but were the Huron unusually violent? The reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;First Peoples&amp;#039;&amp;#039; explains that war parties came prepared with clothing and moccasins when abducting their captives which seems somewhat thoughtful. I know this doesn&amp;#039;t describe every war party, especially Magua&amp;#039;s tribe because we learn that he is going after Col. Munro in order to avenge his family&amp;#039;s death, but it was just something I kept in mind while watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039; since in the movie the Huron kill the settlers and pillage their homes. However, I chalked this up to being an example of the film&amp;#039;s historical inaccuracy. Again, this doesn&amp;#039;t pertain to all tribes but in the movie the women are called &amp;quot;dogs&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;slaves&amp;quot; were as in the reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;First Peoples&amp;#039;&amp;#039; it is said that women and children were treated well because they were being adopted into the  community. These two examples prove that the director&amp;#039;s main objective was to create an intriguing story. In my opinon, the movie was a little too concerned with the romantic aspect of history (i.e. good vs. evil), similar to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, rather than being a sound example of historical facts. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Minavavan reading focused on how the Algonkians had not accepted the English as the replacements for the French. Minavavan makes the distinction that just because the French might be out of the power struggle, the Algonkians were by no means going to cede their land and culture passively. &amp;quot;Englishmen, although you have conquered the French, you have not yet conquered us! We are not your slaves.&amp;quot; In the final sentences of Minavavan&amp;#039;s speech he insinuates a leeriness of the English, but acknowledges no aggression on their part- offering a peace pipe. Sadly, I think the movie took too much creative license and distorted the actual sentiments of the Native Americans (from what I can gather from this particular reading). In the movie the French and English made an agreement that the English would move on from the fort, but on their journey the English were ambushed by a band of native attackers. I think it is safe to say that the American Indians who had fought alongside the French would be upset with a changing of the guard, but I do not get the sense that they were willing to continue fighting independently. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: We&amp;#039;re guns already that accurate, in low light, at that point? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Ashley&amp;#039;s question - that is a big giant no.  I remember discussing the muskets used during this period in Dr. Hudgin&amp;#039;s  American Revolution class. At this period of time, a man was considered a good marksman if he could hit a barn door from 100 yards. When the weapons of this time period would fire, the bullet would shoot out of the barrel in a zig-zagging pattern, making it almost impossible to aim effectively. This means that Hawkeye&amp;#039;s heroic shooting of the ambushing Hurons as they tried to take out the messenger is just Hollywood&amp;#039;s creation of a good cinematic moment. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Abenakis Defy The English&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;: “When the United States held treaties with Indian Tribes in the nineteenth century, American Commissioners often dictated their terms and spoke down to Indian delegates with the arrogance of power. In colonial times the power balance was much more equal and Indian speakers often “gave as good as they got” in their negotiations with Europeans.”  I believe this movie is still portraying the Native- Euro relationship through the lens of the nineteenth century, as opposed to the relationship of the 17th and 18th centuries as conveyed in our primary source documents. At the end of the film when Hawkeye and his compatriots were going to rescue the Daughters Munro and Duncan the entire negotiation process was dominated by the romantic/ Anglo demands. The Sachem said that Cora was going to be put to death, but then Hawkeye and Duncan plead to get her off the hook. With seemingly no defense of his position, the sachem changes his mind. Firstly, the reading,  “A captive with the Abenakis” makes it seem as though death would not be the course of action taken against a captive, especially a woman. Secondly, I find it suspect that a Sachem would be so easily swayed in decision making.- Jason &lt;br /&gt;
Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Is this how we are now supposed to identify our &amp;quot;question&amp;quot; posts? I thought a simple question mark was a sufficient indicator. haha. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Answer: In response to Jason&amp;#039;s question, in terms of format it appears we are just sheep.  There is no official format, but amusing how it continues to be adopted ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Was the tribe fighting along the French in this film Patrilinial? Many times the Chief seemed to be obsessed with wiping out Munro&amp;#039;s seed. Or did he just understand that the English were Patrilinial and therefore wanted to make his contempt for Munro clear?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Watching the film it struck me how insistent Magua was about “wiping out the seed of the grey-haired man.”  It seemed unbelievable and if the Huron were matrilineal, it wouldn’t even make sense. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also liked how the movie portrayed the colonists as already at the time of the French and Indian War as having a national identity as basically Americans. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the film it seemed that the Native Americans mostly used guns at this point in time.  This doesn&amp;#039;t seem accurate; the film makes it seem like the Native Americans just dropped their native weapons and knew exactly how to shoot a gun within a few days.&lt;br /&gt;
--Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie seemed a bit off on any Native American sense of inevitability over colonist expansion over the continent, as we discussed in Tuesday&amp;#039;s lecture.  The Huron Sachem alluded to his tribe&amp;#039;s fears of white&amp;#039;s advancement, but Chingachgook&amp;#039;s speech just before the closing credits about how the land will change and everything in the future will belong to white men was incredibly heavy-handed. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing Dr. M told us to pay attention to was the dualist theme James Fenimore Cooper originally placed in his adventure tales.  A question arose when Alice (the other girl who is always with Cora) killed herself after the death of Uncas.  I wondered if the British really shared the same view of dying in honor as the Native Americans.  Alice dying in the same manner as Uncas seems like a very ritualistic, Native American style.  Was this scene implemented for dramatic effect or was the British-Mohican alliance that profound? - David Flores&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to David&amp;#039;s comment, this dramatic moment made little sense to me.  Although a flirtation had developed between Alice and Uncas throughout the course of the movie, there was no real development.  Once the sachem decided to spare the life of Alice and give her to Magua, Magua had become her master, and Alice part of the tribe. This meant that Magua would not consider raping her or inflicting harm. Once Alice jumped off the cliff, Magua didn&amp;#039;t seem to quite understand why she would do such a thing.  He even extended a hand out to her, to bring her back to the tribe once Uncas had been killed - but she of course chose to end her life, joining the fate of her doomed &amp;quot;lover&amp;quot; in dramatic Hollywood fashion.  ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye asked why the Indians would adopt white settlers. Calloway says on page 169 of &amp;quot;A Captive with the Abenakis,&amp;quot; the reason for the tribes to adopt white people was to replace those that had died, to balance out the population levels. The sachem of the Huron in which Magua belonged to in the movie seemed to adopt Alice into the tribe when he made her Magua&amp;#039;s wife to replace Magua&amp;#039;s dead children and to continue the Munro blood. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To comment on Elle’s question of “how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially,” I don’t think it was rare, for instance, on page 177 of  “A Captive with the Abenakis,” Susanna Willard mentions that her second master Gill married a woman of “true Indian blood.” Though Gill was well adopted into the Indian culture, he still had an interracial marriage. I think the issue is whether there were many intercultural marriages between captive whites and non-captive whites like the movie. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Last of the Mohicans there is a definite good vs. evil battle going on. There are good and bad Indians, the good being the 3 Mohicans who save everyone on countless occasions (who are also conveniently more civilized seeming and dressing) and the bad being the Hurons – especially Magwa. There are also clearly defined lines between colonial settlers and the British military. The military breaks its promises and uses the colonists for its own purposes, neglecting their rights to defend their families etc. They are of course not as bad as the French who work with the bad Indians who ambush the British. In short, there are any levels of good and evil but they are clearly defined. This could be an appropriate source to describe how settlers would feel about this conflict. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going off of Elle&amp;#039;s comment about &amp;quot;Good vs. Bad,&amp;quot; you could definitely see a bit of bias throughout the movie.  Magwa and the Huron&amp;#039;s were the &amp;quot;bad guys&amp;quot; in the film definitely indicating strong anti-French sentiments throughout.  It&amp;#039;s clear that, if this were based explicitly on Cooper&amp;#039;s novel, that it is definitely from the point of view of the British.  It just emphasizes that this war was fought on multiple levels and it shows how often the Native Americans were &amp;quot;trapped&amp;quot; into picking sides.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie had good insight as to how the settlers felt about fighting a British/French war. Where it was obvious that some showed a loyalty to Great Britain it was clear that most truly didn&amp;#039;t think of themselves as under British rule.  Many clearly didn&amp;#039;t want to fight but preferred to be with those on the frontier. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is more of a question about the Onandogas and Cayugas reading, but I noticed that they used the word &amp;quot;Sachem&amp;quot; frequently and even to describe some of the colonists.  I know sachems were like chieftans, so was this a term of respect in regards to the colonists as well? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, I interpret the usage of sachem by the Indians for the European authority figures as a sign of respect, but also their interpretation of what the equivalent position of the colonists. The Indians, from my understanding by the reading, didn&amp;#039;t have the hierarchy in the same way the Europeans did. Through interpretation,a word like general equaled sachem because there was no word for general in their language. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know Hawkeye’s past isn’t completely far-fetched, one of the readings even mentioned a fellow who had been captured by Indians as a boy and spent several years with them, but I wonder how common it was. How often did Natives accept white kids as their own? --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Captivity Narrative is a really great source to contrast with not just this movie, but any movie about Native American/white interactions at the time. The Natives sound to be about as nice as they could be, given the situation. While Susanna Johnson is quite whiny and put-upon, I don&amp;#039;t think the Natives were attempting to torture her. It was just a cultural difference, since English women were too dainty for forest travel (though giving birth in the woods is impressive). Interestingly, the main woman in the movie was quite a trooper (too much so?), especially when contrasted with this source. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Did they actually battle at night like that?  (Like around 37 minutes into the film) --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the film does show how seeds were laid in this war for the later American Revolution. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Comparing the film to the Captivity Narrative, the film showed mostly that Indians would torture their captives and burn them at stakes for sacrifices.  In the Captivity Narrative, it states that many of the tribes before the war would take you captive and adopt you into their families or replace a deceased relatives with you. How common was this?  --Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way the Indians treated prisoners in the reading seemed to ring in common with the movie except for one aspect it does not seem likely that the Indians would have though of burning the girl instead of the man in relation to the readings because they tended to treat women kindly. If they had a British officer it would be more likely they would ransom him rather than just let him go or kill him. When Mogwa took the women prisoner it did not seem he had any ill will towards her and seemed to treat her fairly well. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that bothered me throughout the movie was Duncan.  How could he openly lie to Munroe about the deal made with the colonists about being allowed to go back to the frontier if their homes were attacked?  This was a decision made by his superior officer and then he openly defied it when he lied to Munroe. Were such dynamics between British officers common? Of course, in grand Hollywood fashion, all of Duncan&amp;#039;s trespasses are forgiven when he surrenders himself to the Huron&amp;#039;s need for vengeance to save Alice.  Another point - would Native American tribes, like the Huron, ever choose to burn a British officer when they could instead ransom him? - Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie definitely represents the time in which it was made. First of all, the early to mid 1990s seemed to be a good time to make movies about Native Americans (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Geronimo, and probably more). One reason could be that, in 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was passed, as was the Native American Languages Act. While these weren&amp;#039;t really spectacularly progressive, our gov&amp;#039;t was at least showing a recognition of their rights. It seemed to be something of a turning point in the way we looked at Native Americans (or perhaps it made us look at them in the first place). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie represents classic American culture. That sense that we emerged from a nation of frontiersmen who had to fight for everything they wanted with their women right beside them. There&amp;#039;s Hawkeye who lives with the Indians and can shoot anything no matter how far away and right beside him is Cora who when the battle gets rough pulls out a gun and kills an Indian to save herself and her sister. However, her noticeably weaker sister doesn&amp;#039;t survive in the end. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Christine that the movie in many ways played into the traditional ideas of our frontier spirit in America, especially with the blonde frontiersman who appears to lead the militia. The movie also played into the idea of the noble savage in many ways. Hawkeye, though brought up by Native Americans, is of Anglo descent and served as a way for whites to envision themselves as Indians. But the true Indians in the movie, especially Magua and the Huron, embody the view of the natives as savages for their underhanded and brutal tactics in battle. Even the &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; Indians fall into the traditional &amp;quot;noble savage&amp;quot; paradigm as they rarely speak in the movie, only really at the end do you get an idea of what the Father is thinking. Ultimately this movie would fit right into the noble savage canon. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Last of the Mohicans is a good representation of how people in the 1990s liked their movies: epics with a historical setting, graphic violence, and a love story.  Braveheart, Dances With Wolves, even Titanic.  In Cooper&amp;#039;s novel, Hawkeye saves Col. Munro from Magua; in the film we get to see our main antagonist cut out the colonel&amp;#039;s heart.  Also in the book, Alice and Duncan live happily ever after, and Cora&amp;#039;s relationship with Hawkeye is nonexistent.  The sweeping, tragic ending of the 1992 adaptation was more palatable to modern audiences.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I see Last of the Mohicans as a film made for the baby boom generation. Most of who would be in their late 30s/mid 40s at this point. Films like this feature, as McClurken put it, the archetypal American hero that baby boomers grew up worshipping. I liken Hawkeye to the Lone Ranger. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:52, 10 September 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely see Dr. McClurken&amp;#039;s comparison to Mad Max. Daniel Day Lewis might as well have been making those miraculously accurate shots with two muskets in his hands on a motorcycle trapped in the Thunder Dome! The film was period-but the action scenes were for modern day viewers. We are still doing it. 300 (one of my all time favorite historically based action films) is an amazingly great film adaptation of a graphic novel for one, and two, it does a commendable job at portraying Spartan life socially, militarily, and legendarily. However, the cinematography and action sequences are meant to be more than simply accurate. Even if, like in the case of &amp;quot;Mohicans&amp;quot;, scalping is appropriately gruesome entertainment, the action needs to be cut and edited just so, in order to appeal to modern day audiences. Even in 1927, Howard Hughes knew it when filming his war epic &amp;quot;Hell&amp;#039;s Angels&amp;quot;. You can&amp;#039;t just show the feats of war and battle, you have to make it so grandiose that the viewer is there in the sense of their fear and adrenaline. I was disappointed in this aspect of the film. For an acclaimed method actor, Daniel Day Lewis sounded way to much like a 20th century, highly moral tough guy with a heart of gold but a chip on his shoulder, not a white guy raised by native Americans in the 18th century.  --A. Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to point this out - near the end please notice that there is an extremely fake rock that Nathaniel (AKA DDL) pushes off of in his hurry to stop his brother from attacking Magwa and company. It shakes but Daniel Day Lewis pays no mind - he can make rocks shake like that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, now I&amp;#039;m not sure if this is applicable to the discussion or not, but in my opinion this is the type of movie that causes people to stop watching historical films.  Yes, there were a lot of good things about it when it came to accuracy, but it was just so dull throughout.  Now, &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; may have been one of the least accurate movies ever created, but it had a more interesting (and I use that word loosely) storyline.  Do we think that there is a way to balance the two out?  Is it possible to have a historical movie that is both relatively accurate and entertaining? I understand that it may also be too early in the semester to judge since we&amp;#039;re only on our second movie, but I suppose it is something to think about. (Now, I could be alone in my critique of the movie because I had heard excellent reviews about it but I&amp;#039;m sorry, I don&amp;#039;t think you could get me to sit and watch it again.)  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to begin by saying that I love the music in this movie. However, it does not cancel out the way I feel about the rest of the movie. I agree with Kelly in that I don&amp;#039;t think I could watch it another time. Clips and pieces of the movie were interesting but overall I found it somewhat dry and boring. I wish the fight scene at the end was a little more dramatic and detailed but instead it just went by quickly. I guess that is up to the discretion of the director. The movie has it&amp;#039;s moments but at times I found myself wanting the movie to hurry up to the next scene. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with everyone so far. This movie was boring as sin, completely not what I expected. I had always heard people talk about it so well, like a classic! While it was pretty and the music was nice, it was dull (even the battles), graphic, and once again, almost everyone in the movie is fluent in at least 2-3 languages. The &amp;quot;love story&amp;quot; is ridiculously bad, much like John Smith/Pocahontas. Perhaps people did have lower standards back then, and didn&amp;#039;t take as much time to get to know each other, but this true love in only 24 hours phenom just makes movies seem more unrealistic. Besides, the good Indian v. bad Indian seemed a little heavy-handed. If we were to have a movie where a &amp;quot;savage&amp;quot; had killed the English governor&amp;#039;s daughter and wife and entire town, it would be a portrayal of a white guy seeking justice, NOT being an evil murderer. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just have to put this in here - I liked this movie.  In fact enough people seemed to like this movie enough to grant it re-run space on TNT. Certainly there was no &amp;quot;Color of the Wind&amp;quot; moments, but there is something just beautiful about Daniel Day Lewis running through the forest with a half torn shirt. ~Juliann Boyles &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually, there has to be a willing suspension of disbelief for movies, but I still couldn’t help but wonder what the chances were that the main characters would be the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;only&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ones to escape in both attacks. In this case, the expendable red shirts were literally wearing red shirts! Seriously though, what happened to the men in the canoe with Duncan during the massacre? I didn’t see them hiding out below the waterfall later on… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All in all, it could have been a good movie, but for one thing-- the contrived romance. It sorta of ruined the viewing pleasure for me, though it was pretty funny sometimes. After all, we had such gems as this exchange:&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora: What are you looking at?&lt;br /&gt;
        *long pause*&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye: I’m looking at you.&lt;br /&gt;
        *even longer pause*&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora stares at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora stares at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora smiles at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye smiles at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, that’s some great writing there. Really. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Haha, that&amp;#039;s funny.--Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember that I purchased this movie many years ago, however I never tried to look at it in any sort of historical aspect, so I viewed it from a different light this time.  I also hadn&amp;#039;t watched the movie in quite a while, so I had forgotten quite a bit of it.  Although something that I do find annoying in almost all films, the women can go through hell and back and only their hair is a little messed up but their make up still looks perfect.  Stupid films and trying to say that women need to be skinny with big chests with perfect hair and faces... -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay- some definitely poor writing here and there for sure... and Duncan all of a sudden becoming conveniently noble... and some hokey romantic moments where Cora&amp;#039;s like (paraphrased) &amp;quot;Wow, I really misjudged you&amp;quot; and Nathaniel Po is like &amp;quot;Yeah, so what?&amp;quot; and Cora, &amp;quot;You&amp;#039;re pretty deep aren&amp;#039;t you?&amp;quot; and then they make-out. But really I don&amp;#039;t blame them. What producer would okay the killing-off of the incredibly sexy Madeline Stowe? She is a super strong character without ever getting nearly as cheesey as Daniel Day&amp;#039;s character. She didn&amp;#039;t need to redeem herself by dying tragically, as we often require in a film like this (ergo the death of her pretty but much frailer sister). Any big box-office movie that is going to be violently graphic, therefore limiting the age of its audience, needs to attract as many viewers as possible, which means include plenty of sex appeal. We all know this.--A. Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Did Native Americans pose as a different tribe during the war like Magua did? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Because this movie was a book first and the movie is based on the book and subsequent movies should we be judging it for its historical accuracy or how well it followed the book? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though the book has a historical setting it is fiction and unlike Pocahontas is not based on anything specific so can we hold it to the same standards? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To answer Christine&amp;#039;s question, I don&amp;#039;t think this movie should be held to the same standards as movie such as Pocahontas since it is not based on one specific event.  And, as we discussed in class James Fenimore Cooper had never met a Native American before, and what he knew of them came from other people, so it&amp;#039;s understandable that he might have a skewed impression of Native Americans in his books.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely have to agree with Amanda&amp;#039;s point that all of the major Native American characters in the film are perfectly good or completely bad.  In fact, the only morally ambiguous characters in the entire film are Duncan and Col. Munro!  The Cora/Hawkeye love story, undoubtedly added to attract viewers, sometimes seems like comic relief.  Although I like the film, I recognize that it has numerous flaws.  Someone should have told the costume department that Daniel Day Lewis looked like he came straight off the cover of a romance novel, and not just in his shirtless scene.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The character of Mogwa was very interesting to me when I watched this movie. The movie portrays him as a monstrous savage and a villian, but if you actually pay attention to what he says about what happened to him how could one not feel just a little bit sympathetic for him. He obviously had some serious justifications for his rage although the movie focuses so much on his violence that he can be portrayed as just another bad guy. What really ends up striking me with this movie is how certain groups of people are glorified and others are condemned. -Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again I find the dialog a little stereotypical. Why does Col. Munro have a strong accent and his daughter do not. Why does Mogwa speak in third person?--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
On those points of the dialogue, I disagree with you Matt. Col. Munro is a Scotsman with a heavy accent, while his daughters have clearly been portrayed to have been raised in the colonies so would not have the same accent. And I believe other Native Americans are portrayed to sometimes speak in third person. Although from the readings, it is clear that many native americans from various tribes who knew English were able to use proper subject tense, so maybe your right? I am not sure it is entirely inaccurate though. --A. Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the fighting tactics to be pretty accurate. The English really weren&amp;#039;t ready for that kind of fighting.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-11T06:51:49Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: /* 5 Overall */&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A common theme that is definitely true in real history (mentioned in lecture as well as World Turned Upside Down/Calloway article) as well as its portrayal in Last of the Mohicans, is that Native Americans gained little from interactions with Europeans, and they lost everything (their land, their race, their culture, their lives). Hence, the last of the Mohicans. In that respect this film did a good job of demonstrating (if even to the slightest degree) the plight of the Indian race due to European involvement. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cora had to ask Nathaniel why the murdered family was isolated, to which he responded that after 7 years of indentured servitude in VA, these people needed to go somewhere farther away to get any land.  That seems right that she, the daughter of a general, raised in London, would not be fully aware of the causes for some threats the settlers faced, of some of the less obvious issues that helped  make the war what it was. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can see why the Mohicans didn&amp;#039;t want to bury the family that they came across while they were running.  It makes sense that if they were to move them others would know that someone had been there. Was it common for the Native Americans to try to cover their tracks? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Last of the Mohicans does a good job at depicting the past as many examples arise in the movie, such as the costumes that are accurately portrayed, as well as the battle scenes (Indian guerilla warfare vs. the organized European style), along with the Indian and European interactions.  It was interesting to note that the movie shows the notion that Indians absorbed certain European ethics; For example, as the Indian reported to his chief with the women prisoners, he also ambitiously expressed his concerns about seizing and controlling other Indian territories while capitalizing on trade with the French.  His plans of takeover sound parallel the plan of the English.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indians probably viewed themselves differently after interacting with Europeans over a period of time, as Europeans have probably viewed themselves differently after interacting with the Indians.  The movie also does a good job at portraying how a European might have turned out if raised by Indians, and to a lesser extent, the movie slightly portrays what aspects may have attracted Europeans to the lifestyle of Indians, or in some cases, what may have repelled Europeans from wanting to live like some Indians.  Daniel Day seemed to have enjoyed living the Indian lifestyle, showing no desire to return to European ways, while on the other hand the little girl would rather have jumped off a cliff than have continued her journey with what she may have thought to be brutal savages.  Overall good movie and historically accurate.        James D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was also obvious in the movie how easily the Native Americans could play the settlers off of each other.  It was effortless, or so it seemed to us, for Magua to act as a scout for the British, but secretly support the French because of what he would get out of that relationship.  That was something we definitely studied and I thought the movie did a decent job representing that. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the backdrop of the movie was actually fairly historically accurate. It captured British superiority towards the colonists and the beginnings of the tensions that would lead to the Revolution. Also, the British did surrender to the French at Fort William Henry and they were attacked by the Indians as they left the area. Of course, the attack had more to do with the Natives wanting their promised war spoils rather than one vengeful leader, but the movie did show that the Indians started retracting their alliances with the French following the fort’s surrender. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;Right&amp;#039; in this case is totally different in regard to the original book or to history. While looking through some of the chapters of the book, I was actually shocked to know that they called Hawkeye &amp;#039;The Long Rifle.&amp;#039; I can&amp;#039;t lie, I thought that was totally 1990s Native American sexual innuendo. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The European mindset that they held the right to control the country and live on and dominate the land as they saw fit seemed pretty accurate to me, not to be too harsh. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mindset that the land was for the taking (by England).  The movie also managed the &amp;#039;superiority complex&amp;#039; of the British army towards the colonist militia.  The costuming and makeup departments seem to have been able to get the &amp;#039;look&amp;#039; of the Mohican as compared to the picture shown to us in class on Tuesday. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A far as the historical accuracy of the films is concerned, I was pleased to read in the articles that Indian adoptions of colonists were actually practiced.  This at least means the basis of Nathaniel as adopted is sound. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, the way the movie portrayed the Europeans and the Native Americans fighting was accurate.  They showed the Europeans fighting in neat, organized rows, with an officer telling them when to shoot, while the Native Americans were shown fighting all over, and without someone to tell them when and where to shoot.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To piggy back on what Katherine mentioned, I too agreed that the movie appeared to depict the manner in which the different groups fought rather well. As was mentioned in the lecture, the Native Americans adapted the technologies to their own liking. Thus they used rifles when applicable, but did not abandon their tomahawks or war clubs. Also it was accurate in the way in which the colonists were not treated well by the British regulars and it did well (though maybe a bit heavy-handed) to illustrate this tension. A last detail that the movie seemed to get right was the way in which both the French and the British used the various tribes with little regard for the Native Americans&amp;#039; interests. Mohicans are decimated and the Huron (and Magua) are left to act at the whim of the French. Though the tribes may have been allied with a European power the movie shows that in the end they were to be left out of the spoils of victory. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a few things that rang true to me throughout the movie. The mention that the tribes eventually played off each other and the warring Europeans was reinforced very well throughout the movie. Magua&amp;#039;s evil cunning was evidenced in all it&amp;#039;s brutal glory(?) as he literally hacked and slashed through anyone that opposed him, paying no mind to who he betrays in the process. The French-British and British-American hostilities also seemed very accurate to me. While Manifest Destiny would soon destroy much of the pre-existing diplomacy between the Americans and Indians, for now both sides fully understood that they had to be united to stave off any hostilities forced on them by the other Europeans. Finally, as Mallory said above, the European imperialism struck me as unfortunately accurate as well. As the intro text explained, it was a battle for control of the nation. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is kind of on the border between right and wrong, but when Hawkeye was walking toward the Sachem and was being &amp;quot;attacked&amp;quot; by the Huron, I think that was a sort of running the gauntlet. Although it was a bit more brutal than the one Susanna Johnson described, I could imagine they could possibly do something along those lines. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:36, 10 September 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the inaccuracies from this movie seem to come not from the actual facts themselves, but from the way the movie singles out certain aspects while leaving other aspects out. For instance it was true that militias had very unhappy men and in many cases were willing to desert. The movie, however seems to glorify these men by only showing this one aspect of the colonial family man just wanting to go home. This movie does incorporate several aspects that are true, but it conveniently leaves other facts out resulting in a false impression of what is actually going on. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie was incredibly accurate in overall use of little historical details mixed in.  The French success in forming Indian alliances through gift-giving was reflected in the earliest scene with Le Marquis, the movie made very clear how the Huron were hurt by the terms of surrender at Ft. William Henry, the Mohawk were shown to be the most cooperative nation of Iroquois with the British during the rally on the farm at the beginning of the movie, and so on... - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- I know it was not all that uncommon for a Native American tribe to adopt “white sons” like Hawkeye or Nathaniel, but how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially. In this case the Mohicans had no women left and therefore had no other option, but I wondered if it was likely that Native Americans and white women would really get together. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- How rebellious were the settlers at this point toward the British crown rule? I felt that in the struggle between the British crown and the settlers, the mention of tyranny may have been a bit premature (at least to my knowledge on the topic), but I did like that there was a pre-revolution sense of injustice among the settlers. Was this premature or accurate for the time? - Elle Weaver &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remember that the British officers were condescending toward the colonial militia.  It&amp;#039;s not just the militiamen talking about the British tyranny that indicates the struggle.  First, when Duncan (Phelps?)tells Munro that the militiamen negotiated terms of service in the war, Munro responds something to the effect that that was just like them--the colonials think they can set their own terms.   And then, when Nathaniel is trying to tell Munro that  the militiamen&amp;#039;s families are either threatened or being killed, and they should be allowed to go back to defend, Munro says that they can&amp;#039;t go (they&amp;#039;d be shot if they did), because, essentially, that the threatened families are trivial in comparison to the army&amp;#039;s objectives.  He obviously sees himself/the army/the British in general as superior to them, and couldn&amp;#039;t care less about these men&amp;#039;s families.  This attitude is easy to recognize, and caps off the injustice.  But I think at that point the settlers wanted fair treatment and mainly hoped or believed that relations could still be mended with the mother country.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question:  is it at all a stretch that an angry Huron (Magwa) who wants revenge would want to cut out the heart of his enemy and burn his seed alive? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was wondering the same thing that Elle was about adopting white sons.  From what I remember learning in the past I don&amp;#039;t remember this.  What would make a tribe adopt members of the white race? What would make a white settler want to leave other colonists and join the Native Americans? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One issue I have with the movie is the accents.  I mean, what was going on with the different accents scattered throughout? Because based on Munro&amp;#039;s accent, he definitely did not raise his daughters and the colonists just seemed to be a bit off as well.  Was the &amp;quot;American accent&amp;quot; emerging this early? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- This may come across, unintentionally, as ignorant but were the Huron unusually violent? The reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;First Peoples&amp;#039;&amp;#039; explains that war parties came prepared with clothing and moccasins when abducting their captives which seems somewhat thoughtful. I know this doesn&amp;#039;t describe every war party, especially Magua&amp;#039;s tribe because we learn that he is going after Col. Munro in order to avenge his family&amp;#039;s death, but it was just something I kept in mind while watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039; since in the movie the Huron kill the settlers and pillage their homes. However, I chalked this up to being an example of the film&amp;#039;s historical inaccuracy. Again, this doesn&amp;#039;t pertain to all tribes but in the movie the women are called &amp;quot;dogs&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;slaves&amp;quot; were as in the reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;First Peoples&amp;#039;&amp;#039; it is said that women and children were treated well because they were being adopted into the  community. These two examples prove that the director&amp;#039;s main objective was to create an intriguing story. In my opinon, the movie was a little too concerned with the romantic aspect of history (i.e. good vs. evil), similar to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, rather than being a sound example of historical facts. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Minavavan reading focused on how the Algonkians had not accepted the English as the replacements for the French. Minavavan makes the distinction that just because the French might be out of the power struggle, the Algonkians were by no means going to cede their land and culture passively. &amp;quot;Englishmen, although you have conquered the French, you have not yet conquered us! We are not your slaves.&amp;quot; In the final sentences of Minavavan&amp;#039;s speech he insinuates a leeriness of the English, but acknowledges no aggression on their part- offering a peace pipe. Sadly, I think the movie took too much creative license and distorted the actual sentiments of the Native Americans (from what I can gather from this particular reading). In the movie the French and English made an agreement that the English would move on from the fort, but on their journey the English were ambushed by a band of native attackers. I think it is safe to say that the American Indians who had fought alongside the French would be upset with a changing of the guard, but I do not get the sense that they were willing to continue fighting independently. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: We&amp;#039;re guns already that accurate, in low light, at that point? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Ashley&amp;#039;s question - that is a big giant no.  I remember discussing the muskets used during this period in Dr. Hudgin&amp;#039;s  American Revolution class. At this period of time, a man was considered a good marksman if he could hit a barn door from 100 yards. When the weapons of this time period would fire, the bullet would shoot out of the barrel in a zig-zagging pattern, making it almost impossible to aim effectively. This means that Hawkeye&amp;#039;s heroic shooting of the ambushing Hurons as they tried to take out the messenger is just Hollywood&amp;#039;s creation of a good cinematic moment. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Abenakis Defy The English&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;: “When the United States held treaties with Indian Tribes in the nineteenth century, American Commissioners often dictated their terms and spoke down to Indian delegates with the arrogance of power. In colonial times the power balance was much more equal and Indian speakers often “gave as good as they got” in their negotiations with Europeans.”  I believe this movie is still portraying the Native- Euro relationship through the lens of the nineteenth century, as opposed to the relationship of the 17th and 18th centuries as conveyed in our primary source documents. At the end of the film when Hawkeye and his compatriots were going to rescue the Daughters Munro and Duncan the entire negotiation process was dominated by the romantic/ Anglo demands. The Sachem said that Cora was going to be put to death, but then Hawkeye and Duncan plead to get her off the hook. With seemingly no defense of his position, the sachem changes his mind. Firstly, the reading,  “A captive with the Abenakis” makes it seem as though death would not be the course of action taken against a captive, especially a woman. Secondly, I find it suspect that a Sachem would be so easily swayed in decision making.- Jason &lt;br /&gt;
Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Is this how we are now supposed to identify our &amp;quot;question&amp;quot; posts? I thought a simple question mark was a sufficient indicator. haha. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Answer: In response to Jason&amp;#039;s question, in terms of format it appears we are just sheep.  There is no official format, but amusing how it continues to be adopted ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Was the tribe fighting along the French in this film Patrilinial? Many times the Chief seemed to be obsessed with wiping out Munro&amp;#039;s seed. Or did he just understand that the English were Patrilinial and therefore wanted to make his contempt for Munro clear?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Watching the film it struck me how insistent Magua was about “wiping out the seed of the grey-haired man.”  It seemed unbelievable and if the Huron were matrilineal, it wouldn’t even make sense. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also liked how the movie portrayed the colonists as already at the time of the French and Indian War as having a national identity as basically Americans. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the film it seemed that the Native Americans mostly used guns at this point in time.  This doesn&amp;#039;t seem accurate; the film makes it seem like the Native Americans just dropped their native weapons and knew exactly how to shoot a gun within a few days.&lt;br /&gt;
--Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie seemed a bit off on any Native American sense of inevitability over colonist expansion over the continent, as we discussed in Tuesday&amp;#039;s lecture.  The Huron Sachem alluded to his tribe&amp;#039;s fears of white&amp;#039;s advancement, but Chingachgook&amp;#039;s speech just before the closing credits about how the land will change and everything in the future will belong to white men was incredibly heavy-handed. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing Dr. M told us to pay attention to was the dualist theme James Fenimore Cooper originally placed in his adventure tales.  A question arose when Alice (the other girl who is always with Cora) killed herself after the death of Uncas.  I wondered if the British really shared the same view of dying in honor as the Native Americans.  Alice dying in the same manner as Uncas seems like a very ritualistic, Native American style.  Was this scene implemented for dramatic effect or was the British-Mohican alliance that profound? - David Flores&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to David&amp;#039;s comment, this dramatic moment made little sense to me.  Although a flirtation had developed between Alice and Uncas throughout the course of the movie, there was no real development.  Once the sachem decided to spare the life of Alice and give her to Magua, Magua had become her master, and Alice part of the tribe. This meant that Magua would not consider raping her or inflicting harm. Once Alice jumped off the cliff, Magua didn&amp;#039;t seem to quite understand why she would do such a thing.  He even extended a hand out to her, to bring her back to the tribe once Uncas had been killed - but she of course chose to end her life, joining the fate of her doomed &amp;quot;lover&amp;quot; in dramatic Hollywood fashion.  ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye asked why the Indians would adopt white settlers. Calloway says on page 169 of &amp;quot;A Captive with the Abenakis,&amp;quot; the reason for the tribes to adopt white people was to replace those that had died, to balance out the population levels. The sachem of the Huron in which Magua belonged to in the movie seemed to adopt Alice into the tribe when he made her Magua&amp;#039;s wife to replace Magua&amp;#039;s dead children and to continue the Munro blood. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To comment on Elle’s question of “how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially,” I don’t think it was rare, for instance, on page 177 of  “A Captive with the Abenakis,” Susanna Willard mentions that her second master Gill married a woman of “true Indian blood.” Though Gill was well adopted into the Indian culture, he still had an interracial marriage. I think the issue is whether there were many intercultural marriages between captive whites and non-captive whites like the movie. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Last of the Mohicans there is a definite good vs. evil battle going on. There are good and bad Indians, the good being the 3 Mohicans who save everyone on countless occasions (who are also conveniently more civilized seeming and dressing) and the bad being the Hurons – especially Magwa. There are also clearly defined lines between colonial settlers and the British military. The military breaks its promises and uses the colonists for its own purposes, neglecting their rights to defend their families etc. They are of course not as bad as the French who work with the bad Indians who ambush the British. In short, there are any levels of good and evil but they are clearly defined. This could be an appropriate source to describe how settlers would feel about this conflict. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going off of Elle&amp;#039;s comment about &amp;quot;Good vs. Bad,&amp;quot; you could definitely see a bit of bias throughout the movie.  Magwa and the Huron&amp;#039;s were the &amp;quot;bad guys&amp;quot; in the film definitely indicating strong anti-French sentiments throughout.  It&amp;#039;s clear that, if this were based explicitly on Cooper&amp;#039;s novel, that it is definitely from the point of view of the British.  It just emphasizes that this war was fought on multiple levels and it shows how often the Native Americans were &amp;quot;trapped&amp;quot; into picking sides.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie had good insight as to how the settlers felt about fighting a British/French war. Where it was obvious that some showed a loyalty to Great Britain it was clear that most truly didn&amp;#039;t think of themselves as under British rule.  Many clearly didn&amp;#039;t want to fight but preferred to be with those on the frontier. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is more of a question about the Onandogas and Cayugas reading, but I noticed that they used the word &amp;quot;Sachem&amp;quot; frequently and even to describe some of the colonists.  I know sachems were like chieftans, so was this a term of respect in regards to the colonists as well? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, I interpret the usage of sachem by the Indians for the European authority figures as a sign of respect, but also their interpretation of what the equivalent position of the colonists. The Indians, from my understanding by the reading, didn&amp;#039;t have the hierarchy in the same way the Europeans did. Through interpretation,a word like general equaled sachem because there was no word for general in their language. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know Hawkeye’s past isn’t completely far-fetched, one of the readings even mentioned a fellow who had been captured by Indians as a boy and spent several years with them, but I wonder how common it was. How often did Natives accept white kids as their own? --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Captivity Narrative is a really great source to contrast with not just this movie, but any movie about Native American/white interactions at the time. The Natives sound to be about as nice as they could be, given the situation. While Susanna Johnson is quite whiny and put-upon, I don&amp;#039;t think the Natives were attempting to torture her. It was just a cultural difference, since English women were too dainty for forest travel (though giving birth in the woods is impressive). Interestingly, the main woman in the movie was quite a trooper (too much so?), especially when contrasted with this source. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Did they actually battle at night like that?  (Like around 37 minutes into the film) --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the film does show how seeds were laid in this war for the later American Revolution. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Comparing the film to the Captivity Narrative, the film showed mostly that Indians would torture their captives and burn them at stakes for sacrifices.  In the Captivity Narrative, it states that many of the tribes before the war would take you captive and adopt you into their families or replace a deceased relatives with you. How common was this?  --Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way the Indians treated prisoners in the reading seemed to ring in common with the movie except for one aspect it does not seem likely that the Indians would have though of burning the girl instead of the man in relation to the readings because they tended to treat women kindly. If they had a British officer it would be more likely they would ransom him rather than just let him go or kill him. When Mogwa took the women prisoner it did not seem he had any ill will towards her and seemed to treat her fairly well. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing that bothered me throughout the movie was Duncan.  How could he openly lie to Munroe about the deal made with the colonists about being allowed to go back to the frontier if their homes were attacked?  This was a decision made by his superior officer and then he openly defied it when he lied to Munroe. Were such dynamics between British officers common? Of course, in grand Hollywood fashion, all of Duncan&amp;#039;s trespasses are forgiven when he surrenders himself to the Huron&amp;#039;s need for vengeance to save Alice.  Another point - would Native American tribes, like the Huron, ever choose to burn a British officer when they could instead ransom him? - Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie definitely represents the time in which it was made. First of all, the early to mid 1990s seemed to be a good time to make movies about Native Americans (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Geronimo, and probably more). One reason could be that, in 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was passed, as was the Native American Languages Act. While these weren&amp;#039;t really spectacularly progressive, our gov&amp;#039;t was at least showing a recognition of their rights. It seemed to be something of a turning point in the way we looked at Native Americans (or perhaps it made us look at them in the first place). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie represents classic American culture. That sense that we emerged from a nation of frontiersmen who had to fight for everything they wanted with their women right beside them. There&amp;#039;s Hawkeye who lives with the Indians and can shoot anything no matter how far away and right beside him is Cora who when the battle gets rough pulls out a gun and kills an Indian to save herself and her sister. However, her noticeably weaker sister doesn&amp;#039;t survive in the end. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Christine that the movie in many ways played into the traditional ideas of our frontier spirit in America, especially with the blonde frontiersman who appears to lead the militia. The movie also played into the idea of the noble savage in many ways. Hawkeye, though brought up by Native Americans, is of Anglo descent and served as a way for whites to envision themselves as Indians. But the true Indians in the movie, especially Magua and the Huron, embody the view of the natives as savages for their underhanded and brutal tactics in battle. Even the &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; Indians fall into the traditional &amp;quot;noble savage&amp;quot; paradigm as they rarely speak in the movie, only really at the end do you get an idea of what the Father is thinking. Ultimately this movie would fit right into the noble savage canon. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Last of the Mohicans is a good representation of how people in the 1990s liked their movies: epics with a historical setting, graphic violence, and a love story.  Braveheart, Dances With Wolves, even Titanic.  In Cooper&amp;#039;s novel, Hawkeye saves Col. Munro from Magua; in the film we get to see our main antagonist cut out the colonel&amp;#039;s heart.  Also in the book, Alice and Duncan live happily ever after, and Cora&amp;#039;s relationship with Hawkeye is nonexistent.  The sweeping, tragic ending of the 1992 adaptation was more palatable to modern audiences.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I see Last of the Mohicans as a film made for the baby boom generation. Most of who would be in their late 30s/mid 40s at this point. Films like this feature, as McClurken put it, the archetypal American hero that baby boomers grew up worshipping. I liken Hawkeye to the Lone Ranger. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:52, 10 September 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely see Dr. McClurken&amp;#039;s comparison to Mad Max. Daniel Day Lewis might as well have been making those miraculously accurate shots with two muskets in his hands on a motorcycle trapped in the Thunder Dome! The film was period-but the action scenes were for modern day viewers. We are still doing it. 300 (one of my all time favorite historically based action films) is an amazingly great film adaptation of a graphic novel for one, and two, it does a commendable job at portraying Spartan life socially, militarily, and legendarily. However, the cinematography and action sequences are meant to be more than simply accurate. Even if, like in the case of &amp;quot;Mohicans&amp;quot;, scalping is appropriately gruesome entertainment, the action needs to be cut and edited just so, in order to appeal to modern day audiences. Even in 1927, Howard Hughes knew it when filming his war epic &amp;quot;Hell&amp;#039;s Angels&amp;quot;. You can&amp;#039;t just show the feats of war and battle, you have to make it so grandiose that the viewer is there in the sense of their fear and adrenaline. I was disappointed in this aspect of the film. For an acclaimed method actor, Daniel Day Lewis sounded way to much like a 20th century, highly moral tough guy with a heart of gold but a chip on his shoulder, not a white guy raised by native Americans in the 18th century.  --A. Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to point this out - near the end please notice that there is an extremely fake rock that Nathaniel (AKA DDL) pushes off of in his hurry to stop his brother from attacking Magwa and company. It shakes but Daniel Day Lewis pays no mind - he can make rocks shake like that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, now I&amp;#039;m not sure if this is applicable to the discussion or not, but in my opinion this is the type of movie that causes people to stop watching historical films.  Yes, there were a lot of good things about it when it came to accuracy, but it was just so dull throughout.  Now, &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; may have been one of the least accurate movies ever created, but it had a more interesting (and I use that word loosely) storyline.  Do we think that there is a way to balance the two out?  Is it possible to have a historical movie that is both relatively accurate and entertaining? I understand that it may also be too early in the semester to judge since we&amp;#039;re only on our second movie, but I suppose it is something to think about. (Now, I could be alone in my critique of the movie because I had heard excellent reviews about it but I&amp;#039;m sorry, I don&amp;#039;t think you could get me to sit and watch it again.)  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to begin by saying that I love the music in this movie. However, it does not cancel out the way I feel about the rest of the movie. I agree with Kelly in that I don&amp;#039;t think I could watch it another time. Clips and pieces of the movie were interesting but overall I found it somewhat dry and boring. I wish the fight scene at the end was a little more dramatic and detailed but instead it just went by quickly. I guess that is up to the discretion of the director. The movie has it&amp;#039;s moments but at times I found myself wanting the movie to hurry up to the next scene. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with everyone so far. This movie was boring as sin, completely not what I expected. I had always heard people talk about it so well, like a classic! While it was pretty and the music was nice, it was dull (even the battles), graphic, and once again, almost everyone in the movie is fluent in at least 2-3 languages. The &amp;quot;love story&amp;quot; is ridiculously bad, much like John Smith/Pocahontas. Perhaps people did have lower standards back then, and didn&amp;#039;t take as much time to get to know each other, but this true love in only 24 hours phenom just makes movies seem more unrealistic. Besides, the good Indian v. bad Indian seemed a little heavy-handed. If we were to have a movie where a &amp;quot;savage&amp;quot; had killed the English governor&amp;#039;s daughter and wife and entire town, it would be a portrayal of a white guy seeking justice, NOT being an evil murderer. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Just have to put this in here - I liked this movie.  In fact enough people seemed to like this movie enough to grant it re-run space on TNT. Certainly there was no &amp;quot;Color of the Wind&amp;quot; moments, but there is something just beautiful about Daniel Day Lewis running through the forest with a half torn shirt. ~Juliann Boyles &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually, there has to be a willing suspension of disbelief for movies, but I still couldn’t help but wonder what the chances were that the main characters would be the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;only&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ones to escape in both attacks. In this case, the expendable red shirts were literally wearing red shirts! Seriously though, what happened to the men in the canoe with Duncan during the massacre? I didn’t see them hiding out below the waterfall later on… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All in all, it could have been a good movie, but for one thing-- the contrived romance. It sorta of ruined the viewing pleasure for me, though it was pretty funny sometimes. After all, we had such gems as this exchange:&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora: What are you looking at?&lt;br /&gt;
        *long pause*&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye: I’m looking at you.&lt;br /&gt;
        *even longer pause*&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora stares at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora stares at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora smiles at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye smiles at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, that’s some great writing there. Really. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Haha, that&amp;#039;s funny.--Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember that I purchased this movie many years ago, however I never tried to look at it in any sort of historical aspect, so I viewed it from a different light this time.  I also hadn&amp;#039;t watched the movie in quite a while, so I had forgotten quite a bit of it.  Although something that I do find annoying in almost all films, the women can go through hell and back and only their hair is a little messed up but their make up still looks perfect.  Stupid films and trying to say that women need to be skinny with big chests with perfect hair and faces... -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Okay- some definitely poor writing here and there for sure... and Duncan all of a sudden becoming conveniently noble... and some hokey romantic moments where Cora&amp;#039;s like (paraphrased) &amp;quot;Wow, I really misjudged you&amp;quot; and Nathaniel Po is like &amp;quot;Yeah, so what?&amp;quot; and Cora, &amp;quot;You&amp;#039;re pretty deep aren&amp;#039;t you?&amp;quot; and then they make-out. But really I don&amp;#039;t blame them. What producer would okay the killing-off of the incredibly sexy Madeline Stowe? She is a super strong character without ever getting nearly as cheesey as Daniel Day&amp;#039;s character. She didn&amp;#039;t need to redeem herself by dying tragically, as we often require in a film like this (ergo the death of her pretty but much frailer sister). Any big box-office movie that is going to be violently graphic, therefore limiting the age of its audience, needs to attract as many viewers as possible, which means include plenty of sex appeal. We all know this.--A. Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Did Native Americans pose as a different tribe during the war like Magua did? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Because this movie was a book first and the movie is based on the book and subsequent movies should we be judging it for its historical accuracy or how well it followed the book? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though the book has a historical setting it is fiction and unlike Pocahontas is not based on anything specific so can we hold it to the same standards? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To answer Christine&amp;#039;s question, I don&amp;#039;t think this movie should be held to the same standards as movie such as Pocahontas since it is not based on one specific event.  And, as we discussed in class James Fenimore Cooper had never met a Native American before, and what he knew of them came from other people, so it&amp;#039;s understandable that he might have a skewed impression of Native Americans in his books.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely have to agree with Amanda&amp;#039;s point that all of the major Native American characters in the film are perfectly good or completely bad.  In fact, the only morally ambiguous characters in the entire film are Duncan and Col. Munro!  The Cora/Hawkeye love story, undoubtedly added to attract viewers, sometimes seems like comic relief.  Although I like the film, I recognize that it has numerous flaws.  Someone should have told the costume department that Daniel Day Lewis looked like he came straight off the cover of a romance novel, and not just in his shirtless scene.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The character of Mogwa was very interesting to me when I watched this movie. The movie portrays him as a monstrous savage and a villian, but if you actually pay attention to what he says about what happened to him how could one not feel just a little bit sympathetic for him. He obviously had some serious justifications for his rage although the movie focuses so much on his violence that he can be portrayed as just another bad guy. What really ends up striking me with this movie is how certain groups of people are glorified and others are condemned. -Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again I find the dialog a little stereotypical. Why does Col. Munro have a strong accent and his daughter do not. Why does Mogwa speak in third person?--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the fighting tactics to be pretty accurate. The English really weren&amp;#039;t ready for that kind of fighting.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 3 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-11T06:37:09Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1a Right: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A common theme that is definitely true in real history (mentioned in lecture as well as World Turned Upside Down/Calloway article) as well as its portrayal in Last of the Mohicans, is that Native Americans gained little from interactions with Europeans, and they lost everything (their land, their race, their culture, their lives). Hence, the last of the Mohicans. In that respect this film did a good job of demonstrating (if even to the slightest degree) the plight of the Indian race due to European involvement. -Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Cora had to ask Nathaniel why the murdered family was isolated, to which he responded that after 7 years of indentured servitude in VA, these people needed to go somewhere farther away to get any land.  That seems right that she, the daughter of a general, raised in London, would not be fully aware of the causes for some threats the settlers faced, of some of the less obvious issues that helped  make the war what it was. -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I can see why the Mohicans didn&amp;#039;t want to bury the family that they came across while they were running.  It makes sense that if they were to move them others would know that someone had been there. Was it common for the Native Americans to try to cover their tracks? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Last of the Mohicans does a good job at depicting the past as many examples arise in the movie, such as the costumes that are accurately portrayed, as well as the battle scenes (Indian guerilla warfare vs. the organized European style), along with the Indian and European interactions.  It was interesting to note that the movie shows the notion that Indians absorbed certain European ethics; For example, as the Indian reported to his chief with the women prisoners, he also ambitiously expressed his concerns about seizing and controlling other Indian territories while capitalizing on trade with the French.  His plans of takeover sound parallel the plan of the English.  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Indians probably viewed themselves differently after interacting with Europeans over a period of time, as Europeans have probably viewed themselves differently after interacting with the Indians.  The movie also does a good job at portraying how a European might have turned out if raised by Indians, and to a lesser extent, the movie slightly portrays what aspects may have attracted Europeans to the lifestyle of Indians, or in some cases, what may have repelled Europeans from wanting to live like some Indians.  Daniel Day seemed to have enjoyed living the Indian lifestyle, showing no desire to return to European ways, while on the other hand the little girl would rather have jumped off a cliff than have continued her journey with what she may have thought to be brutal savages.  Overall good movie and historically accurate.        James D.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It was also obvious in the movie how easily the Native Americans could play the settlers off of each other.  It was effortless, or so it seemed to us, for Magua to act as a scout for the British, but secretly support the French because of what he would get out of that relationship.  That was something we definitely studied and I thought the movie did a decent job representing that. -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the backdrop of the movie was actually fairly historically accurate. It captured British superiority towards the colonists and the beginnings of the tensions that would lead to the Revolution. Also, the British did surrender to the French at Fort William Henry and they were attacked by the Indians as they left the area. Of course, the attack had more to do with the Natives wanting their promised war spoils rather than one vengeful leader, but the movie did show that the Indians started retracting their alliances with the French following the fort’s surrender. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;Right&amp;#039; in this case is totally different in regard to the original book or to history. While looking through some of the chapters of the book, I was actually shocked to know that they called Hawkeye &amp;#039;The Long Rifle.&amp;#039; I can&amp;#039;t lie, I thought that was totally 1990s Native American sexual innuendo. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The European mindset that they held the right to control the country and live on and dominate the land as they saw fit seemed pretty accurate to me, not to be too harsh. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The mindset that the land was for the taking (by England).  The movie also managed the &amp;#039;superiority complex&amp;#039; of the British army towards the colonist militia.  The costuming and makeup departments seem to have been able to get the &amp;#039;look&amp;#039; of the Mohican as compared to the picture shown to us in class on Tuesday. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
A far as the historical accuracy of the films is concerned, I was pleased to read in the articles that Indian adoptions of colonists were actually practiced.  This at least means the basis of Nathaniel as adopted is sound. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To me, the way the movie portrayed the Europeans and the Native Americans fighting was accurate.  They showed the Europeans fighting in neat, organized rows, with an officer telling them when to shoot, while the Native Americans were shown fighting all over, and without someone to tell them when and where to shoot.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To piggy back on what Katherine mentioned, I too agreed that the movie appeared to depict the manner in which the different groups fought rather well. As was mentioned in the lecture, the Native Americans adapted the technologies to their own liking. Thus they used rifles when applicable, but did not abandon their tomahawks or war clubs. Also it was accurate in the way in which the colonists were not treated well by the British regulars and it did well (though maybe a bit heavy-handed) to illustrate this tension. A last detail that the movie seemed to get right was the way in which both the French and the British used the various tribes with little regard for the Native Americans&amp;#039; interests. Mohicans are decimated and the Huron (and Magua) are left to act at the whim of the French. Though the tribes may have been allied with a European power the movie shows that in the end they were to be left out of the spoils of victory. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
There were a few things that rang true to me throughout the movie. The mention that the tribes eventually played off each other and the warring Europeans was reinforced very well throughout the movie. Magua&amp;#039;s evil cunning was evidenced in all it&amp;#039;s brutal glory(?) as he literally hacked and slashed through anyone that opposed him, paying no mind to who he betrays in the process. The French-British and British-American hostilities also seemed very accurate to me. While Manifest Destiny would soon destroy much of the pre-existing diplomacy between the Americans and Indians, for now both sides fully understood that they had to be united to stave off any hostilities forced on them by the other Europeans. Finally, as Mallory said above, the European imperialism struck me as unfortunately accurate as well. As the intro text explained, it was a battle for control of the nation. -Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is kind of on the border between right and wrong, but when Hawkeye was walking toward the Sachem and was being &amp;quot;attacked&amp;quot; by the Huron, I think that was a sort of running the gauntlet. Although it was a bit more brutal than the one Susanna Johnson described, I could imagine they could possibly do something along those lines. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:36, 10 September 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Most of the inaccuracies from this movie seem to come not from the actual facts themselves, but from the way the movie singles out certain aspects while leaving other aspects out. For instance it was true that militias had very unhappy men and in many cases were willing to desert. The movie, however seems to glorify these men by only showing this one aspect of the colonial family man just wanting to go home. This movie does incorporate several aspects that are true, but it conveniently leaves other facts out resulting in a false impression of what is actually going on. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought the movie was incredibly accurate in overall use of little historical details mixed in.  The French success in forming Indian alliances through gift-giving was reflected in the earliest scene with Le Marquis, the movie made very clear how the Huron were hurt by the terms of surrender at Ft. William Henry, the Mohawk were shown to be the most cooperative nation of Iroquois with the British during the rally on the farm at the beginning of the movie, and so on... - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- I know it was not all that uncommon for a Native American tribe to adopt “white sons” like Hawkeye or Nathaniel, but how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially. In this case the Mohicans had no women left and therefore had no other option, but I wondered if it was likely that Native Americans and white women would really get together. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- How rebellious were the settlers at this point toward the British crown rule? I felt that in the struggle between the British crown and the settlers, the mention of tyranny may have been a bit premature (at least to my knowledge on the topic), but I did like that there was a pre-revolution sense of injustice among the settlers. Was this premature or accurate for the time? - Elle Weaver &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Remember that the British officers were condescending toward the colonial militia.  It&amp;#039;s not just the militiamen talking about the British tyranny that indicates the struggle.  First, when Duncan (Phelps?)tells Munro that the militiamen negotiated terms of service in the war, Munro responds something to the effect that that was just like them--the colonials think they can set their own terms.   And then, when Nathaniel is trying to tell Munro that  the militiamen&amp;#039;s families are either threatened or being killed, and they should be allowed to go back to defend, Munro says that they can&amp;#039;t go (they&amp;#039;d be shot if they did), because, essentially, that the threatened families are trivial in comparison to the army&amp;#039;s objectives.  He obviously sees himself/the army/the British in general as superior to them, and couldn&amp;#039;t care less about these men&amp;#039;s families.  This attitude is easy to recognize, and caps off the injustice.  But I think at that point the settlers wanted fair treatment and mainly hoped or believed that relations could still be mended with the mother country.  -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question:  is it at all a stretch that an angry Huron (Magwa) who wants revenge would want to cut out the heart of his enemy and burn his seed alive? -Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was wondering the same thing that Elle was about adopting white sons.  From what I remember learning in the past I don&amp;#039;t remember this.  What would make a tribe adopt members of the white race? What would make a white settler want to leave other colonists and join the Native Americans? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One issue I have with the movie is the accents.  I mean, what was going on with the different accents scattered throughout? Because based on Munro&amp;#039;s accent, he definitely did not raise his daughters and the colonists just seemed to be a bit off as well.  Was the &amp;quot;American accent&amp;quot; emerging this early? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question- This may come across, unintentionally, as ignorant but were the Huron unusually violent? The reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;First Peoples&amp;#039;&amp;#039; explains that war parties came prepared with clothing and moccasins when abducting their captives which seems somewhat thoughtful. I know this doesn&amp;#039;t describe every war party, especially Magua&amp;#039;s tribe because we learn that he is going after Col. Munro in order to avenge his family&amp;#039;s death, but it was just something I kept in mind while watching &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Last of the Mohicans&amp;#039;&amp;#039; since in the movie the Huron kill the settlers and pillage their homes. However, I chalked this up to being an example of the film&amp;#039;s historical inaccuracy. Again, this doesn&amp;#039;t pertain to all tribes but in the movie the women are called &amp;quot;dogs&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;slaves&amp;quot; were as in the reading &amp;#039;&amp;#039;First Peoples&amp;#039;&amp;#039; it is said that women and children were treated well because they were being adopted into the  community. These two examples prove that the director&amp;#039;s main objective was to create an intriguing story. In my opinon, the movie was a little too concerned with the romantic aspect of history (i.e. good vs. evil), similar to &amp;#039;&amp;#039;Pocahontas&amp;#039;&amp;#039;, rather than being a sound example of historical facts. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Minavavan reading focused on how the Algonkians had not accepted the English as the replacements for the French. Minavavan makes the distinction that just because the French might be out of the power struggle, the Algonkians were by no means going to cede their land and culture passively. &amp;quot;Englishmen, although you have conquered the French, you have not yet conquered us! We are not your slaves.&amp;quot; In the final sentences of Minavavan&amp;#039;s speech he insinuates a leeriness of the English, but acknowledges no aggression on their part- offering a peace pipe. Sadly, I think the movie took too much creative license and distorted the actual sentiments of the Native Americans (from what I can gather from this particular reading). In the movie the French and English made an agreement that the English would move on from the fort, but on their journey the English were ambushed by a band of native attackers. I think it is safe to say that the American Indians who had fought alongside the French would be upset with a changing of the guard, but I do not get the sense that they were willing to continue fighting independently. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: We&amp;#039;re guns already that accurate, in low light, at that point? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Abenakis Defy The English&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;: “When the United States held treaties with Indian Tribes in the nineteenth century, American Commissioners often dictated their terms and spoke down to Indian delegates with the arrogance of power. In colonial times the power balance was much more equal and Indian speakers often “gave as good as they got” in their negotiations with Europeans.”  I believe this movie is still portraying the Native- Euro relationship through the lens of the nineteenth century, as opposed to the relationship of the 17th and 18th centuries as conveyed in our primary source documents. At the end of the film when Hawkeye and his compatriots were going to rescue the Daughters Munro and Duncan the entire negotiation process was dominated by the romantic/ Anglo demands. The Sachem said that Cora was going to be put to death, but then Hawkeye and Duncan plead to get her off the hook. With seemingly no defense of his position, the sachem changes his mind. Firstly, the reading,  “A captive with the Abenakis” makes it seem as though death would not be the course of action taken against a captive, especially a woman. Secondly, I find it suspect that a Sachem would be so easily swayed in decision making.- Jason &lt;br /&gt;
Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Is this how we are now supposed to identify our &amp;quot;question&amp;quot; posts? I thought a simple question mark was a sufficient indicator. haha. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Was the tribe fighting along the French in this film Patrilinial? Many times the Chief seemed to be obsessed with wiping out Munro&amp;#039;s seed. Or did he just understand that the English were Patrilinial and therefore wanted to make his contempt for Munro clear?- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Watching the film it struck me how insistent Magua was about “wiping out the seed of the grey-haired man.”  It seemed unbelievable and if the Huron were matrilineal, it wouldn’t even make sense. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I also liked how the movie portrayed the colonists as already at the time of the French and Indian War as having a national identity as basically Americans. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Based on the film it seemed that the Native Americans mostly used guns at this point in time.  This doesn&amp;#039;t seem accurate; the film makes it seem like the Native Americans just dropped their native weapons and knew exactly how to shoot a gun within a few days.&lt;br /&gt;
--Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie seemed a bit off on any Native American sense of inevitability over colonist expansion over the continent, as we discussed in Tuesday&amp;#039;s lecture.  The Huron Sachem alluded to his tribe&amp;#039;s fears of white&amp;#039;s advancement, but Chingachgook&amp;#039;s speech just before the closing credits about how the land will change and everything in the future will belong to white men was incredibly heavy-handed. - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing Dr. M told us to pay attention to was the dualist theme James Fenimore Cooper originally placed in his adventure tales.  A question arose when Alice (the other girl who is always with Cora) killed herself after the death of Uncas.  I wondered if the British really shared the same view of dying in honor as the Native Americans.  Alice dying in the same manner as Uncas seems like a very ritualistic, Native American style.  Was this scene implemented for dramatic effect or was the British-Mohican alliance that profound? - David Flores&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 2 Film&amp;#039;s relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kellye asked why the Indians would adopt white settlers. Calloway says on page 169 of &amp;quot;A Captive with the Abenakis,&amp;quot; the reason for the tribes to adopt white people was to replace those that had died, to balance out the population levels. The sachem of the Huron in which Magua belonged to in the movie seemed to adopt Alice into the tribe when he made her Magua&amp;#039;s wife to replace Magua&amp;#039;s dead children and to continue the Munro blood. -Lauren &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To comment on Elle’s question of “how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially,” I don’t think it was rare, for instance, on page 177 of  “A Captive with the Abenakis,” Susanna Willard mentions that her second master Gill married a woman of “true Indian blood.” Though Gill was well adopted into the Indian culture, he still had an interracial marriage. I think the issue is whether there were many intercultural marriages between captive whites and non-captive whites like the movie. -Lauren&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In Last of the Mohicans there is a definite good vs. evil battle going on. There are good and bad Indians, the good being the 3 Mohicans who save everyone on countless occasions (who are also conveniently more civilized seeming and dressing) and the bad being the Hurons – especially Magwa. There are also clearly defined lines between colonial settlers and the British military. The military breaks its promises and uses the colonists for its own purposes, neglecting their rights to defend their families etc. They are of course not as bad as the French who work with the bad Indians who ambush the British. In short, there are any levels of good and evil but they are clearly defined. This could be an appropriate source to describe how settlers would feel about this conflict. - Elle Weaver&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Going off of Elle&amp;#039;s comment about &amp;quot;Good vs. Bad,&amp;quot; you could definitely see a bit of bias throughout the movie.  Magwa and the Huron&amp;#039;s were the &amp;quot;bad guys&amp;quot; in the film definitely indicating strong anti-French sentiments throughout.  It&amp;#039;s clear that, if this were based explicitly on Cooper&amp;#039;s novel, that it is definitely from the point of view of the British.  It just emphasizes that this war was fought on multiple levels and it shows how often the Native Americans were &amp;quot;trapped&amp;quot; into picking sides.  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think that the movie had good insight as to how the settlers felt about fighting a British/French war. Where it was obvious that some showed a loyalty to Great Britain it was clear that most truly didn&amp;#039;t think of themselves as under British rule.  Many clearly didn&amp;#039;t want to fight but preferred to be with those on the frontier. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This is more of a question about the Onandogas and Cayugas reading, but I noticed that they used the word &amp;quot;Sachem&amp;quot; frequently and even to describe some of the colonists.  I know sachems were like chieftans, so was this a term of respect in regards to the colonists as well? -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, I interpret the usage of sachem by the Indians for the European authority figures as a sign of respect, but also their interpretation of what the equivalent position of the colonists. The Indians, from my understanding by the reading, didn&amp;#039;t have the hierarchy in the same way the Europeans did. Through interpretation,a word like general equaled sachem because there was no word for general in their language. -Lauren  &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know Hawkeye’s past isn’t completely far-fetched, one of the readings even mentioned a fellow who had been captured by Indians as a boy and spent several years with them, but I wonder how common it was. How often did Natives accept white kids as their own? --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The Captivity Narrative is a really great source to contrast with not just this movie, but any movie about Native American/white interactions at the time. The Natives sound to be about as nice as they could be, given the situation. While Susanna Johnson is quite whiny and put-upon, I don&amp;#039;t think the Natives were attempting to torture her. It was just a cultural difference, since English women were too dainty for forest travel (though giving birth in the woods is impressive). Interestingly, the main woman in the movie was quite a trooper (too much so?), especially when contrasted with this source. --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Did they actually battle at night like that?  (Like around 37 minutes into the film) --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think the film does show how seeds were laid in this war for the later American Revolution. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
 &lt;br /&gt;
Comparing the film to the Captivity Narrative, the film showed mostly that Indians would torture their captives and burn them at stakes for sacrifices.  In the Captivity Narrative, it states that many of the tribes before the war would take you captive and adopt you into their families or replace a deceased relatives with you. How common was this?  --Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The way the Indians treated prisoners in the reading seemed to ring in common with the movie except for one aspect it does not seem likely that the Indians would have though of burning the girl instead of the man in relation to the readings because they tended to treat women kindly. If they had a British officer it would be more likely they would ransom him rather than just let him go or kill him. When Mogwa took the women prisoner it did not seem he had any ill will towards her and seemed to treat her fairly well. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This movie definitely represents the time in which it was made. First of all, the early to mid 1990s seemed to be a good time to make movies about Native Americans (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Geronimo, and probably more). One reason could be that, in 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was passed, as was the Native American Languages Act. While these weren&amp;#039;t really spectacularly progressive, our gov&amp;#039;t was at least showing a recognition of their rights. It seemed to be something of a turning point in the way we looked at Native Americans (or perhaps it made us look at them in the first place). --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie represents classic American culture. That sense that we emerged from a nation of frontiersmen who had to fight for everything they wanted with their women right beside them. There&amp;#039;s Hawkeye who lives with the Indians and can shoot anything no matter how far away and right beside him is Cora who when the battle gets rough pulls out a gun and kills an Indian to save herself and her sister. However, her noticeably weaker sister doesn&amp;#039;t survive in the end. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Christine that the movie in many ways played into the traditional ideas of our frontier spirit in America, especially with the blonde frontiersman who appears to lead the militia. The movie also played into the idea of the noble savage in many ways. Hawkeye, though brought up by Native Americans, is of Anglo descent and served as a way for whites to envision themselves as Indians. But the true Indians in the movie, especially Magua and the Huron, embody the view of the natives as savages for their underhanded and brutal tactics in battle. Even the &amp;quot;good&amp;quot; Indians fall into the traditional &amp;quot;noble savage&amp;quot; paradigm as they rarely speak in the movie, only really at the end do you get an idea of what the Father is thinking. Ultimately this movie would fit right into the noble savage canon. -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Last of the Mohicans is a good representation of how people in the 1990s liked their movies: epics with a historical setting, graphic violence, and a love story.  Braveheart, Dances With Wolves, even Titanic.  In Cooper&amp;#039;s novel, Hawkeye saves Col. Munro from Magua; in the film we get to see our main antagonist cut out the colonel&amp;#039;s heart.  Also in the book, Alice and Duncan live happily ever after, and Cora&amp;#039;s relationship with Hawkeye is nonexistent.  The sweeping, tragic ending of the 1992 adaptation was more palatable to modern audiences.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I see Last of the Mohicans as a film made for the baby boom generation. Most of who would be in their late 30s/mid 40s at this point. Films like this feature, as McClurken put it, the archetypal American hero that baby boomers grew up worshipping. I liken Hawkeye to the Lone Ranger. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:52, 10 September 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely see Dr. McClurken&amp;#039;s comparison to Mad Max. Daniel Day Lewis might as well have been making those miraculously accurate shots with two muskets in his hands on a motorcycle trapped in the Thunder Dome! The film was period-but the action scenes were for modern day viewers. We are still doing it. 300 (one of my all time favorite historically based action films) is an amazingly great film adaptation of a graphic novel for one, and two, it does a commendable job at portraying Spartan life socially, militarily, and legendarily. However, the cinematography and action sequences are meant to be more than simply accurate. Even if, like in the case of &amp;quot;Mohicans&amp;quot;, scalping is appropriately gruesome entertainment, the action needs to be cut and edited just so, in order to appeal to modern day audiences. Even in 1927, Howard Hughes knew it when filming his war epic &amp;quot;Hell&amp;#039;s Angels&amp;quot;. You can&amp;#039;t just show the feats of war and battle, you have to make it so grandiose that the viewer is there in the sense of their fear and adrenaline. I was disappointed in this aspect of the film. For an acclaimed method actor, Daniel Day Lewis sounded way to much like a 20th century, highly moral tough guy with a heart of gold but a chip on his shoulder, not a white guy raised by native Americans in the 18th century.  --A. Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
== 5 Overall ==&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to point this out - near the end please notice that there is an extremely fake rock that Nathaniel (AKA DDL) pushes off of in his hurry to stop his brother from attacking Magwa and company. It shakes but Daniel Day Lewis pays no mind - he can make rocks shake like that.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Overall, now I&amp;#039;m not sure if this is applicable to the discussion or not, but in my opinion this is the type of movie that causes people to stop watching historical films.  Yes, there were a lot of good things about it when it came to accuracy, but it was just so dull throughout.  Now, &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; may have been one of the least accurate movies ever created, but it had a more interesting (and I use that word loosely) storyline.  Do we think that there is a way to balance the two out?  Is it possible to have a historical movie that is both relatively accurate and entertaining? I understand that it may also be too early in the semester to judge since we&amp;#039;re only on our second movie, but I suppose it is something to think about. (Now, I could be alone in my critique of the movie because I had heard excellent reviews about it but I&amp;#039;m sorry, I don&amp;#039;t think you could get me to sit and watch it again.)  -Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I would like to begin by saying that I love the music in this movie. However, it does not cancel out the way I feel about the rest of the movie. I agree with Kelly in that I don&amp;#039;t think I could watch it another time. Clips and pieces of the movie were interesting but overall I found it somewhat dry and boring. I wish the fight scene at the end was a little more dramatic and detailed but instead it just went by quickly. I guess that is up to the discretion of the director. The movie has it&amp;#039;s moments but at times I found myself wanting the movie to hurry up to the next scene. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with everyone so far. This movie was boring as sin, completely not what I expected. I had always heard people talk about it so well, like a classic! While it was pretty and the music was nice, it was dull (even the battles), graphic, and once again, almost everyone in the movie is fluent in at least 2-3 languages. The &amp;quot;love story&amp;quot; is ridiculously bad, much like John Smith/Pocahontas. Perhaps people did have lower standards back then, and didn&amp;#039;t take as much time to get to know each other, but this true love in only 24 hours phenom just makes movies seem more unrealistic. Besides, the good Indian v. bad Indian seemed a little heavy-handed. If we were to have a movie where a &amp;quot;savage&amp;quot; had killed the English governor&amp;#039;s daughter and wife and entire town, it would be a portrayal of a white guy seeking justice, NOT being an evil murderer. -- Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Usually, there has to be a willing suspension of disbelief for movies, but I still couldn’t help but wonder what the chances were that the main characters would be the &amp;#039;&amp;#039;only&amp;#039;&amp;#039; ones to escape in both attacks. In this case, the expendable red shirts were literally wearing red shirts! Seriously though, what happened to the men in the canoe with Duncan during the massacre? I didn’t see them hiding out below the waterfall later on… --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
All in all, it could have been a good movie, but for one thing-- the contrived romance. It sorta of ruined the viewing pleasure for me, though it was pretty funny sometimes. After all, we had such gems as this exchange:&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora: What are you looking at?&lt;br /&gt;
        *long pause*&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye: I’m looking at you.&lt;br /&gt;
        *even longer pause*&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora stares at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora stares at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye stares at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
        Cora smiles at Hawkeye.&lt;br /&gt;
        Hawkeye smiles at Cora.&lt;br /&gt;
Yeah, that’s some great writing there. Really. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Haha, that&amp;#039;s funny.--Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I remember that I purchased this movie many years ago, however I never tried to look at it in any sort of historical aspect, so I viewed it from a different light this time.  I also hadn&amp;#039;t watched the movie in quite a while, so I had forgotten quite a bit of it.  Although something that I do find annoying in almost all films, the women can go through hell and back and only their hair is a little messed up but their make up still looks perfect.  Stupid films and trying to say that women need to be skinny with big chests with perfect hair and faces... -- Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Did Native Americans pose as a different tribe during the war like Magua did? --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Question: Because this movie was a book first and the movie is based on the book and subsequent movies should we be judging it for its historical accuracy or how well it followed the book? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Even though the book has a historical setting it is fiction and unlike Pocahontas is not based on anything specific so can we hold it to the same standards? - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To answer Christine&amp;#039;s question, I don&amp;#039;t think this movie should be held to the same standards as movie such as Pocahontas since it is not based on one specific event.  And, as we discussed in class James Fenimore Cooper had never met a Native American before, and what he knew of them came from other people, so it&amp;#039;s understandable that he might have a skewed impression of Native Americans in his books.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I definitely have to agree with Amanda&amp;#039;s point that all of the major Native American characters in the film are perfectly good or completely bad.  In fact, the only morally ambiguous characters in the entire film are Duncan and Col. Munro!  The Cora/Hawkeye love story, undoubtedly added to attract viewers, sometimes seems like comic relief.  Although I like the film, I recognize that it has numerous flaws.  Someone should have told the costume department that Daniel Day Lewis looked like he came straight off the cover of a romance novel, and not just in his shirtless scene.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The character of Mogwa was very interesting to me when I watched this movie. The movie portrays him as a monstrous savage and a villian, but if you actually pay attention to what he says about what happened to him how could one not feel just a little bit sympathetic for him. He obviously had some serious justifications for his rage although the movie focuses so much on his violence that he can be portrayed as just another bad guy. What really ends up striking me with this movie is how certain groups of people are glorified and others are condemned. -Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Once again I find the dialog a little stereotypical. Why does Col. Munro have a strong accent and his daughter do not. Why does Mogwa speak in third person?--- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I thought that the fighting tactics to be pretty accurate. The English really weren&amp;#039;t ready for that kind of fighting.--- Matt DeMarr&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	<entry>
		<id>https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_2_Questions/Comments</id>
		<title>329--Week 2 Questions/Comments</title>
		<link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_2_Questions/Comments"/>
				<updated>2008-09-04T05:51:40Z</updated>
		
		<summary type="html">&lt;p&gt;Areed: &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;hr /&gt;
&lt;div&gt;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;As you add comments and/or especially questions and debate topics, think about areas we will discuss on TH.  Key areas will be: Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?); Film&amp;#039;s relationship to scholarship; Movie as primary sources about makers/time/setting/genre; Public reaction/impact -- Dr. M&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&amp;#039;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It really is amazing just how different the portrayal of a character in history to film differs, or at least things that they did.  Disney portrays attacking Natives and fighting Englishmen, who have no problems with food or staying alive.  John Smith meets a grown up Pocahontas, not a 10 year old.  I guess they thought it would make for a better story.  --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
This reading felt more like a trading journal, which I suppose is mostly what they did at the time. Pocahontas is such a minor character that she is only mentioned twice by name. She doesn&amp;#039;t seem to have made a large impact on him, if any at all, actually. It doesn&amp;#039;t even appear that they can speak to each other, begging the question.. where did Disney come up with this storyline? --Amanda Russell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I know that it is really unrealistic and not factual but I like the movie Pocahontas better than the real story.  The real story just seems so depressing. -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I have to agree with Kellye, I really liked the Disney movie even if its not very factual.  Its still a fun movie to sit and watch on occassion... even though its not all correct by far... a person can get an extremely generic storyline... either way, I&amp;#039;ve always enjoyed the musical animated movies anyways &amp;gt;.&amp;lt;  I&amp;#039;m such a sucker for &amp;#039;em. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Well, Kellye, that&amp;#039;s what Disney&amp;#039;s good for.  The movie version of the story is pretty far-fetched that it makes me wonder how many kids took this for truth once they saw the movie and how many parents didn&amp;#039;t realize how innacurate it was.  I know I was shocked to learn that Pocahontas and John Smith were not really together and that another man entirely was involved (talking about Rolfe here.) And regardless of how many times I&amp;#039;ve seen the movie, I still can&amp;#039;t believe there wasn&amp;#039;t a single mention of John Rolfe, anywhere.  Also, why do you think Disney chose to make Ratcliffe &amp;quot;the governor&amp;quot; when in Smith&amp;#039;s account he was one of the captains?  --Kelly Wuyscik &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Kelly, if you want to see how Disney portrays the relationship between John Rolfe and Pocahontas, you should watch Pocahontas 2.  It has been a while since I have seen the movie, but I think it was, in a way, Disney&amp;#039;s attempt at redeeming itself.  In the sequel, Pocahontas and Rolfe get married and travel to London, where she runs into John Smith.  The first Pocahontas movie ends with a cliff hanger, with their decision to at least keep Pocahontas in Virginia.  At least in that respect, they were accurate and Pocahontas&amp;#039;s story does not end with her love affair with the Australian, devilishly handsome John Smith.  Despite Disney&amp;#039;s attempt to make history into an endearing romance between a 10 year old girl and a bearded 30-year old captain, Pocahontas has to be one of my favorite Disney movies. ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I read John Smith&amp;#039;s journal before watching Pocahontas for this class and I was amazed at how much I picked up on. While I was watching the movie I had the tendency to think well that&amp;#039;s not what John said happens. I know his journal is not totally reliable but it does provide an interesting foil for the movie. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I was surprised at how much John talked about the landscape in his journal. For a man who seemed to only be interested in himself and the wonders he achieved he talks a lot about the rivers and the trees and the fields he sees on his journeys. I also thought it was interesting to read about how, according to him, he was always the one to go places and make trades and the Indians only recognized him. - Christine W.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Christine in how in depth Smith goes into with the landscape of the Indians.  With that said, the film does not accurately portray what the Eastern woodlands really looked like.  I did not recall any swamplands that contributed to the disease that plagued the colonists.  The relationship between Smith and the Indians seemed rather cordial in my opinion, which of course we learn changes as more accounts of Smith and his journey are re-written over time.  Additionally, I&amp;#039;m not used to reading Olde English text, so this was a fairly difficult read for me. - David F.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After today&amp;#039;s lecture, and watching the movie tonight, I have to say that Disney did get some things correct.  For instance, in the beginning of the movie, they showed the women gathering the crops, and the men were fishing, gender divisions of labor that we talked about in class.  Also, towards the end of the movie, John Smith was about to have his head bashed in with a club, we discussed this event in class today as well.  This is not to say that Disney got everything right, but they did get a few things about Pocahontas correct.  ~Katherine Stinson~&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One reason I&amp;#039;m not fond of cartoon movies is how the characters&amp;#039; bodies are drawn.  First of all, we have a dashing, young, blond, popular John Smith.  Animated females always have to have some sort of sex appeal, from penguins to Pocahontas.  Therefore, and to facilitate the invented romance, we have 17-ish-year-old Pocahontas with an ideal hourglass Victorian body, complete with 16-inch waist, whose posture never fails to accentuate her bust and hips.  Meanwhile, Smith in 1608 describes Powhatan&amp;#039;s daughter as &amp;quot;a child of ten years old: which, not only for feature, countenance, and proportion, much exceedeth any of the rest of his people: but for wit and spirit, the only Nonpareil of his country.&amp;quot;  This indicates that Disney&amp;#039;s Pocahontas is not entirely invented, just very embellished and sexy.  This all just reinforces the mass idea that romance cannot exist without sexy bodies, and just isn&amp;#039;t a good story without them.  - Whitney Holcomb.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Katherine: remember that the head-bashing was something only mentioned in the 1624 account by Smith.  True, it was written, but Disney doesn&amp;#039;t care about its reality or not. - Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Disney also reinforces the film perception of cowboys-v.-Indians as each only wanting to kill the other-but with colonists, not cowboys.  It portrays both sides as warlike, eager to kill the enemy, with only the heroine able to think diplomacy could help.  Not once is there any attempt to communicate between the sides.  And this while Smith&amp;#039;s 1608 account has few hostilities, until stealing becomes a big issue after about a year, and is filled with trade, generosity, communication, providing feasts and guides, and even sending 13-year-old Thomas to Powhatan.  Is it so hard for a kids&amp;#039; movie to indicate friendliness between two unfamiliar peoples?  Apparently so, because this movie had to be all about how a young Indian woman changed the hearts of every person (except Governor Ratcliffe).  Kids who see this are bound to believe that it was all about conflict when the colonists met the Indians.  This movie totally leads uniformed children (and adults) to believe that this is what Jamestown, Pocahontas, and Indian relations were really like.  - Whitney Holcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is good to see that Disney incorporates the Indians&amp;#039; belief in spirits to help guide them or, in Pocahontas&amp;#039;s case, to interpret dreams.  The thing that gets me though, is that although she is talking to a tree, when it tells her to listen to the spirits that are all around, it&amp;#039;s like it&amp;#039;s the first time it has ever occurred to her, which I would think would have been natural.  After all, she listens to Grandmother Willow! - Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In response to Whitney&amp;#039;s comment, although Grandmother Willow was after all a tree, the relationship between Grandmother Willow and Pocahontas in the movie reminded me of the relationship Dr. McClurken discussed between the elder women and the younger women within the tribe.  In the Eastern woodland tribes, young women depended on older women to teach them about rituals and daily life.  In this respect, Grandmother Willow served as that elder tribeswoman taking Pocahontas under her wing, or in the case of the movie, her branch.  ~Juliann Boyles&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
For extended information about Pocahontas, I recommend going to fredmarkers.umwblogs.org, a McClurken project some of us did last spring, and reading &amp;quot;Kidnapping of Pocahontas&amp;quot; (go to &amp;quot;1600s&amp;quot;), researched and written by Elle.  - Whitney&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While watching the movie I found it almost laughable how stereotypical the movie really is. Within just the opening scene the Native American characters are in loin cloths, with their hair braided and adorned with feathers. Also, the men are shown carrying bows and arrows. It is true they were the choice weaponry but I would guess they did not carry them around every second of the day. I have not seen the full movie since it came out in 1995 and at the age of 8 I would never have second guessed Disney. I believed that this story of Pocahontas, which is loosely based on history, was true. This just further proves what we discussed last week which is that movies do have the power to educate and influence people, especially children. --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is evident that Disney was more interested in creating a captivating story rather than bringing to the big screen an interesting piece of history. I agree with Whitney about the display of the character&amp;#039;s physical appearances. Why is it a universal conception that the only way a movie, and in this case a historical account, can only be interesting is if the those involved have beautiful features and muscular and toned bodies? In this movie it is totally unrealistic, especially since realistically John Smith was 35 and Pocahontas was 10, although in the movie she looked 25. The movie does not represent John Smith&amp;#039;s 1608 account because in his version of the story about meeting the Native Americans, he barely talks about Pocahontas. When he does he notes that she is a young girl of 10 years old and refers to her as Powhatan&amp;#039;s &amp;quot;little Daughter.&amp;quot; I did like how in the movie the Native Americans are very in tune with nature, as seen by Pocahontas&amp;#039; relationship with Grandmother Willow and Meeko.  --Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I want to rant a little about Disney and its depiction of women. I&amp;#039;ve seen Disney getting lambasted pretty often for helping to perpetuate the &amp;quot;Pretty Pretty Princess&amp;quot; stereotype, where the meek, kind-hearted, helpless woman needs a strong manly man to save her. I would agree that many of Disney&amp;#039;s earlier films, like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, do fall into this stereotype. But considering the time these movies were made, should we be surprised? Wasn&amp;#039;t Disney was just following the feminine ideal of the time? I think we can safely say that Disney has done a better job since then in depicting its women as more independent, strong, and complex. For instance, Princess Jasmine wasn&amp;#039;t exactly a whimpering willow and Mulan was kicking butt and taking names. Today, most of us don&amp;#039;t want to see a weak woman who needs a man to save her; that&amp;#039;s just not our idealization of women anymore. So, is it fair for Disney to be attacked for making movies that reflected the perceived role of women at the time they were made? Would it even be a problem if Disney movies weren&amp;#039;t so enduringly popular? How much do Disney movies even affect our view of women&amp;#039;s roles? And to be a little more on topic, how much do Disney movies affect our view of historical events? -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Can anyone tell me the rhyme or reason behind the extra &amp;quot;e&amp;quot; added to some words in the Smith account? Now, I know English has evolved over time, but I&amp;#039;m curious who decided what words would have the &amp;quot;e&amp;quot; and what words wouldn&amp;#039;t have it. Heck, sometimes Smith gave a word an extra &amp;quot;e&amp;quot; and later he&amp;#039;d leave the &amp;quot;e&amp;quot; off the same word! -- Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While as a movie it is entertaining and not the most historically accurate, it did have some truth to it. As we learned yesterday, women would work in the fields gathering food as a community which is portrayed in the movie. Also, the men are shown fishing which was an important source of nutrition for the Native Americans. -- Mallory C.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Dear Dr. M - I hate to admit this but once again you were right.  Determing the historical accuracy of a movie such as &amp;quot;Pocahontas&amp;quot; is indeed like shooting fish in a barrel. I&amp;#039;m sorry I doubted you. But to be fair, one has to admit that the reaction that the Native Americans had when first seeing the &amp;quot;pale faced ones&amp;quot; had to be pretty accurate.  It was a new group of people arriving on their land and they didn&amp;#039;t know anything about them.  They were unprepared to deal with them and that was shown in the movie.  Powhatan even mentioned to Kocoum that they couldn&amp;#039;t just immediately go fight - they didn&amp;#039;t know enough about their enemy to ensure they would win. --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The movie did have some truth to it, as Mallory said it does show the women working in the fields and the men fishing.  You can also see the clear relationship between the Native Americans and nature. However, at the same time there the movie has some errors. The most obvious being the love story. So where is the swamp land in the movie that was such a large part of the Jamestown landscape? -- Kellye Sorber&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I&amp;#039;m not sure where the swamp land was and I think John Smith should have been ill after washing his face in brackish water.  But I do have one question - I know that in the movie &amp;quot;The Lion King&amp;quot; the opening song is merely gibberish and not actually Swahili.  Is this also the case for the Native American language Disney used in some of their songs? --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
OK, one more question.  Did anyone else get a bit confused towards the end of John Smith&amp;#039;s 1608 account?  I was doing very well understanding his English but then once he started discussing all of the other Federations and the reasons they were meeting each other, I started to lose track of who was doing what.  But, like everyone else, I find it amusing that he mentions Pocahontas once and, although he understands she&amp;#039;s the favorite child, it&amp;#039;s just a brief encounter the two seem to have.  --Kelly Wuyscik&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As was discussed earlier, there was a lot that I found surprisingly accurate about the Disney portrayal, an admission that seems almost blasphemous. The amount of honor and trust that Pocahontas showed for Grandmother Willow was closely in line with our discussions of matrilineal and matriarchal societies. However, the idealization of the Englishmen greatly bothered me. It seems as though Governor Ratcliffe would not have been the only power-hungry, greedy man in the lot, yet he is the only member of the Virginia Company with explicitly corrupt motives. Also, did anyone else feel as though the Native Americans were depicted as weak and inferior? This may have been subconscious thought working its way to the forefront, but it seemed to me as though Pocahontas and Powhatan were the only strong Native characters in the movie. --Cash Nelson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think this movie got a lot of things right, over-dramatized many events, and completely butchered the historical narrative of the John Smith era in Virginia. Somethings I feel that were accurately portrayed include the trip over on the high seas (although the rescue of a man overboard was for pure entertainment). I was shocked that the movie showed the gender division of labor, the reverence for ritual, and the legacy of native sports/ games rather accurately. The inclusion of the Grandmother Willow character shows a matriarchal society with a reverence for nature. I think the film correctly portrayed the English motivations and expectations about the new world, along with the attitudes towards the natives. Outside of those strengths the film makers completely abandoned the history of the relations between settlers and natives. Disney literally kept the historical names and then fabricated storylines and events. Historically, Kocoum and Pocahontas were not about to wed when the English arrived, Kocoum was not killed by Thomas, and the list goes on... I think what is most damaging about this movie is that it does not convey the relationship between settlers and natives well. In the John Smith writing he made it sound like life was good in the colony and that the indians were helpful, peppered with seemingly random and baseless disputes. The relationship in the movie was immediately cantankerous, with a neat and clean resolution.-- Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Jason in that I was surprised at Disney portraying the Natives&amp;#039; gendered division of labor in an accurate way. Though they emphasized the connection between the natives and nature, I wonder if perhaps the use of Mother Willow did more to patronize their beliefs? Also, was it me or did nearly all of the &amp;quot;extras&amp;quot; who were natives look almost exactly alike, whereas the English &amp;quot;extras&amp;quot; had more discernible differences? Is this another instance of Disney marginalizing a minority culture? -Bryan Mull&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
To comment on Bryan&amp;#039;s second question, it seemed to me that the colonial extras also look similar, though in rank rather than appearance. Dr. M mentioned in the lecture on Tuesday that many or most of the men who came from England were second sons and jewelers, not laborers who were used to the hard work. In the movie, all of the men except for the governor and his steward looked like peasants! And since they came from England, why did I hear a man with a Scottish accent? -Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Regarding the butchering of the account of Indian-English relations, what level responsibility does Disney have in presenting an accurate account of the historical relationship between Smith and Pocahontas? Also, is it possible that by framing the Jamestown settlement in a pseudo Romeo &amp;amp; Juliet manner, does that allow for a more accessible form of history for young viewers (Disney&amp;#039;s target demographic)? Does the romantacizing of Smith and Pocahontas make history more accessible to youngsters in the same way that Washington and the cherry tree introduces children to a Founding Father? Lastly, where would Disney be without epic cliffs (Pride Rock from Lion King, Pocahontas&amp;#039; Diving ledge, etc.)?&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
While I was watching the movie it dawned on me that, they kept the same person as &amp;#039;leader&amp;#039; from the ship ride over until the end where the hog-tie him and ship him back to England.  Also John Smith is almost idolized by his crewmates, but I didn&amp;#039;t exactly get that feeling from the reading. --Ashley Wilkins&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Watching the movie I looked at Pocahontas and just thought why is she 25. Then looked at John Smith and thought why does he look the same age as her. Another thing was why Pocahontas&amp;#039;s tribe was patriarchal? Her father gave her no choice in anything.---Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Did you guys noticed how Disney Americanized the Indians in the 1990&amp;#039;s fashion? I noticed, for example, how one couple greeted each other openly. The woman even knocked down her man once he got out of his canoe. To me, that gesture was more of the modern couple, rather than the American Indians of the 17th century. The behavior between Pocahontas and her friend struck me more like American teenagers, rather than teenagers of that time. Terms like &amp;quot;break a leg&amp;quot; and &amp;quot;gift basket&amp;quot; in the contexts that they were used in in the movie are modern. I felt like the movie was more a primary source about the mid-1990s with history as a background than a primary source of the 17th century. Admittedly, children would be more able to relate to the characters who act similar to them in some way, but the way that Disney did that was cheating the audience out of a factual storyline. -Lauren Hicks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Consider the source! Lets take a look at the Disney corporation. I had an English class Freshman year, (Brian will hopefully remember our time debunking Disney well)that effectively revealed the biases of Disney characters and stroylines, while also providing a context and rationale for the ideology that drove Walt and his successors. Walt Diney had a Conservative or at least traditionalist world view which led him to create masterpieces that featured a male- dominated, Anglo- Saxon based folklore. A folklore that seems to now be inextricably linked with the American identity. To add to what Taylor has said I would actually say that Disney has not improved their record of chauvanism and moralistic storytelling, only that they have improved how effectively they convey it. Ariel from &amp;#039;&amp;#039;The Little Mermaid&amp;#039;&amp;#039; is one of the saddest and most blatant portrayals of female subservience. As it pertains to Pocahontas, the fact that the story told on the screen exists outside the realm of basic historical facts allows Disney to rewrite American History. At the end of the film everything is tied up in a little bow. Powhatan says to Smith &amp;quot;you are always welcome in our village&amp;quot;, and Pocahontas cries and chases after the ship as it leaves because she will miss her love. This movie ends on such a high note that I wouldn&amp;#039;t be surprised if many people thought that was the end of Euro/ native hostilities. Disney did not leave room for sequels which could be entitled Genocide, Trail of Tears, or Reservation. The last ten minutes of this movie imply that because the two sides made peace, the English gained control of this continent thanks to the benevolence of the Native Americans. - Jason Ward&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One of the biggest problems with this movie is there is no real sense of development over time. The events all happily immediately after another instead of progressing over time. From the reading it is easy to tell that the relationships with the Indians developed slowly over time and there was a lot of negotiation involved. I also find it ironic that Kokoam Pocahontas&amp;#039;s actual husband was killed during the movie. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Despite the flaws in historical accuracy the message Disney presents in this movie is a very good message for the young. That is it emphasizes cross cultural understanding. Disney presents this movie in the same way, however they approached faerie tale romance stories probably to keep the appeal to its target audience and maintain the same style it used on its previous animated movies. The question we should ask here is if the value of cross cultural understanding expressed in this movie is more valuable to young people then presenting the actual history of the events involved?- Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
The reading of John Smith really focuses on diplomacy, trade and fighting exclusively. One of the interesting things about the reading is Smith constantly mentions the Indians giving him and men with him big feasts. The whole effect seems to present that the relations with the Indians went fairly well at the beginning. Another interesting thing I noted in relation to the movie is Smith didn&amp;#039;t travel alone, but had men with him and the only time he ended up alone was when his men were killed. - Jonathan Bell&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Rather than debate the benefits/pitfalls of sugarcoating history for children, I&amp;#039;d like to focus on how Disney&amp;#039;s portrayals of the Powhatan and the English reflect more modern cultural trends and biases.  The Powhatan of the film conform very much to the noble savage stereotype: they are closer to the land and to nature, and their society is tribal and simplistic.  They are distinctly less civilized than the English, and yet they are the first to lay down their weapons.  Pocahontas, because of her proximity to nature and the spiritual, is able to understand John Smith almost immediately.  Pocahontas also reveals to Smith her view of nature, which is (excuse the pun) earthier than that of the English.  Although the English are greedy, their motivations and society are portrayed as far more complex than those of the Powhatan.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
And moving on to a very nitpicky matter, did the filmmakers ever visit Tidewater Virginia?  Cliffs?  Mountains?  The animators&amp;#039; depiction of Virginia reminded me of the overblown and romantic frontier of the Hudson River School painters in the nineteenth century.  The America of those artists--and of this film--is as un-English as it gets: wild, untamed, majestic.  It just reeks of Manifest Destiny.  - Sarah Richardson&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
One thing struck me in particular that I had never noticed before when watching Pocahontas; both Smith and Pocahontas speak with American accents.  This contrasts with the rest of the cast who almost all speak with non-American accents.  This serves to situate Smith and Pocahontas as the first Americans and our cultural ancestors. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In class on Tuesday, we discussed the gendered division of labor among the Powhatan Indians establishing that the women were in charge of agriculture and the men in charge of fishing and hunting.  We concluded that because agriculture was a large part of the diet, women must be valued and have some degree of power.  This is not necessarily true.  While certainly possible, and I do not know about the Powhatan in particular but, there are many societies where the women do a large portion of the work but are not valued for either because what the women produce is not considered important or the men view the product of the women’s labor as belonging to them e.g. a man’s wife farms pigs but the pigs are owned by the man.  – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In John Smith’s journal, it is interesting how he maps Indian political organization onto European models.  For instance, Smith refers to many leaders as Kings even though they’re position in society was nothing like and English King.  This lack of understanding foreshadows problems to come, especially considering Smith had probably the best understanding of the other culture out of all the original settlers. – Wesley Weeks&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is disappointing to see how Disney portrays the stories of John Smith and Pocahontas, as history shows that there were no feelings of love between the two.  It is clear from the tone of Pocahontas that the movie was intended for young audiences, as the Disney story is much happier and portrays the lives of all people involved to be much easier than was actually the case. –Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
After finishing John Smith’s extensive journals, it becomes clear that this period of time could never be adequately covered in a film the length of Pocahontas.  Smith speaks of so many different events that occur, all of which are directly related to the development of the colonies, but only a small fraction of which can be fit into a short, animated film.  -Ashley Scutari&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I think it is safe to say that Disney&amp;#039;s intention was not to make a film accurately depicting the events of the colonization of Jamestown.  In fact, I would go as far as to say that Disney did a good job in taking two important historical figures, using the backdrop of their time period, and developing a love story out of it.  If someone told me that Disney had every intention to attempt to tell the true story of Pocahontas and John Smith, then yes I would denounce every flaw that was made.  However, we all know that not all movies can be used as a primary source (especially this one), so Disney&amp;#039;s Pocahontas will just have to suffice as a form of entertainment. - David Flores&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
It is hard to say what Disney&amp;#039;s intentions were when making this film, but at least, the film does bring history to the forefront of children&amp;#039;s minds, as Disney presents a romanticized version of John Smith&amp;#039;s adventures and affairs with Pocahontas.  David brings up a good point, we have to keep in mind that this movie was made for children and is bound to have tendencies to portray inaccurate events and exaggerate certain aspects of history (Although Roy Disney claims the movie was “responsible, accurate, and respectful”-Visual Communication by Paul Martin Lester).  Children would rather see a happy conclusion than a disappointing one (which is how the story really ends, as Pocahontas was in captivity for some while).  On a side note, I was also surprised that there was no mentioning of John Rolfe, the man who saved Pocahontas from captivity as well as the man who played a somewhat significant role in Pocahontas’ life.  Would the movie have been better if it replaced John Smith with John Rolfe?  Would it be more historically sound if it presented both men?-James Drury &lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I did a little research on the reception of Pocahontas. It seems to be one of the more popular and financially successful Disney movies released in the 1990s, but it’s also one of the most critiqued. It did pretty well at the Academy Awards too, winning for Best Original Song (Colors of the Wind) and Original Score. On another note, I found an [http://lass.calumet.purdue.edu/cca/gmj/OldSiteBackup/SubmittedDocuments/archivedpapers/fall2002/Artz.htm essay] that examines Pocahontas and several other Disney movies. It raised an interesting point about the formulaic Native American stereotypes in the movie, in the form of the “noble” Powhatan, the “savage” Kocoum, and the “Indian Princess” Pocahontas. --Taylor Brann&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
Watching the film, it was immediately obvious to me how a movie can act as a primary source document for the time in which it was produced, as we discussed.  The theme of greed, central to the song &amp;quot;Colors of the Wind&amp;quot;, really seemed to reflect modern American guilt over our collective impact on the environment... Concerning the reading, it seems natural to ignore, but how was Smith communicating with the natives he met?  One must wonder how we can take Smith&amp;#039;s account of his interaction with Powhatan to be remotely seriously as his discussion about the settlers&amp;#039; purpose at Jamestown and so on seems only to be Smith&amp;#039;s interpretation of a one-sided conversation.  - JT Newcomb&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
As JT and Jonathan have mentioned I see this film as being a great primary source about the 1990s. I think of the 90s as a time where diversity, tolerance, and equality are lessons really being emphasized. The film emphasizes John Smith and Pocahontas learning that differences are not a bad thing and they are the heroes because they were able to talk and mediate between their respective cultures. It is all so 90s goody-goody. There is also a theme of environmental awareness throughout the movie too. I could rant on about the inaccuracies of the film compared to John Smith&amp;#039;s account. I was just shaking my head the whole time, not that expect much historical accuracy from Disney. The Disney company is pretty much the reason why we all think lemmings commit mass suicide, you know that expression when someone is just following the crowd. I doubt there was much historical research and they went off of what they thought would be right, how hard is it to guess that men would hunt and women would harvest crops? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 22:10, 3 September 2008 (MDT)&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I felt that the dialog of all of the Natives was very stereotypical. The most notable part was the neglect of some words from the sentences. Another thing is how in the world were the settlers able to communicate with the natives?-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I notice that they had Pocahontas&amp;#039;s tribal husband in the movie. But they took him out of context an made him an antagonist in a way.-- Matt DeMarr&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
I agree with Whitney&amp;#039;s comment about the sexy Pocahontas body. I believe that the one thing about this movie that can go with out criticism is the moral message it is trying to send to its child audience. I still look at the highly fictionalized representation of Pocahontas and see an amazing role model for girls. Someone who is strong, free-spirited, independent, loving, dutiful, wise, willed, and more. It is a proud figure representing Native American women. It is ashamed that she had to be portrayed as a stacked, leatherskin attired swimsuit model. A young girls would have even better related to an image of another young girl. Was Disney trying to attract older male viewers or something? The suggestion alone seems all wrong! But on the topic of morals and messages, Disney does do a good job at getting across the follies of hate and ignorance to children with these obvious lyrics alla Alan Menken, &amp;quot;They&amp;#039;re different than us. That means they can&amp;#039;t be trusted. We must sound the drums of war!&amp;quot; and the other message of respecting other cultures and mother nature and all that good stuff with the show stopper &amp;quot;Colors of the Wind&amp;quot; is great too. Disney, I haven&amp;#039;t given up on you yet!    --  Jackie Reed&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
That said, I shame Disney on so many points as far as historical accuracy goes. Many of my points have already been made above so I will keep it at this. Even if all you&amp;#039;ve got is 90 minutes Disney, could you try to preserve some sense of realistic time? The movie&amp;#039;s time span from ship&amp;#039;s sail to ship&amp;#039;s sail appears to only last a month at most! Here or there a character mentions that a few days have gone by! A few days? Sure there was a lot of miscommunication in the Jamestown settlement due to a language barrier, and sure this is a very big problem for movie makers when trying to devise a plot. But having some crazy, New World mysticism suddenly give Pocahontas the power to understand John Smith? I ain&amp;#039;t buyin&amp;#039; the overpriced merchandize that your selling Disney! Sure, some things can be expressed without words, (like I want to jump your bones you sexy, Aussie John Smith!) but not everything that they were saying. There are lots of movies that force a viewer to suspend their disbelief, it can even be fun for the viewer to do this, but Disney&amp;#039;s attempt at this was laughable. I guess it just required a little too much of their creativity to try to work around a more believable language barrier.  -- Jackie Reed&lt;/div&gt;</summary>
		<author><name>Areed</name></author>	</entry>

	</feed><br />
<b>Deprecated</b>:  header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in <b>/home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php</b> on line <b>38</b><br />