Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38 https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=CeliacroftMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:11:51ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_15_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 15 Questions/Comments2010-12-02T05:32:44Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
Uncovering the Watergate scandal was a mess. Woodward and Bernstein had many pieces of an ugly puzzle to put together before the whole picture was seen. The way the movie portrayed events, I found myself even more confused than the reporters. It was quite interesting to me how the “entire intelligence community” was involved and manipulated everyone involved. The way the people at the top implied possible deadly consequences of those who snitched was telling. This movie exposed the way in which people only answered questions they were asked. They were not willing to volunteer any information, but if asked specific questions, they would have answered those. Once the reporters and prosecutors knew to come straight out and ask the obvious questions, the scandal broke wide open. Without “Deep Throat” this scandal would never have been exposed and Woodward and Bernstein would never have kept their jobs.—Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I'm with Debbie M. I found myself struggling a little bit to keep track of the names and what new scandal was getting discovered, but I liked that the movie didn't slow down to explain - we just had to go with it. I loved how much of the movie was made up of phone calls, and that we never saw the face of the people on the other line. The film went against a lot of traditions (or cliches) in what it showed us and didn't show us - a modern audience expects, when they see the main character making an important phone call, to see a split-screen or to cut back and forth to see both ends. But this way, we were left as much in the dark as Woodward and Bernstein. I also appreciated how straightforward the essential plot was - there weren't any distracting subplots, it focused on one story the whole time. The script was full of information and LOTS of names and confusing things, but the acting and cinematography was so engaging that it kept you hooked. When I saw William Goldman's name in the opening credits, I knew we were in good hands. - Celia<br />
<br />
The movie definitely included many of the names in the long list of people who had some kind of involvement in the Watergate scandal, hearings, or investigation. The movie was a little confusing because there were so many names being thrown out left and right. I know the movie did only focus on Bernstein and Woodward's contributions to the investigation of the scandal, but I enjoyed watching the relationship between the two men grow throughout the film and how they worked together to investigate the scandal. I liked how "Deep Throat" actually appeared in the film and wasn't just another person that was mentioned. He did appear very mysterious during his scenes in the film and I think that accurately portrayed the way in which his identity ''was'' such a mystery to everyone that up until the 1990s/2000s, no one knew who "Deep Throat" was. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly depicted how the American republic did not care about the Watergate scandel at first. It accuratly portrayed the frustration the Washington Post must have felt knowing they had a good story even when people did not care. I think the movie also showed how well the Nixon administration covered the scandel up within days of the "burglery". - LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
The movie allows the audience to see what actually goes on behind the scenes in the government. This adds to the distrust factor of the federal government in the post-Vietnam period. The logistics of the movie seem to be composed very well. They address the firing and resigning of important government officials, as well as the reasons for why they were fired. They also addressed the people directly involved with the burglary and those that may have been behind it and the use of "slush funds." Correct terms were also used, like "Woodstein" and "Deep throat." Lastly, they broached the ability of the presidency to cover up the entire Watergate scandal by saying a pole was taken and the vast majority of the population had never even heard of it. This played into the large support Nixon garnered from the people, which can be seen by them chanting "four more years" at the Republican nomination announcement. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I think the movie did a good job of portraying the fear in the public officials whenever they were asked questions regarding the scandal. Many of the people who Woodward and Bernstein interviewed would say one thing and change their mind in fear of getting in trouble. The constant probing by Woodward and Bernstein was well done because this was necessary in order to get to the bottom of the messy Watergate scandal. The level of investigating was well done. It was quite extensive and the movie did not skimp in that department. Although I’m sure more people were involved, the movies point was to focus on Woodward and Bernstein and it did a good job with their investigation. –afrisk<br />
<br />
I liked how the film was able to include things that were not important to Watergate, with the radios on in the back ground talking about McGovern. I also thought the film did a good job a depicting how difficult it was to try and get the story printed, no one wanted to talk, they needed more sources, and those who talked wouldn't go on record.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The newsroom scenes are very well done, as is the interaction among the editors, and between the editors and the reporters. (Personal experience talking here.) The scene in the Library of Congress shows the tedium of reporting as Woodward and Bernstein wade through all those cards. Then the camera pulls back and these main characters become non-entities, just two little guys among other little guys. But in true Hollywood-history tradition, they bring down the Big Guys--although we know the real empire-toppling was done in the judicial arena. ---- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I think the movie did a good job of portraying the fear in the public officials whenever they were asked questions regarding the scandal. Many of the people who Woodward and Bernstein interviewed would say one thing and change their mind in fear of getting in trouble. The constant probing by Woodward and Bernstein was well done because this was necessary in order to get to the bottom of the messy Watergate scandal. The level of investigating was well done. It was quite extensive and the movie did not skimp in that department. Although I’m sure more people were involved, the movies point was to focus on Woodward and Bernstein and it did a good job with their investigation. –afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie that the movie definitely portrayed the mess and confusion around the entire Watergate scandal. I am sure that between the white house trying to cover everything up and leads telling you others stories, the actual "story" might not alway be clear. What made things more complicated what that no one was talking, as was iterated by the doors slamming in their face when they were working through the list. Also the name dropping, while there were so many names dropped (and I did use Google and wiki to look up most of them) it shows how complicated the entire thing was. The wasn't just 3 guys up to no good, this was an entire presidential administration. SO even though I was lost amidst the names, I gained a broader sense of the scope of the trial. - Jenn<br />
<br />
The movie was quite well done and as others have noted before me did a good job of incorporating everyone who was involved in the Watergate story and scandal. While the movie was a focus on Woodward and Bernstein aka "Woodstein," the movie accurately showed how difficult it was for the men to gather important, revealing information. One of the scenes that stood out most to me, was the early help offered from the librarian and after she places them on hold quickly refuses the help. She further denies ever knowing Woodward or Bernstein and causes them to backtrack and not appear credible. This point made me believe that the White House and the administration truly worked to cover all of their basis further making them appear more guilty and appearing to have a hold over all offices connected with the White House. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to find out that the filmmakers went to great lengths to replicate The Washington Post newsroom. In fact, the labels on the filing cabinet were meticulously done and eve more astounding, trash from the real Washington Post newsroom was flown in to Hollywood to put as clutter on the desks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/ringle.htm). -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I agree with the above comments. The movie did a nice job portraying the chaotic and confusing Watergate Scandal. It showed how the journalists were struggling to get truths out of those involved in the administration and how scared people were to go against the Presidential administration. Also, the film also did a great job of depicting how touchy of a story this was. If Woodward and Bernstein had been wrong about the scandal, they most certainly would have lost their jobs, as well as Ben Bradley. It did leave me wondering if Bradley was this much of a hard-ass in real life though. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movie showed how Woodward and Bernstein risked a lot (their jobs and reputations) by covering this story. Also, it showed how technology was very different over thirty years ago. Since this movie was made in the 70s, when this actually happened, it accurately represented how the Washington Post was run. They had used dial phones and phone books. They had to ask other people for phone numbers too instead of looking them up on the internet. They also used typewriters all the time. I think their job would have been easier if the internet existed. But I am not sure how the internet would have affected the entire Watergate scandal. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Like what other people have said, I agree that this movie definitely shows the level of confusion involved in covering the Watergate Scandal. I couldn't keep track of who was whom and who said what, and I think that was the point. Additionally, building on what Justine said about the movie being made around the time that it happened, I agree that the timing lends to its accuracy in terms of appearance and technology. I mean, at one point, Redford and his impressive sideburns make a call from a rotary payphone in a phone booth. Those sorts of things are more likely to get ignored today. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
In the scene where Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein discussed about the Haldemen's story at a McDonald's, the viewer can clearly notice a wrapper for a Quarter Pounder sandwich. The film was mostly set between June 1972 and January 1973. McDonald's Quarter Pounder was not introduced until 1974. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/goofs) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I do not think the part where Deep Throat said their lives were in danger was actually true but maybe it was. I think the part where Woodward was talking to the FBI agent looked kind of stupid because the FBI guy looked like he was trying to hide something then if he had just walked normally. I would have thought too that the two men should have been more competitive toward each other because in class Professor McClurken said they had big egos. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with LeAnn, the only moment of competitive tension was at the very beginning of the film. Woodward left a draft of his article which Bernstein promptly went forward to correct. Afterward, they seem like fairly good pals on a mission. Was there a little bit of hollywood flair in the potential violence aimed at the reporters?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:25, 1 December 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
I thought that a major problem with the film was that it portrayed Woodward and Bernstein as the lone forces facing the Nixon administration. Though their editor played a minor role, there were no other major players that were searching for the truth in the Watergate story. As we saw in class, several different people played key roles in the entire process that eventually led to Nixon's downfall, like the Judge John Sirica and the lead prosecutor, but that is not really seen in the film. -Melissa<br />
<br />
I agree with Melissa. Also, they always showed "Woodstein" in the news room all alone, as if they were the only ones response for the coverage when really, EVERYONE would have been involved, even the lowliest coffee-fetcher. But again, as we've seen before, it is depicted that way for dramatic effect. Only showing those two men in the news room really gives the impression that they were solely responsible for the reporting of the Watergate scandal. -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I also agree with LeAnn, it struck me as odd that there was no competitiveness between the two men. It was only at one point in the beginning of the film. And they were always working on the case alone, with very little outside help. Also I did find some copies of Woodward's Notebooks online... and no where were there drawings of people in sunglasses. (maybe in another notebook?) I was quite disappointed. Nevertheless [http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/web/woodstein/post/index2.html the notebooks] are still interesting. Yet really hard to read. Journalists these days with their sloppy handwriting. -Jenn<br />
<br />
Like Melissa and Kelly brought up, I did not like how "All the President's Men" portrayed Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as the sole investigators of the Watergate Scandal. In reality, there were many others on the case, such as Roger Wilkins, a former Washington Post reporter who recently spoke at UMW and also shared in the Pulitzer Prize for their fantastic journalism. However, like Kelly stated, the movie would not have been as dramatic if all of the lowly players were involved like "Reel History" mentioned. Also, in the very beginning of the movie, only one man was pictured doing surveillance across the street during the Watergate break in, when there were actually two. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Did Woodward actually meet Deep Throat in a parking garage in the middle of the night? When this movie was made, they did not know who Deep Throat was, so maybe they did not know much about him. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The movie not only lets out many of the other journalists and newspaper employees who helped Woodward and Bernstein to break the story, it completely glosses over the judicial proceedings that ultimately forced Nixon's resignation. Yes, Woodward and Bernstein played major roles in the affair, but the movie makes it appear largely as if the scandal began and ended with the Washington Post's dynamic duo. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
As we learned in class today Robert Redford bought the rights to the "Woodstein" story and was also present with them at the Washington Post. This allow him to get an inside look at how the process went down. So, the way in which these men acted and went about there business in the office could be used as a primary source on the tools and techniques used by journalists at the time. As a secondary source, the movie allows the audience to see how the Federal government had become distrusted in the post Vietnam period in which the movie was made, according to class lecture. Thus, it seem likely that they have a hard time believing anything a government official says. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie's growing sense of paranoia, of something happening in the shadows, reflects how people felt after Nixon resigned. The music, lighting and camera work all contributed to this feeling by building an ominous atmosphere. There was the shadowy underground garage, the eerie light on Deep Throat's eyes, the car squealing out of the garage, and the tourist (?) pointing his camera at Bernstein and his FBI contact. All this was undoubtedly intended to create drama in a talk-heavy, zero-action movie, but it also mirrors the mood of the country at that time. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Seeing the reporters turned away at every step and informants unwilling to say anything without a cute Bernstein smile demonstrated a 70s sense of paranoia towards the government which is always watching, willing to cut you down if you say too much. The government is a perpetual and mysterious "they" from which no one can truly escape...popcorn?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:29, 1 December 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
I liked how this movie was just made a few years after it happened. I think this made the movie more accurate. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I think the movie, having been made so soon after Watergate itself, assumed a certain degree of familiarity with the people and events involved in the affair. We all had at least an introduction to the material in class, but a lot of us would probably still admit to getting a little lost amidst the constant name dropping. In a way, the film plays as a catharsis of sorts for a country still reeling from all of the paranoia about the government that others described in the comments above. I think the film still works as a mystery and as a story for people who don't remember Watergate or who don't have a particular interest in it, but for us today that final "Nixon Resigns" message doesn't have the same "our national nightmare is over" punch it might have had then. Of course, not being alive in 1976, this is entirely supposition on my part. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Comments on the readings and the semester of US History in Film ==<br />
Robert Toplin talks in his book, ''Reel History'', about the different components that make up cinematic history. Some of them include how movies can simplify historical evidence and not include many pertinent details, the three acts of these movies: exposition, complication, and resolution, and the way in which many historical films "speak to the present." The movie ''All the President's Men'' is mentioned in one of the many components of historical films: these films simplify their plots by featuring only a few key characters. In this particular movie, Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford portray two real-life reporters from the Washington Post during the 1970s, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. Toplin explains that the movie seems to relay the idea that Bernstein and Woodward were the only two people who played a role in exposing the executive branch's involvement in the Watergate scandal. After Toplin talks about the various components of cinematic history he explains that they are vital to the success of a historical film even if it is not completely accurate as seen with the relative failure of the movie ''Ride With the Devil.'' -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The film format was similar to the film formats that Frank Capra directed in the 1930's and 1940's. In the last few reels of "All the President's Men, it seemed that Woodward and Bernstein were defeated by Nixon and his corrupt, government officials. However, in the final moments of the film, both the president and his staff were finally brought down. (Toplin,32) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
This movie contains nearly all the generic elements Toplin identifies with good cinematic history (16). The clearly defined "Davids" Woodward and Bernstein actually fought several "Goliaths": their own editors, their reluctant sources, and the coverup itself. The raft of people actually involved were pared down to a few characters, and there was a highly partisan viewpoint. Screenwriter William Goldman left out only one element--there was no romance. However, there was a developing relationship. The movie started with two cock-sure professionals who were not collaborative by nature, and showed them gradually learning from one another and finally becoming a team. Their methods were very different, but in separate scenes we see how both methods were effective for different situations or in dealing with various people. This portrayal of mutual respect and tolerance is 100 times more mature and nuanced than most on-screen romances. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the section titled "Cinematic history simplifies plots by featuring only a few representative characters" Toplin talks about how historically based cinematic films usually only include a few of the real historical characters. He says, "They [directors] introduce viewers to completely fictional characters whose backgrounds and personalities reflect the diversity of people one might encounter in a historical setting." (P. 37) I think a lot of the movies we have watched have demonstrated this very idea by Toplin. We learn about names of people in lecture on Tuesdays and then we watch the movie and realize there are characters that are not in the history books. I think Glory is a good example of this. Most of the soldiers' characters in the movie were not real, but it shows the plight the real soldiers of the 54th Regiment even if it does have fictional characters. And sometimes, these fictional characters play some of the more important roles in the movie. I think it is better to show some fictional characters in a historically based film, as long as the audience is given a larger sense of the background history of the movie. It can then be up to the audience to explore it further and learn for themselves. Cinema can be almost like the beginning stepping stone to further learning about history. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
One element that was mentioned in Toplin's "Reel History" that was not included in "All the President's Men" was an unnecessary love affair. What a contrast from the sappiness of "Last of the Mohicans"! This exclusion was very much appreciated. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I found the three educational benefits of motion pictures to be foreshadowing and quite entertaining. (197). In 1915, D. W. Griffith was able to see how we view movies today and how they are used in the classroom as teaching tools, for example Pocahontas in elementary schools or a wide variety of the other films we viewed this semester. I have to argue with his third point, many historical movies do not offer "authentic pictures of history," (197) while many do offer true facts, such as Watergate and the naming/confusion involved in the scandal, the movie made the investigation appear much more quickly than it was. I think it is good for audiences to view an event through a film because it can engage a wider audience than a book could, and sparks a new level of interest in history. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
Would the government have installed surveillance equipment in the apartments of Woodward and Bernstein? -afrisk<br />
<br />
Throughout the semester we have discussed whether the details that are changed, character's eliminated, or combined hurt the historical accuracy of a film. Although many details concerning the atmosphere of the newsroom and the extent of who was involved in the investigation were left out of the film[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/ringle.htm], I think that the director and writer of the movie did an excellent job of portraying the event and that it didn't harm the movie's historical accuracy at all. The movie only showed Woodward and Bernstein working on the Watergate scandal alone in the newsroom. However, if the movie depicted a full news staff working on the investigation, the viewer would have completely been lost in the craziness of that kind of workplace. Also, the movie completely oversimplifies the editing process and cuts out many key figures all together. Yet, like I said before it would have been SO boring to watch. All in all, the changes to the story did not damage the historical accuracy of the movie. --Erin L.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_15_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 15 Questions/Comments2010-12-02T05:29:57Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
Uncovering the Watergate scandal was a mess. Woodward and Bernstein had many pieces of an ugly puzzle to put together before the whole picture was seen. The way the movie portrayed events, I found myself even more confused than the reporters. It was quite interesting to me how the “entire intelligence community” was involved and manipulated everyone involved. The way the people at the top implied possible deadly consequences of those who snitched was telling. This movie exposed the way in which people only answered questions they were asked. They were not willing to volunteer any information, but if asked specific questions, they would have answered those. Once the reporters and prosecutors knew to come straight out and ask the obvious questions, the scandal broke wide open. Without “Deep Throat” this scandal would never have been exposed and Woodward and Bernstein would never have kept their jobs.—Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I'm with Debbie M. I found myself struggling a little bit to keep track of the names and what new scandal was getting discovered, but I liked that the movie didn't slow down to explain - we just had to go with it. I loved how much of the movie was made up of phone calls, and that we never saw the face of the people on the other line. The film went against a lot of traditions (or cliches) in what it showed us and didn't show us - a modern audience expects, when they see the main character making an important phone call, to see a split-screen or to cut back and forth to see both ends. But this way, we were left as much in the dark as Woodward and Bernstein. I also appreciated how straightforward the essential plot was - there weren't any distracting subplots, it focused on one story the whole time. Impressive. - Celia<br />
<br />
The movie definitely included many of the names in the long list of people who had some kind of involvement in the Watergate scandal, hearings, or investigation. The movie was a little confusing because there were so many names being thrown out left and right. I know the movie did only focus on Bernstein and Woodward's contributions to the investigation of the scandal, but I enjoyed watching the relationship between the two men grow throughout the film and how they worked together to investigate the scandal. I liked how "Deep Throat" actually appeared in the film and wasn't just another person that was mentioned. He did appear very mysterious during his scenes in the film and I think that accurately portrayed the way in which his identity ''was'' such a mystery to everyone that up until the 1990s/2000s, no one knew who "Deep Throat" was. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly depicted how the American republic did not care about the Watergate scandel at first. It accuratly portrayed the frustration the Washington Post must have felt knowing they had a good story even when people did not care. I think the movie also showed how well the Nixon administration covered the scandel up within days of the "burglery". - LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
The movie allows the audience to see what actually goes on behind the scenes in the government. This adds to the distrust factor of the federal government in the post-Vietnam period. The logistics of the movie seem to be composed very well. They address the firing and resigning of important government officials, as well as the reasons for why they were fired. They also addressed the people directly involved with the burglary and those that may have been behind it and the use of "slush funds." Correct terms were also used, like "Woodstein" and "Deep throat." Lastly, they broached the ability of the presidency to cover up the entire Watergate scandal by saying a pole was taken and the vast majority of the population had never even heard of it. This played into the large support Nixon garnered from the people, which can be seen by them chanting "four more years" at the Republican nomination announcement. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I think the movie did a good job of portraying the fear in the public officials whenever they were asked questions regarding the scandal. Many of the people who Woodward and Bernstein interviewed would say one thing and change their mind in fear of getting in trouble. The constant probing by Woodward and Bernstein was well done because this was necessary in order to get to the bottom of the messy Watergate scandal. The level of investigating was well done. It was quite extensive and the movie did not skimp in that department. Although I’m sure more people were involved, the movies point was to focus on Woodward and Bernstein and it did a good job with their investigation. –afrisk<br />
<br />
I liked how the film was able to include things that were not important to Watergate, with the radios on in the back ground talking about McGovern. I also thought the film did a good job a depicting how difficult it was to try and get the story printed, no one wanted to talk, they needed more sources, and those who talked wouldn't go on record.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The newsroom scenes are very well done, as is the interaction among the editors, and between the editors and the reporters. (Personal experience talking here.) The scene in the Library of Congress shows the tedium of reporting as Woodward and Bernstein wade through all those cards. Then the camera pulls back and these main characters become non-entities, just two little guys among other little guys. But in true Hollywood-history tradition, they bring down the Big Guys--although we know the real empire-toppling was done in the judicial arena. ---- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I think the movie did a good job of portraying the fear in the public officials whenever they were asked questions regarding the scandal. Many of the people who Woodward and Bernstein interviewed would say one thing and change their mind in fear of getting in trouble. The constant probing by Woodward and Bernstein was well done because this was necessary in order to get to the bottom of the messy Watergate scandal. The level of investigating was well done. It was quite extensive and the movie did not skimp in that department. Although I’m sure more people were involved, the movies point was to focus on Woodward and Bernstein and it did a good job with their investigation. –afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie that the movie definitely portrayed the mess and confusion around the entire Watergate scandal. I am sure that between the white house trying to cover everything up and leads telling you others stories, the actual "story" might not alway be clear. What made things more complicated what that no one was talking, as was iterated by the doors slamming in their face when they were working through the list. Also the name dropping, while there were so many names dropped (and I did use Google and wiki to look up most of them) it shows how complicated the entire thing was. The wasn't just 3 guys up to no good, this was an entire presidential administration. SO even though I was lost amidst the names, I gained a broader sense of the scope of the trial. - Jenn<br />
<br />
The movie was quite well done and as others have noted before me did a good job of incorporating everyone who was involved in the Watergate story and scandal. While the movie was a focus on Woodward and Bernstein aka "Woodstein," the movie accurately showed how difficult it was for the men to gather important, revealing information. One of the scenes that stood out most to me, was the early help offered from the librarian and after she places them on hold quickly refuses the help. She further denies ever knowing Woodward or Bernstein and causes them to backtrack and not appear credible. This point made me believe that the White House and the administration truly worked to cover all of their basis further making them appear more guilty and appearing to have a hold over all offices connected with the White House. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting to find out that the filmmakers went to great lengths to replicate The Washington Post newsroom. In fact, the labels on the filing cabinet were meticulously done and eve more astounding, trash from the real Washington Post newsroom was flown in to Hollywood to put as clutter on the desks (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/ringle.htm). -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I agree with the above comments. The movie did a nice job portraying the chaotic and confusing Watergate Scandal. It showed how the journalists were struggling to get truths out of those involved in the administration and how scared people were to go against the Presidential administration. Also, the film also did a great job of depicting how touchy of a story this was. If Woodward and Bernstein had been wrong about the scandal, they most certainly would have lost their jobs, as well as Ben Bradley. It did leave me wondering if Bradley was this much of a hard-ass in real life though. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movie showed how Woodward and Bernstein risked a lot (their jobs and reputations) by covering this story. Also, it showed how technology was very different over thirty years ago. Since this movie was made in the 70s, when this actually happened, it accurately represented how the Washington Post was run. They had used dial phones and phone books. They had to ask other people for phone numbers too instead of looking them up on the internet. They also used typewriters all the time. I think their job would have been easier if the internet existed. But I am not sure how the internet would have affected the entire Watergate scandal. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Like what other people have said, I agree that this movie definitely shows the level of confusion involved in covering the Watergate Scandal. I couldn't keep track of who was whom and who said what, and I think that was the point. Additionally, building on what Justine said about the movie being made around the time that it happened, I agree that the timing lends to its accuracy in terms of appearance and technology. I mean, at one point, Redford and his impressive sideburns make a call from a rotary payphone in a phone booth. Those sorts of things are more likely to get ignored today. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
In the scene where Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein discussed about the Haldemen's story at a McDonald's, the viewer can clearly notice a wrapper for a Quarter Pounder sandwich. The film was mostly set between June 1972 and January 1973. McDonald's Quarter Pounder was not introduced until 1974. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074119/goofs) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I do not think the part where Deep Throat said their lives were in danger was actually true but maybe it was. I think the part where Woodward was talking to the FBI agent looked kind of stupid because the FBI guy looked like he was trying to hide something then if he had just walked normally. I would have thought too that the two men should have been more competitive toward each other because in class Professor McClurken said they had big egos. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with LeAnn, the only moment of competitive tension was at the very beginning of the film. Woodward left a draft of his article which Bernstein promptly went forward to correct. Afterward, they seem like fairly good pals on a mission. Was there a little bit of hollywood flair in the potential violence aimed at the reporters?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:25, 1 December 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
I thought that a major problem with the film was that it portrayed Woodward and Bernstein as the lone forces facing the Nixon administration. Though their editor played a minor role, there were no other major players that were searching for the truth in the Watergate story. As we saw in class, several different people played key roles in the entire process that eventually led to Nixon's downfall, like the Judge John Sirica and the lead prosecutor, but that is not really seen in the film. -Melissa<br />
<br />
I agree with Melissa. Also, they always showed "Woodstein" in the news room all alone, as if they were the only ones response for the coverage when really, EVERYONE would have been involved, even the lowliest coffee-fetcher. But again, as we've seen before, it is depicted that way for dramatic effect. Only showing those two men in the news room really gives the impression that they were solely responsible for the reporting of the Watergate scandal. -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I also agree with LeAnn, it struck me as odd that there was no competitiveness between the two men. It was only at one point in the beginning of the film. And they were always working on the case alone, with very little outside help. Also I did find some copies of Woodward's Notebooks online... and no where were there drawings of people in sunglasses. (maybe in another notebook?) I was quite disappointed. Nevertheless [http://www.hrc.utexas.edu/exhibitions/web/woodstein/post/index2.html the notebooks] are still interesting. Yet really hard to read. Journalists these days with their sloppy handwriting. -Jenn<br />
<br />
Like Melissa and Kelly brought up, I did not like how "All the President's Men" portrayed Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein as the sole investigators of the Watergate Scandal. In reality, there were many others on the case, such as Roger Wilkins, a former Washington Post reporter who recently spoke at UMW and also shared in the Pulitzer Prize for their fantastic journalism. However, like Kelly stated, the movie would not have been as dramatic if all of the lowly players were involved like "Reel History" mentioned. Also, in the very beginning of the movie, only one man was pictured doing surveillance across the street during the Watergate break in, when there were actually two. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Did Woodward actually meet Deep Throat in a parking garage in the middle of the night? When this movie was made, they did not know who Deep Throat was, so maybe they did not know much about him. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The movie not only lets out many of the other journalists and newspaper employees who helped Woodward and Bernstein to break the story, it completely glosses over the judicial proceedings that ultimately forced Nixon's resignation. Yes, Woodward and Bernstein played major roles in the affair, but the movie makes it appear largely as if the scandal began and ended with the Washington Post's dynamic duo. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
As we learned in class today Robert Redford bought the rights to the "Woodstein" story and was also present with them at the Washington Post. This allow him to get an inside look at how the process went down. So, the way in which these men acted and went about there business in the office could be used as a primary source on the tools and techniques used by journalists at the time. As a secondary source, the movie allows the audience to see how the Federal government had become distrusted in the post Vietnam period in which the movie was made, according to class lecture. Thus, it seem likely that they have a hard time believing anything a government official says. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie's growing sense of paranoia, of something happening in the shadows, reflects how people felt after Nixon resigned. The music, lighting and camera work all contributed to this feeling by building an ominous atmosphere. There was the shadowy underground garage, the eerie light on Deep Throat's eyes, the car squealing out of the garage, and the tourist (?) pointing his camera at Bernstein and his FBI contact. All this was undoubtedly intended to create drama in a talk-heavy, zero-action movie, but it also mirrors the mood of the country at that time. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Seeing the reporters turned away at every step and informants unwilling to say anything without a cute Bernstein smile demonstrated a 70s sense of paranoia towards the government which is always watching, willing to cut you down if you say too much. The government is a perpetual and mysterious "they" from which no one can truly escape...popcorn?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:29, 1 December 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
I liked how this movie was just made a few years after it happened. I think this made the movie more accurate. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I think the movie, having been made so soon after Watergate itself, assumed a certain degree of familiarity with the people and events involved in the affair. We all had at least an introduction to the material in class, but a lot of us would probably still admit to getting a little lost amidst the constant name dropping. In a way, the film plays as a catharsis of sorts for a country still reeling from all of the paranoia about the government that others described in the comments above. I think the film still works as a mystery and as a story for people who don't remember Watergate or who don't have a particular interest in it, but for us today that final "Nixon Resigns" message doesn't have the same "our national nightmare is over" punch it might have had then. Of course, not being alive in 1976, this is entirely supposition on my part. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Comments on the readings and the semester of US History in Film ==<br />
Robert Toplin talks in his book, ''Reel History'', about the different components that make up cinematic history. Some of them include how movies can simplify historical evidence and not include many pertinent details, the three acts of these movies: exposition, complication, and resolution, and the way in which many historical films "speak to the present." The movie ''All the President's Men'' is mentioned in one of the many components of historical films: these films simplify their plots by featuring only a few key characters. In this particular movie, Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford portray two real-life reporters from the Washington Post during the 1970s, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward. Toplin explains that the movie seems to relay the idea that Bernstein and Woodward were the only two people who played a role in exposing the executive branch's involvement in the Watergate scandal. After Toplin talks about the various components of cinematic history he explains that they are vital to the success of a historical film even if it is not completely accurate as seen with the relative failure of the movie ''Ride With the Devil.'' -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The film format was similar to the film formats that Frank Capra directed in the 1930's and 1940's. In the last few reels of "All the President's Men, it seemed that Woodward and Bernstein were defeated by Nixon and his corrupt, government officials. However, in the final moments of the film, both the president and his staff were finally brought down. (Toplin,32) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
This movie contains nearly all the generic elements Toplin identifies with good cinematic history (16). The clearly defined "Davids" Woodward and Bernstein actually fought several "Goliaths": their own editors, their reluctant sources, and the coverup itself. The raft of people actually involved were pared down to a few characters, and there was a highly partisan viewpoint. Screenwriter William Goldman left out only one element--there was no romance. However, there was a developing relationship. The movie started with two cock-sure professionals who were not collaborative by nature, and showed them gradually learning from one another and finally becoming a team. Their methods were very different, but in separate scenes we see how both methods were effective for different situations or in dealing with various people. This portrayal of mutual respect and tolerance is 100 times more mature and nuanced than most on-screen romances. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the section titled "Cinematic history simplifies plots by featuring only a few representative characters" Toplin talks about how historically based cinematic films usually only include a few of the real historical characters. He says, "They [directors] introduce viewers to completely fictional characters whose backgrounds and personalities reflect the diversity of people one might encounter in a historical setting." (P. 37) I think a lot of the movies we have watched have demonstrated this very idea by Toplin. We learn about names of people in lecture on Tuesdays and then we watch the movie and realize there are characters that are not in the history books. I think Glory is a good example of this. Most of the soldiers' characters in the movie were not real, but it shows the plight the real soldiers of the 54th Regiment even if it does have fictional characters. And sometimes, these fictional characters play some of the more important roles in the movie. I think it is better to show some fictional characters in a historically based film, as long as the audience is given a larger sense of the background history of the movie. It can then be up to the audience to explore it further and learn for themselves. Cinema can be almost like the beginning stepping stone to further learning about history. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
One element that was mentioned in Toplin's "Reel History" that was not included in "All the President's Men" was an unnecessary love affair. What a contrast from the sappiness of "Last of the Mohicans"! This exclusion was very much appreciated. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I found the three educational benefits of motion pictures to be foreshadowing and quite entertaining. (197). In 1915, D. W. Griffith was able to see how we view movies today and how they are used in the classroom as teaching tools, for example Pocahontas in elementary schools or a wide variety of the other films we viewed this semester. I have to argue with his third point, many historical movies do not offer "authentic pictures of history," (197) while many do offer true facts, such as Watergate and the naming/confusion involved in the scandal, the movie made the investigation appear much more quickly than it was. I think it is good for audiences to view an event through a film because it can engage a wider audience than a book could, and sparks a new level of interest in history. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
Would the government have installed surveillence equipment in the apartments of Woodward and Bernstein? -afrisk</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-11-18T03:25:05Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately depicted the way wounded veterans' hospital conditions were deplorable. The country was spending vast amounts of money and attention to rid the world of communism that it turned a blind eye and expended no money to the medical care of the wounded vets. It took many years and lots of people to complain for veterans to get better medical care when they returned home. Although conditions are better, many VA hospitals could use more funding to aid the recovery of wounded vets. Another issue with what vets faced in returning home was the way in which they had to find a place to fit in to their home that no longer was home. Because of the experiences the went through with just trying to survive, the person they were after coming come was no longer the person who left to fight in the war. The became a very difficult situation for both the vet and the family. They both needed to learn how to live with each other again. The movie portrayed the difficulty Ron had trying to fit into his family again, and the person he had the hardest time with was his mother. I think the problem came from his mother refusing to communicate about how the war changed her son and they never shared their feelings or experiences. This was a shame. Things could have been much easier if they were used to communicating.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie M. In a film filled with violence and gore, the scenes that shocked me the most were those in the veterans' hospital. The fact that these men went through the horrors of battle, getting seriously wounded or paralyzed, and had to "recuperate" in those conditions is enraging. Those scenes were just as traumatizing for me as the battle scenes. The way that some of the nurses treated them was so frustrating - non-chalance bordering on apathy. I wanted to smack the nurse that told Ron to stick Vietnam up his ass - WHO SAYS THAT TO A PARALYZED VETERAN? I think Stone did a great job showing the frustration of veterans dealing with anti-war sentiment - people taking out their anger about the war on the soldiers themselves had no idea what those men had been through. I also really liked the idealism that Stone infused into Ron's pre-war life. Everything was so idyllic and optimistic - fireworks, parades, baseball! I think it really captured the post-WWII golden days. Every now and then there would be a sad moment that stuck out, like the wounded veterans in the parade wincing at the noise of the firecrackers. Ron also said during the scene at the diner with his friends, "Our dads got to have WWII", which shows the eager mindset that a lot of young men probably had at that time. They saw Vietnam as their chance to fight for a noble cause. Ron also said, "I wanna go to Vietnam. And I'll die if I have to." That just bummed me out so much, because I'm sure so many guys thought the same thing, and probably did die. - Celia<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken said there was less cohesiveness as a unit among soldiers in Vietnam than among soldiers in World War II. This is illustrated in the movie when Ron tells Wilson's parents that no one talked to new guys much. That isn't to say there wasn't camaraderie, but many men would rather see a "stranger" than a friend be suddenly killed (like Lavender in "The Things They Carried"). --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken talked in class about how many veterans of the Vietnam war suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The veterans suffered from nightmares, depression, flashbacks, and "survivor guilt." The cause of most of these reactions to combat stem from the soldiers seeing so many people, especially civilians-men, women, and children, killed and dying. In the movie, Ron Kovic suffers from this disorder. He definitely has survivor guilt because he continued to think about the man he killed long after he was released from war. He only felt better about the situation when he told the family of the man he killed that he had been the one to kill him. He also relived the scene where the soldiers shot into a hut full of civilians in which most of them were killed. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie was very moving and at moments you wanted to turn away but also wanted an understanding of how Vietnam was portrayed in American culture. One of the most accurate parts for me was when Tom Cruise's character goes to his chain of command and tries to admit how he killed Wilson, but the idea is instantly rejected. The military did not want it to be leaked that deaths could be caused by their own troops and as noted in class the government even attempted to hide information regarding Vietnam from the American public. Also the acknowledgment of Kent State and protests was very real, the events were all tragic and a big part of American history in showing how divided society was throughout the conflict. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly portreyed the veterens and how they reacted to each other when they came home. It does not matter if they served in the same place or where they had gone they did terrible things and they are comforable with each other more then they are comfortable with their own family. They share something deeper by having gone to war and killing people. It depicts accuratly how the famliy reacts to a disturbed soldier who is bitter about what happened to him. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film depicts how common different addictions were among the soldiers and returning vets. Ron and the other men, especially while in Mexico, are constantly drinking and smoking. And men in the VA hospital towards the beginning of the film are hiding in the closet to shoot up drugs. The addictions added another level of problems to the challenges the vets had in returning home, but they also served as a means to numb their problems. Fighting them would mean having to confront how much their world is changed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with what Megan said. The movie was intense and well made, but there were a lot of parts that were just too hard to watch. I think the soldiers' return home was accurately portrayed. At the beginning of the movie, Kovic is a boy watching the World War II veterans in a 4th of July parade and it seemed that he wanted to be one of those soldiers marching in the parade and wanted to be appreciated like that some day. When he becomes a veteran himself, when he first returned home, he was met by his neighbors who were happy to see him. And later, he rode in the parade and had flashbacks of his childhood when he would admire the WWII veterans. Except his experience was different: people were throwing things at the car, flipping him off, etc. It definitely wasn't the homecoming he expected. A lot of soldiers probably faced that, being appreciated by the people closest to them but the general public felt they had nothing to congratulate the soldiers for. One aspect we didn't talk in detail about in class was the Veterans Hospitals. I was so disgusted in the movie by how dirty and just horrific the conditions were in the hospital. The veterans were treated like animals, like in the scene where they were getting hosed off and one man said it was like they were "at a car wash." The nurses and doctors also seemed indifferent to the healing veterans. From what we learned in class, the VA did not give/have a lot of money for the hospitals, but still; to treat veterans like that in places as disgusting at that seemed so wrong and probably didn't help the veterans' assimilation back to civilian life any easier. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the chaos of the era. Ron Kovic leaves the hell that was Vietnam only to return to a nation that was hardly less stable. Ron tries to find his place amidst the protesting college students, misplaced veterans, and cookie-cutter suburban life. Ron discovers that he no longer fits in with his "normal" family and that most of his friends died in Vietnam; he no longer has a proper place in his society. Another part of the movie I felt was accurate was when the African American soldier remarked that he was fighting for rights in Vietnam that he did not have at home. He felt it was a rich man's war. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movies brings out the little things that people may not have noticed at first glance. First, one of Ron's friends claim that he wants to "do something with his life," meaning that he wants to go to college and get a degree. This shows that not all men ducked out of the draft by fleeing the country and that some actually found legal and more honorable ways of getting around the draft. Then there is the false reality that these young men have about going to war. They claim they want their shot at to become a hero like their fathers had done in WWII. Finally, there is the depiction of the war on television. By showing actual scenes from the war and some of the aftermath, people back home are allowed to get a first an up close view about what the war may have entailed. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I think that the film portrayed the effects the war had on the veterans were accurate. Even in the beginning with the WWII vets and the man who flinches every time there is a loud noise, and the same goes for Ron later. It also should the various effects like, physical disability, alcoholism, drug abuse, PTSD through various characters especially in the hospital scenes. The film also should the different ways people at home reacted to the war. Some people were happy they were home, some thought they were killers, others felt sorry but no one knew exactly how to act.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
We mentioned briefly in class the lack of care that the veterans received after the war. Nixon constantly vetoed bills that would increase the amount of veteran’s benefits. I thought the movie did a good job of portraying the time Kovic spent in the hospital and the negligence of the doctors and nurses and lack of proper care. For example, when Kovic needed the pump for his extra leg the hospital did not even have an extra one and the doctor even mentioned that the funding for the veterans is very slim. The movie did not directly discuss the care for Veterans too much except in the hospital scenes but throughout the movie it is clearly apparent the almost contempt that many member of society had for these returning heroes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The film showed how many returning soldiers did not have a jobs to return because many of them were so young they didn't have jobs before they left and the economy in decline meant there weren't a lot of jobs anyway. Tom Cruise's character was offered a lowly cashier job by his friend, with the promise that he could work his way up. Also just the amount of veterans that seemed not to have jobs, like the ones in Mexico (whether by choice, medical reasons, or the economy it is unclear).--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:48, 17 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
I think the film showed very well how many Americans viewed the situation in Vietnam prior to the "war." When Ron and his friends are siting around in the diner when they are in high school, they 1) hardly know where Vietnam is or how to pronounce the name and 2) talk about how they need to hurry up and enlist or they will miss the war. In many interviews Stone cites the second reason-as well as many others Ron voices-as the reason he himself volunteered. Also the film also did a good job in showing how someone could go from Ron's original stance of supporting the war to his last stance of actively speaking out against it. -Isaac Whalen<br />
p.s. in regards to the comments about the lack of black soldiers. While there were few shown during the fighting there were quite a few shown in veteran's garb at the rallies and what not. The one dude who threw his medals off was a black soldier. This might have been done to show the presence of African Americans pushing for equality at home in conjunction with the peace rallies.<br />
<br />
I thought that while the film was very intense, it accurately portrayed the chaos that many of the soldiers witnessed during the war. The noise and the choppy camera shots really contribute to that sense. It was also emphasized when Tom Cruise thought that he had killed Wilson, and he kept repeating that it was so confusing. The sharp contrast between the high school prom and the brutality of war definitely demonstrate accurately the differences that the soldiers witnessed, with very short transition periods. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Ron's visit to Wilson's family and parents did not actually occurred. Stone created this scene to bring some closure to the film's version of Ron. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_on_the_Fourth_of_July) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I feel like the movie did not accurately portray the racial/class draft. Although certainly not all members of the military during Vietnam were members of a minority or from a working class background, Wilson (the young man who Ron accidentally killed) was the only lower class character mentioned. I only remember seeing one African American in Ron's unit, who carried Ron off the field. Ron Kovic and all of his friends who joined the military were from white, middle class backgrounds. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I don't think the movie mentioned anything about the Pentagon papers? That could of been an interesting addition to help with the anti-war movement. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I don't think it mentioned JFK's assassination either. That had to have been a disillusioning event for all of those young men who enlisted because of his words. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Ron did briefly reference JFK's assassination when he came home drunk and ranted about the war to his parents. The movie also did not portray all the aspects of the Vietnam War. The intense combat scenes were depicted, however, they only briefly showed the time spent back at the basecamp. In class we discussed how episodes of combat were broken up with free time at the basecamp where the soldiers were allowed to do what ever they pleased to take their minds off the war. Also, even though the movie makes a few references to drug use it does not show how soldiers became addicted to drugs over in Vietnam.--Erin L.<br />
<br />
I noticed the same thing Anna did, especially after the lecture, that there were very few African American and lower class soldiers than the statistics given to us in class. The movie had the same problem as The Patriot in that there seemed to be only one black soldier in the regiment of white men. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
I think its interesting that there is the gap between 1974 when the book was published and 1989 when the film was released, especially considering the books popularity. I know Oliver Stone was a Vietnam vet and he worked closely with Kovic on the play, so for him it was probably a personal interest to him to do this film. Also I believe during the Reagan administration services like VA hospitals and other government and state run institutions like mental hospitals had major cuts to their funding. Perhaps this was Stone's way of reminding us that we can't forget about the care of the veterans. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:56, 17 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
Most film critics call <em>Born on the Fourth of July</em> the second film in Stone's Vietnam trilogy, the first being <em>Platoon</em> and the last being <em>Heaven and Earth</em>. With this film it appears as though Stone is picking up were <em>Platoon</em> left off and talking about the effects of the war on the soldiers after the fighting, not during. What made the film interesting was how much of it correlated to what Stone himself went through, which adds to the movie's manifesto feel. The film seems to address how we remember war in America. During 1989 we were still in the Cold War, so the movie seems like a way of warning America what war does to us. Also, it seems to insinuate that the "classic American" ideal is not really the truth. Ron's situation is portrayed as a kind of coming of age story where he learns to tell the real truth no matter what.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Philip Caputo mentions how like aliens he and other Vietnam vets felt when they returned to "the world." He said "...within a year I was growing nostalgic for the war." We saw that in the movie when Ron and Timmy were reunited (after Ron's parade). They were esctatic to see one another, and afterward they sat outside talking and talking about the war. No one understood them like they understood each other. We saw this same phenomenon in "Best Years of Our Lives," when the men wanted each others' company more than they wanted to be with their families. Their notion of family had changed, in a way. Ron is certainly aliented from his family. His brother is anit-war, and none of the others even '''asked''' him about his experiences. He had no one to talk to. His mother had her own ideology which seemed fixed no matter what the facts were--she is shown turning the channel from news casts to watch "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In." --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the reading ''Rumor of War'',the author says that men went overseas "full of illusions." He said that war was attractive to young men who knew nothing about it. Kennedy also supposedly seduced the men through his speech "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." The way in which the author describes the mentality of the young men who volunteered to fight in the Vietnam conflict was shown through the character Ron Kovic in ''Born on the Fourth of July''. When the Marines came to Ron's school, he immediately knew he wanted to fight; he felt like he had a duty to fight in the war for his country. I think he also romanticized the idea about being in the military and being a veteran for the war when he compared his future experience to his and his friends' fathers' experiences in World War II. He believed he was going to be a part of a fight against communism, they were going to win the war, and be treated like royalty upon their return home. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Rumors of War," Caputo talks about how even when he had returned home, he still felt a connection with Vietnam, as though it was a part of him permanently. Dr. McClurken mentioned a statement in class, "they [veterans] returned to the US with dirt from Vietnam still under their fingertips." In the prologue, Caputo also mentioned how when he heard thunder, he remembered artillery and how he "could not listen to rain without recalling those drenched nights on the line" or even how he couldn't walk through the woods without being watchful of an ambush. Kovic had similar reactions as these. When he was on stage at the rally after he returned home, he couldn't finish giving his speech because he heard a baby crying and his mind flashed back to when him and his men accidentally killed all those people in the village and he left the crying baby behind. Even at the 4th of July Parade, he heard gunshots and he flinched, just as the WWII veteran had at the beginning of the movie when Kovic was a boy watching the parade. All of these reactions are how Vietnam stuck with these veterans. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
In the first reading, Caputo describes life from a Marines point of view, which also means as Dr. McClurken pointed out he had an extra month of service, but he engages in many of the ideas brought up in the movie and in class. I agree with Alex and also felt that the returning veterans could not let go of Vietnam it had become part of their life and it could not be pushed aside. One of the interesting points in the reading was when he quoted the sergeant from his platoon and how the sergeant went from being a pleasant man to one who thought survival was more important than innocent Vietnamese lives.(xix) This idea is also portrayed in the movie when Tom Cruise's character is attempting to save the wounded, especially the baby but is forced out by his commanding officer. Caputo admits war is ugly but as a veteran he was able to side with those who served because of the common bond soldiers shared. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Caputo discusses the belief that the American soldiers would simply march into Vietnam and the war would be easily won and then they would return home. He claimed “America seemed omnipotent then: the country could still claim it had never lost a war….the Viet Cong would be quickly beaten and that we were doing something altogether noble and good.” I think the movie expressed this sentiment pretty well especially when Ron and his friends were sitting around at the table eating and they were convinced that it would be a quick victory. They were so excited to go to war, but the excitement faded just as quickly as it was built and “the convictions, [were] lost.” -afrisk<br />
<br />
In, ''A Rumor of War, '' there is a claim that war is very attractive to young men. It then claims that some of these men were very moved by the speech President Kennedy gave about "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." From the movie, there is one idea about young men joining the war cause that is left out. That is, when their fathers came home they were seen as heroes. More importantly, they would not have ever heard their fathers talk about the terrible things they were forced to do while over seas. Thus, not only were these young men disillusioned about what the war entailed, but they were also not aware of what a war could do to the human mind. This sort of suppression of memories on their father's behalf severely hinder their own ability to grasp all the hardships that come with war and its aftermath. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie, Born on the Fourth of July, showed the horrors that those who fought in Vietnam faced abroad and what they had to deal with when they returned from fighting the unpopular war. The readings were graphic and provided much detail but the movie, because we could see it on the screen brought the horror to life. This is comparable to the people on the home front reading about WWII in the newspapers and watching Vietnam unfold on the news programs on their television. In O’Brien’s piece he listed the items that the soldiers carried and what some of them meant to the soldiers but in the movie you could see what it might’ve been like for the soldiers to carry their heavy packs through the heat of the jungles in Vietnam. (One thing I was confused about in O’Brien’s piece was when he said, “and all the things a medic must carry, including M&M’s for especially bad wounds” Is he talking about the candy M&M’s and what would they help with in medical situations.) –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In "They Things They Carried," Jimmy Cross's relationship with Martha reminded me of Ron's love for Donna in the movie. Both men tried to hold onto this idea that if they could only get through the horrible war then these women would be at home, unchanged, waiting for them. Nevermind that the women might not know that they were supposed to be waiting or how strongly the men felt, the soldiers needed something to cling to. Yet, when Ron does return home, he's changed, and Donna has grown and changed at school, and all of that romantic dream he held on to crumbles, one more blow to deal with in his post-war world. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I definitely saw a connection between the film and Caputo's reading, mostly on how the war simply never left so many men. Ron has flashbacks a few times to the baby crying, he winces at loud noises in the parades - the smallest things sent him reeling back into the horrors he faced. It was so hard to some veterans simply to exist as civilians, and they couldn't just shake off what they had been a part of. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-11-18T03:18:46Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately depicted the way wounded veterans' hospital conditions were deplorable. The country was spending vast amounts of money and attention to rid the world of communism that it turned a blind eye and expended no money to the medical care of the wounded vets. It took many years and lots of people to complain for veterans to get better medical care when they returned home. Although conditions are better, many VA hospitals could use more funding to aid the recovery of wounded vets. Another issue with what vets faced in returning home was the way in which they had to find a place to fit in to their home that no longer was home. Because of the experiences the went through with just trying to survive, the person they were after coming come was no longer the person who left to fight in the war. The became a very difficult situation for both the vet and the family. They both needed to learn how to live with each other again. The movie portrayed the difficulty Ron had trying to fit into his family again, and the person he had the hardest time with was his mother. I think the problem came from his mother refusing to communicate about how the war changed her son and they never shared their feelings or experiences. This was a shame. Things could have been much easier if they were used to communicating.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie M. In a film filled with violence and gore, the scenes that shocked me the most were those in the veterans' hospital. The fact that these men went through the horrors of battle, getting seriously wounded or paralyzed, and had to "recuperate" in those conditions is enraging. Those scenes were just as traumatizing for me as the battle scenes. The way that some of the nurses treated them was so frustrating - non-chalance bordering on apathy. I wanted to smack the nurse that told Ron to stick Vietnam up his ass - WHO SAYS THAT TO A PARALYZED VETERAN? I think Stone did a great job showing the frustration of veterans dealing with anti-war sentiment - people taking out their anger about the war on the soldiers themselves had no idea what those men had been through. I also really liked the idealism that Stone infused into Ron's pre-war life. Everything was so idyllic and optimistic - fireworks, parades, baseball! I think it really captured the post-WWII golden days. Every now and then there would be a sad moment that stuck out, like the wounded veterans in the parade wincing at the noise of the firecrackers. Ron also said during the scene at the diner with his friends, "Our dads got to have WWII", which shows the eager mindset that a lot of young men probably had at that time. They saw Vietnam as their chance to fight for a noble cause. Ron also said, "I wanna go to Vietnam. And I'll die if I have to." That just bummed me out so much, because I'm sure so many guys thought the same thing, and probably did die. - Celia<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken said there was less cohesiveness as a unit among soldiers in Vietnam than among soldiers in World War II. This is illustrated in the movie when Ron tells Wilson's parents that no one talked to new guys much. That isn't to say there wasn't camaraderie, but many men would rather see a "stranger" than a friend be suddenly killed (like Lavender in "The Things They Carried"). --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken talked in class about how many veterans of the Vietnam war suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The veterans suffered from nightmares, depression, flashbacks, and "survivor guilt." The cause of most of these reactions to combat stem from the soldiers seeing so many people, especially civilians-men, women, and children, killed and dying. In the movie, Ron Kovic suffers from this disorder. He definitely has survivor guilt because he continued to think about the man he killed long after he was released from war. He only felt better about the situation when he told the family of the man he killed that he had been the one to kill him. He also relived the scene where the soldiers shot into a hut full of civilians in which most of them were killed. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie was very moving and at moments you wanted to turn away but also wanted an understanding of how Vietnam was portrayed in American culture. One of the most accurate parts for me was when Tom Cruise's character goes to his chain of command and tries to admit how he killed Wilson, but the idea is instantly rejected. The military did not want it to be leaked that deaths could be caused by their own troops and as noted in class the government even attempted to hide information regarding Vietnam from the American public. Also the acknowledgment of Kent State and protests was very real, the events were all tragic and a big part of American history in showing how divided society was throughout the conflict. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly portreyed the veterens and how they reacted to each other when they came home. It does not matter if they served in the same place or where they had gone they did terrible things and they are comforable with each other more then they are comfortable with their own family. They share something deeper by having gone to war and killing people. It depicts accuratly how the famliy reacts to a disturbed soldier who is bitter about what happened to him. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film depicts how common different addictions were among the soldiers and returning vets. Ron and the other men, especially while in Mexico, are constantly drinking and smoking. And men in the VA hospital towards the beginning of the film are hiding in the closet to shoot up drugs. The addictions added another level of problems to the challenges the vets had in returning home, but they also served as a means to numb their problems. Fighting them would mean having to confront how much their world is changed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with what Megan said. The movie was intense and well made, but there were a lot of parts that were just too hard to watch. I think the soldiers' return home was accurately portrayed. At the beginning of the movie, Kovic is a boy watching the World War II veterans in a 4th of July parade and it seemed that he wanted to be one of those soldiers marching in the parade and wanted to be appreciated like that some day. When he becomes a veteran himself, when he first returned home, he was met by his neighbors who were happy to see him. And later, he rode in the parade and had flashbacks of his childhood when he would admire the WWII veterans. Except his experience was different: people were throwing things at the car, flipping him off, etc. It definitely wasn't the homecoming he expected. A lot of soldiers probably faced that, being appreciated by the people closest to them but the general public felt they had nothing to congratulate the soldiers for. One aspect we didn't talk in detail about in class was the Veterans Hospitals. I was so disgusted in the movie by how dirty and just horrific the conditions were in the hospital. The veterans were treated like animals, like in the scene where they were getting hosed off and one man said it was like they were "at a car wash." The nurses and doctors also seemed indifferent to the healing veterans. From what we learned in class, the VA did not give/have a lot of money for the hospitals, but still; to treat veterans like that in places as disgusting at that seemed so wrong and probably didn't help the veterans' assimilation back to civilian life any easier. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the chaos of the era. Ron Kovic leaves the hell that was Vietnam only to return to a nation that was hardly less stable. Ron tries to find his place amidst the protesting college students, misplaced veterans, and cookie-cutter suburban life. Ron discovers that he no longer fits in with his "normal" family and that most of his friends died in Vietnam; he no longer has a proper place in his society. Another part of the movie I felt was accurate was when the African American soldier remarked that he was fighting for rights in Vietnam that he did not have at home. He felt it was a rich man's war. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movies brings out the little things that people may not have noticed at first glance. First, one of Ron's friends claim that he wants to "do something with his life," meaning that he wants to go to college and get a degree. This shows that not all men ducked out of the draft by fleeing the country and that some actually found legal and more honorable ways of getting around the draft. Then there is the false reality that these young men have about going to war. They claim they want their shot at to become a hero like their fathers had done in WWII. Finally, there is the depiction of the war on television. By showing actual scenes from the war and some of the aftermath, people back home are allowed to get a first an up close view about what the war may have entailed. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I think that the film portrayed the effects the war had on the veterans were accurate. Even in the beginning with the WWII vets and the man who flinches every time there is a loud noise, and the same goes for Ron later. It also should the various effects like, physical disability, alcoholism, drug abuse, PTSD through various characters especially in the hospital scenes. The film also should the different ways people at home reacted to the war. Some people were happy they were home, some thought they were killers, others felt sorry but no one knew exactly how to act.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
We mentioned briefly in class the lack of care that the veterans received after the war. Nixon constantly vetoed bills that would increase the amount of veteran’s benefits. I thought the movie did a good job of portraying the time Kovic spent in the hospital and the negligence of the doctors and nurses and lack of proper care. For example, when Kovic needed the pump for his extra leg the hospital did not even have an extra one and the doctor even mentioned that the funding for the veterans is very slim. The movie did not directly discuss the care for Veterans too much except in the hospital scenes but throughout the movie it is clearly apparent the almost contempt that many member of society had for these returning heroes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The film showed how many returning soldiers did not have a jobs to return because many of them were so young they didn't have jobs before they left and the economy in decline meant there weren't a lot of jobs anyway. Tom Cruise's character was offered a lowly cashier job by his friend, with the promise that he could work his way up. Also just the amount of veterans that seemed not to have jobs, like the ones in Mexico (whether by choice, medical reasons, or the economy it is unclear).--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:48, 17 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
I think the film showed very well how many Americans viewed the situation in Vietnam prior to the "war." When Ron and his friends are siting around in the diner when they are in high school, they 1) hardly know where Vietnam is or how to pronounce the name and 2) talk about how they need to hurry up and enlist or they will miss the war. In many interviews Stone cites the second reason-as well as many others Ron voices-as the reason he himself volunteered. Also the film also did a good job in showing how someone could go from Ron's original stance of supporting the war to his last stance of actively speaking out against it. -Isaac Whalen<br />
p.s. in regards to the comments about the lack of black soldiers. While there were few shown during the fighting there were quite a few shown in veteran's garb at the rallies and what not. The one dude who threw his medals off was a black soldier. This might have been done to show the presence of African Americans pushing for equality at home in conjunction with the peace rallies.<br />
<br />
I thought that while the film was very intense, it accurately portrayed the chaos that many of the soldiers witnessed during the war. The noise and the choppy camera shots really contribute to that sense. It was also emphasized when Tom Cruise thought that he had killed Wilson, and he kept repeating that it was so confusing. The sharp contrast between the high school prom and the brutality of war definitely demonstrate accurately the differences that the soldiers witnessed, with very short transition periods. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Ron's visit to Wilson's family and parents did not actually occurred. Stone created this scene to bring some closure to the film's version of Ron. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_on_the_Fourth_of_July) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I feel like the movie did not accurately portray the racial/class draft. Although certainly not all members of the military during Vietnam were members of a minority or from a working class background, Wilson (the young man who Ron accidentally killed) was the only lower class character mentioned. I only remember seeing one African American in Ron's unit, who carried Ron off the field. Ron Kovic and all of his friends who joined the military were from white, middle class backgrounds. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I don't think the movie mentioned anything about the Pentagon papers? That could of been an interesting addition to help with the anti-war movement. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I don't think it mentioned JFK's assassination either. That had to have been a disillusioning event for all of those young men who enlisted because of his words. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Ron did briefly reference JFK's assassination when he came home drunk and ranted about the war to his parents. The movie also did not portray all the aspects of the Vietnam War. The intense combat scenes were depicted, however, they only briefly showed the time spent back at the basecamp. In class we discussed how episodes of combat were broken up with free time at the basecamp where the soldiers were allowed to do what ever they pleased to take their minds off the war. Also, even though the movie makes a few references to drug use it does not show how soldiers became addicted to drugs over in Vietnam.--Erin L.<br />
<br />
I noticed the same thing Anna did, especially after the lecture, that there were very few African American and lower class soldiers than the statistics given to us in class. The movie had the same problem as The Patriot in that there seemed to be only one black soldier in the regiment of white men. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
I think its interesting that there is the gap between 1974 when the book was published and 1989 when the film was released, especially considering the books popularity. I know Oliver Stone was a Vietnam vet and he worked closely with Kovic on the play, so for him it was probably a personal interest to him to do this film. Also I believe during the Reagan administration services like VA hospitals and other government and state run institutions like mental hospitals had major cuts to their funding. Perhaps this was Stone's way of reminding us that we can't forget about the care of the veterans. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:56, 17 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
Most film critics call <em>Born on the Fourth of July</em> the second film in Stone's Vietnam trilogy, the first being <em>Platoon</em> and the last being <em>Heaven and Earth</em>. With this film it appears as though Stone is picking up were <em>Platoon</em> left off and talking about the effects of the war on the soldiers after the fighting, not during. What made the film interesting was how much of it correlated to what Stone himself went through, which adds to the movie's manifesto feel. The film seems to address how we remember war in America. During 1989 we were still in the Cold War, so the movie seems like a way of warning America what war does to us. Also, it seems to insinuate that the "classic American" ideal is not really the truth. Ron's situation is portrayed as a kind of coming of age story where he learns to tell the real truth no matter what.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Philip Caputo mentions how like aliens he and other Vietnam vets felt when they returned to "the world." He said "...within a year I was growing nostalgic for the war." We saw that in the movie when Ron and Timmy were reunited (after Ron's parade). They were esctatic to see one another, and afterward they sat outside talking and talking about the war. No one understood them like they understood each other. We saw this same phenomenon in "Best Years of Our Lives," when the men wanted each others' company more than they wanted to be with their families. Their notion of family had changed, in a way. Ron is certainly aliented from his family. His brother is anit-war, and none of the others even '''asked''' him about his experiences. He had no one to talk to. His mother had her own ideology which seemed fixed no matter what the facts were--she is shown turning the channel from news casts to watch "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In." --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the reading ''Rumor of War'',the author says that men went overseas "full of illusions." He said that war was attractive to young men who knew nothing about it. Kennedy also supposedly seduced the men through his speech "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." The way in which the author describes the mentality of the young men who volunteered to fight in the Vietnam conflict was shown through the character Ron Kovic in ''Born on the Fourth of July''. When the Marines came to Ron's school, he immediately knew he wanted to fight; he felt like he had a duty to fight in the war for his country. I think he also romanticized the idea about being in the military and being a veteran for the war when he compared his future experience to his and his friends' fathers' experiences in World War II. He believed he was going to be a part of a fight against communism, they were going to win the war, and be treated like royalty upon their return home. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Rumors of War," Caputo talks about how even when he had returned home, he still felt a connection with Vietnam, as though it was a part of him permanently. Dr. McClurken mentioned a statement in class, "they [veterans] returned to the US with dirt from Vietnam still under their fingertips." In the prologue, Caputo also mentioned how when he heard thunder, he remembered artillery and how he "could not listen to rain without recalling those drenched nights on the line" or even how he couldn't walk through the woods without being watchful of an ambush. Kovic had similar reactions as these. When he was on stage at the rally after he returned home, he couldn't finish giving his speech because he heard a baby crying and his mind flashed back to when him and his men accidentally killed all those people in the village and he left the crying baby behind. Even at the 4th of July Parade, he heard gunshots and he flinched, just as the WWII veteran had at the beginning of the movie when Kovic was a boy watching the parade. All of these reactions are how Vietnam stuck with these veterans. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
In the first reading, Caputo describes life from a Marines point of view, which also means as Dr. McClurken pointed out he had an extra month of service, but he engages in many of the ideas brought up in the movie and in class. I agree with Alex and also felt that the returning veterans could not let go of Vietnam it had become part of their life and it could not be pushed aside. One of the interesting points in the reading was when he quoted the sergeant from his platoon and how the sergeant went from being a pleasant man to one who thought survival was more important than innocent Vietnamese lives.(xix) This idea is also portrayed in the movie when Tom Cruise's character is attempting to save the wounded, especially the baby but is forced out by his commanding officer. Caputo admits war is ugly but as a veteran he was able to side with those who served because of the common bond soldiers shared. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Caputo discusses the belief that the American soldiers would simply march into Vietnam and the war would be easily won and then they would return home. He claimed “America seemed omnipotent then: the country could still claim it had never lost a war….the Viet Cong would be quickly beaten and that we were doing something altogether noble and good.” I think the movie expressed this sentiment pretty well especially when Ron and his friends were sitting around at the table eating and they were convinced that it would be a quick victory. They were so excited to go to war, but the excitement faded just as quickly as it was built and “the convictions, [were] lost.” -afrisk<br />
<br />
In, ''A Rumor of War, '' there is a claim that war is very attractive to young men. It then claims that some of these men were very moved by the speech President Kennedy gave about "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." From the movie, there is one idea about young men joining the war cause that is left out. That is, when their fathers came home they were seen as heroes. More importantly, they would not have ever heard their fathers talk about the terrible things they were forced to do while over seas. Thus, not only were these young men disillusioned about what the war entailed, but they were also not aware of what a war could do to the human mind. This sort of suppression of memories on their father's behalf severely hinder their own ability to grasp all the hardships that come with war and its aftermath. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie, Born on the Fourth of July, showed the horrors that those who fought in Vietnam faced abroad and what they had to deal with when they returned from fighting the unpopular war. The readings were graphic and provided much detail but the movie, because we could see it on the screen brought the horror to life. This is comparable to the people on the home front reading about WWII in the newspapers and watching Vietnam unfold on the news programs on their television. In O’Brien’s piece he listed the items that the soldiers carried and what some of them meant to the soldiers but in the movie you could see what it might’ve been like for the soldiers to carry their heavy packs through the heat of the jungles in Vietnam. (One thing I was confused about in O’Brien’s piece was when he said, “and all the things a medic must carry, including M&M’s for especially bad wounds” Is he talking about the candy M&M’s and what would they help with in medical situations.) –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In "They Things They Carried," Jimmy Cross's relationship with Martha reminded me of Ron's love for Donna in the movie. Both men tried to hold onto this idea that if they could only get through the horrible war then these women would be at home, unchanged, waiting for them. Nevermind that the women might not know that they were supposed to be waiting or how strongly the men felt, the soldiers needed something to cling to. Yet, when Ron does return home, he's changed, and Donna has grown and changed at school, and all of that romantic dream he held on to crumbles, one more blow to deal with in his post-war world. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-11-11T02:50:03Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the inferior status of African Americans in the South. It showed how some whites, like during Christmas dinner, talked one way in front of blacks and another when they were not in the room and how others were not concerned with who heard their outspokenness dripping with racial prejudice. The movie also showed how the boycott was most difficult for black women, especially those who were domestic servants. This was true not only because of the long distances they lived from their places of employment, but also because, even if they were the last ones home, they were still expected to uphold their motherly duties of keeping house and taking care of the children. How they were able to sustain the boycott for over a year, I have no clue. But their determination goes to show how dedicated they were to winning this battle.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The one thing I believed the movie portrayed really well was to show how churches were used to spread the ideals of activism to the people. In the movie they mention that those with cars should use them to help with car pooling others around. Using personal cars for driving others was brought up at the church. Once these plans were laid forth in the church, they were met with cops trying to impede them by giving them tickets. Plus, once they were met by opposition, they refused to use any kind of force, even when they were being beaten. Also, most of the people showed boycotting the buses were black women. As is true with what really happened, men helped by planning the boycotts and raising money to keep it going. Another thing that was portrayed well was the increase of membership for the KKK. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie was extremely accurate in the movie's portrayal of the determination of the African American community to uphold the boycott. Despite the long distances and the harassment that they faced, they still diligently walked or found another mode of transportation to work, such as taxis. The movie also shows that they organized car-pools to help those that could not walk. Due to the boycott, the movie also shows the methods that the white community tried to use to break the boycott, such as harassing those that were driving in the car pools. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The film accurately portrays the racism of the whites in the South and the intense feelings they have for segregation. In the film blacks were not allowed in the “white” park. The bus obviously had segregated sections. In the movie the black women would pay the bus fare then get off the bus and board on the back so they would not walk through the white section. The bus boycott began after the arrest of Rosa Parks (and it’s led by Martin Luther King, Jr.). Women’s roles are also accurately portrayed. They either had a job, or they worked in the home. If the family had money, it had a maid and the wife did not have to do as much of the housework. Wives also were expected to follow their husband’s ideals. This is shown when Mrs. Thompson tells Odessa she cannot drive her anymore because her husband thinks ‘it is not right to make her suffer.’ However I must say that I loved the speech Mrs. Thompson gives her husband when she tells him that she will do what she wants in order to do her job to run the household, and that he should leave her alone unless he wants her to go to his job and tell him how to do it.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Samantha in regards to how the movie portrayed the city buses as being heavily segregated, and I think it would be pretty accurate to say regardless of gender all African Americans suffered if they made a white person angry. I do wonder did many African Americans ride the bus throughout the boycott and if they did was the reaction the same as Whoopi Goldberg's character portrayed? I also think it was correct when her brother came with the taxi and the driver said "he needed to leave before he was lynched," the terror of white society in Montgomery was everywhere, as shown by Mr. Thompson and his "citizens council" and all African Amerians knew it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I liked how the movie placed the lives of the Thompson's and the Cotters as totally seperate. Mr. Cotter said that we will only know her as a maid and she will only know us as her employers. This distant relationship between white families and there black maids seemed very accurate. Even though it seemed like the Thompsons were less racist at first there was no sense of compassion or equality for Odessa and she was purely another servent. I like how the movie portrayed this very gradual ideological change and how acceptance was very difficult. -afrisk<br />
<br />
First of all, I really liked this movie because it managed to make me incredibly angry about what was happening, even though I knew that the outcome was positive. I wish we had been able to see every hateful person in the film get what's coming to them. That being said, I respect the filmmakers immensely because they chose not to do that - it's much more realistic that way. I was so angry and frustrated with what I saw in the film, and I think that's what the filmmakers were going for. Anyway, I agree with Andrew about the stark contrasts between the Thompson and Cotter homes. This was especially clear on Christmas - the Thompson had lots of presents under their tree, everyone was together and happy; in the Cotter house, Odessa was up before everyone else to leave for work, she left one small gift in everyone's stockings, and spent the rest of the day working. I also agree with Mike E. about how it showed the power that the churches held in encouraging the boycott. I thought it was interesting that Odessa's daughter, Selma, was not as gung-ho about the boycott as everyone else. I'm sure there were people that shared her point of view - it was a serious inconvenience, and not everyone was bound to be as noble and perservering as Odessa. I thought the film also did a good job showing all different perspectives - the aggressively ignorant and hateful Tucker is sort of the worst of the worst; Norman starts off more or less neutral and starts to turn to the dark side; Miriam isn't against the boycott at the beginning but she slowly becomes more active in the cause; the bus driver that "doesn't want any trouble" and kicks off the horrible boys after they harrass Selma; and Selma's juvenile annoyance at the boycott. It was refreshing to see such a varied group of characters, rather than simply good versus evil. - Celia<br />
<br />
I think that the movie accurately portrayed how much women in particular, were affected by the bus boycotts. Since so many women, including Odessa Cotter mainly worked in service positions, especially domestic service, they were more likely to have to travel into the suburbs far from their homes. The determination of these women seems even more powerful that they had to travel so very far. It also depicts the effect that the boycott had on white women in the South in the 1950s. Miriam Thomson seemed to epitomize the 1950s educated housewife who was expected to maintain the home for her family. Her initial motivation for helping Odessa was simply for her own families comfort, but, it became more of a moral crusade later on. I think that Miriam’s clash with her husband illustrates the struggle of the 1950s ideals of domesticity and how women were expected to remain the more submissive sex. Though the film does not overtly mention it, I think there is an underlying tension of the need to dominate the African-American women who are empowering themselves and consequently subverting the white southern male authority in Montgomery...or maybe I am reading too much into it…-Caryn<br />
<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Caryn about the role of women. It was interesting that some of what was said in the reading we had about Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr. When the mayor of Montgomery said that women were a lot of why the boycott was continuing because they were driving their maids, the women were furious and said, "if Tacky Gayle wants to come out here and do my washing, ironing, and cleaning and cooking and looking after my children, he can do it, but unless he does, I'm going to continue driving." That was the reason Miriam used when she finally stood up to her husband saying she was going to continue driving Odessa because she needed the help in the house. It seemed that Miriam had an underlying reason for driving Odessa, that being she secretly supported the boycott and the African American cause. During the real boycotts, I wonder how many white women who drove their maids secretly supported the boycott? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this movie and I think it was very accurate. It showed the complex relationships between African Americans and whites. The scene where the family had guests over at dinner was especially tense because some people supported segregation while others quietly disagreed. Also, they were saying racist things in front of Odessa! It showed how not everyone agreed -- not all whites wanted segregation. It also showed the complex relationship between Mrs. Thompson and Odessa. It was difficult for them to be friends because of the certain roles they are stuck in. Also it showed the relationship between the husband and wife. The husband thought he had the final say in what the wife does, but she showed him that she can do things on her own and she doesn't need his approval. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
<br />
After the discussion in class on Tuesday, I learned that the movie accurately represented the African Americans' experiences during the boycott and the sentiment surrounding the reasons as to why black people participated in it. When I watched the movie, I didn't understand the first scene where the black women were getting on the bus, paying, exiting, and then re-entering in the rear of the bus. After class, I learned that African American's, in most cases, had to do exactly that and re-enter the bus in the rear instead of just sitting down in a seat as soon as they boarded. Dr. McClurken also mentioned about how many African Americans,female African Americans specifically, believed that they were participating in the boycott for their children and and grandchildren. They believed that they were walking for the future generations of African Americans, so that they would be able to have more rights than the black people did at the time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie very clearly portrayed the disparities between white and black society. Both Odessa and her husband had to work full time jobs so they could make ends meet. Odessa even had to give up Christmas with her family to work. Despite the constant struggle to earn living wages, Odessa and her family only lived in relative comfort and could not afford much. On the other hand, in the Thomson family, only Norman worked while his wife Mariam was able to stay at their lavish home and hire a maid to do the housework for her. During the Christmas scene, there were innumerable amounts of presents for Mary Katherine and her sister. This portrayal helps the audience to understand that the bus boycott was about more than being able to choose any seat on the bus; it was for a better standard of living and true equality. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I think that the film did a good job at showing the racial inequalities of the South in 1955. Like we talked about in class many of the people shown boycotting the bus were women, and as we talked about in class African-American women made up a large number of people who rode the buses to work. I also thought that the film did a good job at showing how even though walking to work everyday was difficult but they would rather do that then sit at the back of the bus.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One scene that really got across how ingrained racism was, was when Tunker hears that Sissy made the police officer apologize to Odessa. He says, "That's plain old wrong." Sissy responds, "I know what is right and what is wrong." She goes on to tell him that she will not tolerate anyone, including Tunker, tell her what is right, and what is wrong. This scene is one of the first examples of Sissy's conviction and strong moral base, that will enable her to stand up to her own husband, and the rest of the racist socialites that surround her. When her husband orders her to stop giving rides to Odessa, he describes how ridiculous his wife's notion that she is close with their maid, "It's like a dog knowing a cat." She initially wilts under pressure, but comes back with a vengeance, not only driving Odessa, but participating in the ridesharing as well. As we have seen throughout history, and in many films this year, when people are ordered to do something against their will, they frequently redouble their efforts to resist and oppose the oppressor. Also, the most satisfying words spoken in the movie, were when Sissy says to Tunker, "You ignorant son of a bitch." Also, Tucnker getting punched in the face was a close second. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I wish Sissy had spit in Tucker's face, but I agree with Mike G. I also liked the bus driver telling the white boys: "Don't bring your trashy ass back on my bus." Classic. - Celia<br />
<br />
This movie really shows the differences in status in Montgomery based on race. Comparing Christmases in particular shows the economic differences well: the Thompson's had a huge tree with lots of presents and new clothes, while the Cotter's had a Charlie Brown tree and, well, more of a focus on family. Socially, the Thompson family could go anywhere and do whatever they needed to do without harassment, provided they stayed within their segment of society. The Cotter family couldn't do that at all, however, as proven in the first few minutes of the movie when Odessa gets kicked out of the park with the kids. The movie also depicts the gender politics of the era, especially in the tension between Mr. and Mrs. Thompson. Every time she tries to speak up, he tells her to stop telling him what to do. It's interesting to watch them try to work out what kind of dynamic they're going to develop. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
I thought that the film did a really excellent job contrasting the gender roles between white and black families. In the white family, Norman expects that Miriam will stay at home and present the picture of a society wife without questioning his judgement. He is completely shocked when she has her own opinions about Odessa and the boycotts, which leads to what is implied as the dissolution of their marriage. On the other hand, Odessa had a job which she worked full time to help her husband support their family. She was clearly consulted about family decisions, and her husband and children respected her ideas. I thought it was particularly interesting that Miriam pointed out to her husband that she had a college education, and could support herself if she had to. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong == <br />
<br />
White psychologists believed that when black women began to make more money than their male counterparts and were able to achieve a higher degree of education, there would be some conflicts within the household. This was not an issue in the movie for the Cotter family. In contrast, it had become a problem for the Thompson family when Miriam decided to stage her own boycott against her husband Norman when he demanded that she stop driving Odessa to work. Miriam claimed that she had a college degree and would be able to make a sufficient amount of money and she would do with it as she pleased. Along the same lines, there was no mention of black women that went to college and had professional jobs. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
In class, we spent some time going over the negative treatment of the bus drivers towards African Americans who would ride their buses. Many drivers carried guns, mistreated the black people, and one even dragged a blind African American man several blocks. The movie does not really portray the bus drivers as necessarily aggressive or hateful towards the African Americans. When Odessa's daughter is about to board the bus, the only words the bus driver says to her is to tell her that he doesn't want any trouble on the bus. Later in that scene, the same bus driver stops the bus to tell the three white boys to stop harassing Odessa's daughter and eventually kicks them off for being ignorant. The movie does not focus a large amount of time on the bus drivers, but the time it does creates the idea that the bus drivers may not have been as racist or hateful towards African American bus riders like we talked about in class. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Maybe I just don't remember it, but did the movie mention that it was the Women's Political Council that first organized the boycott? It did a good job of showing how the boycott influenced women's lives, but I'm not sure it gave black women organizers like Jo Ann Robinson enough credit for the work they did behind the scenes in making so much of the movement happen. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
The film was released during the time when formal negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa were starting. Racial minorities in South Africa faced discrimination that were similar to the black Americans but much worse at that time. Not only were South Africa's racial minorities segregated and disenfranchised, but they were also deprived of their citizenship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1990, the World Summit for Children was held at the UN in New York. I bring this up because Odessa mentions that she is determined to give her child a better life. The Summits mission was to give every child a better future "there can be no task nobler than giving every child a better future" http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/about/world-summit.htm. It seemed that both Odessa and Miriam wanted the same thing, for their children to grow up in a world that did not have these types or racial divides. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to compare "Long Walk Home" with "To Kill a Mockingbird" and to wonder if the earlier movie influenced the later one. Both movies are narrated by a female adult looking back at her childhood; both are set in the South; both involve an important episode in Southern race relations; and both show a parent struggling with moral choices that conflict with the attitudes of their community and era. "Mockingbird" ended badly for the black man accused of raping a white woman, but "Long Walk Home" ended on a victorious note. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this is really a primary source comment but I liked that they didn't shy way from the racial prejudice, especially with the racial slurs and violence toward African-Americans. Considering one of the biggest problems we have had with historical movies we have watched so far is the way they ignored or lied about racial issues. I think that the focus on ending the apartheid in South Africa, may have made people more aware of the United States' turbulent past with race relations.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The movie and the readings corroborate the way African Americans found themselves victims of Southern state and local laws that are in direct contrast to federal laws. Mr. Thomas' comments relate the way in which Southern law enforcement refused to even acknowledge that federal laws were in place which provide protection for African American rights. These law enforcement officials truly believed that the laws they lived by were supreme and there was no need to look any further than their own decisions. They saw the federal laws as laws for outsiders and had no jurisdiction in their areas. It also showed how African Americans did not have federal protection just because they (the federal government) said they had rights. As long as there was no enforcement of the federal laws, black Americans were forced to live within the demands of local laws. -Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The Rosa Parks reading mentions the bus boycott and how blacks formed carpools. Also white women would drive black women to and from work because they could not take the bus. This was a major part of the film. The reading also mentions how the police would ticket people involved in the boycott. At one point in the film Odessa says, “I learned one thing in my life and that is when your hand’s in the lion’s mouth, it’s just better to pat it on the head.” In the reading it is a woman named Mary.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
“They couldn’t afford to say, ‘I’m supporting the boycott.’ So the white women lied and the black women lied. And the maids kept coming and the white women kept driving them back and forth to work.” This quote from “Civil Rights Activists” exemplifies the relationship between Odessa and Mrs. Thompson that drives the racial tension as the movie goes along. Mrs. Thompson kept secret from her husband that she was giving Odessa rides and when he found out, he flipped out and she was forbid to drive her. She eventually gave her rides and went behind her husband’s back and was lying to him. Odessa also could not admit that she was part of the boycott or she would get heckled and possibly arrested. This quote is very basic in describing the dynamics of the boycott system but there are many more emotions involved outside of simply carpooling. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Alice Brantley's testimony, besides being a clear and logical argument in favor of desegregated travel, also highlights the leadership roles many women played in the Civil Rights movement. The importance of women in the movement was also shown in one of the movie's key scenes. When the Citizens' Council raids the car-pool lot, it is the women who defuse the situation by singing and then linking hands. This was a powerful moment that symbolized several important themes: MLK's non-violent philosophy; the supreme courage required to face an enemy, and to fight for a cause; the different approaches men and women use in similar situations; and solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
In the Thomas Williams' reading, Williams testified about how he was treated when riding a bus in the South. Throughout the testimony, he claimed he knew his rights,knew about the Supreme Court Decisions, and that he did not have to move when asked. The bus driver claimed that Williams was "in the South now."Williams stated later, "[The bus driver] ignored my statement...as if the Supreme Court decisions had no effect in the South." This idea of the Supreme Court Decisions not being taken into account in the South was definitely reflected in the movie. You could tell simply from looking at the People's Council, with the men walking around with their white superiority and in their fancy, (but not so fancy) suits. In the movie, they believed that matters needed to be taken into their own hands rather than the government. They, along with others in the South, definitely acted as if the Supreme Court never existed. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
Miriam Thomson was reminiscent of Virginia Durr. Though Durr was a liberal southerner who had the clear support of her husband, Mariam shared the courageousness it took to offer rides to African Americans. Both women clearly defied southern society to fight for a just cause. The movie also portrayed how the bus boycott affected relation between white women and their black domestics; some women were truly upset about the boycott, but were not willing to give up their domestics. Others, like Miriam, became involved in the protest. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In the readings, two of the people punished for sitting in the wrong part of the bus were members of the US military, a position their fellow passengers ignored. But I imagine that being members of the military, and possibly WWII veterans, prompted the black man and woman to stand up for their rights even more than maybe they otherwise would have. They wanted full rights in a country that they were willing to fight for. The movie didn't really show how military service and other opportunities increasingly afforded to African Americans shaped their drive to push for full rights. It only focused on how broadening views of the world shaped white perceptions, with Miriam's story about the swimming pool in Portland and her comment about her husband's travels in the WWII military. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class Dr. McClurken asked us to look at the successes and/or failures of the movie and I think the movie overall was a success in accurately explaining the struggles of African Americans in the 1950s. The movie shows through Whoopi Goldberg's character the success of women in playing leading roles in the bus boycott movement (the last scene being the most powerful with the women singing in the parking lot) and against the Southern Whites Citizens Council. I also think it is a success to show the power of Mrs. Thompson, white civil rights leaders were important in showing the plight of African Americans and were able to access white media easier. Mrs. Thompson was linked with the African Americans in town but was able to stand up to the men in her life and in a sense was making a better life for herself and her daughter. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this was a success or a failure but I found the absence of Martin Luther King on screen intriguing. His voice was heard (recordings of his speeches I assume) but no actor played him. Perhaps this was because no actor could live up to the great Martin Luther King Jr. Since he was never shown on screen he was made a simply a figure of the Civil Rights Movement.-Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I think this was a very successful portrayal of the views and behavior of people in the 1950s, not only toward race but also toward gender roles, family relationships and social responsibility. Because the narrator is a white woman (the adult Mary Catherine), it would be easy to dismiss the whole movie as just one more white filter on US history. But the screenwriter is, if anything, harder on whites than he is on blacks. The white Thompson family is imploding, but Odessa's family grows closer. Also, the black community is tight-knit, through church and neighbors, while the whites seem to have no bond with one another beyond the racist Citizens' Council and the catty women's circles. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
When the young white kids came on the bus and were harassing Odessa's daughter would a white bus driver stop the bus and kick the white's off? -afrisk<br />
<br />
I liked how they did not have an actor for Martin Luther King Jr. His speeches are powerful enough without anything visual. It was a good choice. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To touch on the MLK question, I think not having him in here focuses the story on smaller, lesser known people who supported the movement. They easily could have had him in the film, but perhaps that would shift the film away from the struggle of everyday people to Martin Luther King Jr. Not necessarily a bad move, but it would definitely make for an entirely different film. This movie doesn't only bring the struggle of the black community to the forefront; it also emphasizes the powerful role of women in the boycott.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:18, 10 November 2010 (MST)</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-11-11T02:44:01Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the inferior status of African Americans in the South. It showed how some whites, like during Christmas dinner, talked one way in front of blacks and another when they were not in the room and how others were not concerned with who heard their outspokenness dripping with racial prejudice. The movie also showed how the boycott was most difficult for black women, especially those who were domestic servants. This was true not only because of the long distances they lived from their places of employment, but also because, even if they were the last ones home, they were still expected to uphold their motherly duties of keeping house and taking care of the children. How they were able to sustain the boycott for over a year, I have no clue. But their determination goes to show how dedicated they were to winning this battle.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The one thing I believed the movie portrayed really well was to show how churches were used to spread the ideals of activism to the people. In the movie they mention that those with cars should use them to help with car pooling others around. Using personal cars for driving others was brought up at the church. Once these plans were laid forth in the church, they were met with cops trying to impede them by giving them tickets. Plus, once they were met by opposition, they refused to use any kind of force, even when they were being beaten. Also, most of the people showed boycotting the buses were black women. As is true with what really happened, men helped by planning the boycotts and raising money to keep it going. Another thing that was portrayed well was the increase of membership for the KKK. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie was extremely accurate in the movie's portrayal of the determination of the African American community to uphold the boycott. Despite the long distances and the harassment that they faced, they still diligently walked or found another mode of transportation to work, such as taxis. The movie also shows that they organized car-pools to help those that could not walk. Due to the boycott, the movie also shows the methods that the white community tried to use to break the boycott, such as harassing those that were driving in the car pools. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The film accurately portrays the racism of the whites in the South and the intense feelings they have for segregation. In the film blacks were not allowed in the “white” park. The bus obviously had segregated sections. In the movie the black women would pay the bus fare then get off the bus and board on the back so they would not walk through the white section. The bus boycott began after the arrest of Rosa Parks (and it’s led by Martin Luther King, Jr.). Women’s roles are also accurately portrayed. They either had a job, or they worked in the home. If the family had money, it had a maid and the wife did not have to do as much of the housework. Wives also were expected to follow their husband’s ideals. This is shown when Mrs. Thompson tells Odessa she cannot drive her anymore because her husband thinks ‘it is not right to make her suffer.’ However I must say that I loved the speech Mrs. Thompson gives her husband when she tells him that she will do what she wants in order to do her job to run the household, and that he should leave her alone unless he wants her to go to his job and tell him how to do it.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Samantha in regards to how the movie portrayed the city buses as being heavily segregated, and I think it would be pretty accurate to say regardless of gender all African Americans suffered if they made a white person angry. I do wonder did many African Americans ride the bus throughout the boycott and if they did was the reaction the same as Whoopi Goldberg's character portrayed? I also think it was correct when her brother came with the taxi and the driver said "he needed to leave before he was lynched," the terror of white society in Montgomery was everywhere, as shown by Mr. Thompson and his "citizens council" and all African Amerians knew it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I liked how the movie placed the lives of the Thompson's and the Cotters as totally seperate. Mr. Cotter said that we will only know her as a maid and she will only know us as her employers. This distant relationship between white families and there black maids seemed very accurate. Even though it seemed like the Thompsons were less racist at first there was no sense of compassion or equality for Odessa and she was purely another servent. I like how the movie portrayed this very gradual ideological change and how acceptance was very difficult. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Andrew about the stark contrasts between the Thompson and Cotter homes. This was especially clear on Christmas - the Thompson had lots of presents under their tree, everyone was together and happy; in the Cotter house, Odessa was up before everyone else to leave for work, she left one small gift in everyone's stockings, and spent the rest of the day working. I also agree with Mike E. about how it showed the power that the churches held in encouraging the boycott. I thought it was interesting that Odessa's daughter, Selma, was not as gung-ho about the boycott as everyone else. I'm sure there were people that shared her point of view - it was a serious inconvenience, and not everyone was bound to be as noble and perservering as Odessa. I thought the film also did a good job showing all different perspectives - the aggressively ignorant and hateful Tucker is sort of the worst of the worst; Norman starts off more or less neutral and starts to turn to the dark side; Miriam isn't against the boycott at the beginning but she slowly becomes more active in the cause; the bus driver that "doesn't want any trouble" and kicks off the horrible boys after they harrass Selma; and Selma's juvenile annoyance at the boycott. It was refreshing to see such a varied group of characters, rather than simply good versus evil. - Celia<br />
<br />
I think that the movie accurately portrayed how much women in particular, were affected by the bus boycotts. Since so many women, including Odessa Cotter mainly worked in service positions, especially domestic service, they were more likely to have to travel into the suburbs far from their homes. The determination of these women seems even more powerful that they had to travel so very far. It also depicts the effect that the boycott had on white women in the South in the 1950s. Miriam Thomson seemed to epitomize the 1950s educated housewife who was expected to maintain the home for her family. Her initial motivation for helping Odessa was simply for her own families comfort, but, it became more of a moral crusade later on. I think that Miriam’s clash with her husband illustrates the struggle of the 1950s ideals of domesticity and how women were expected to remain the more submissive sex. Though the film does not overtly mention it, I think there is an underlying tension of the need to dominate the African-American women who are empowering themselves and consequently subverting the white southern male authority in Montgomery...or maybe I am reading too much into it…-Caryn<br />
<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Caryn about the role of women. It was interesting that some of what was said in the reading we had about Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr. When the mayor of Montgomery said that women were a lot of why the boycott was continuing because they were driving their maids, the women were furious and said, "if Tacky Gayle wants to come out here and do my washing, ironing, and cleaning and cooking and looking after my children, he can do it, but unless he does, I'm going to continue driving." That was the reason Miriam used when she finally stood up to her husband saying she was going to continue driving Odessa because she needed the help in the house. It seemed that Miriam had an underlying reason for driving Odessa, that being she secretly supported the boycott and the African American cause. During the real boycotts, I wonder how many white women who drove their maids secretly supported the boycott? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this movie and I think it was very accurate. It showed the complex relationships between African Americans and whites. The scene where the family had guests over at dinner was especially tense because some people supported segregation while others quietly disagreed. Also, they were saying racist things in front of Odessa! It showed how not everyone agreed -- not all whites wanted segregation. It also showed the complex relationship between Mrs. Thompson and Odessa. It was difficult for them to be friends because of the certain roles they are stuck in. Also it showed the relationship between the husband and wife. The husband thought he had the final say in what the wife does, but she showed him that she can do things on her own and she doesn't need his approval. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
<br />
After the discussion in class on Tuesday, I learned that the movie accurately represented the African Americans' experiences during the boycott and the sentiment surrounding the reasons as to why black people participated in it. When I watched the movie, I didn't understand the first scene where the black women were getting on the bus, paying, exiting, and then re-entering in the rear of the bus. After class, I learned that African American's, in most cases, had to do exactly that and re-enter the bus in the rear instead of just sitting down in a seat as soon as they boarded. Dr. McClurken also mentioned about how many African Americans,female African Americans specifically, believed that they were participating in the boycott for their children and and grandchildren. They believed that they were walking for the future generations of African Americans, so that they would be able to have more rights than the black people did at the time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie very clearly portrayed the disparities between white and black society. Both Odessa and her husband had to work full time jobs so they could make ends meet. Odessa even had to give up Christmas with her family to work. Despite the constant struggle to earn living wages, Odessa and her family only lived in relative comfort and could not afford much. On the other hand, in the Thomson family, only Norman worked while his wife Mariam was able to stay at their lavish home and hire a maid to do the housework for her. During the Christmas scene, there were innumerable amounts of presents for Mary Katherine and her sister. This portrayal helps the audience to understand that the bus boycott was about more than being able to choose any seat on the bus; it was for a better standard of living and true equality. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I think that the film did a good job at showing the racial inequalities of the South in 1955. Like we talked about in class many of the people shown boycotting the bus were women, and as we talked about in class African-American women made up a large number of people who rode the buses to work. I also thought that the film did a good job at showing how even though walking to work everyday was difficult but they would rather do that then sit at the back of the bus.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One scene that really got across how ingrained racism was, was when Tunker hears that Sissy made the police officer apologize to Odessa. He says, "That's plain old wrong." Sissy responds, "I know what is right and what is wrong." She goes on to tell him that she will not tolerate anyone, including Tunker, tell her what is right, and what is wrong. This scene is one of the first examples of Sissy's conviction and strong moral base, that will enable her to stand up to her own husband, and the rest of the racist socialites that surround her. When her husband orders her to stop giving rides to Odessa, he describes how ridiculous his wife's notion that she is close with their maid, "It's like a dog knowing a cat." She initially wilts under pressure, but comes back with a vengeance, not only driving Odessa, but participating in the ridesharing as well. As we have seen throughout history, and in many films this year, when people are ordered to do something against their will, they frequently redouble their efforts to resist and oppose the oppressor. Also, the most satisfying words spoken in the movie, were when Sissy says to Tunker, "You ignorant son of a bitch." Also, Tucnker getting punched in the face was a close second. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I wish Sissy had spit in Tucker's face, but I agree with Mike G. I also liked the bus driver telling the white boys: "Don't bring your trashy ass back on my bus." Classic. - Celia<br />
<br />
This movie really shows the differences in status in Montgomery based on race. Comparing Christmases in particular shows the economic differences well: the Thompson's had a huge tree with lots of presents and new clothes, while the Cotter's had a Charlie Brown tree and, well, more of a focus on family. Socially, the Thompson family could go anywhere and do whatever they needed to do without harassment, provided they stayed within their segment of society. The Cotter family couldn't do that at all, however, as proven in the first few minutes of the movie when Odessa gets kicked out of the park with the kids. The movie also depicts the gender politics of the era, especially in the tension between Mr. and Mrs. Thompson. Every time she tries to speak up, he tells her to stop telling him what to do. It's interesting to watch them try to work out what kind of dynamic they're going to develop. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong == <br />
<br />
White psychologists believed that when black women began to make more money than their male counterparts and were able to achieve a higher degree of education, there would be some conflicts within the household. This was not an issue in the movie for the Cotter family. In contrast, it had become a problem for the Thompson family when Miriam decided to stage her own boycott against her husband Norman when he demanded that she stop driving Odessa to work. Miriam claimed that she had a college degree and would be able to make a sufficient amount of money and she would do with it as she pleased. Along the same lines, there was no mention of black women that went to college and had professional jobs. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
In class, we spent some time going over the negative treatment of the bus drivers towards African Americans who would ride their buses. Many drivers carried guns, mistreated the black people, and one even dragged a blind African American man several blocks. The movie does not really portray the bus drivers as necessarily aggressive or hateful towards the African Americans. When Odessa's daughter is about to board the bus, the only words the bus driver says to her is to tell her that he doesn't want any trouble on the bus. Later in that scene, the same bus driver stops the bus to tell the three white boys to stop harassing Odessa's daughter and eventually kicks them off for being ignorant. The movie does not focus a large amount of time on the bus drivers, but the time it does creates the idea that the bus drivers may not have been as racist or hateful towards African American bus riders like we talked about in class. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Maybe I just don't remember it, but did the movie mention that it was the Women's Political Council that first organized the boycott? It did a good job of showing how the boycott influenced women's lives, but I'm not sure it gave black women organizers like Jo Ann Robinson enough credit for the work they did behind the scenes in making so much of the movement happen. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
The film was released during the time when formal negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa were starting. Racial minorities in South Africa faced discrimination that were similar to the black Americans but much worse at that time. Not only were South Africa's racial minorities segregated and disenfranchised, but they were also deprived of their citizenship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1990, the World Summit for Children was held at the UN in New York. I bring this up because Odessa mentions that she is determined to give her child a better life. The Summits mission was to give every child a better future "there can be no task nobler than giving every child a better future" http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/about/world-summit.htm. It seemed that both Odessa and Miriam wanted the same thing, for their children to grow up in a world that did not have these types or racial divides. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to compare "Long Walk Home" with "To Kill a Mockingbird" and to wonder if the earlier movie influenced the later one. Both movies are narrated by a female adult looking back at her childhood; both are set in the South; both involve an important episode in Southern race relations; and both show a parent struggling with moral choices that conflict with the attitudes of their community and era. "Mockingbird" ended badly for the black man accused of raping a white woman, but "Long Walk Home" ended on a victorious note. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this is really a primary source comment but I liked that they didn't shy way from the racial prejudice, especially with the racial slurs and violence toward African-Americans. Considering one of the biggest problems we have had with historical movies we have watched so far is the way they ignored or lied about racial issues. I think that the focus on ending the apartheid in South Africa, may have made people more aware of the United States' turbulent past with race relations.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The movie and the readings corroborate the way African Americans found themselves victims of Southern state and local laws that are in direct contrast to federal laws. Mr. Thomas' comments relate the way in which Southern law enforcement refused to even acknowledge that federal laws were in place which provide protection for African American rights. These law enforcement officials truly believed that the laws they lived by were supreme and there was no need to look any further than their own decisions. They saw the federal laws as laws for outsiders and had no jurisdiction in their areas. It also showed how African Americans did not have federal protection just because they (the federal government) said they had rights. As long as there was no enforcement of the federal laws, black Americans were forced to live within the demands of local laws. -Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The Rosa Parks reading mentions the bus boycott and how blacks formed carpools. Also white women would drive black women to and from work because they could not take the bus. This was a major part of the film. The reading also mentions how the police would ticket people involved in the boycott. At one point in the film Odessa says, “I learned one thing in my life and that is when your hand’s in the lion’s mouth, it’s just better to pat it on the head.” In the reading it is a woman named Mary.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
“They couldn’t afford to say, ‘I’m supporting the boycott.’ So the white women lied and the black women lied. And the maids kept coming and the white women kept driving them back and forth to work.” This quote from “Civil Rights Activists” exemplifies the relationship between Odessa and Mrs. Thompson that drives the racial tension as the movie goes along. Mrs. Thompson kept secret from her husband that she was giving Odessa rides and when he found out, he flipped out and she was forbid to drive her. She eventually gave her rides and went behind her husband’s back and was lying to him. Odessa also could not admit that she was part of the boycott or she would get heckled and possibly arrested. This quote is very basic in describing the dynamics of the boycott system but there are many more emotions involved outside of simply carpooling. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Alice Brantley's testimony, besides being a clear and logical argument in favor of desegregated travel, also highlights the leadership roles many women played in the Civil Rights movement. The importance of women in the movement was also shown in one of the movie's key scenes. When the Citizens' Council raids the car-pool lot, it is the women who defuse the situation by singing and then linking hands. This was a powerful moment that symbolized several important themes: MLK's non-violent philosophy; the supreme courage required to face an enemy, and to fight for a cause; the different approaches men and women use in similar situations; and solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
In the Thomas Williams' reading, Williams testified about how he was treated when riding a bus in the South. Throughout the testimony, he claimed he knew his rights,knew about the Supreme Court Decisions, and that he did not have to move when asked. The bus driver claimed that Williams was "in the South now."Williams stated later, "[The bus driver] ignored my statement...as if the Supreme Court decisions had no effect in the South." This idea of the Supreme Court Decisions not being taken into account in the South was definitely reflected in the movie. You could tell simply from looking at the People's Council, with the men walking around with their white superiority and in their fancy, (but not so fancy) suits. In the movie, they believed that matters needed to be taken into their own hands rather than the government. They, along with others in the South, definitely acted as if the Supreme Court never existed. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
Miriam Thomson was reminiscent of Virginia Durr. Though Durr was a liberal southerner who had the clear support of her husband, Mariam shared the courageousness it took to offer rides to African Americans. Both women clearly defied southern society to fight for a just cause. The movie also portrayed how the bus boycott affected relation between white women and their black domestics; some women were truly upset about the boycott, but were not willing to give up their domestics. Others, like Miriam, became involved in the protest. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In the readings, two of the people punished for sitting in the wrong part of the bus were members of the US military, a position their fellow passengers ignored. But I imagine that being members of the military, and possibly WWII veterans, prompted the black man and woman to stand up for their rights even more than maybe they otherwise would have. They wanted full rights in a country that they were willing to fight for. The movie didn't really show how military service and other opportunities increasingly afforded to African Americans shaped their drive to push for full rights. It only focused on how broadening views of the world shaped white perceptions, with Miriam's story about the swimming pool in Portland and her comment about her husband's travels in the WWII military. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class Dr. McClurken asked us to look at the successes and/or failures of the movie and I think the movie overall was a success in accurately explaining the struggles of African Americans in the 1950s. The movie shows through Whoopi Goldberg's character the success of women in playing leading roles in the bus boycott movement (the last scene being the most powerful with the women singing in the parking lot) and against the Southern Whites Citizens Council. I also think it is a success to show the power of Mrs. Thompson, white civil rights leaders were important in showing the plight of African Americans and were able to access white media easier. Mrs. Thompson was linked with the African Americans in town but was able to stand up to the men in her life and in a sense was making a better life for herself and her daughter. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this was a success or a failure but I found the absence of Martin Luther King on screen intriguing. His voice was heard (recordings of his speeches I assume) but no actor played him. Perhaps this was because no actor could live up to the great Martin Luther King Jr. Since he was never shown on screen he was made a simply a figure of the Civil Rights Movement.-Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I think this was a very successful portrayal of the views and behavior of people in the 1950s, not only toward race but also toward gender roles, family relationships and social responsibility. Because the narrator is a white woman (the adult Mary Catherine), it would be easy to dismiss the whole movie as just one more white filter on US history. But the screenwriter is, if anything, harder on whites than he is on blacks. The white Thompson family is imploding, but Odessa's family grows closer. Also, the black community is tight-knit, through church and neighbors, while the whites seem to have no bond with one another beyond the racist Citizens' Council and the catty women's circles. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
When the young white kids came on the bus and were harassing Odessa's daughter would a white bus driver stop the bus and kick the white's off? -afrisk<br />
<br />
I liked how they did not have an actor for Martin Luther King Jr. His speeches are powerful enough without anything visual. It was a good choice. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To touch on the MLK question, I think not having him in here focuses the story on smaller, lesser known people who supported the movement. They easily could have had him in the film, but perhaps that would shift the film away from the struggle of everyday people to Martin Luther King Jr. Not necessarily a bad move, but it would definitely make for an entirely different film. This movie doesn't only bring the struggle of the black community to the forefront; it also emphasizes the powerful role of women in the boycott.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:18, 10 November 2010 (MST)</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-11-11T02:43:13Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the inferior status of African Americans in the South. It showed how some whites, like during Christmas dinner, talked one way in front of blacks and another when they were not in the room and how others were not concerned with who heard their outspokenness dripping with racial prejudice. The movie also showed how the boycott was most difficult for black women, especially those who were domestic servants. This was true not only because of the long distances they lived from their places of employment, but also because, even if they were the last ones home, they were still expected to uphold their motherly duties of keeping house and taking care of the children. How they were able to sustain the boycott for over a year, I have no clue. But their determination goes to show how dedicated they were to winning this battle.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The one thing I believed the movie portrayed really well was to show how churches were used to spread the ideals of activism to the people. In the movie they mention that those with cars should use them to help with car pooling others around. Using personal cars for driving others was brought up at the church. Once these plans were laid forth in the church, they were met with cops trying to impede them by giving them tickets. Plus, once they were met by opposition, they refused to use any kind of force, even when they were being beaten. Also, most of the people showed boycotting the buses were black women. As is true with what really happened, men helped by planning the boycotts and raising money to keep it going. Another thing that was portrayed well was the increase of membership for the KKK. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie was extremely accurate in the movie's portrayal of the determination of the African American community to uphold the boycott. Despite the long distances and the harassment that they faced, they still diligently walked or found another mode of transportation to work, such as taxis. The movie also shows that they organized car-pools to help those that could not walk. Due to the boycott, the movie also shows the methods that the white community tried to use to break the boycott, such as harassing those that were driving in the car pools. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The film accurately portrays the racism of the whites in the South and the intense feelings they have for segregation. In the film blacks were not allowed in the “white” park. The bus obviously had segregated sections. In the movie the black women would pay the bus fare then get off the bus and board on the back so they would not walk through the white section. The bus boycott began after the arrest of Rosa Parks (and it’s led by Martin Luther King, Jr.). Women’s roles are also accurately portrayed. They either had a job, or they worked in the home. If the family had money, it had a maid and the wife did not have to do as much of the housework. Wives also were expected to follow their husband’s ideals. This is shown when Mrs. Thompson tells Odessa she cannot drive her anymore because her husband thinks ‘it is not right to make her suffer.’ However I must say that I loved the speech Mrs. Thompson gives her husband when she tells him that she will do what she wants in order to do her job to run the household, and that he should leave her alone unless he wants her to go to his job and tell him how to do it.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Samantha in regards to how the movie portrayed the city buses as being heavily segregated, and I think it would be pretty accurate to say regardless of gender all African Americans suffered if they made a white person angry. I do wonder did many African Americans ride the bus throughout the boycott and if they did was the reaction the same as Whoopi Goldberg's character portrayed? I also think it was correct when her brother came with the taxi and the driver said "he needed to leave before he was lynched," the terror of white society in Montgomery was everywhere, as shown by Mr. Thompson and his "citizens council" and all African Amerians knew it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I liked how the movie placed the lives of the Thompson's and the Cotters as totally seperate. Mr. Cotter said that we will only know her as a maid and she will only know us as her employers. This distant relationship between white families and there black maids seemed very accurate. Even though it seemed like the Thompsons were less racist at first there was no sense of compassion or equality for Odessa and she was purely another servent. I like how the movie portrayed this very gradual ideological change and how acceptance was very difficult. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Andrew about the stark contrasts between the Thompson and Cotter homes. This was especially clear on Christmas - the Thompson had lots of presents under their tree, everyone was together and happy; in the Cotter house, Odessa was up before everyone else to leave for work, she left one small gift in everyone's stockings, and spent the rest of the day working. I also agree with Mike E. about how it showed the power that the churches held in encouraging the boycott. I thought it was interesting that Odessa's daughter, Selma, was not as gung-ho about the boycott as everyone else. I'm sure there were people that shared her point of view - it was a serious inconvenience, and not everyone was bound to be as noble and perservering as Odessa. I thought the film also did a good job showing all different perspectives - the aggressively ignorant and hateful Tucker is sort of the worst of the worst; Norman starts off more or less neutral and starts to turn to the dark side; Miriam isn't against the boycott at the beginning but she slowly becomes more active in the cause; and Selma's juvenile annoyance at the boycott. It was refreshing to see such a varied group of characters, rather than simply good versus evil. - Celia<br />
<br />
I think that the movie accurately portrayed how much women in particular, were affected by the bus boycotts. Since so many women, including Odessa Cotter mainly worked in service positions, especially domestic service, they were more likely to have to travel into the suburbs far from their homes. The determination of these women seems even more powerful that they had to travel so very far. It also depicts the effect that the boycott had on white women in the South in the 1950s. Miriam Thomson seemed to epitomize the 1950s educated housewife who was expected to maintain the home for her family. Her initial motivation for helping Odessa was simply for her own families comfort, but, it became more of a moral crusade later on. I think that Miriam’s clash with her husband illustrates the struggle of the 1950s ideals of domesticity and how women were expected to remain the more submissive sex. Though the film does not overtly mention it, I think there is an underlying tension of the need to dominate the African-American women who are empowering themselves and consequently subverting the white southern male authority in Montgomery...or maybe I am reading too much into it…-Caryn<br />
<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Caryn about the role of women. It was interesting that some of what was said in the reading we had about Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr. When the mayor of Montgomery said that women were a lot of why the boycott was continuing because they were driving their maids, the women were furious and said, "if Tacky Gayle wants to come out here and do my washing, ironing, and cleaning and cooking and looking after my children, he can do it, but unless he does, I'm going to continue driving." That was the reason Miriam used when she finally stood up to her husband saying she was going to continue driving Odessa because she needed the help in the house. It seemed that Miriam had an underlying reason for driving Odessa, that being she secretly supported the boycott and the African American cause. During the real boycotts, I wonder how many white women who drove their maids secretly supported the boycott? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this movie and I think it was very accurate. It showed the complex relationships between African Americans and whites. The scene where the family had guests over at dinner was especially tense because some people supported segregation while others quietly disagreed. Also, they were saying racist things in front of Odessa! It showed how not everyone agreed -- not all whites wanted segregation. It also showed the complex relationship between Mrs. Thompson and Odessa. It was difficult for them to be friends because of the certain roles they are stuck in. Also it showed the relationship between the husband and wife. The husband thought he had the final say in what the wife does, but she showed him that she can do things on her own and she doesn't need his approval. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
<br />
After the discussion in class on Tuesday, I learned that the movie accurately represented the African Americans' experiences during the boycott and the sentiment surrounding the reasons as to why black people participated in it. When I watched the movie, I didn't understand the first scene where the black women were getting on the bus, paying, exiting, and then re-entering in the rear of the bus. After class, I learned that African American's, in most cases, had to do exactly that and re-enter the bus in the rear instead of just sitting down in a seat as soon as they boarded. Dr. McClurken also mentioned about how many African Americans,female African Americans specifically, believed that they were participating in the boycott for their children and and grandchildren. They believed that they were walking for the future generations of African Americans, so that they would be able to have more rights than the black people did at the time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie very clearly portrayed the disparities between white and black society. Both Odessa and her husband had to work full time jobs so they could make ends meet. Odessa even had to give up Christmas with her family to work. Despite the constant struggle to earn living wages, Odessa and her family only lived in relative comfort and could not afford much. On the other hand, in the Thomson family, only Norman worked while his wife Mariam was able to stay at their lavish home and hire a maid to do the housework for her. During the Christmas scene, there were innumerable amounts of presents for Mary Katherine and her sister. This portrayal helps the audience to understand that the bus boycott was about more than being able to choose any seat on the bus; it was for a better standard of living and true equality. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I think that the film did a good job at showing the racial inequalities of the South in 1955. Like we talked about in class many of the people shown boycotting the bus were women, and as we talked about in class African-American women made up a large number of people who rode the buses to work. I also thought that the film did a good job at showing how even though walking to work everyday was difficult but they would rather do that then sit at the back of the bus.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One scene that really got across how ingrained racism was, was when Tunker hears that Sissy made the police officer apologize to Odessa. He says, "That's plain old wrong." Sissy responds, "I know what is right and what is wrong." She goes on to tell him that she will not tolerate anyone, including Tunker, tell her what is right, and what is wrong. This scene is one of the first examples of Sissy's conviction and strong moral base, that will enable her to stand up to her own husband, and the rest of the racist socialites that surround her. When her husband orders her to stop giving rides to Odessa, he describes how ridiculous his wife's notion that she is close with their maid, "It's like a dog knowing a cat." She initially wilts under pressure, but comes back with a vengeance, not only driving Odessa, but participating in the ridesharing as well. As we have seen throughout history, and in many films this year, when people are ordered to do something against their will, they frequently redouble their efforts to resist and oppose the oppressor. Also, the most satisfying words spoken in the movie, were when Sissy says to Tunker, "You ignorant son of a bitch." Also, Tucnker getting punched in the face was a close second. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I wish Sissy had spit in Tucker's face, but I agree with Mike G. I also liked the bus driver telling the white boys: "Don't bring your trashy ass back on my bus." Classic. - Celia<br />
<br />
This movie really shows the differences in status in Montgomery based on race. Comparing Christmases in particular shows the economic differences well: the Thompson's had a huge tree with lots of presents and new clothes, while the Cotter's had a Charlie Brown tree and, well, more of a focus on family. Socially, the Thompson family could go anywhere and do whatever they needed to do without harassment, provided they stayed within their segment of society. The Cotter family couldn't do that at all, however, as proven in the first few minutes of the movie when Odessa gets kicked out of the park with the kids. The movie also depicts the gender politics of the era, especially in the tension between Mr. and Mrs. Thompson. Every time she tries to speak up, he tells her to stop telling him what to do. It's interesting to watch them try to work out what kind of dynamic they're going to develop. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong == <br />
<br />
White psychologists believed that when black women began to make more money than their male counterparts and were able to achieve a higher degree of education, there would be some conflicts within the household. This was not an issue in the movie for the Cotter family. In contrast, it had become a problem for the Thompson family when Miriam decided to stage her own boycott against her husband Norman when he demanded that she stop driving Odessa to work. Miriam claimed that she had a college degree and would be able to make a sufficient amount of money and she would do with it as she pleased. Along the same lines, there was no mention of black women that went to college and had professional jobs. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
In class, we spent some time going over the negative treatment of the bus drivers towards African Americans who would ride their buses. Many drivers carried guns, mistreated the black people, and one even dragged a blind African American man several blocks. The movie does not really portray the bus drivers as necessarily aggressive or hateful towards the African Americans. When Odessa's daughter is about to board the bus, the only words the bus driver says to her is to tell her that he doesn't want any trouble on the bus. Later in that scene, the same bus driver stops the bus to tell the three white boys to stop harassing Odessa's daughter and eventually kicks them off for being ignorant. The movie does not focus a large amount of time on the bus drivers, but the time it does creates the idea that the bus drivers may not have been as racist or hateful towards African American bus riders like we talked about in class. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Maybe I just don't remember it, but did the movie mention that it was the Women's Political Council that first organized the boycott? It did a good job of showing how the boycott influenced women's lives, but I'm not sure it gave black women organizers like Jo Ann Robinson enough credit for the work they did behind the scenes in making so much of the movement happen. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
The film was released during the time when formal negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa were starting. Racial minorities in South Africa faced discrimination that were similar to the black Americans but much worse at that time. Not only were South Africa's racial minorities segregated and disenfranchised, but they were also deprived of their citizenship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1990, the World Summit for Children was held at the UN in New York. I bring this up because Odessa mentions that she is determined to give her child a better life. The Summits mission was to give every child a better future "there can be no task nobler than giving every child a better future" http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/about/world-summit.htm. It seemed that both Odessa and Miriam wanted the same thing, for their children to grow up in a world that did not have these types or racial divides. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to compare "Long Walk Home" with "To Kill a Mockingbird" and to wonder if the earlier movie influenced the later one. Both movies are narrated by a female adult looking back at her childhood; both are set in the South; both involve an important episode in Southern race relations; and both show a parent struggling with moral choices that conflict with the attitudes of their community and era. "Mockingbird" ended badly for the black man accused of raping a white woman, but "Long Walk Home" ended on a victorious note. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this is really a primary source comment but I liked that they didn't shy way from the racial prejudice, especially with the racial slurs and violence toward African-Americans. Considering one of the biggest problems we have had with historical movies we have watched so far is the way they ignored or lied about racial issues. I think that the focus on ending the apartheid in South Africa, may have made people more aware of the United States' turbulent past with race relations.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The movie and the readings corroborate the way African Americans found themselves victims of Southern state and local laws that are in direct contrast to federal laws. Mr. Thomas' comments relate the way in which Southern law enforcement refused to even acknowledge that federal laws were in place which provide protection for African American rights. These law enforcement officials truly believed that the laws they lived by were supreme and there was no need to look any further than their own decisions. They saw the federal laws as laws for outsiders and had no jurisdiction in their areas. It also showed how African Americans did not have federal protection just because they (the federal government) said they had rights. As long as there was no enforcement of the federal laws, black Americans were forced to live within the demands of local laws. -Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The Rosa Parks reading mentions the bus boycott and how blacks formed carpools. Also white women would drive black women to and from work because they could not take the bus. This was a major part of the film. The reading also mentions how the police would ticket people involved in the boycott. At one point in the film Odessa says, “I learned one thing in my life and that is when your hand’s in the lion’s mouth, it’s just better to pat it on the head.” In the reading it is a woman named Mary.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
“They couldn’t afford to say, ‘I’m supporting the boycott.’ So the white women lied and the black women lied. And the maids kept coming and the white women kept driving them back and forth to work.” This quote from “Civil Rights Activists” exemplifies the relationship between Odessa and Mrs. Thompson that drives the racial tension as the movie goes along. Mrs. Thompson kept secret from her husband that she was giving Odessa rides and when he found out, he flipped out and she was forbid to drive her. She eventually gave her rides and went behind her husband’s back and was lying to him. Odessa also could not admit that she was part of the boycott or she would get heckled and possibly arrested. This quote is very basic in describing the dynamics of the boycott system but there are many more emotions involved outside of simply carpooling. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Alice Brantley's testimony, besides being a clear and logical argument in favor of desegregated travel, also highlights the leadership roles many women played in the Civil Rights movement. The importance of women in the movement was also shown in one of the movie's key scenes. When the Citizens' Council raids the car-pool lot, it is the women who defuse the situation by singing and then linking hands. This was a powerful moment that symbolized several important themes: MLK's non-violent philosophy; the supreme courage required to face an enemy, and to fight for a cause; the different approaches men and women use in similar situations; and solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
In the Thomas Williams' reading, Williams testified about how he was treated when riding a bus in the South. Throughout the testimony, he claimed he knew his rights,knew about the Supreme Court Decisions, and that he did not have to move when asked. The bus driver claimed that Williams was "in the South now."Williams stated later, "[The bus driver] ignored my statement...as if the Supreme Court decisions had no effect in the South." This idea of the Supreme Court Decisions not being taken into account in the South was definitely reflected in the movie. You could tell simply from looking at the People's Council, with the men walking around with their white superiority and in their fancy, (but not so fancy) suits. In the movie, they believed that matters needed to be taken into their own hands rather than the government. They, along with others in the South, definitely acted as if the Supreme Court never existed. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
Miriam Thomson was reminiscent of Virginia Durr. Though Durr was a liberal southerner who had the clear support of her husband, Mariam shared the courageousness it took to offer rides to African Americans. Both women clearly defied southern society to fight for a just cause. The movie also portrayed how the bus boycott affected relation between white women and their black domestics; some women were truly upset about the boycott, but were not willing to give up their domestics. Others, like Miriam, became involved in the protest. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In the readings, two of the people punished for sitting in the wrong part of the bus were members of the US military, a position their fellow passengers ignored. But I imagine that being members of the military, and possibly WWII veterans, prompted the black man and woman to stand up for their rights even more than maybe they otherwise would have. They wanted full rights in a country that they were willing to fight for. The movie didn't really show how military service and other opportunities increasingly afforded to African Americans shaped their drive to push for full rights. It only focused on how broadening views of the world shaped white perceptions, with Miriam's story about the swimming pool in Portland and her comment about her husband's travels in the WWII military. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class Dr. McClurken asked us to look at the successes and/or failures of the movie and I think the movie overall was a success in accurately explaining the struggles of African Americans in the 1950s. The movie shows through Whoopi Goldberg's character the success of women in playing leading roles in the bus boycott movement (the last scene being the most powerful with the women singing in the parking lot) and against the Southern Whites Citizens Council. I also think it is a success to show the power of Mrs. Thompson, white civil rights leaders were important in showing the plight of African Americans and were able to access white media easier. Mrs. Thompson was linked with the African Americans in town but was able to stand up to the men in her life and in a sense was making a better life for herself and her daughter. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this was a success or a failure but I found the absence of Martin Luther King on screen intriguing. His voice was heard (recordings of his speeches I assume) but no actor played him. Perhaps this was because no actor could live up to the great Martin Luther King Jr. Since he was never shown on screen he was made a simply a figure of the Civil Rights Movement.-Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I think this was a very successful portrayal of the views and behavior of people in the 1950s, not only toward race but also toward gender roles, family relationships and social responsibility. Because the narrator is a white woman (the adult Mary Catherine), it would be easy to dismiss the whole movie as just one more white filter on US history. But the screenwriter is, if anything, harder on whites than he is on blacks. The white Thompson family is imploding, but Odessa's family grows closer. Also, the black community is tight-knit, through church and neighbors, while the whites seem to have no bond with one another beyond the racist Citizens' Council and the catty women's circles. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
When the young white kids came on the bus and were harassing Odessa's daughter would a white bus driver stop the bus and kick the white's off? -afrisk<br />
<br />
I liked how they did not have an actor for Martin Luther King Jr. His speeches are powerful enough without anything visual. It was a good choice. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To touch on the MLK question, I think not having him in here focuses the story on smaller, lesser known people who supported the movement. They easily could have had him in the film, but perhaps that would shift the film away from the struggle of everyday people to Martin Luther King Jr. Not necessarily a bad move, but it would definitely make for an entirely different film. This movie doesn't only bring the struggle of the black community to the forefront; it also emphasizes the powerful role of women in the boycott.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:18, 10 November 2010 (MST)</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-11-11T02:40:51Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the inferior status of African Americans in the South. It showed how some whites, like during Christmas dinner, talked one way in front of blacks and another when they were not in the room and how others were not concerned with who heard their outspokenness dripping with racial prejudice. The movie also showed how the boycott was most difficult for black women, especially those who were domestic servants. This was true not only because of the long distances they lived from their places of employment, but also because, even if they were the last ones home, they were still expected to uphold their motherly duties of keeping house and taking care of the children. How they were able to sustain the boycott for over a year, I have no clue. But their determination goes to show how dedicated they were to winning this battle.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The one thing I believed the movie portrayed really well was to show how churches were used to spread the ideals of activism to the people. In the movie they mention that those with cars should use them to help with car pooling others around. Using personal cars for driving others was brought up at the church. Once these plans were laid forth in the church, they were met with cops trying to impede them by giving them tickets. Plus, once they were met by opposition, they refused to use any kind of force, even when they were being beaten. Also, most of the people showed boycotting the buses were black women. As is true with what really happened, men helped by planning the boycotts and raising money to keep it going. Another thing that was portrayed well was the increase of membership for the KKK. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie was extremely accurate in the movie's portrayal of the determination of the African American community to uphold the boycott. Despite the long distances and the harassment that they faced, they still diligently walked or found another mode of transportation to work, such as taxis. The movie also shows that they organized car-pools to help those that could not walk. Due to the boycott, the movie also shows the methods that the white community tried to use to break the boycott, such as harassing those that were driving in the car pools. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The film accurately portrays the racism of the whites in the South and the intense feelings they have for segregation. In the film blacks were not allowed in the “white” park. The bus obviously had segregated sections. In the movie the black women would pay the bus fare then get off the bus and board on the back so they would not walk through the white section. The bus boycott began after the arrest of Rosa Parks (and it’s led by Martin Luther King, Jr.). Women’s roles are also accurately portrayed. They either had a job, or they worked in the home. If the family had money, it had a maid and the wife did not have to do as much of the housework. Wives also were expected to follow their husband’s ideals. This is shown when Mrs. Thompson tells Odessa she cannot drive her anymore because her husband thinks ‘it is not right to make her suffer.’ However I must say that I loved the speech Mrs. Thompson gives her husband when she tells him that she will do what she wants in order to do her job to run the household, and that he should leave her alone unless he wants her to go to his job and tell him how to do it.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Samantha in regards to how the movie portrayed the city buses as being heavily segregated, and I think it would be pretty accurate to say regardless of gender all African Americans suffered if they made a white person angry. I do wonder did many African Americans ride the bus throughout the boycott and if they did was the reaction the same as Whoopi Goldberg's character portrayed? I also think it was correct when her brother came with the taxi and the driver said "he needed to leave before he was lynched," the terror of white society in Montgomery was everywhere, as shown by Mr. Thompson and his "citizens council" and all African Amerians knew it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I liked how the movie placed the lives of the Thompson's and the Cotters as totally seperate. Mr. Cotter said that we will only know her as a maid and she will only know us as her employers. This distant relationship between white families and there black maids seemed very accurate. Even though it seemed like the Thompsons were less racist at first there was no sense of compassion or equality for Odessa and she was purely another servent. I like how the movie portrayed this very gradual ideological change and how acceptance was very difficult. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Andrew about the stark contrasts between the Thompson and Cotter homes. This was especially clear on Christmas - the Thompson had lots of presents under their tree, everyone was together and happy; in the Cotter house, Odessa was up before everyone else to leave for work, she left one small gift in everyone's stockings, and spent the rest of the day working. I also agree with Mike E. about how it showed the power that the churches held in encouraging the boycott. I thought it was interesting that Odessa's daughter, Selma, was not as gung-ho about the boycott as everyone else. I'm sure there were people that shared her point of view - it was a serious inconvenience, and not everyone was bound to be as noble and perservering as Odessa. I thought the film also did a good job showing all different perspectives - the aggressively ignorant and hateful Tucker is sort of the worst of the worst; Norman starts off more or less neutral and starts to turn to the dark side; Miriam isn't against the boycott at the beginning but she slowly becomes more active in the cause; and Selma's juvenile annoyance at the boycott. It was refreshing to see such a varied group of characters, rather than simply good versus evil. - Celia<br />
<br />
I think that the movie accurately portrayed how much women in particular, were affected by the bus boycotts. Since so many women, including Odessa Cotter mainly worked in service positions, especially domestic service, they were more likely to have to travel into the suburbs far from their homes. The determination of these women seems even more powerful that they had to travel so very far. It also depicts the effect that the boycott had on white women in the South in the 1950s. Miriam Thomson seemed to epitomize the 1950s educated housewife who was expected to maintain the home for her family. Her initial motivation for helping Odessa was simply for her own families comfort, but, it became more of a moral crusade later on. I think that Miriam’s clash with her husband illustrates the struggle of the 1950s ideals of domesticity and how women were expected to remain the more submissive sex. Though the film does not overtly mention it, I think there is an underlying tension of the need to dominate the African-American women who are empowering themselves and consequently subverting the white southern male authority in Montgomery...or maybe I am reading too much into it…-Caryn<br />
<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Caryn about the role of women. It was interesting that some of what was said in the reading we had about Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr. When the mayor of Montgomery said that women were a lot of why the boycott was continuing because they were driving their maids, the women were furious and said, "if Tacky Gayle wants to come out here and do my washing, ironing, and cleaning and cooking and looking after my children, he can do it, but unless he does, I'm going to continue driving." That was the reason Miriam used when she finally stood up to her husband saying she was going to continue driving Odessa because she needed the help in the house. It seemed that Miriam had an underlying reason for driving Odessa, that being she secretly supported the boycott and the African American cause. During the real boycotts, I wonder how many white women who drove their maids secretly supported the boycott? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this movie and I think it was very accurate. It showed the complex relationships between African Americans and whites. The scene where the family had guests over at dinner was especially tense because some people supported segregation while others quietly disagreed. Also, they were saying racist things in front of Odessa! It showed how not everyone agreed -- not all whites wanted segregation. It also showed the complex relationship between Mrs. Thompson and Odessa. It was difficult for them to be friends because of the certain roles they are stuck in. Also it showed the relationship between the husband and wife. The husband thought he had the final say in what the wife does, but she showed him that she can do things on her own and she doesn't need his approval. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
<br />
After the discussion in class on Tuesday, I learned that the movie accurately represented the African Americans' experiences during the boycott and the sentiment surrounding the reasons as to why black people participated in it. When I watched the movie, I didn't understand the first scene where the black women were getting on the bus, paying, exiting, and then re-entering in the rear of the bus. After class, I learned that African American's, in most cases, had to do exactly that and re-enter the bus in the rear instead of just sitting down in a seat as soon as they boarded. Dr. McClurken also mentioned about how many African Americans,female African Americans specifically, believed that they were participating in the boycott for their children and and grandchildren. They believed that they were walking for the future generations of African Americans, so that they would be able to have more rights than the black people did at the time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie very clearly portrayed the disparities between white and black society. Both Odessa and her husband had to work full time jobs so they could make ends meet. Odessa even had to give up Christmas with her family to work. Despite the constant struggle to earn living wages, Odessa and her family only lived in relative comfort and could not afford much. On the other hand, in the Thomson family, only Norman worked while his wife Mariam was able to stay at their lavish home and hire a maid to do the housework for her. During the Christmas scene, there were innumerable amounts of presents for Mary Katherine and her sister. This portrayal helps the audience to understand that the bus boycott was about more than being able to choose any seat on the bus; it was for a better standard of living and true equality. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I think that the film did a good job at showing the racial inequalities of the South in 1955. Like we talked about in class many of the people shown boycotting the bus were women, and as we talked about in class African-American women made up a large number of people who rode the buses to work. I also thought that the film did a good job at showing how even though walking to work everyday was difficult but they would rather do that then sit at the back of the bus.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One scene that really got across how ingrained racism was, was when Tunker hears that Sissy made the police officer apologize to Odessa. He says, "That's plain old wrong." Sissy responds, "I know what is right and what is wrong." She goes on to tell him that she will not tolerate anyone, including Tunker, tell her what is right, and what is wrong. This scene is one of the first examples of Sissy's conviction and strong moral base, that will enable her to stand up to her own husband, and the rest of the racist socialites that surround her. When her husband orders her to stop giving rides to Odessa, he describes how ridiculous his wife's notion that she is close with their maid, "It's like a dog knowing a cat." She initially wilts under pressure, but comes back with a vengeance, not only driving Odessa, but participating in the ridesharing as well. As we have seen throughout history, and in many films this year, when people are ordered to do something against their will, they frequently redouble their efforts to resist and oppose the oppressor. Also, the most satisfying words spoken in the movie, were when Sissy says to Tunker, "You ignorant son of a bitch." Also, Tucnker getting punched in the face was a close second. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
This movie really shows the differences in status in Montgomery based on race. Comparing Christmases in particular shows the economic differences well: the Thompson's had a huge tree with lots of presents and new clothes, while the Cotter's had a Charlie Brown tree and, well, more of a focus on family. Socially, the Thompson family could go anywhere and do whatever they needed to do without harassment, provided they stayed within their segment of society. The Cotter family couldn't do that at all, however, as proven in the first few minutes of the movie when Odessa gets kicked out of the park with the kids. The movie also depicts the gender politics of the era, especially in the tension between Mr. and Mrs. Thompson. Every time she tries to speak up, he tells her to stop telling him what to do. It's interesting to watch them try to work out what kind of dynamic they're going to develop. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong == <br />
<br />
White psychologists believed that when black women began to make more money than their male counterparts and were able to achieve a higher degree of education, there would be some conflicts within the household. This was not an issue in the movie for the Cotter family. In contrast, it had become a problem for the Thompson family when Miriam decided to stage her own boycott against her husband Norman when he demanded that she stop driving Odessa to work. Miriam claimed that she had a college degree and would be able to make a sufficient amount of money and she would do with it as she pleased. Along the same lines, there was no mention of black women that went to college and had professional jobs. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
In class, we spent some time going over the negative treatment of the bus drivers towards African Americans who would ride their buses. Many drivers carried guns, mistreated the black people, and one even dragged a blind African American man several blocks. The movie does not really portray the bus drivers as necessarily aggressive or hateful towards the African Americans. When Odessa's daughter is about to board the bus, the only words the bus driver says to her is to tell her that he doesn't want any trouble on the bus. Later in that scene, the same bus driver stops the bus to tell the three white boys to stop harassing Odessa's daughter and eventually kicks them off for being ignorant. The movie does not focus a large amount of time on the bus drivers, but the time it does creates the idea that the bus drivers may not have been as racist or hateful towards African American bus riders like we talked about in class. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Maybe I just don't remember it, but did the movie mention that it was the Women's Political Council that first organized the boycott? It did a good job of showing how the boycott influenced women's lives, but I'm not sure it gave black women organizers like Jo Ann Robinson enough credit for the work they did behind the scenes in making so much of the movement happen. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
The film was released during the time when formal negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa were starting. Racial minorities in South Africa faced discrimination that were similar to the black Americans but much worse at that time. Not only were South Africa's racial minorities segregated and disenfranchised, but they were also deprived of their citizenship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1990, the World Summit for Children was held at the UN in New York. I bring this up because Odessa mentions that she is determined to give her child a better life. The Summits mission was to give every child a better future "there can be no task nobler than giving every child a better future" http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/about/world-summit.htm. It seemed that both Odessa and Miriam wanted the same thing, for their children to grow up in a world that did not have these types or racial divides. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to compare "Long Walk Home" with "To Kill a Mockingbird" and to wonder if the earlier movie influenced the later one. Both movies are narrated by a female adult looking back at her childhood; both are set in the South; both involve an important episode in Southern race relations; and both show a parent struggling with moral choices that conflict with the attitudes of their community and era. "Mockingbird" ended badly for the black man accused of raping a white woman, but "Long Walk Home" ended on a victorious note. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this is really a primary source comment but I liked that they didn't shy way from the racial prejudice, especially with the racial slurs and violence toward African-Americans. Considering one of the biggest problems we have had with historical movies we have watched so far is the way they ignored or lied about racial issues. I think that the focus on ending the apartheid in South Africa, may have made people more aware of the United States' turbulent past with race relations.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The movie and the readings corroborate the way African Americans found themselves victims of Southern state and local laws that are in direct contrast to federal laws. Mr. Thomas' comments relate the way in which Southern law enforcement refused to even acknowledge that federal laws were in place which provide protection for African American rights. These law enforcement officials truly believed that the laws they lived by were supreme and there was no need to look any further than their own decisions. They saw the federal laws as laws for outsiders and had no jurisdiction in their areas. It also showed how African Americans did not have federal protection just because they (the federal government) said they had rights. As long as there was no enforcement of the federal laws, black Americans were forced to live within the demands of local laws. -Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The Rosa Parks reading mentions the bus boycott and how blacks formed carpools. Also white women would drive black women to and from work because they could not take the bus. This was a major part of the film. The reading also mentions how the police would ticket people involved in the boycott. At one point in the film Odessa says, “I learned one thing in my life and that is when your hand’s in the lion’s mouth, it’s just better to pat it on the head.” In the reading it is a woman named Mary.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
“They couldn’t afford to say, ‘I’m supporting the boycott.’ So the white women lied and the black women lied. And the maids kept coming and the white women kept driving them back and forth to work.” This quote from “Civil Rights Activists” exemplifies the relationship between Odessa and Mrs. Thompson that drives the racial tension as the movie goes along. Mrs. Thompson kept secret from her husband that she was giving Odessa rides and when he found out, he flipped out and she was forbid to drive her. She eventually gave her rides and went behind her husband’s back and was lying to him. Odessa also could not admit that she was part of the boycott or she would get heckled and possibly arrested. This quote is very basic in describing the dynamics of the boycott system but there are many more emotions involved outside of simply carpooling. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Alice Brantley's testimony, besides being a clear and logical argument in favor of desegregated travel, also highlights the leadership roles many women played in the Civil Rights movement. The importance of women in the movement was also shown in one of the movie's key scenes. When the Citizens' Council raids the car-pool lot, it is the women who defuse the situation by singing and then linking hands. This was a powerful moment that symbolized several important themes: MLK's non-violent philosophy; the supreme courage required to face an enemy, and to fight for a cause; the different approaches men and women use in similar situations; and solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
In the Thomas Williams' reading, Williams testified about how he was treated when riding a bus in the South. Throughout the testimony, he claimed he knew his rights,knew about the Supreme Court Decisions, and that he did not have to move when asked. The bus driver claimed that Williams was "in the South now."Williams stated later, "[The bus driver] ignored my statement...as if the Supreme Court decisions had no effect in the South." This idea of the Supreme Court Decisions not being taken into account in the South was definitely reflected in the movie. You could tell simply from looking at the People's Council, with the men walking around with their white superiority and in their fancy, (but not so fancy) suits. In the movie, they believed that matters needed to be taken into their own hands rather than the government. They, along with others in the South, definitely acted as if the Supreme Court never existed. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
Miriam Thomson was reminiscent of Virginia Durr. Though Durr was a liberal southerner who had the clear support of her husband, Mariam shared the courageousness it took to offer rides to African Americans. Both women clearly defied southern society to fight for a just cause. The movie also portrayed how the bus boycott affected relation between white women and their black domestics; some women were truly upset about the boycott, but were not willing to give up their domestics. Others, like Miriam, became involved in the protest. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In the readings, two of the people punished for sitting in the wrong part of the bus were members of the US military, a position their fellow passengers ignored. But I imagine that being members of the military, and possibly WWII veterans, prompted the black man and woman to stand up for their rights even more than maybe they otherwise would have. They wanted full rights in a country that they were willing to fight for. The movie didn't really show how military service and other opportunities increasingly afforded to African Americans shaped their drive to push for full rights. It only focused on how broadening views of the world shaped white perceptions, with Miriam's story about the swimming pool in Portland and her comment about her husband's travels in the WWII military. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class Dr. McClurken asked us to look at the successes and/or failures of the movie and I think the movie overall was a success in accurately explaining the struggles of African Americans in the 1950s. The movie shows through Whoopi Goldberg's character the success of women in playing leading roles in the bus boycott movement (the last scene being the most powerful with the women singing in the parking lot) and against the Southern Whites Citizens Council. I also think it is a success to show the power of Mrs. Thompson, white civil rights leaders were important in showing the plight of African Americans and were able to access white media easier. Mrs. Thompson was linked with the African Americans in town but was able to stand up to the men in her life and in a sense was making a better life for herself and her daughter. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this was a success or a failure but I found the absence of Martin Luther King on screen intriguing. His voice was heard (recordings of his speeches I assume) but no actor played him. Perhaps this was because no actor could live up to the great Martin Luther King Jr. Since he was never shown on screen he was made a simply a figure of the Civil Rights Movement.-Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I think this was a very successful portrayal of the views and behavior of people in the 1950s, not only toward race but also toward gender roles, family relationships and social responsibility. Because the narrator is a white woman (the adult Mary Catherine), it would be easy to dismiss the whole movie as just one more white filter on US history. But the screenwriter is, if anything, harder on whites than he is on blacks. The white Thompson family is imploding, but Odessa's family grows closer. Also, the black community is tight-knit, through church and neighbors, while the whites seem to have no bond with one another beyond the racist Citizens' Council and the catty women's circles. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
When the young white kids came on the bus and were harassing Odessa's daughter would a white bus driver stop the bus and kick the white's off? -afrisk<br />
<br />
I liked how they did not have an actor for Martin Luther King Jr. His speeches are powerful enough without anything visual. It was a good choice. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To touch on the MLK question, I think not having him in here focuses the story on smaller, lesser known people who supported the movement. They easily could have had him in the film, but perhaps that would shift the film away from the struggle of everyday people to Martin Luther King Jr. Not necessarily a bad move, but it would definitely make for an entirely different film. This movie doesn't only bring the struggle of the black community to the forefront; it also emphasizes the powerful role of women in the boycott.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:18, 10 November 2010 (MST)</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_--_Extra_Online_Questions329-2010--Week 11 -- Extra Online Questions2010-11-06T01:16:16Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Discuss the roles of the female characters in the movie. */</p>
<hr />
<div>Pick 2 questions to answer (and respond to others' questions as appropriate).<br />
<br />
<br />
== How would the movie have been different if made in 1950? ==<br />
If the movie had had been made in 1950, it would have made the veteran's homecoming a much more joyous occasion. Rather than showing job troubles, marriage troubles, and public suspicion about returning service men the film would show how glad everyone was they were home and that America was number one in all aspects. Because the film was made during/right after the war was over the makers had no idea the economy would take an upswing in the '50s, and rather expected that everything would keep going down and return to Great Depression levels. Also, I think two other things would be different: 1) the filmmakers would never have included the notion that some of the American people doubted WWII involvement and 2) I could be wrong here but I don't think they would have included a main character that didn't have hands. He would probably either have a limp or "shell shock", I think a double amputee would have been deemed to much for audiences (but I could be wrong).-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Isaac. When this film was made in 1946, the filmmakers were grappling with their fears of the future. They didn't know that the Depression would not return after the economic boom fizzled out. If the movie had been made in the 1950s, I believe it would have had a more optimistic outlook and less uncertainty. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The film would have reflected the economic boom that took place in the 1950’s with a more optimistic view of the future of the economy, though Fred does get a job it does still seems precarious. Also, there would have been many young children around from the soldiers and wives who got busy when they came home from war. I also think that there would have been actual signs of PTSD which would have manifested itself by this time. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It may not have portrayed the US economy as looking so grim, but not everything was entirely rosy in 1950 either. The Cold War was gearing up, with the Berlin Airlift in the late 1940s and the war in Korea starting in 1950, the US was once again involved in international issues that maybe didn't influence the lives of Americans to the extent that WWII had but that still provoked a degree of uncertainty and fear. Instead of challenging Fred on why the US fought WWII at all, the man in the drug store probably would have asked why the US had let the Soviets take so much ground/control in the end. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== How is the movie title subtly ironic? ==<br />
Best Years of Our Lives is ironic because you would think without knowing anything about the movie that it is going to be a completely happy movie where people frolic about and are having a good time. Then you see the movie and you think just kidding. The movie starts out completely depressing. No one wants to see their family because they do not know how their family will react to them. When Al Frank and Homer get home they have major obstacles to overcome. Homer has to deal with the fact that his family pit him because he lost his hands. Frank cannot find a job while and while he was gone his wife had had a job and was getting more money then he ever did which threatens his masculinity. Al is awkward with his children and has a drinking problem. It is clearly not the best years of their lives. After the war, is is probably the worst years of their life. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Thinking about the movie's title took me in two different directions. First, it reflects what a lot of people believed in 1946, that with the war finally over, the best years of their lives were ahead in a shiny new world. In that way, the title is ironic because the movie clearly shows life is not easy, and the new world has a lot of the same problems plus a crop of new ones. It also occured to me that the movie's title means different things to different characters. People are either nostalgic or bitter when they use the phrase, "the best years of my life." The character who actually says the line is Fred's glamour-puss wife Marie, who says bitterly that she spent the best years of her life waiting for him. For her, that's probably true. Everything she cares about is tied to youth and beauty, and those are fading fast. Al Stephenson also feels bitter. He sourly compares an old photo of himself with the aged, damaged face in the mirror. Al believes the best years of his life were before the war, when he was a prosperous banker raising his family. In contrast, there is Homer, who is nostalgic but not yet bitter. He, too, looks at old photos of himself---playing basketball and football in high school, with two hands. But he gets up the courage to fully expose his physical limitations to Wilma, and when she still loves him, he moves forward with his life, clearly believing his best years are still ahead. For Peggy, the phrase is neither ironic, bitter, nor nostalgic, but true. Her childhood was clouded by war, but now the war is over, and the man she loves, loves her. No matter how much she and Fred will have to struggle, I believe these will be the best years of her life. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The title is subtly ironic because the veterans did not know whether the best years of their lives were past, present, or future. Were they the happiest before the war, when everything was idyllic? Were they happiest during the war, when the homefront was a distant dream where everything was just as they had left it? Or was the post war period the best, where they were reunited with their family and friends and attempted to return to normalcy? I also found it ironic that Fred's wife said that the best years of her life were gone; they had passed when she held a job. She accused Frank of forcing her to give up these years, when in actuality she had only known him for a very short time. Though she might have been an unlikable character at best, she showed her strength by commenting the best years had been when she was an independent working woman. It was also interesting that this was the only time when the movie title was mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna about the ambiguity of the title. At the start of the film, when the men are happy to finally be home, they seem to think that the best years of their lives are ahead of them. Homer is endearingly optimistic (at least on the surface) about his future, and Fred can't wait to return to his (gross) bride, Marie. It isn't until their car pulls up to each of their houses that they start to show some anxiety about actually seeing their families. As the film goes on, it becomes clear that for at least Homer and Al, they were happier before the war. The scene where Al is staring at his picture and trying to look the same way again shows that he feels old and maybe a little used up. He also mentions several times how old his children are now, and how he missed their childhoods. The film remains a little ambiguous about whether or not the best years of their lives are behind them or in front of them (Homer and Fred at least have their youth whereas Al does not), but I think it's clear that the present is certainly not the best. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
Best Years of Our Lives…when the veterans first returned home, I don’t think those would be the words they would have used to describe their current situations. They all have to endure continuous hardships in order to return to a semi-normal life in addition to living with the horrible memories of war for the rest of their lives. Their best years could come later when they were finally adjusted back into society…or could it be nostalgia for the pre-war years? But as Fred says, you can't go back to the ways things were. Things are totally different when the war ends and people are different too. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I think the title is referring to the years that someone personally believes are the "best years of their life". Fred's wife says at one point that the years he was away at war were the best years of her life. Of course they were, she got to brag about having a husband who was away at war, she had a job and spent time in nightclubs and probably with other men. Those were what she decided were the best years of her life. I think some of the Veterans who returned home may have thought that also, especially when they first arrived home, they felt like they didn't fit into society anymore after being away for so long and it was hard finding a job etc. Others, who were maybe more optimistic, maybe thought the future were going to bring the best years of their lives. Men like Homer who married Elma and Fred and Peggy who probably got married also most likely believed marriage and love would enable them to have the best years of their lives. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Discuss the roles of the female characters in the movie. ==<br />
<br />
I loved the roles that Peggy and Al's wife played in the movie. They were strong women. Peggy had gone to work during the war and was pretty confident in herself. She symbolizes the women who had worked while the men went off to war. Franks wife was the evil woman who married Frank for his money and when he came home and could not get a job right away she divorced him. She represents the women who got a divorce because their husbands had changes since the war. Both Peggy and Al's wife were very domestic which I think was true for the times. Al got breakfast in bed and Peggy made breakfast for Frank after he had spent the night. Al's wife was a little stereotypical in that she acted as the completely moral character who played a mother very well but she was really smart which I really liked. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn about the domestic stereotypes (Millie and Peggy), but at least they weren't sickly sweet, which could have been easy to do. Millie didn't exactly seem cheery all the time, nor did she seem resentful for having to carrying out her domestic responsibilities. She played her part, but she didn't pretend that she absolutely loved doing it. Peggy seemed a little too chirpy to be realistic initially, but she had a darker side to her, too. Not many women in movies from the 1940s seriously declare that they're going to break up a marriage. She seemed fairly independent, not just a doting daughter and sister. I didn't like Marie, but I liked that she was not a domestic goddess. She was pissed that she had to quit her job when Fred came home, and she was kind of slutty. A good role model? No. An annoying character? Yes. But it was a little refreshing to see someone like Marie in a movie from 1946, especially when everyone else is more or less noble. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn on the roles that Peggy and Al's wife played-they represented progressive women and also the "Leave it to Beaver" stereotype of the middle class, domestic. Their quick wit and strong attitudes made the movie for me. Peggy did show how women took control of life on the homefront by driving and working outside the home, yet she also was able to take care of the men in her life. Peggy represented the new woman with her goal to get Fred and she was successful. Her mom as LeAnn stated was stereptypical but also showed through her relationship with Peggy the bond women have amongst one another. Women focused on group-centered leadership and when they stuck together were more powerful. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Megan has a good point about the bond women developed with one another. I loved that about this movie. Having a mother and daughter also be very good friends, who had come to depend on one another, was such a smart way to show how women turned to one another for help and strength while their men were away. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I think that the roles that the women in this movie played were quite interesting. Peggy represents the independent women who has struck out on her own (mostly) and became a professional working woman. Milli represents the wife who has been holding her family together during a tumultuous time. In the beginning of the film she mentions that she had to lay off the maid and she has to remind her friend on the phone who her husband is, I think these two occurrences exemplify both the economic struggles that women faced and the independence that they had while their men were away. As far as Fred’s wife, her character seems odd to me because I feel that she would not have been nearly a shallow as portrayed but I think her purpose in the film was to represent the conflict in many marriages when men returned home. Fred’s wife had been happily living her life in her own apartment, making her own money in a night club and now she was expected to return to her domestic responsibly and her “wifely” duties. - Caryn<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Debbi about the mother-daughter bond. Peggy and her mother remind me of me and my mom. They definitely represent the strong women who were able to make it work and keep things together while the men were away. When Al firsts returns home, he feels like he does not fit into their routine. Peggy and her mother represent the strong female part of the homefront that became independent of the men. Peggy still maintains a job at the hospital even after the war ends. Fred’s wife was just plain annoying! She did not seem to understand how to maintain a mature relationship. She is all about parties, money, and appearances. She would not even let Fred go out with her in his civilian clothes! And then when they go out with Peggy and Woody, Marie spends the entire night flirting with Woody and ignoring her husband. Peggy and her mother definitely show the progression in women’s roles while Marie depicts how some women could not let go of the past. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the things I liked about the movie was how real it felt. Sometimes I think movies, especially those made in the early 20th Century, utilize such cliche or characters with one-sided personalities and they can become somewhat boring. I felt like all the women in the movie were so dynamic and interesting. Peggy was a strong, independent woman who was intelligent and compassionate(such as when she gave up her bed to Fred, soothed him when he had a nightmare and then did not even mention it the next morning). Even though she did portray that "sweet" and "innocent" girl she surprised me in a good way when she was having that conversation with her parents and blatantly said she was going to break up Fred's marriage. I don't know if she actually would have tried during the 1940s but it showed she was a woman who knew what she wanted. I also liked her mother. She was a very strong woman also. She always seemed to know what was going on with her family whether it was who her daughter was in love with or how to respond and behave around her husband. She took care of her family but was not a pushover. She was a wise woman, one of my favorite scenes with her in it was when she was describing how hard it is to work at marriage and love and how it's not always easy. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The women are the stable ones in this movie. Millie has raised her children and kept her life together while her husband was gone and is now gearing up for the long task of helping him transition and deal with a potential alcohol problem. Peggie is financially supporting herself, and she and Wilma both have a clear read of their own emotions concerning the men in their lives. Even Fred's wife knows what she wants out of life, even if it is just superficial entertainment, and she had a job that could help her support her fun. It is the men who are questioning their relationships, their jobs, and their futures. This is disconcerting to the men accustomed to being heads of households and patriarchal figures. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Most of the female characters in the movie were very supportive of their men. Wilma still loves Homer and is willing to help him out with his physical disability. More importantly, she is patient and is willing to wait for Homer to ask for assistance. As for Milly and Peggy, they are very caring for the men they love. Milly is a good sport and a quick sense of humor. While Peggy may be younger than her mother, she is a serious woman as well as being a good sport. Unfortunately, the only female character not to be supportive is Marie. She only focuses on her own interests. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Is this movie pessimistic or optimistic about the US future? ==<br />
I believe it is optimistic about the US future. Fred does get a job; moreover, it's a job tied to building construction, which we know from the lecture is going to be one of the businesses that strengthens the US economy. Director William Wyler tones down the optimism with sobering camera work---I'm thinking particularly of the wide shot of all the scrapped planes, a visual counterpart to all the returned vets that have to be recycled. More personally, there is Al's drinking problem, which may have a devastating impact on his job and family if its underlying causes aren't dealt with. And we know that Fred and Peggy have a tough road ahead (but I bet they get that house sooner rather than later, if he'll let her keep her job). Yet for all the problems, the movie does end with a wedding. That's a potent symbol, of uniting, of commitment, and of faith. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I would say the film is doubtfully optimistic. It certainly does not say things will be easy and great for society, yet it just as well does not say things are doomed. As the movie says, America is really "gambling on the future of this country" by bringing its service men home so quickly. No one knows how things will be, and are therefore doubtful about out-right success. Really, it seems like the movie is trying to get everyone prepared for a return to a Depression era life. Yes, there will be jobs, but they will be scarce, yes there will be room for success but is going to take luck and hard work. So the film acknowledges that the future could be bright, but constantly reminds the audience there is a chance for failure. Like Homer says, "this is when I am at my weakest...unless I call for help."(I don't know if I quoted perfectly,but you get the idea)-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I, too, believe the movie has an optimistic. The movie shows the triumph over the very difficult ability to overcome the odds. It shows the perserverence the military instills in its members. Never once in my husband's 19 years in the Corps have I ever heard any Marine tell another to give up on a task and just deal with their lot. I'm sure the other services are similar. What they do instead is have a brotherly competition to show to each other and themselves just what they can achieve. Life may be very difficult in the beginning or at other times, but they will do everything in their power to ensure victory. The movie portrays how this mentality is passed within the service member throughout the transition to the civilian world in which he finds himself the underdog. America will survive because the military made these men and won't let them down. They may have to look and it may not be all moonlight and roses, but he will be successful.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
This film really provides an optimistic perspective on the future. Despite the problems, people can overcome many barriers, either physical or mental. The marriage between Homer and Wilma symbolized the unity of the United States. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== What are the long-term odds for these three veterans (and their marriages), as seen by the director/author? ==<br />
<br />
The long-term odds for each of the men would be different but in the end I believe all three would be content and end up at Butch's for a drink. For Homer, he would be married to his sweetheart, with Wilma taking care of the home and him and they would be alright economically because of Homer's disability pay. For Fred, even though he confessed his love for Peggy the couple would need to gain the approval of Al and his wife. They would live a life without material goods but would have eachother and both would work outside the home if necessary. Al and his wife would continue with their lives how they were, Al would retire from the bank and they would live quite comfortably. Each of the veterans would continue on with their post-war status, I think in time Fred's PTSD would calm down and no one would think twice when they met Homer. The war forever changed veterans but also changed the women in their lives and for better. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think that the director left a level of uncertainty in each of the relationships. Of course the audience wants the marriages to work, but the veterans and their wives all have various issues to deal with in their personal lives. Homer is insecure about his disability and how his wife will handle it, Al is becoming an alcoholic, and Frank is newly divorced and without steady work. Largely like the post-war time period, the future of the men and their families appears to be bright, but their is always a definite sense of uncertainty lingering to create doubt about the future. The filmmakers did not know if their lives and their nation would be prosperous, so they left that element of the movie open to the audience as well. --Anna Holman</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_--_Extra_Online_Questions329-2010--Week 11 -- Extra Online Questions2010-11-06T01:10:04Z<p>Celiacroft: /* How is the movie title subtly ironic? */</p>
<hr />
<div>Pick 2 questions to answer (and respond to others' questions as appropriate).<br />
<br />
<br />
== How would the movie have been different if made in 1950? ==<br />
If the movie had had been made in 1950, it would have made the veteran's homecoming a much more joyous occasion. Rather than showing job troubles, marriage troubles, and public suspicion about returning service men the film would show how glad everyone was they were home and that America was number one in all aspects. Because the film was made during/right after the war was over the makers had no idea the economy would take an upswing in the '50s, and rather expected that everything would keep going down and return to Great Depression levels. Also, I think two other things would be different: 1) the filmmakers would never have included the notion that some of the American people doubted WWII involvement and 2) I could be wrong here but I don't think they would have included a main character that didn't have hands. He would probably either have a limp or "shell shock", I think a double amputee would have been deemed to much for audiences (but I could be wrong).-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Isaac. When this film was made in 1946, the filmmakers were grappling with their fears of the future. They didn't know that the Depression would not return after the economic boom fizzled out. If the movie had been made in the 1950s, I believe it would have had a more optimistic outlook and less uncertainty. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The film would have reflected the economic boom that took place in the 1950’s with a more optimistic view of the future of the economy, though Fred does get a job it does still seems precarious. Also, there would have been many young children around from the soldiers and wives who got busy when they came home from war. I also think that there would have been actual signs of PTSD which would have manifested itself by this time. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It may not have portrayed the US economy as looking so grim, but not everything was entirely rosy in 1950 either. The Cold War was gearing up, with the Berlin Airlift in the late 1940s and the war in Korea starting in 1950, the US was once again involved in international issues that maybe didn't influence the lives of Americans to the extent that WWII had but that still provoked a degree of uncertainty and fear. Instead of challenging Fred on why the US fought WWII at all, the man in the drug store probably would have asked why the US had let the Soviets take so much ground/control in the end. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== How is the movie title subtly ironic? ==<br />
Best Years of Our Lives is ironic because you would think without knowing anything about the movie that it is going to be a completely happy movie where people frolic about and are having a good time. Then you see the movie and you think just kidding. The movie starts out completely depressing. No one wants to see their family because they do not know how their family will react to them. When Al Frank and Homer get home they have major obstacles to overcome. Homer has to deal with the fact that his family pit him because he lost his hands. Frank cannot find a job while and while he was gone his wife had had a job and was getting more money then he ever did which threatens his masculinity. Al is awkward with his children and has a drinking problem. It is clearly not the best years of their lives. After the war, is is probably the worst years of their life. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Thinking about the movie's title took me in two different directions. First, it reflects what a lot of people believed in 1946, that with the war finally over, the best years of their lives were ahead in a shiny new world. In that way, the title is ironic because the movie clearly shows life is not easy, and the new world has a lot of the same problems plus a crop of new ones. It also occured to me that the movie's title means different things to different characters. People are either nostalgic or bitter when they use the phrase, "the best years of my life." The character who actually says the line is Fred's glamour-puss wife Marie, who says bitterly that she spent the best years of her life waiting for him. For her, that's probably true. Everything she cares about is tied to youth and beauty, and those are fading fast. Al Stephenson also feels bitter. He sourly compares an old photo of himself with the aged, damaged face in the mirror. Al believes the best years of his life were before the war, when he was a prosperous banker raising his family. In contrast, there is Homer, who is nostalgic but not yet bitter. He, too, looks at old photos of himself---playing basketball and football in high school, with two hands. But he gets up the courage to fully expose his physical limitations to Wilma, and when she still loves him, he moves forward with his life, clearly believing his best years are still ahead. For Peggy, the phrase is neither ironic, bitter, nor nostalgic, but true. Her childhood was clouded by war, but now the war is over, and the man she loves, loves her. No matter how much she and Fred will have to struggle, I believe these will be the best years of her life. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The title is subtly ironic because the veterans did not know whether the best years of their lives were past, present, or future. Were they the happiest before the war, when everything was idyllic? Were they happiest during the war, when the homefront was a distant dream where everything was just as they had left it? Or was the post war period the best, where they were reunited with their family and friends and attempted to return to normalcy? I also found it ironic that Fred's wife said that the best years of her life were gone; they had passed when she held a job. She accused Frank of forcing her to give up these years, when in actuality she had only known him for a very short time. Though she might have been an unlikable character at best, she showed her strength by commenting the best years had been when she was an independent working woman. It was also interesting that this was the only time when the movie title was mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna about the ambiguity of the title. At the start of the film, when the men are happy to finally be home, they seem to think that the best years of their lives are ahead of them. Homer is endearingly optimistic (at least on the surface) about his future, and Fred can't wait to return to his (gross) bride, Marie. It isn't until their car pulls up to each of their houses that they start to show some anxiety about actually seeing their families. As the film goes on, it becomes clear that for at least Homer and Al, they were happier before the war. The scene where Al is staring at his picture and trying to look the same way again shows that he feels old and maybe a little used up. He also mentions several times how old his children are now, and how he missed their childhoods. The film remains a little ambiguous about whether or not the best years of their lives are behind them or in front of them (Homer and Fred at least have their youth whereas Al does not), but I think it's clear that the present is certainly not the best. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
Best Years of Our Lives…when the veterans first returned home, I don’t think those would be the words they would have used to describe their current situations. They all have to endure continuous hardships in order to return to a semi-normal life in addition to living with the horrible memories of war for the rest of their lives. Their best years could come later when they were finally adjusted back into society…or could it be nostalgia for the pre-war years? But as Fred says, you can't go back to the ways things were. Things are totally different when the war ends and people are different too. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I think the title is referring to the years that someone personally believes are the "best years of their life". Fred's wife says at one point that the years he was away at war were the best years of her life. Of course they were, she got to brag about having a husband who was away at war, she had a job and spent time in nightclubs and probably with other men. Those were what she decided were the best years of her life. I think some of the Veterans who returned home may have thought that also, especially when they first arrived home, they felt like they didn't fit into society anymore after being away for so long and it was hard finding a job etc. Others, who were maybe more optimistic, maybe thought the future were going to bring the best years of their lives. Men like Homer who married Elma and Fred and Peggy who probably got married also most likely believed marriage and love would enable them to have the best years of their lives. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Discuss the roles of the female characters in the movie. ==<br />
<br />
I loved the roles that Peggy and Al's wife played in the movie. They were strong women. Peggy had gone to work during the war and was pretty confident in herself. She symbolizes the women who had worked while the men went off to war. Franks wife was the evil woman who married Frank for his money and when he came home and could not get a job right away she divorced him. She represents the women who got a divorce because their husbands had changes since the war. Both Peggy and Al's wife were very domestic which I think was true for the times. Al got breakfast in bed and Peggy made breakfast for Frank after he had spent the night. Al's wife was a little stereotypical in that she acted as the completely moral character who played a mother very well but she was really smart which I really liked. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn on the roles that Peggy and Al's wife played-they represented progressive women and also the "Leave it to Beaver" stereotype of the middle class, domestic. Their quick wit and strong attitudes made the movie for me. Peggy did show how women took control of life on the homefront by driving and working outside the home, yet she also was able to take care of the men in her life. Peggy represented the new woman with her goal to get Fred and she was successful. Her mom as LeAnn stated was stereptypical but also showed through her relationship with Peggy the bond women have amongst one another. Women focused on group-centered leadership and when they stuck together were more powerful. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Megan has a good point about the bond women developed with one another. I loved that about this movie. Having a mother and daughter also be very good friends, who had come to depend on one another, was such a smart way to show how women turned to one another for help and strength while their men were away. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I think that the roles that the women in this movie played were quite interesting. Peggy represents the independent women who has struck out on her own (mostly) and became a professional working woman. Milli represents the wife who has been holding her family together during a tumultuous time. In the beginning of the film she mentions that she had to lay off the maid and she has to remind her friend on the phone who her husband is, I think these two occurrences exemplify both the economic struggles that women faced and the independence that they had while their men were away. As far as Fred’s wife, her character seems odd to me because I feel that she would not have been nearly a shallow as portrayed but I think her purpose in the film was to represent the conflict in many marriages when men returned home. Fred’s wife had been happily living her life in her own apartment, making her own money in a night club and now she was expected to return to her domestic responsibly and her “wifely” duties. - Caryn<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Debbi about the mother-daughter bond. Peggy and her mother remind me of me and my mom. They definitely represent the strong women who were able to make it work and keep things together while the men were away. When Al firsts returns home, he feels like he does not fit into their routine. Peggy and her mother represent the strong female part of the homefront that became independent of the men. Peggy still maintains a job at the hospital even after the war ends. Fred’s wife was just plain annoying! She did not seem to understand how to maintain a mature relationship. She is all about parties, money, and appearances. She would not even let Fred go out with her in his civilian clothes! And then when they go out with Peggy and Woody, Marie spends the entire night flirting with Woody and ignoring her husband. Peggy and her mother definitely show the progression in women’s roles while Marie depicts how some women could not let go of the past. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the things I liked about the movie was how real it felt. Sometimes I think movies, especially those made in the early 20th Century, utilize such cliche or characters with one-sided personalities and they can become somewhat boring. I felt like all the women in the movie were so dynamic and interesting. Peggy was a strong, independent woman who was intelligent and compassionate(such as when she gave up her bed to Fred, soothed him when he had a nightmare and then did not even mention it the next morning). Even though she did portray that "sweet" and "innocent" girl she surprised me in a good way when she was having that conversation with her parents and blatantly said she was going to break up Fred's marriage. I don't know if she actually would have tried during the 1940s but it showed she was a woman who knew what she wanted. I also liked her mother. She was a very strong woman also. She always seemed to know what was going on with her family whether it was who her daughter was in love with or how to respond and behave around her husband. She took care of her family but was not a pushover. She was a wise woman, one of my favorite scenes with her in it was when she was describing how hard it is to work at marriage and love and how it's not always easy. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The women are the stable ones in this movie. Millie has raised her children and kept her life together while her husband was gone and is now gearing up for the long task of helping him transition and deal with a potential alcohol problem. Peggie is financially supporting herself, and she and Wilma both have a clear read of their own emotions concerning the men in their lives. Even Fred's wife knows what she wants out of life, even if it is just superficial entertainment, and she had a job that could help her support her fun. It is the men who are questioning their relationships, their jobs, and their futures. This is disconcerting to the men accustomed to being heads of households and patriarchal figures. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Most of the female characters in the movie were very supportive of their men. Wilma still loves Homer and is willing to help him out with his physical disability. More importantly, she is patient and is willing to wait for Homer to ask for assistance. As for Milly and Peggy, they are very caring for the men they love. Milly is a good sport and a quick sense of humor. While Peggy may be younger than her mother, she is a serious woman as well as being a good sport. Unfortunately, the only female character not to be supportive is Marie. She only focuses on her own interests. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Is this movie pessimistic or optimistic about the US future? ==<br />
I believe it is optimistic about the US future. Fred does get a job; moreover, it's a job tied to building construction, which we know from the lecture is going to be one of the businesses that strengthens the US economy. Director William Wyler tones down the optimism with sobering camera work---I'm thinking particularly of the wide shot of all the scrapped planes, a visual counterpart to all the returned vets that have to be recycled. More personally, there is Al's drinking problem, which may have a devastating impact on his job and family if its underlying causes aren't dealt with. And we know that Fred and Peggy have a tough road ahead (but I bet they get that house sooner rather than later, if he'll let her keep her job). Yet for all the problems, the movie does end with a wedding. That's a potent symbol, of uniting, of commitment, and of faith. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I would say the film is doubtfully optimistic. It certainly does not say things will be easy and great for society, yet it just as well does not say things are doomed. As the movie says, America is really "gambling on the future of this country" by bringing its service men home so quickly. No one knows how things will be, and are therefore doubtful about out-right success. Really, it seems like the movie is trying to get everyone prepared for a return to a Depression era life. Yes, there will be jobs, but they will be scarce, yes there will be room for success but is going to take luck and hard work. So the film acknowledges that the future could be bright, but constantly reminds the audience there is a chance for failure. Like Homer says, "this is when I am at my weakest...unless I call for help."(I don't know if I quoted perfectly,but you get the idea)-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I, too, believe the movie has an optimistic. The movie shows the triumph over the very difficult ability to overcome the odds. It shows the perserverence the military instills in its members. Never once in my husband's 19 years in the Corps have I ever heard any Marine tell another to give up on a task and just deal with their lot. I'm sure the other services are similar. What they do instead is have a brotherly competition to show to each other and themselves just what they can achieve. Life may be very difficult in the beginning or at other times, but they will do everything in their power to ensure victory. The movie portrays how this mentality is passed within the service member throughout the transition to the civilian world in which he finds himself the underdog. America will survive because the military made these men and won't let them down. They may have to look and it may not be all moonlight and roses, but he will be successful.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
This film really provides an optimistic perspective on the future. Despite the problems, people can overcome many barriers, either physical or mental. The marriage between Homer and Wilma symbolized the unity of the United States. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== What are the long-term odds for these three veterans (and their marriages), as seen by the director/author? ==<br />
<br />
The long-term odds for each of the men would be different but in the end I believe all three would be content and end up at Butch's for a drink. For Homer, he would be married to his sweetheart, with Wilma taking care of the home and him and they would be alright economically because of Homer's disability pay. For Fred, even though he confessed his love for Peggy the couple would need to gain the approval of Al and his wife. They would live a life without material goods but would have eachother and both would work outside the home if necessary. Al and his wife would continue with their lives how they were, Al would retire from the bank and they would live quite comfortably. Each of the veterans would continue on with their post-war status, I think in time Fred's PTSD would calm down and no one would think twice when they met Homer. The war forever changed veterans but also changed the women in their lives and for better. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think that the director left a level of uncertainty in each of the relationships. Of course the audience wants the marriages to work, but the veterans and their wives all have various issues to deal with in their personal lives. Homer is insecure about his disability and how his wife will handle it, Al is becoming an alcoholic, and Frank is newly divorced and without steady work. Largely like the post-war time period, the future of the men and their families appears to be bright, but their is always a definite sense of uncertainty lingering to create doubt about the future. The filmmakers did not know if their lives and their nation would be prosperous, so they left that element of the movie open to the audience as well. --Anna Holman</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-11-06T00:53:21Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed many of the circumstances and situations men and families faced at the end of the war. The film's portrayal of men having to reinstate themselves in society is even commented on in the opening scenes of the film. The war had clearly changed: Homer, Fred, and Al and all three did not have the luxury of returning to previous jobs due to change in ownership (as in Fred's case with the drug store) or due to disabilities incurred by war injuries (as in the case of Homer). Each man handled civilian life differently but all faced one form of trauma; whether through alcoholism, divorce, PTSD, or judgement from loved ones. The film was both tragic and uplifting but shows when war ends no one is affected the same. Also, a side comment were all women as bold and witty as Peggy and her mother? I found them to be amazing characters and was glad when Peggy finally snagged Fred! -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I first saw this film freshman year in Dr. McClurken's seminar, "When Americans Come Marching Home," and I was still as moved by the movie as I was then. I empathized with them when they came home and their struggles to reinstate themselves back into society. From the PTSD Frank suffered to the judgment they suffered from friends and family, I would have to say that this beats a Mel Gibson war movie any day of the week. The film really did display the difficult transition that men had when they came home; that it was not the big homecoming celebration as many Americans often think or even what the media displays. -- Kelly <br />
<br />
The movie really showed how strange soldiers must have felt when they returned home. Homer and Al seem very timid to get out of the car when it arrives at their homes - the anxiety in Homer's voice when he announced "This is my street," was heartbreaking. I also thought it was interesting how Fred was the highest rank out of the three of them, but he was just a "soda jerk" before the war. He had the respect of his community but he had no real skills for the job market, which would be incredibly frustrating. There were several lines here and there that expressed some of the cynical post-war sentiment, such as Butch's line about "another war..we'll all be blown to bits", showing the anxiety over the new power of the atomic bomb. Wilma's father had a line about expecting widespread depression and unemployment in the year to come. I think it's these little moments that really set this film apart from other war films; it shows the stark reality of war and its aftermath. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed how divorce happened when men came home from World War II. It was awkward for all three of them when they came home and had to reacquaint themselves with their family and their wife. I think it accurately portrayed PTSD when Frank was having nightmares and then he was in the nose of the bomber. I really liked the part where Frank told his wife that they could never go back to the way they were when they first met. Clearly the war had changed him in many ways. He was no longer concerned with the some of the things he had once been concerned with. I also really loved the portrayal of Al's daughter and wife, Both of them were quick witted and funny. "I guess that ends my career as a home-wrecker" - Peggy. Great line. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film is full of the worry over jobs and the economy that was so prevalent at the time. All three vets worry over finding work and earning enough to support their families. But the image of all of those junked airplanes is so huge and so depressing that it is foreboding for the entire country, not just the three worried veterans. Because we know about the boom that did happen, it's hard to remember that they didn't necessarily expect it, and so much of what should have been a happy time was haunted by concerns about money. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
Like Mary Ann, I found that image of the junked airplanes very moving. I saw the planes as a metaphor for all the returned veterans, whose military skills (like Fred's) were useless in a civilian world. Fred got a job at the drugstore--working for the guy who'd been his assistant before the war--but the script was true to life when his boss told himi that he was under no legal obligation to give him his old job back, since the business had changed hands. The fear and resentment of workers was shown through the two drugstore employees: The female is convinced Fred will get a job because of all his medals, and the male says, "Nobody's job is safe with all these servicemen crowding in." --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Like Debbi and Mary Ann, I took immediate notice to the airplanes that were to be tossed to the junk heap, but I saw them in a more literal sense. One of the men claimed that the plains were brand new from the factory and were headed to the junk pile. I took this as the contracts that had been lost after the war when the U.S. military decided that it would no longer need or be able to afford such contracts. Aside from that, the thing I felt the movie did very well to show how the men would interact with their families after not being around them for years. It was hard to watch each men as they went home and felt very nervous, even more nervous than if they were going into battle. All of them would have rather went to Butch's bar than go home and have to face their families. Plus, the men seem the most delighted when they were back with each other. They were able to come out of their shells when they were with their fellow veterans. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The film accurately portrays the feelings of the returning servicemen. In the beginning of the movie, all three of them admit that they are just as nervous to return home as they were when they deployed years before. I liked that the movie followed all three men, Al, Fred, and Homer, around as they tried to readjust to their civilian lives. None of them have it easy, but Al seems to have to make the least amount of adjustments. He drinks all his problems away at first, but then begins to settle down. Fred realizes he is in a loveless marriage, married to a shallow and selfish party girl. He also has trouble finding a job because he lacks any sort of skill the jobs require. I believe that Fred suffers from PTSD among possible other psychological effects of war. His night terrors are a clear indication that he has been deeply affected by events in the war. (This is confirmed when his father reads one of his award citations that describes some of the things he endured.) Homer has to adjust to how his family treats him because of his disability. It’s different being handicapped among soldiers and being handicapped around your loved ones. The movie also portrays the fear of the civilians that the veterans would return and take over the workforce. When Al returns to the bank, a GI comes to him for a loan. Al says he would be a risk to the bank because he doesn’t have any collateral. The GI tells him that after his service in the war, it is his right to be able to make a living for himself at home. When I found out that William Wyler directed both The Best Years of Our Lives and Ben-Hur, I could not help but notice the similarities in music, even though Ben-Hur was made about 13 years later.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The film correctly showed how affected by the war many veterans were. Each one of the main veteran characters had a problem be it physical handicap, alcohol dependency, or emotional/mental problems. Had this film been made later these problems would either have been glossed over or minimalized. Rather in this movie they are directly addressed and are key plot points. Along this line, the movie actually showed people getting drunk, which was both comedic and realistic (I think we all can relate on some level with some scenes). Also, what was good was how the movie showed that WWII service men came from all different kinds of economic levels, and not everyone had a loyal girl, family, wife, proud parents back at home.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
The movie got many details correct, such as the technical aspects of the GI bill. The loans were not just a handout; there was risk involved for the banks. Also, the fear of the Depression returning was discussed. Americans did not know what the post-war economy would be like so naturally they feared the worst, which they had already experienced once. This really showed that once the war end, the prosperity and security of the 1950s was not immediately ushered in. The veterans and their families experienced uncertainties with jobs, money, family life, society, and almost every aspect of their lives. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
This movie showed how it was difficult for the veterans to adjust back to civilian life. The veterans were excited, but hesitant to go back home. Homer did not want to go back home right away because he did not know how his family would react to him. Also, Al did not even know his own children because he was away for a few years. It showed how life was not easy once they got back home. It was difficult to find a job. Also, they showed how it was difficult for others to keep their jobs because the veterans could take their jobs. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Like Debbi, I noted the woman and the man talking about Fred getting a job. The women clearly thought that Fred deserved to get his job back for his service to the country. However, the man felt threatened by the influx of working men back into the United States. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Another thing I noticed was the wonderment the men had as they returned to their small town. There were so many changes that occurred while they were away in the war. This reminded me of one source that I'm reading for my 485 paper. A nurse POW wrote about how after their liberation she was confused with why the soldiers were called GIs and medical technology had advanced so much she was unable to hand the doctor the right instrument when he asked for it. The veterans (in the movie and in real life) lost years of their lives while away. Their children grew up without them there and many of their wives got by with them gone. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this film. Something I think the film got right was the reactions people had toward Homer Parrish's hands. My grandfather served in WWII and he lost his leg, and the looks that Homer got by others are the same looks I have seen people give my grandpa whenever he went out without is prosthetic leg, so personally all of the scenes with Homer were very touching. I also liked how they tried to portray various people in different parts of their lives trying to re-adjust. There was the family man trying to figure out to fit into his old life after the war, the newly married man who has to get to know his wife, and the young man just starting out in life.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
<br />
Like most everyone else, I feel like the Veterans experiences were portrayed pretty accurately. For instance, right in the first scene when Fred is trying to go home to Boone City, he is having trouble finding transportation and is not treated as well as I would think a Veteran should be and basically has to move over so the man with the money can get on his plane. I thought it was neat how they reacted when they first arrived. The men viewed Boone City as if they had never visited it before. Even Al, who had been married to his wife for twenty years had to get to know her again along with his children who had aged quite a few years. This portrayal of their experiences of their arrival back was pretty accurate according to what we learned in class and in the reading. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed this film, and thought that many of the experiences that the men went through were very true to real life. While everyone welcomed the veterans home with open arms, there was definitely concern about how jobs and families would be impacted. One scene that I thought was particularly interesting was when Al was discussing the home loan with a fellow veteran, and saying how it would be a big risk to the bank. After he sees Homer, however, he decides to take the risk. He later gets chided by his manager for that decision. I think this shows how afraid people and banks were of another depression, especially with the flooded job market. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
One of the things that the movie accurately portrayed was the fact that the soldiers had trouble fitting in again upon their return. Especially when they saw their families had grown to function without them. I think this is especially shown in Al, because he is upset he hasn't been around to watch his children grow. And because the household has adopted a new lifestyle, especially when he commented on Peggy doing the dishes. He though that the family still had a maid. What I noticed that was also accurate, and this is more so from personal experience, is the fact that Al brought back gifts from his time overseas. With the samurai sword and Japanese flag. Whenever my dad came back from a deployment he always brought us something from where ever he was. And finally, the Stars and Stripes [http://www.stripes.com/] is a real newspaper for the military. They have a European and Pacific version and that is the primary source for keeping up with what is happening on the Home front.- Jenn<br />
<br />
Along with everyone else, I definitely think this movie accurately portrayed the soldiers having to acclimate to civilian life. It was interesting because the men were so excited to get home to Boone Creek, yet once they arrived, they found ways to avoid going to their homes and families, such as going to get a drink etc. It seemed that on the first night, the reason Fred and Al got really drunk was maybe a way to cope with the fact that they were back to civilian life and were no longer at war. It seemed like it was a way to ease the adjustment. Another interesting thing about the soldiers' readjusting was that whenever anyone brought up the war and its possible psychological effects on any of the soldiers, they either got defensive or just blew it off saying the feeling would pass. I think many soldiers did not want to come to remember their time fighting and when people assumed the soldiers' were suffering psychologically, the soldiers felt singled out from society and probably as civilians as well. Also, the movie accurately depicted the situation with soldiers jobs. When Fred went to visit his old workplace, he was told since the company had changed hands, he could not get his same job back. On the other hand, Al got his banking job back, but a different task was given to him. Then Homer was receiving his unemployment stipend from the government. ---Alex M. <br />
<br />
I agree that this movie does a great job showing the difficulties of readjusting to civilian life. As the guys mention on the plane ride home, sometimes returning home after that long is almost scarier than deploying in the first place. I think I was most impressed by the depiction of Homer's disability though. It was always so matter-of-fact, but showed how even once you think you've adjusted to something, there's always still more to be done. While some people were uncomfortable with Homer's prostheses, a lot of them, especially Wilma, just wanted to stay around him and get used to it. The film also showed the misunderstandings that can come from having a visible difference or disability, like when the little kids are actually watching Homer and Wilma because they want to spy on the grown ups who are in looooove, but Homer thinks they're staring because of his hands. All in all, it was a very interesting, deep portrayal. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job of trying to portray soldiers coming back from war from different walks of life. We had Al, the family man, Fred who was married, but with not much to come back to and an indifferent wife and then Homer, who came back to an un-certain situation at home. There was also the man who came into the bank and asked for a loan from Al. I’m sure many of the soldiers took advantage of this bill where the government would match half of what the bank provided. They all shared their different experiences of war, but not in great detail and I think the movie did a good job of capturing how many soldiers wanted to hide from their war experiences in public but in private they could not avoid them. Each character was emotionally fragile, but they dealt with it in different ways and ultimately I think each found peace with a woman (except maybe Al’s women was Jackie Daniels). –afrisk<br />
<br />
Harold Russell (the actor who played Homer Parrish) was really the real deal. His acting was really based on his own experiences. He does accurately portrayed a disabled veteran. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Holy Moses! What happened to the good old days where women took domestic science classes, were expected to get married right out of high school, and be housewives! Lol, anyways...I think this movie definitely captured how the lives of women began changing during and after the war. During the war, women had to step up to the plate and take charge. They began working outside the home and, as a result started becoming more independent. The movie shows the dynamic between this change. Fred's wife has clearly embraced her new found independence by getting her own job. Peggy also has a job working in the hospital. Although the movie shows how the roles of women were beginning to change, the old ways are still there. Peggy's mom is still the perfect housewife. Peggy is also groomed to become a housewife, which is evident in the class on domesticity that she took, and it is likely that she would give up her job as soon as she is married. Fred's wife reluctantly gives up her job at the night club once Fred comes back home. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A scene that really epitomized how the armed forces had prepared soldiers to return home, was when Homer greets his family and Wilma, after he gets out of the cab. Watching the scene unfold, Fred comments,"You gotta hand it to the Navy, they really taught him how to use those hands." Al replies, "They couldn't train him to put them around his girl and stroke her hair." This scene is very symptomatic of the issues that soldiers face when they try to return to civilian life. They have been trained to be a efficient and lethal weapons, to obey orders instantly and have experienced the death of many fellow servicemen. Trying to readjust to showing and receiving affection, could be very challenging. When Al returns to his family, he offers his wife a cigarette, forgetting that she doesn't smoke and he can't believe how much his family has changed in his absence. <br />
- Michael G.<br />
<br />
The film accurately portrayed many of the effects of the GI Bill, but I thought the way they handled giving loans to returning veterans was particularly accurate. It shows the risks that banks were forced to take when they gave these loans to servicemen because, as mentioned in class, the government only guaranteed half of the loans. While Al's boss agrees with the stirring speech that Al gives, the bank is taking on a lot of risk in doing so. Especially in the years immediately following the end of the war, it shows that people were still very afraid of the economy collapsing and I thought it was done very well. -Melissa<br />
<br />
<br />
When the scene with all the planes was shown, I too imagined the metaphor with the junked planes and the returning soldiers. But what I was amazed besides the sheer number of planes, was thinking about who built those planes. Yea, that's right..WOMEN!!! See what awesome things we can accomplish when not distracted by so many men? Just kidding, but the women who stayed home and constructed planes like those during the War were truly awesome in their own right.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
I really think they could have done without Franks wife being a gold-digger. She was awful and she is such a stereotypical character. She has no depth to her. I am not sure in the 1940's if it would have been acceptable for Peggy to go after Frank when she knew he was married. I am pretty sure that is not acceptable behavior at the time although I loved the whole part I do not think it is all that accurate. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
One of the major things that the movie missed out on was the representation of how veterans had to deal with post traumatic stress. Though we see the Fred had nightmares about his time in the war and Homer has trouble with people glancing at him awkwardly, there is not sense of the men going to the VA to get some help. There is no sense of the men being placed in hospitals to deal with severe emotional trauma. The nightmares and glances are humiliating, but they surely do not compare to the real emotional toll these men must have gone through after what they had seen and done over seas. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
Going along with Mike E's comment, it seems that Frank's PTSD set on too quickly. In class we discussed how it took months or years for the disorder to appear, but in the film Frank begins experiencing symptoms merely days after discharge. Also, I felt that the fight scene in the pharmacy perpetuated the stereotype of veteran's being overly violent. Sure, the man with the newspaper was being a royal pain, but the thrown punches seemed to only further this notion. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
It seems to me that an affair between the daughter of a friend or even superior and a married man may have been a bit salacious in the 1940’s. I found it quite disheartening that Fred’s wife was so shallow and obsessed with money. It is odd to me since she was most likely a teenager or a bit younger during the depression which would have imposed a different mindset about money and material objects. I also noticed that Peggy was wearing nylons in the beginning of the movie but rationing which certainly included nylons did not end until 1946. I know that this movie was made in ’46 but I gather that she would not have gotten her hands on nylons that quickly. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It was hard to figure out if the movie was portraying the Air Force as a separate military branch during 1946. Characters mentioned the “Air Force” a few times. There were planes used in warfare, however the Air Force itself did not become a separate branch until September 18, 1947 (“USAF Established” at http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1845). -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The fact that College was never discussed seemed unrealistic to me. As we discussed in class 2 million veterans attended college after the war as part of the GI Bill. However Fred and Homer never discuss it. Fred does bring up the fact that he has been told to look into trade schools, but he doesn't mention that it would be free, or the other educational options available to him. -Michael G.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
Since the movie was made before the end of WWII, and was released the year after its end the filmmakers had no idea of the economic boom that happened around the '50s. To them things would go back to their Great Depression ways: jobs would be few, the rich would get richer and the poor poorer, and most of all veterans would have very hard times. These thoughts are clearly shown in the film, and it almost seems like the film suggests that the American Dream is busted. This particular idea manifests when Freddy talks about just wanting a house, family, and a good job; all of which he is denied in the film. Even when he gets with Patty (can't remember if that is her name) his financial future is in jeopardy. Also, the son (who just up and left never coming back during the movie) presents the filmmaker and audience's questions about the new atomic age, thoughts that are echoed by Buster when he talks about the next war killing everyone off at the very beginning via A-bomb.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
As Isaac said, the filmmakers were unsure about the future of the nation, just like the characters. This was portrayed well at the end of the film when Peggy and Frank have an uncertain future as a couple, Homer and Wilma are nervously wed, and Al's future with the bank, his daughter, and his alcoholism are largely unknown. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In 1946 the returning vets and families of the vets seemed to feel as if the economy was precarious. Of course they would, poor Fred is now working for his former subordinate and was told by the new owner of the pharmacy that he was under no obligation to give him a job. I agree with Isaac, it was mildly clever to have the son ask all of the questions about the atomic age but it did seem somewhat contrived and overwhelming right at the start of the film. I think that the film deals quiet well with the emotional state of these three returning vets as representations of the time as a whole. Fred is hoping to move forward, Al is stuck in the past and drunkenly attempting to forget, and Homer is trying to live his life as a disabled vet. The film really seems to capture their experiences well. - Caryn<br />
<br />
This movie definitely shows how at that time, Americans were worried that there would be another Great Depression. They showed this when Frank had difficulty finding jobs. I agree with Isaac...in the movie, Fred was not very optimistic about the American Dream. Did most people in 1946 not believe in the American Dream? -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I saw the "atomic bomb" scene with Al's son a little differently than Caryn. It seemed natural to me that the son would want to discuss it, because he knew that Al had been at Hiroshima. I'm sure that the bomb was on the boy's mind because everyone followed the war closely, and it would have been discussed at school; many classrooms had big maps with the battles marked on it, and of course schoolchildren were recruited for scrap and rubber drives. I also liked this scene because it showed how estranged Al had become from his children. Also, for us, it foreshadows the Generation Gap of the 1960s, the seeds of which were sown in those years. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I don't disagree with you on that Debbie, it just seemed clumsy the way it was addressed, in my opinion. I am sure that it was at the forefront of people's minds especially if it directly effected this family, I just think that it was hastily introduced. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the atomic bomb scenes were interesting because if the film were made today I think there would be extended discussion of the impacts to atomic weapons and those discussions were still in the film even though the Cold War atomic threat hadn't really sunk in yet. I also thought it was notable that Butch openly states that if there is another war the world would basically be destroyed but this was before the idea of MAD that would come to dominate the 1950s-1960s.<br />
<br />
Another view on the atomic bomb talk scene... I found it hard to watch the tension between father and son when Dad brought souvenirs home for his boy, like the samurai sword and the scarf. I think it was pretty brave for the movie to portray a young man who was obviously uncomfortable with the demonization of the Japanese. Similarly, the fact that the word "divorce" is even mentioned at all in this 1946 film is shocking. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
Although I loved this movie, I have to say that this movie was definitely racy for its time! Along with how shocking it was that divorce was mentioned, there was cheating (I guess in a sense adultery), talk of being a home-wrecker, excessive drunkenness, etc... Just very surprising because there were a lot more stipulations on proper behavior and etiquette during that time, as well as a huge emphasis on the importance of having the perfect "American" family with the loyal stay-at-home mother, hardworking father, two kids, and a dog all in a house with a white picket fence. I believe censorship was also huge then to boot. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I was intrigued by Butch's prediction concerning the future with Homer. "Unless we have another war, because we will all be blown to bits in the first day." This was a view not uncommon to Americans and to people around the world at the time. Atomic weapons were new uncharted territory. Luckily his prediction has not come true, as mutually assured destruction, among a few other things, as prevented atomic/nuclear war. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The reading tied in with how the three soldiers felt when they returned from the war. It seemed that all of the soldiers had a difficult time relating to their relatives and it was easier to explain and hangout with fellow veterans versus their civilian families and co-workers. I found the line on page 164 to be really intriguing, "I wrote home, 'The longer I stay here, the more irritated and frustrated I become. If I don't get out soon, I will be a mental case." The line tied in with how the men felt when they were waiting for flights home, in the film they all seemed truly upset with the military in how long it took to get home and actual soldiers felt the exact same. I felt sympathy for all of the soldiers but also understand from the civilian perspective how hard it is when a relative returns from war. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In the reading there is a letter from a soldier home to his parents notifying them about his wounds and reassuring them that he is not in as serious condition as the official telegram implies. The soldier notes after that the letter was written to reassure his parents that he was not in serious condition, but that was a lie. This is illustrated in the movie when Homer mentions in the beginning that his parents knew he was wounded but they did not know the extent of it. Tobias Wolff also discusses how surviving soldiers feel when others die and they live. He says, ““All around you people are killed…but not you. They have been killed instead of you…They have been killed in place of you-in your place.” Fred probably faces thoughts like these when he has his nightmares and gets caught up thinking about the war when he sits in the nose of a plane at the end of the movie.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The characters' experiences mirrored a few of Paul Fussell's experiences. Specifically, Fussell says he "became obsesssed with the imagined obligation to go it alone, absolutely ..." (176). Homer echoes this sentiment during his conversation with Wilma in the garage. She offers to help him adjust, but he says it's something he has to do by himself. I can't quote a source here, but from watching The History Channel I know that many WWII vets never, ever talked about their war experiences with their families. Again, we see this reticence in the movie and in the reading---Fussell writes cheerful lies about his wound, and in the movie Fred doesn't tell his father what he did in the war. Another parallel between the reading and the movie is anger. Fussell seems eaten up with it, and Al Stephenson (the infantry sergeant/banker) also operates on a very short fuse. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The general sense of cynicism and frustration was very clear in both Paul Fussell's account and the film. It would be incredibly aggravating to come home from a war and have people around you be happy. There was a line early in the film when the men are returning to their hometown, and one of them says, "People playing golf. Just as if nothing had ever happened." If I had been through what those soldiers went through and I returned home to a cheery community that looked untouched by the war, I would be so frustrated and angry. There's no way they can know what the soldiers have seen, and even though they sympathize for them and try to make them feel better, there is a huge gap between the veterans and the community. I think that is made very evident in the film and the reading. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In Paul Fussell's account, he talks about how aspects of the war stayed with him years after he got out of the service. He described how he continued to jump at loud noises, he would count while putting on his clothes, and find good places that machine guns would be able to hide. For the men in the movie ''The Best Years of Our Lives,''the situation is the same. Homer, Al and Fred continue to relive parts of the war such as when Fred gets in the airplane and feels as if he is flying in the air again. The reality for veterans is that their experiences stay with them forever. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
From Chapter six of the readings I found an interesting comparison when Paul Fussell was talking about education in a university after the war. He says, “What social institutions are the most dramatically opposite to the army? Colleges and universities.” That is one thing we hardly see in the movie, except for once I believe. He also mentions how he did not want to return to any conforming group. Both of these seemed opposite to what the characters in the movie did. None of them even gave a hint of going to a university and I think they all conformed. Fred started working at the same drug store he did before the war, Al was working at the bank and Homer, probably because of his handicap, had to stay at home. This just goes to show that everybody not only has different experiences during the war, but also after and how they choose to return to society. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Amy's point. Fussel's post war experiences were traumatizing to say the least. How hard it must have been for him to live with the nightmares and constant crying. In relation, Fred suffered from nightmares, or more like talking in his sleep. He would recount the same dream over and over, at the beginning of the movie and then it is brought up by his wife later. When the nightmares were brought up to Fred, it changed him and it was almost as if he didn't want to relive them again. Another interesting point was that Fussel talked about his change in attitude, from "my presiding emotion was annoyance, often intensifying to virtually disabling anger. Anger at my accepting invitations to make too many changes of identity too fast." (P. 211) I think this annoyance was exhibited in all 3 of the men, but especially Homer. When he broke the glass when he saw the kids watching him while he was doing shooting practice, his frustration had finally reached the threshold. I'm sure there was plenty for the soldiers to be annoyed at, or even angry at. In my opinion, they had a right to feel that way after returning from war. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Like Fred, Fussell also suffered post-traumatic stress disorder. While each veteran experienced it in different forms, the cause of their problems originated from their service during World War II. Somehow, the disorder was not a major problem until the Vietnam War.<br />
<br />
Both the reading and the movie gave well-described scenarios of some of the effects that happen to service members. Having a little closer knowledge of the military and how it works is quite intriguing. They were also, from my perspective, were fairly accurate and something that military members try to deal with on their own and one that is hard to portray for civilians to completely understand. These men and women (I would have loved to see a portrayal of a female service member in the movie, but we weren't important at that time I guess) in the military, especially in war lose something within themselves that they cannot even define themselves. When coming home from such a long duration away, the movie and reading does a fine job of showing the difficulties that arise within the relationships at home. Everyone is apprehensive about doing/saying the wrong thing or offending the other person. It is quite intimidating when everything is taken into account. I wonder what the percentage of the returning troops from the war would have been represented by this movie. I think the movie fails in a way with Al's family, I would hope that after 20 years of being married, the wife wouldn't be that stuffy, if so, I can understand Al's apprehension of going home. I also didn't like the way that each of the guys took to alcohol to deal with their problems. I know that alcohol was readily available, but I think the way they had all the guys at the bar their first night home would have been unrealistic. But I do believe that Homer, I hope I have his name right, would have had the difficulty he portrayed. Since he truly did lose his hands during the War, he part was accurately played. But, it would have been difficult trying to relive it.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Dr. McClurken asked us to think about how audiences would have received this movie, showing real problems, after seeing nothing but gung-ho war movies. He also told us that ''Best Years'' was the top-grossing movie of 1946. Like the young recruits who experienced the outside world for the first time because of the war, American audiences had matured during the war years. They probably became more worldly, definitely lost some innocence and idealism, and so they were ready for realism. Plus, so many audience members would have seen their own lives acted out on that big screen; just knowing that other people were dealing with the same problems would have been a tremendous relief. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbi in that I think Americans would have liked to see characters going through similar situations to their own. That realism can be painful but cathartic at the same time. I also think it's important that all three men end up happy and with the women they want to be with. That might not be the most realistic of messages, but it would have been a comfort to audiences that, after all the issues the men and their families go through during the film, things still work out alright in the end. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I definitely think that the movie could serve as a message of hope to veterans and their families who were undergoing similar problems to the characters. Even though there is not such a strong pro-war message, there was a lot of fear about family life and the economy in 1946. Seeing that all three of these men were able to get their lives back on track and overcome the obstacles which they faced would have been inspiring, I think. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan that this movie was well received by families undergoing similar problems at the end of the War. Part of the problem was that every person felt that their situation was somehow abnormal and different from what it is supposed to be. With the release of this movie people realized that they weren't in fact alone. From that they were able to work through their problems and work towards a better life. By not really forgetting the war, but rather accepting that it happened and changed the US. - Jenn</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-11-06T00:44:53Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed many of the circumstances and situations men and families faced at the end of the war. The film's portrayal of men having to reinstate themselves in society is even commented on in the opening scenes of the film. The war had clearly changed: Homer, Fred, and Al and all three did not have the luxury of returning to previous jobs due to change in ownership (as in Fred's case with the drug store) or due to disabilities incurred by war injuries (as in the case of Homer). Each man handled civilian life differently but all faced one form of trauma; whether through alcoholism, divorce, PTSD, or judgement from loved ones. The film was both tragic and uplifting but shows when war ends no one is affected the same. Also, a side comment were all women as bold and witty as Peggy and her mother? I found them to be amazing characters and was glad when Peggy finally snagged Fred! -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I first saw this film freshman year in Dr. McClurken's seminar, "When Americans Come Marching Home," and I was still as moved by the movie as I was then. I empathized with them when they came home and their struggles to reinstate themselves back into society. From the PTSD Frank suffered to the judgment they suffered from friends and family, I would have to say that this beats a Mel Gibson war movie any day of the week. The film really did display the difficult transition that men had when they came home; that it was not the big homecoming celebration as many Americans often think or even what the media displays. -- Kelly <br />
<br />
The movie really showed how strange soldiers must have felt when they returned home. Homer and Al seem very timid to get out of the car when it arrives at their homes - the anxiety in Homer's voice when he announced "This is my street," was heartbreaking. I also thought it was interesting how Fred was the highest rank out of the three of them, but he was just a "soda jerk" before the war. He had the respect of his community but he had no real skills for the job market, which would be incredibly frustrating. There were several lines here and there that expressed some of the cynical post-war sentiment, such as Butch's line about "another war..we'll all be blown to bits", showing the anxiety over the new power of the atomic bomb. Wilma's father had a line about expecting widespread depression and unemployment in the year to come. I think it's these little moments that really set this film apart from other war films; it shows the stark reality of war and its aftermath. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed how divorce happened when men came home from World War II. It was awkward for all three of them when they came home and had to reacquaint themselves with their family and their wife. I think it accurately portrayed PTSD when Frank was having nightmares and then he was in the nose of the bomber. I really liked the part where Frank told his wife that they could never go back to the way they were when they first met. Clearly the war had changed him in many ways. He was no longer concerned with the some of the things he had once been concerned with. I also really loved the portrayal of Al's daughter and wife, Both of them were quick witted and funny. "I guess that ends my career as a home-wrecker" - Peggy. Great line. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film is full of the worry over jobs and the economy that was so prevalent at the time. All three vets worry over finding work and earning enough to support their families. But the image of all of those junked airplanes is so huge and so depressing that it is foreboding for the entire country, not just the three worried veterans. Because we know about the boom that did happen, it's hard to remember that they didn't necessarily expect it, and so much of what should have been a happy time was haunted by concerns about money. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
Like Mary Ann, I found that image of the junked airplanes very moving. I saw the planes as a metaphor for all the returned veterans, whose military skills (like Fred's) were useless in a civilian world. Fred got a job at the drugstore--working for the guy who'd been his assistant before the war--but the script was true to life when his boss told himi that he was under no legal obligation to give him his old job back, since the business had changed hands. The fear and resentment of workers was shown through the two drugstore employees: The female is convinced Fred will get a job because of all his medals, and the male says, "Nobody's job is safe with all these servicemen crowding in." --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Like Debbi and Mary Ann, I took immediate notice to the airplanes that were to be tossed to the junk heap, but I saw them in a more literal sense. One of the men claimed that the plains were brand new from the factory and were headed to the junk pile. I took this as the contracts that had been lost after the war when the U.S. military decided that it would no longer need or be able to afford such contracts. Aside from that, the thing I felt the movie did very well to show how the men would interact with their families after not being around them for years. It was hard to watch each men as they went home and felt very nervous, even more nervous than if they were going into battle. All of them would have rather went to Butch's bar than go home and have to face their families. Plus, the men seem the most delighted when they were back with each other. They were able to come out of their shells when they were with their fellow veterans. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The film accurately portrays the feelings of the returning servicemen. In the beginning of the movie, all three of them admit that they are just as nervous to return home as they were when they deployed years before. I liked that the movie followed all three men, Al, Fred, and Homer, around as they tried to readjust to their civilian lives. None of them have it easy, but Al seems to have to make the least amount of adjustments. He drinks all his problems away at first, but then begins to settle down. Fred realizes he is in a loveless marriage, married to a shallow and selfish party girl. He also has trouble finding a job because he lacks any sort of skill the jobs require. I believe that Fred suffers from PTSD among possible other psychological effects of war. His night terrors are a clear indication that he has been deeply affected by events in the war. (This is confirmed when his father reads one of his award citations that describes some of the things he endured.) Homer has to adjust to how his family treats him because of his disability. It’s different being handicapped among soldiers and being handicapped around your loved ones. The movie also portrays the fear of the civilians that the veterans would return and take over the workforce. When Al returns to the bank, a GI comes to him for a loan. Al says he would be a risk to the bank because he doesn’t have any collateral. The GI tells him that after his service in the war, it is his right to be able to make a living for himself at home. When I found out that William Wyler directed both The Best Years of Our Lives and Ben-Hur, I could not help but notice the similarities in music, even though Ben-Hur was made about 13 years later.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The film correctly showed how affected by the war many veterans were. Each one of the main veteran characters had a problem be it physical handicap, alcohol dependency, or emotional/mental problems. Had this film been made later these problems would either have been glossed over or minimalized. Rather in this movie they are directly addressed and are key plot points. Along this line, the movie actually showed people getting drunk, which was both comedic and realistic (I think we all can relate on some level with some scenes). Also, what was good was how the movie showed that WWII service men came from all different kinds of economic levels, and not everyone had a loyal girl, family, wife, proud parents back at home.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
The movie got many details correct, such as the technical aspects of the GI bill. The loans were not just a handout; there was risk involved for the banks. Also, the fear of the Depression returning was discussed. Americans did not know what the post-war economy would be like so naturally they feared the worst, which they had already experienced once. This really showed that once the war end, the prosperity and security of the 1950s was not immediately ushered in. The veterans and their families experienced uncertainties with jobs, money, family life, society, and almost every aspect of their lives. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
This movie showed how it was difficult for the veterans to adjust back to civilian life. The veterans were excited, but hesitant to go back home. Homer did not want to go back home right away because he did not know how his family would react to him. Also, Al did not even know his own children because he was away for a few years. It showed how life was not easy once they got back home. It was difficult to find a job. Also, they showed how it was difficult for others to keep their jobs because the veterans could take their jobs. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Like Debbi, I noted the woman and the man talking about Fred getting a job. The women clearly thought that Fred deserved to get his job back for his service to the country. However, the man felt threatened by the influx of working men back into the United States. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Another thing I noticed was the wonderment the men had as they returned to their small town. There were so many changes that occurred while they were away in the war. This reminded me of one source that I'm reading for my 485 paper. A nurse POW wrote about how after their liberation she was confused with why the soldiers were called GIs and medical technology had advanced so much she was unable to hand the doctor the right instrument when he asked for it. The veterans (in the movie and in real life) lost years of their lives while away. Their children grew up without them there and many of their wives got by with them gone. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this film. Something I think the film got right was the reactions people had toward Homer Parrish's hands. My grandfather served in WWII and he lost his leg, and the looks that Homer got by others are the same looks I have seen people give my grandpa whenever he went out without is prosthetic leg, so personally all of the scenes with Homer were very touching. I also liked how they tried to portray various people in different parts of their lives trying to re-adjust. There was the family man trying to figure out to fit into his old life after the war, the newly married man who has to get to know his wife, and the young man just starting out in life.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
<br />
Like most everyone else, I feel like the Veterans experiences were portrayed pretty accurately. For instance, right in the first scene when Fred is trying to go home to Boone City, he is having trouble finding transportation and is not treated as well as I would think a Veteran should be and basically has to move over so the man with the money can get on his plane. I thought it was neat how they reacted when they first arrived. The men viewed Boone City as if they had never visited it before. Even Al, who had been married to his wife for twenty years had to get to know her again along with his children who had aged quite a few years. This portrayal of their experiences of their arrival back was pretty accurate according to what we learned in class and in the reading. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed this film, and thought that many of the experiences that the men went through were very true to real life. While everyone welcomed the veterans home with open arms, there was definitely concern about how jobs and families would be impacted. One scene that I thought was particularly interesting was when Al was discussing the home loan with a fellow veteran, and saying how it would be a big risk to the bank. After he sees Homer, however, he decides to take the risk. He later gets chided by his manager for that decision. I think this shows how afraid people and banks were of another depression, especially with the flooded job market. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
One of the things that the movie accurately portrayed was the fact that the soldiers had trouble fitting in again upon their return. Especially when they saw their families had grown to function without them. I think this is especially shown in Al, because he is upset he hasn't been around to watch his children grow. And because the household has adopted a new lifestyle, especially when he commented on Peggy doing the dishes. He though that the family still had a maid. What I noticed that was also accurate, and this is more so from personal experience, is the fact that Al brought back gifts from his time overseas. With the samurai sword and Japanese flag. Whenever my dad came back from a deployment he always brought us something from where ever he was. And finally, the Stars and Stripes [http://www.stripes.com/] is a real newspaper for the military. They have a European and Pacific version and that is the primary source for keeping up with what is happening on the Home front.- Jenn<br />
<br />
Along with everyone else, I definitely think this movie accurately portrayed the soldiers having to acclimate to civilian life. It was interesting because the men were so excited to get home to Boone Creek, yet once they arrived, they found ways to avoid going to their homes and families, such as going to get a drink etc. It seemed that on the first night, the reason Fred and Al got really drunk was maybe a way to cope with the fact that they were back to civilian life and were no longer at war. It seemed like it was a way to ease the adjustment. Another interesting thing about the soldiers' readjusting was that whenever anyone brought up the war and its possible psychological effects on any of the soldiers, they either got defensive or just blew it off saying the feeling would pass. I think many soldiers did not want to come to remember their time fighting and when people assumed the soldiers' were suffering psychologically, the soldiers felt singled out from society and probably as civilians as well. Also, the movie accurately depicted the situation with soldiers jobs. When Fred went to visit his old workplace, he was told since the company had changed hands, he could not get his same job back. On the other hand, Al got his banking job back, but a different task was given to him. Then Homer was receiving his unemployment stipend from the government. ---Alex M. <br />
<br />
I agree that this movie does a great job showing the difficulties of readjusting to civilian life. As the guys mention on the plane ride home, sometimes returning home after that long is almost scarier than deploying in the first place. I think I was most impressed by the depiction of Homer's disability though. It was always so matter-of-fact, but showed how even once you think you've adjusted to something, there's always still more to be done. While some people were uncomfortable with Homer's prostheses, a lot of them, especially Wilma, just wanted to stay around him and get used to it. The film also showed the misunderstandings that can come from having a visible difference or disability, like when the little kids are actually watching Homer and Wilma because they want to spy on the grown ups who are in looooove, but Homer thinks they're staring because of his hands. All in all, it was a very interesting, deep portrayal. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job of trying to portray soldiers coming back from war from different walks of life. We had Al, the family man, Fred who was married, but with not much to come back to and an indifferent wife and then Homer, who came back to an un-certain situation at home. There was also the man who came into the bank and asked for a loan from Al. I’m sure many of the soldiers took advantage of this bill where the government would match half of what the bank provided. They all shared their different experiences of war, but not in great detail and I think the movie did a good job of capturing how many soldiers wanted to hide from their war experiences in public but in private they could not avoid them. Each character was emotionally fragile, but they dealt with it in different ways and ultimately I think each found peace with a woman (except maybe Al’s women was Jackie Daniels). –afrisk<br />
<br />
Harold Russell (the actor who played Homer Parrish) was really the real deal. His acting was really based on his own experiences. He does accurately portrayed a disabled veteran. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Holy Moses! What happened to the good old days where women took domestic science classes, were expected to get married right out of high school, and be housewives! Lol, anyways...I think this movie definitely captured how the lives of women began changing during and after the war. During the war, women had to step up to the plate and take charge. They began working outside the home and, as a result started becoming more independent. The movie shows the dynamic between this change. Fred's wife has clearly embraced her new found independence by getting her own job. Peggy also has a job working in the hospital. Although the movie shows how the roles of women were beginning to change, the old ways are still there. Peggy's mom is still the perfect housewife. Peggy is also groomed to become a housewife, which is evident in the class on domesticity that she took, and it is likely that she would give up her job as soon as she is married. Fred's wife reluctantly gives up her job at the night club once Fred comes back home. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A scene that really epitomized how the armed forces had prepared soldiers to return home, was when Homer greets his family and Wilma, after he gets out of the cab. Watching the scene unfold, Fred comments,"You gotta hand it to the Navy, they really taught him how to use those hands." Al replies, "They couldn't train him to put them around his girl and stroke her hair." This scene is very symptomatic of the issues that soldiers face when they try to return to civilian life. They have been trained to be a efficient and lethal weapons, to obey orders instantly and have experienced the death of many fellow servicemen. Trying to readjust to showing and receiving affection, could be very challenging. When Al returns to his family, he offers his wife a cigarette, forgetting that she doesn't smoke and he can't believe how much his family has changed in his absence. <br />
- Michael G.<br />
<br />
The film accurately portrayed many of the effects of the GI Bill, but I thought the way they handled giving loans to returning veterans was particularly accurate. It shows the risks that banks were forced to take when they gave these loans to servicemen because, as mentioned in class, the government only guaranteed half of the loans. While Al's boss agrees with the stirring speech that Al gives, the bank is taking on a lot of risk in doing so. Especially in the years immediately following the end of the war, it shows that people were still very afraid of the economy collapsing and I thought it was done very well. -Melissa<br />
<br />
<br />
When the scene with all the planes was shown, I too imagined the metaphor with the junked planes and the returning soldiers. But what I was amazed besides the sheer number of planes, was thinking about who built those planes. Yea, that's right..WOMEN!!! See what awesome things we can accomplish when not distracted by so many men? Just kidding, but the women who stayed home and constructed planes like those during the War were truly awesome in their own right.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
I really think they could have done without Franks wife being a gold-digger. She was awful and she is such a stereotypical character. She has no depth to her. I am not sure in the 1940's if it would have been acceptable for Peggy to go after Frank when she knew he was married. I am pretty sure that is not acceptable behavior at the time although I loved the whole part I do not think it is all that accurate. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
One of the major things that the movie missed out on was the representation of how veterans had to deal with post traumatic stress. Though we see the Fred had nightmares about his time in the war and Homer has trouble with people glancing at him awkwardly, there is not sense of the men going to the VA to get some help. There is no sense of the men being placed in hospitals to deal with severe emotional trauma. The nightmares and glances are humiliating, but they surely do not compare to the real emotional toll these men must have gone through after what they had seen and done over seas. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
Going along with Mike E's comment, it seems that Frank's PTSD set on too quickly. In class we discussed how it took months or years for the disorder to appear, but in the film Frank begins experiencing symptoms merely days after discharge. Also, I felt that the fight scene in the pharmacy perpetuated the stereotype of veteran's being overly violent. Sure, the man with the newspaper was being a royal pain, but the thrown punches seemed to only further this notion. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
It seems to me that an affair between the daughter of a friend or even superior and a married man may have been a bit salacious in the 1940’s. I found it quite disheartening that Fred’s wife was so shallow and obsessed with money. It is odd to me since she was most likely a teenager or a bit younger during the depression which would have imposed a different mindset about money and material objects. I also noticed that Peggy was wearing nylons in the beginning of the movie but rationing which certainly included nylons did not end until 1946. I know that this movie was made in ’46 but I gather that she would not have gotten her hands on nylons that quickly. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It was hard to figure out if the movie was portraying the Air Force as a separate military branch during 1946. Characters mentioned the “Air Force” a few times. There were planes used in warfare, however the Air Force itself did not become a separate branch until September 18, 1947 (“USAF Established” at http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1845). -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The fact that College was never discussed seemed unrealistic to me. As we discussed in class 2 million veterans attended college after the war as part of the GI Bill. However Fred and Homer never discuss it. Fred does bring up the fact that he has been told to look into trade schools, but he doesn't mention that it would be free, or the other educational options available to him. -Michael G.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
Since the movie was made before the end of WWII, and was released the year after its end the filmmakers had no idea of the economic boom that happened around the '50s. To them things would go back to their Great Depression ways: jobs would be few, the rich would get richer and the poor poorer, and most of all veterans would have very hard times. These thoughts are clearly shown in the film, and it almost seems like the film suggests that the American Dream is busted. This particular idea manifests when Freddy talks about just wanting a house, family, and a good job; all of which he is denied in the film. Even when he gets with Patty (can't remember if that is her name) his financial future is in jeopardy. Also, the son (who just up and left never coming back during the movie) presents the filmmaker and audience's questions about the new atomic age, thoughts that are echoed by Buster when he talks about the next war killing everyone off at the very beginning via A-bomb.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
As Isaac said, the filmmakers were unsure about the future of the nation, just like the characters. This was portrayed well at the end of the film when Peggy and Frank have an uncertain future as a couple, Homer and Wilma are nervously wed, and Al's future with the bank, his daughter, and his alcoholism are largely unknown. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In 1946 the returning vets and families of the vets seemed to feel as if the economy was precarious. Of course they would, poor Fred is now working for his former subordinate and was told by the new owner of the pharmacy that he was under no obligation to give him a job. I agree with Isaac, it was mildly clever to have the son ask all of the questions about the atomic age but it did seem somewhat contrived and overwhelming right at the start of the film. I think that the film deals quiet well with the emotional state of these three returning vets as representations of the time as a whole. Fred is hoping to move forward, Al is stuck in the past and drunkenly attempting to forget, and Homer is trying to live his life as a disabled vet. The film really seems to capture their experiences well. - Caryn<br />
<br />
This movie definitely shows how at that time, Americans were worried that there would be another Great Depression. They showed this when Frank had difficulty finding jobs. I agree with Isaac...in the movie, Fred was not very optimistic about the American Dream. Did most people in 1946 not believe in the American Dream? -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I saw the "atomic bomb" scene with Al's son a little differently than Caryn. It seemed natural to me that the son would want to discuss it, because he knew that Al had been at Hiroshima. I'm sure that the bomb was on the boy's mind because everyone followed the war closely, and it would have been discussed at school; many classrooms had big maps with the battles marked on it, and of course schoolchildren were recruited for scrap and rubber drives. I also liked this scene because it showed how estranged Al had become from his children. Also, for us, it foreshadows the Generation Gap of the 1960s, the seeds of which were sown in those years. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I don't disagree with you on that Debbie, it just seemed clumsy the way it was addressed, in my opinion. I am sure that it was at the forefront of people's minds especially if it directly effected this family, I just think that it was hastily introduced. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the atomic bomb scenes were interesting because if the film were made today I think there would be extended discussion of the impacts to atomic weapons and those discussions were still in the film even though the Cold War atomic threat hadn't really sunk in yet. I also thought it was notable that Butch openly states that if there is another war the world would basically be destroyed but this was before the idea of MAD that would come to dominate the 1950s-1960s.<br />
<br />
Another view on the atomic bomb talk scene... I found it hard to watch the tension between father and son when Dad brought souvenirs home for his boy, like the samurai sword and the scarf. I think it was pretty brave for the movie to portray a young man who was obviously uncomfortable with the demonization of the Japanese. Similarly, the fact that the word "divorce" is even mentioned at all in this 1946 film is shocking. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
Although I loved this movie, I have to say that this movie was definitely racy for its time! Along with how shocking it was that divorce was mentioned, there was cheating (I guess in a sense adultery), talk of being a home-wrecker, excessive drunkenness, etc... Just very surprising because there were a lot more stipulations on proper behavior and etiquette during that time, as well as a huge emphasis on the importance of having the perfect "American" family with the loyal stay-at-home mother, hardworking father, two kids, and a dog all in a house with a white picket fence. I believe censorship was also huge then to boot. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I was intrigued by Butch's prediction concerning the future with Homer. "Unless we have another war, because we will all be blown to bits in the first day." This was a view not uncommon to Americans and to people around the world at the time. Atomic weapons were new uncharted territory. Luckily his prediction has not come true, as mutually assured destruction, among a few other things, as prevented atomic/nuclear war. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The reading tied in with how the three soldiers felt when they returned from the war. It seemed that all of the soldiers had a difficult time relating to their relatives and it was easier to explain and hangout with fellow veterans versus their civilian families and co-workers. I found the line on page 164 to be really intriguing, "I wrote home, 'The longer I stay here, the more irritated and frustrated I become. If I don't get out soon, I will be a mental case." The line tied in with how the men felt when they were waiting for flights home, in the film they all seemed truly upset with the military in how long it took to get home and actual soldiers felt the exact same. I felt sympathy for all of the soldiers but also understand from the civilian perspective how hard it is when a relative returns from war. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In the reading there is a letter from a soldier home to his parents notifying them about his wounds and reassuring them that he is not in as serious condition as the official telegram implies. The soldier notes after that the letter was written to reassure his parents that he was not in serious condition, but that was a lie. This is illustrated in the movie when Homer mentions in the beginning that his parents knew he was wounded but they did not know the extent of it. Tobias Wolff also discusses how surviving soldiers feel when others die and they live. He says, ““All around you people are killed…but not you. They have been killed instead of you…They have been killed in place of you-in your place.” Fred probably faces thoughts like these when he has his nightmares and gets caught up thinking about the war when he sits in the nose of a plane at the end of the movie.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The characters' experiences mirrored a few of Paul Fussell's experiences. Specifically, Fussell says he "became obsesssed with the imagined obligation to go it alone, absolutely ..." (176). Homer echoes this sentiment during his conversation with Wilma in the garage. She offers to help him adjust, but he says it's something he has to do by himself. I can't quote a source here, but from watching The History Channel I know that many WWII vets never, ever talked about their war experiences with their families. Again, we see this reticence in the movie and in the reading---Fussell writes cheerful lies about his wound, and in the movie Fred doesn't tell his father what he did in the war. Another parallel between the reading and the movie is anger. Fussell seems eaten up with it, and Al Stephenson (the infantry sergeant/banker) also operates on a very short fuse. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In Paul Fussell's account, he talks about how aspects of the war stayed with him years after he got out of the service. He described how he continued to jump at loud noises, he would count while putting on his clothes, and find good places that machine guns would be able to hide. For the men in the movie ''The Best Years of Our Lives,''the situation is the same. Homer, Al and Fred continue to relive parts of the war such as when Fred gets in the airplane and feels as if he is flying in the air again. The reality for veterans is that their experiences stay with them forever. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
From Chapter six of the readings I found an interesting comparison when Paul Fussell was talking about education in a university after the war. He says, “What social institutions are the most dramatically opposite to the army? Colleges and universities.” That is one thing we hardly see in the movie, except for once I believe. He also mentions how he did not want to return to any conforming group. Both of these seemed opposite to what the characters in the movie did. None of them even gave a hint of going to a university and I think they all conformed. Fred started working at the same drug store he did before the war, Al was working at the bank and Homer, probably because of his handicap, had to stay at home. This just goes to show that everybody not only has different experiences during the war, but also after and how they choose to return to society. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Amy's point. Fussel's post war experiences were traumatizing to say the least. How hard it must have been for him to live with the nightmares and constant crying. In relation, Fred suffered from nightmares, or more like talking in his sleep. He would recount the same dream over and over, at the beginning of the movie and then it is brought up by his wife later. When the nightmares were brought up to Fred, it changed him and it was almost as if he didn't want to relive them again. Another interesting point was that Fussel talked about his change in attitude, from "my presiding emotion was annoyance, often intensifying to virtually disabling anger. Anger at my accepting invitations to make too many changes of identity too fast." (P. 211) I think this annoyance was exhibited in all 3 of the men, but especially Homer. When he broke the glass when he saw the kids watching him while he was doing shooting practice, his frustration had finally reached the threshold. I'm sure there was plenty for the soldiers to be annoyed at, or even angry at. In my opinion, they had a right to feel that way after returning from war. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Like Fred, Fussell also suffered post-traumatic stress disorder. While each veteran experienced it in different forms, the cause of their problems originated from their service during World War II. Somehow, the disorder was not a major problem until the Vietnam War.<br />
<br />
Both the reading and the movie gave well-described scenarios of some of the effects that happen to service members. Having a little closer knowledge of the military and how it works is quite intriguing. They were also, from my perspective, were fairly accurate and something that military members try to deal with on their own and one that is hard to portray for civilians to completely understand. These men and women (I would have loved to see a portrayal of a female service member in the movie, but we weren't important at that time I guess) in the military, especially in war lose something within themselves that they cannot even define themselves. When coming home from such a long duration away, the movie and reading does a fine job of showing the difficulties that arise within the relationships at home. Everyone is apprehensive about doing/saying the wrong thing or offending the other person. It is quite intimidating when everything is taken into account. I wonder what the percentage of the returning troops from the war would have been represented by this movie. I think the movie fails in a way with Al's family, I would hope that after 20 years of being married, the wife wouldn't be that stuffy, if so, I can understand Al's apprehension of going home. I also didn't like the way that each of the guys took to alcohol to deal with their problems. I know that alcohol was readily available, but I think the way they had all the guys at the bar their first night home would have been unrealistic. But I do believe that Homer, I hope I have his name right, would have had the difficulty he portrayed. Since he truly did lose his hands during the War, he part was accurately played. But, it would have been difficult trying to relive it.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Dr. McClurken asked us to think about how audiences would have received this movie, showing real problems, after seeing nothing but gung-ho war movies. He also told us that ''Best Years'' was the top-grossing movie of 1946. Like the young recruits who experienced the outside world for the first time because of the war, American audiences had matured during the war years. They probably became more worldly, definitely lost some innocence and idealism, and so they were ready for realism. Plus, so many audience members would have seen their own lives acted out on that big screen; just knowing that other people were dealing with the same problems would have been a tremendous relief. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbi in that I think Americans would have liked to see characters going through similar situations to their own. That realism can be painful but cathartic at the same time. I also think it's important that all three men end up happy and with the women they want to be with. That might not be the most realistic of messages, but it would have been a comfort to audiences that, after all the issues the men and their families go through during the film, things still work out alright in the end. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I definitely think that the movie could serve as a message of hope to veterans and their families who were undergoing similar problems to the characters. Even though there is not such a strong pro-war message, there was a lot of fear about family life and the economy in 1946. Seeing that all three of these men were able to get their lives back on track and overcome the obstacles which they faced would have been inspiring, I think. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan that this movie was well received by families undergoing similar problems at the end of the War. Part of the problem was that every person felt that their situation was somehow abnormal and different from what it is supposed to be. With the release of this movie people realized that they weren't in fact alone. From that they were able to work through their problems and work towards a better life. By not really forgetting the war, but rather accepting that it happened and changed the US. - Jenn</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-28T06:07:06Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..." --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Some of what the movie portrayed well was the monopoly that the coal companies had on the entire town, including the houses in which the miners lived. Then, there was the depiction of the coal companies raising the prices at the company general store the very same day that the price of coal had decreased. There was also the representation of danger around every corner that existed within the coal mining industry. Then there was the portrayal of Police Chief Hatfield, who did not want to receive bribes and was opposed to the eviction of the miner's families from company houses. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. about the way the film potrayed just how strong of a hold the coal company had on the town. It seemed like every single aspect of the people's lives was controlled by the company. The scene with the creepy preacher showed the general malevolence that a community could have towards a union. I also liked how there was very little romanticization of the miners' struggle. I think this had a lot to do with the very simple and authentic music. I think another point that the movie got across very well was the danger that men faced whether they joined the union or not - early in the film, one of the Italian miners said to Joe, "We join the union, they shoot us. We don't join the union, you shoot us." The filmmakers made it very clear that just because these men were in the union, it didn't necessarily mean that they were all noble, kind-hearted men. They were just as willing to use force as the company was. Kevin Tighe (aka John Locke's kidney-stealing father on "Lost") was unbelievably easy to hate as Hickey, the Baldwin-Felts man that Elma blew away with a shotgun. He captured the utter lack of sympathy that it seems those men had for the miners. I would have to disagree with Megan W. about trusting Bob Gunton as C.E. Lively at the beginning of the film - Bob Gunton is always evil. Never trust Bob Gunton. - Celia<br />
<br />
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie. The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians. Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food. Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern." And nobody sounded like a moron. As a West Virginian, I'm grateful. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers. Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting). They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect. Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town. I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is. (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.) Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film. Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA? The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don't know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company "owned the town". In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company "provided" the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn't because it was too expensive. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil's work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got the dependence of the miners on the company right throughout the film. Hickey mentions several times that the company owns all of the housing, which we know would have been true. Additionally, when the scab workers are first touring the town with and learning about how they will be working, Few Clothes Johnson brings up the point that since everyone who mines in the town is paid in company scrip, the company store can jack up the prices whenever they want. This is echoed in the union meeting, when the men describe the wage cuts and increased prices. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
A moment that really struck me as accurate, was when Kenehan was speaking to the leader of the Italian mine workers, and tells him that they need to join the union. He responds by saying, so either we get shot by the company, or we get shot by the other miners, and Kenehan agrees that he is basically right. James Earl Jones different reactions to being called a n***** and being called a scab was very enlightening. It showed how truly offensive the term scab was, he didn't seem to care if he was called a n*****, but that no one was allowed to call him a scab. In response to Megan W's comments about Bob Gunton's character, I have to say that I thought from the opening meeting that he was a spy. I couldn't stop thinking of his character in ''Shawshank Redemption'' everytime I saw him, he even had on exactly the same glasses. Sid Hatfield was BAMF throughout the whole movie. When everyone else in a position of power was caving to the coal companies he never backed down. He was the true hero of the film to me. He didn't have to stand up to the Baldwin-Felts men, but he knew what was right and would not budge. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Yes, Michael G. I would just like to say that in my notes from watching this movie, you will find "David Strathairn (actor who played Sid Hatfield) is a BAMF". I also have "Darth Vader is a BAMF" - his BAMFness was perfectly executed in the scene where he says "You shut your mouth, peckerwood." In addition, Chris Cooper (Joe Kenehan) is one of the most consistently fantastic actors working today. His understated magnetism makes any Average Joe into the most interesting character onscreen. I would honestly watch him in anything. He could make a Quiznos commercial poignant. - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie got a lot of things right. First were the racial and nativist tensions between the coal miners. When Sid Hatfield stands up to the Baldwin-Felts men and stops them from evicting the families from their homes. I also thought that the scene when the African-American miners show up and the Company man is telling them about the town and how the Company owns everything, they get paid in Company script etc. and it showed how the Company really did try and control the entire town.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Rachel, I found the introduction to the company scene to be almost frightening in how calculating the company workers could be. Every cost had to be deducted from next month's pay, and every expense (including train tickets to get there) must be accounted. And the discussions about the company store as pay is spot on. You definitely get the sense of hopelessness that the miners would feel having nothing but the company to rely on for food and clothing items, tough luck that they are crooked and not interested in the miners. However what struck me even harder was the portrayal of violence, or at least potential violence on the part of company representatives. Throughout the film, they are armed with a rifle and watching the mines. Even though Kenehan is a pacifist and always looking for peaceful ways to mediate problems, the company does not even pretend to hide its willingness to defend company territory.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got right was the fear of Socialism and Communism. The pastor preaches about it in his sermon and one of the men asked Joe if he was a “red,” meaning a communist. Although Eugene Debs was able to run for president it did not stop people from worrying about “the reds.” –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
Another thing I feel the movie did a good job with was the impatience at the national union. They had to wait to act in their strike until they received word from the union. As a local union they probably wanted to strike sooner and have more of a say in what and when they did stuff. Kenehan said the union was a democracy, like the United States, but it’s more like a Republic, once again like the United States, not everyone gets a vote there are just representatives. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I like the ending of the movie and I think the director did a good job of portraying the little headway that many of these mining unions actually made. The movie made me believe that some headway would be made against the mining company, but that is lost when we see Danny back in the mine at the end and this foreshadows the Unions inability to make new contracts with non-union mines later in the 1920’s. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the Wobblie mentality in that the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) were hoping to create one big union but as it was said in the movie, the Matewan folks only knew from their own holler. It also demonstrates that the IWW accepted all workers into the union whether they were immigrants or Americans, white or black, which was somewhat unique to this particular union in a climate or natives and racism. Sayles also aptly demonstrates the hold that the company had on the entire town, from owning the homes, to the goods, and eventually evicting the strikers from the land that they had lived on their entire life. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a very good job of portraying the clear separation in wealth and class between the miners and the mining company. They made it very clear that there were no personal feelings towards them and I think it was Kenehan who said that these people do not care about you and you are simply workers to them and are easily replaceable. The movie captured the fear that the townspeople had of the mining industry and the men in the Baldwin-Felts’ agency and how it took so much to overcome this fear of unions and finally try to get something organized. I like how the two agents came in and did not care who stood in their way and the movie did a good job of portraying their almost distaste for the workers. –afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie seems to be pretty accurate. It shows how important the Coal Company is on their lives. Many of the people risked their lives to fight the Coal Company. It seemed like everyone wanted better situations, but not everyone agreed that forming a Union is the best thing to do. This movie showed well how the Coal Company affected everyone: the miners (old and young), mothers, people who lived in the town, and people who are not from the town. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with most of the people above that this movie is one of the more accurate it ones. It shows how the coal miners worked together to form a union and strike but also showed the other side, those that worked as "scabs." As I watched the movie, I saw a lot of intensity within the context of race relations. It all started when the Black coal miners were taken off the train so they would purposely be attacked by the whites. Did that really happen? Was the violence that intense towards African Americans? Also, while the miners on strike were meeting in secret and Few Clothes Johnson entered, it was clear he was not welcome. Did the coal miners hate African Americans because they were Black or because they were brought in to "replace" those miners who were on strike? Although the Blacks were brought in to replace the striking miners, their desire to join the Union showed that they had the same goals in mind as the white miners... they wanted a job that brought them money but was also one that treated them fairly and not just as expendable resources. --- Alex M. <br />
<br />
One of the things that the movie portrayed well was the contempt that the Company's people had for the miners. Well, contempt might be too strong of a word... more of "you are no more than dirt beneath my shoe" kind of feeling. (I can't think of the word right now) They really didn't care about the miner's family situations, or lifestyle in general. Because in their eyes they were just bodies to be replaced. This really emphasized the tensions that formed and had been forming for awhile. - Jenn<br />
<br />
The film did a good job with the distinction between the producers and non-producers. At the beginning when Kenehan is at his first meeting with the union, he expresses the difference between those who work and those who don't. Continuously throughout the film, there is the reiteration of the mountain people and the city people, from both the miners and the "deputies" from the coal companies. They also did a good job in expressing the power the company had over every aspect of life. When the black miners were coming to work, the man was rattling off all the expenses due to the company for using their equipment, and the scripts only being good in company stores, the eviction of a family due to joining a union, and many other examples of how the company ran the life of the miners. As a viewer of this film, even if I didn't know the complete history behind towns like these, I felt oppressed for the miners due to the constant limitation expressed on the screen. It makes a person think about the rights that we have now that would never allow for such things and where they came from. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna about Few Clothes Johnson. I was definitely expecting him to come more to the forefront of the movie but he never did, which was disappointing. James Earl Jones could have been used much better. - Celia<br />
<br />
Though Danny served as a representation of the children who worked in the mines, there should have been more children shown in the film. We saw in the readings how they often got injured and sick working the mining jobs that no one else wanted, for very low wages, but that was not depicted in the movie. Also, I was surprised that none of the miners seemed to have any health problems that related to the years that they spent in the mines. There was occasional coughing, but other than that, no depiction of the black lung that became so famous among miners, or even any real mining injuries. Showing these would have helped to represent the dangers of mining at the time, and the poor treatment of the men. I think that it would help the audience to understand why the miners wanted the union so much. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Meagan about the lack of mining injuries and illnesses. The cave in that killed Danny's father is highlighted, but the movie definitely plays up the economic aspect of the drive for unionization. My great grandfather worked in a Pennsylvania mine around this same time period and lost parts of three of his fingers. Seems like many of the men would have had similar injuries, even if they had attained them years earlier while working as breaker boys themselves. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am not really surprised the there wasn't much about mine injuries or related-diseases. Once the characters decided to unionize the mine completely fell out of the picture. The director has you put all your attention on the conflicts, twists and turns of the company vs. the miners. Also I think we go back to the whole problem of creating fictional characters for the purpose of what...easier to make films? Joe Kenehan is an interesting character, but is he honestly necessary? The movie shows a fictional character starting up the entire union at Matewan and therefore is just bad history. The real characters are almost put aside for characters that can say whatever the screen writer wants. It's harder to manipulate the real historical figures. I mean the sheriff and mayor show up in a handful of scenes and Few Clothes drops completely off of the movie at one point.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The kid preacher totally, if I remember right,totally got the story of Joseph wrong. He did not die at the hands of Potiphar and his men, it was this false accusation of rape that got Joseph noticed by Pharaoh for Joe's ability to interpret dreams[http://www.essortment.com/all/genesisjoseph_rrwi.htm]. Now I know this isn't detrimental to the historical accuracy of the film, but it kind of hurts the plot. A church full of strong Christians would be more likely to get angry and correct him rather than be like "Oh my god! He's being meta!"-Isaac Whaeln<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann, Sayles did narrow his focus on the socio-economy of the town but left out the impact that the injuries and dangers of the mines truly had on the town at this time. Though it is mentioned that Danny’s father died in the mines, but the men who worked in the mines in Sayles’ Matewan seemed to be in great health and perfectly intact. Isaac you are totally correct, Joseph was imprisoned after being falsely accused of rape and languished their somewhat forgotten until he began to interpret Pharaohs’ dreams. http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/genesis/week10.php – Caryn<br />
<br />
I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think they should have had more scenes about the terrible conditions in the coal mine. They did show it in the beginning and at the end, but they should have shown it more. Also they should have shown more children working in the mine. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
It may be a minor detail, but I thought that when the union organizer Kenehan was making his speech and everyone came together that it was all a little too sudden and unrealistic. Especially when they broke out in the solidarity song and everyone knew exactly the right tune to play and words to sing. I also agree with everyone else discussing the lack of mining dangers and illnesses throughout the film which I though detracted from the film overall. -Melissa<br />
<br />
Overall, I agree with the fact that illness and mine injury were not thoroughly expressed in the film, but at the same time, I agree with the point that the mine itself kind of falls out of the picture once they go on strike. It's more of a background image than the key point of the film. And while the miners did speak of poverty and worried about feeding their families, I really didn't think that the severity of poverty some of the families faced was portrayed well enough. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles's 'Matewan'”, by Vincent Canby, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/28/movies/film-john-sayles-s-matewan.html states, “The characters are either good or evil. They're the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.” Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners' negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film's distantly heard, mournful theme.” John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members. So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
During the 1980s the US economy was experiencing all sorts of upheavals. The country was shifting away from the heavy industries like mining, and union membership was slipping. At the same time, while the US overall was getting wealthier, the gap between the rich and poor was widening all while more women and new groups of immigrants were seeking entry to the workforce. As good a time as any to make a movie about the challenges of American capitalism and US labor relations? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am going to throw out one and say that since the Cold War isn't quite over yet that Matewan is some pretty serious pro-Communist revolution. To me, it's rare for American films to depict communists as anything other than bad people. Even in the film Few Clothes Johnson jokes about Joe Kenehan being a communist and not having a gun. While I know historically non-capitalist ideas were not all the uncommon in the States, but for a film to be okay with the idea of a Red doing good, productive stuff for communities is big.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:06, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the previous point does make a good statement that the movie has a pro-Communist revolution feel to it I must disagree that this is the main drive of the film. To me the film makes a plethora (always a good word) of statements about America and its labor force. Firstly, in regards to unions, this film seems to say that true American economy is based on unions; the only way to fight corrupt business is with unions. Also, while Kenehan's communist views are put in a positive light there are other periods were he himself says that unions are a democracy, further strengthening the connection between America and unions. So rather than this film being a pro-communism film I would say its more like a film that wants total equality for all, what some would call a "true democracy."-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
p.s. this film felt like a reworked Western. A single man comes into a corrupt town to save the people and inspire them to a better life. Did I just describe <em> My Darling Clementine </em> or <em> Matewan </em>?<br />
<br />
The joke by Few Clothes Johnson is clearly referring to the fact that all Communists fight with hammers and sickles, not guns. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out. It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one. Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
One of the readings, "The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are "Beelzebub." This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. More specifically, the reading about Eugene v. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were "civilizing and Christianizing" the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that's a stretch. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The movie reminded me of "The Tyranny of the Company Store". The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The film really depicted the "Tyranny of the Company Store". I couldn't believe that Hickey and his men came to the camp to take back food and supplies from the miners that they had earned with scrip. It was disgusting. Also, as Debbi S. said, I think the film did a very good job showing how much religion was a part of the miners' lives. - Celia<br />
<br />
The letters from the men trapped in the mine, referencing future reunions in heaven, convey how important religion was to the miners and their families. The movie, while also using Danny's preaching as a plot device, definitely shows how much the community relied on a faith in God to keep them going in the face of such poverty and desperation. The Protestants and the Catholic Italians all found comfort in their faith. Faith was one of the few things the company couldn't take away from the mining towns. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job at portraying the overreaching and controlling Company that was described in "The Tyranny of the Company Store". They also talked about the dangers that mine workers faced, even if it wasn't directly shown on screen.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The readings and movie both depicted the hardships of being a miner but also how the Miner's Union played a pivotal role in their lives. I thought the interview/reading was really important in showing how the miners felt about union activities, Ratliff said "it was the greatest thing he had ever heard in his life," and was eager to share the joy of the union but in the movie not all the men were eager to share such "joy". I wonder if mixed feelings about the Union were felt all over or did some states/specific mines favor it? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Just as Rachael mentioned, "The Tyranny of the Company Store" was accurately depicted in the movie. Many times, it was stated by some mine workers about how the "prices would go up the same week that the tonnage rate went down." It was clear that the company store controlled the lives, but in a broader sense, the mining company to a certain extent "enslaved" the coal miners. In the reading, it stated, "To enslave and starve a man, or to drive him to desperation by actions the most uncharitable and unjust." Coal miners had very little freedom as we learned on Tuesday. Even in the movie, Eleanor told Joe Kinehan that if you're not with the company, there was no work. The coal miners were forced to be dependent on the company, although many did not want to be. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
This movie showed the terrible conditions in the mine just like readings showed. Even though the movie did not focus on the conditions of the mine, it did begin and end with those scenes which made them important and remembered. The readings were very shocking and it was difficult to read some of them because the explained terrible conditions and they were sad - like the Tennessee Coal Miners' Last Words. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me about the movie was the influence of Religion. It was also brought up in the readings, with the letters from the miners that were stranded in a collapsed mine. All of the letters told their families to be good and to trust that they will meet again in heaven. I assume that because this was such a dangerous job the people had to have a strong faith to get them through the day. It is also interesting to note that in one of the final letters a father writes to his son's to not become miners. So even they recognize that there are better alternatives. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I just have a question about the way Danny was the one who stole the coal and blew up the mine. Would they have had children do such things? - <br />
LeAnn</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-28T04:46:19Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..." --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Some of what the movie portrayed well was the monopoly that the coal companies had on the entire town, including the houses in which the miners lived. Then, there was the depiction of the coal companies raising the prices at the company general store the very same day that the price of coal had decreased. There was also the representation of danger around every corner that existed within the coal mining industry. Then there was the portrayal of Police Chief Hatfield, who did not want to receive bribes and was opposed to the eviction of the miner's families from company houses. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. about the way the film potrayed just how strong of a hold the coal company had on the town. It seemed like every single aspect of the people's lives was controlled by the company. The scene with the creepy preacher showed the general malevolence that a community could have towards a union. I also liked how there was very little romanticization of the miners' struggle. I think this had a lot to do with the very simple and authentic music. I think another point that the movie got across very well was the danger that men faced whether they joined the union or not - early in the film, one of the Italian miners said to Joe, "We join the union, they shoot us. We don't join the union, you shoot us." The filmmakers made it very clear that just because these men were in the union, it didn't necessarily mean that they were all noble, kind-hearted men. They were just as willing to use force as the company was. Kevin Tighe was unbelievably easy to hate as Hickey, the Baldwin-Felts man that Elma blew away with a shotgun. That guy always plays creeps. I wish someone had blown him away when he was on "Lost" as Locke's kidney-stealing father. I would have to disagree with Megan W. about Bob Gunton as C.E. Lively - Bob Gunton is always evil. Never trust Bob Gunton. - Celia<br />
<br />
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie. The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians. Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food. Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern." And nobody sounded like a moron. As a West Virginian, I'm grateful. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers. Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting). They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect. Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town. I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is. (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.) Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film. Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA? The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don't know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company "owned the town". In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company "provided" the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn't because it was too expensive. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil's work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got the dependence of the miners on the company right throughout the film. Hickey mentions several times that the company owns all of the housing, which we know would have been true. Additionally, when the scab workers are first touring the town with and learning about how they will be working, Few Clothes Johnson brings up the point that since everyone who mines in the town is paid in company scrip, the company store can jack up the prices whenever they want. This is echoed in the union meeting, when the men describe the wage cuts and increased prices. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
A moment that really struck me as accurate, was when Kenehan was speaking to the leader of the Italian mine workers, and tells him that they need to join the union. He responds by saying, so either we get shot by the company, or we get shot by the other miners, and Kenehan agrees that he is basically right. James Earl Jones different reactions to being called a n***** and being called a scab was very enlightening. It showed how truly offensive the term scab was, he didn't seem to care if he was called a n*****, but that no one was allowed to call him a scab. In response to Megan W's comments about Bob Gunton's character, I have to say that I thought from the opening meeting that he was a spy. I couldn't stop thinking of his character in ''Shawshank Redemption'' everytime I saw him, he even had on exactly the same glasses. Sid Hatfield was BAMF throughout the whole movie. When everyone else in a position of power was caving to the coal companies he never backed down. He was the true hero of the film to me. He didn't have to stand up to the Baldwin-Felts men, but he knew what was right and would not budge. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Yes, Michael G. I would just like to say that in my notes from watching this movie, you will find "David Strathairn (actor who played Sid Hatfield) is a BAMF". I also have "Darth Vader is a BAMF" - his BAMFness was superbly executed in the scene where he said "You shut your mouth, peckerwood." In addition, Chris Cooper is one of the most consistently fantastic actors working today. I would honestly watch him in anything. He could make a Quiznos commercial poignant. - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie got a lot of things right. First were the racial and nativist tensions between the coal miners. When Sid Hatfield stands up to the Baldwin-Felts men and stops them from evicting the families from their homes. I also thought that the scene when the African-American miners show up and the Company man is telling them about the town and how the Company owns everything, they get paid in Company script etc. and it showed how the Company really did try and control the entire town.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Rachel, I found the introduction to the company scene to be almost frightening in how calculating the company workers could be. Every cost had to be deducted from next month's pay, and every expense (including train tickets to get there) must be accounted. And the discussions about the company store as pay is spot on. You definitely get the sense of hopelessness that the miners would feel having nothing but the company to rely on for food and clothing items, tough luck that they are crooked and not interested in the miners. However what struck me even harder was the portrayal of violence, or at least potential violence on the part of company representatives. Throughout the film, they are armed with a rifle and watching the mines. Even though Kenehan is a pacifist and always looking for peaceful ways to mediate problems, the company does not even pretend to hide its willingness to defend company territory.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got right was the fear of Socialism and Communism. The pastor preaches about it in his sermon and one of the men asked Joe if he was a “red,” meaning a communist. Although Eugene Debs was able to run for president it did not stop people from worrying about “the reds.” –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
Another thing I feel the movie did a good job with was the impatience at the national union. They had to wait to act in their strike until they received word from the union. As a local union they probably wanted to strike sooner and have more of a say in what and when they did stuff. Kenehan said the union was a democracy, like the United States, but it’s more like a Republic, once again like the United States, not everyone gets a vote there are just representatives. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I like the ending of the movie and I think the director did a good job of portraying the little headway that many of these mining unions actually made. The movie made me believe that some headway would be made against the mining company, but that is lost when we see Danny back in the mine at the end and this foreshadows the Unions inability to make new contracts with non-union mines later in the 1920’s. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the Wobblie mentality in that the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) were hoping to create one big union but as it was said in the movie, the Matewan folks only knew from their own holler. It also demonstrates that the IWW accepted all workers into the union whether they were immigrants or Americans, white or black, which was somewhat unique to this particular union in a climate or natives and racism. Sayles also aptly demonstrates the hold that the company had on the entire town, from owning the homes, to the goods, and eventually evicting the strikers from the land that they had lived on their entire life. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a very good job of portraying the clear separation in wealth and class between the miners and the mining company. They made it very clear that there were no personal feelings towards them and I think it was Kenehan who said that these people do not care about you and you are simply workers to them and are easily replaceable. The movie captured the fear that the townspeople had of the mining industry and the men in the Baldwin-Felts’ agency and how it took so much to overcome this fear of unions and finally try to get something organized. I like how the two agents came in and did not care who stood in their way and the movie did a good job of portraying their almost distaste for the workers. –afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie seems to be pretty accurate. It shows how important the Coal Company is on their lives. Many of the people risked their lives to fight the Coal Company. It seemed like everyone wanted better situations, but not everyone agreed that forming a Union is the best thing to do. This movie showed well how the Coal Company affected everyone: the miners (old and young), mothers, people who lived in the town, and people who are not from the town. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things that the movie portrayed well was the contempt that the Company's people had for the miners. Well, contempt might be too strong of a word... more of "you are no more than dirt beneath my shoe" kind of feeling. (I can't think of the word right now) They really didn't care about the miner's family situations, or lifestyle in general. Because in their eyes they were just bodies to be replaced. This really emphasized the tensions that formed and had been forming for awhile. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna about Few Clothes Johnson. I was definitely expecting him to come more to the forefront of the movie but he never did, which was disappointing. James Earl Jones could have been used much better. - Celia<br />
<br />
Though Danny served as a representation of the children who worked in the mines, there should have been more children shown in the film. We saw in the readings how they often got injured and sick working the mining jobs that no one else wanted, for very low wages, but that was not depicted in the movie. Also, I was surprised that none of the miners seemed to have any health problems that related to the years that they spent in the mines. There was occasional coughing, but other than that, no depiction of the black lung that became so famous among miners, or even any real mining injuries. Showing these would have helped to represent the dangers of mining at the time, and the poor treatment of the men. I think that it would help the audience to understand why the miners wanted the union so much. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Meagan about the lack of mining injuries and illnesses. The cave in that killed Danny's father is highlighted, but the movie definitely plays up the economic aspect of the drive for unionization. My great grandfather worked in a Pennsylvania mine around this same time period and lost parts of three of his fingers. Seems like many of the men would have had similar injuries, even if they had attained them years earlier while working as breaker boys themselves. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am not really surprised the there wasn't much about mine injuries or related-diseases. Once the characters decided to unionize the mine completely fell out of the picture. The director has you put all your attention on the conflicts, twists and turns of the company vs. the miners. Also I think we go back to the whole problem of creating fictional characters for the purpose of what...easier to make films? Joe Kenehan is an interesting character, but is he honestly necessary? The movie shows a fictional character starting up the entire union at Matewan and therefore is just bad history. The real characters are almost put aside for characters that can say whatever the screen writer wants. It's harder to manipulate the real historical figures. I mean the sheriff and mayor show up in a handful of scenes and Few Clothes drops completely off of the movie at one point.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The kid preacher totally, if I remember right,totally got the story of Joseph wrong. He did not die at the hands of Potiphar and his men, it was this false accusation of rape that got Joseph noticed by Pharaoh for Joe's ability to interpret dreams[http://www.essortment.com/all/genesisjoseph_rrwi.htm]. Now I know this isn't detrimental to the historical accuracy of the film, but it kind of hurts the plot. A church full of strong Christians would be more likely to get angry and correct him rather than be like "Oh my god! He's being meta!"-Isaac Whaeln<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann, Sayles did narrow his focus on the socio-economy of the town but left out the impact that the injuries and dangers of the mines truly had on the town at this time. Though it is mentioned that Danny’s father died in the mines, but the men who worked in the mines in Sayles’ Matewan seemed to be in great health and perfectly intact. Isaac you are totally correct, Joseph was imprisoned after being falsely accused of rape and languished their somewhat forgotten until he began to interpret Pharaohs’ dreams. http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/genesis/week10.php – Caryn<br />
<br />
I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think they should have had more scenes about the terrible conditions in the coal mine. They did show it in the beginning and at the end, but they should have shown it more. Also they should have shown more children working in the mine. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles's 'Matewan'”, by Vincent Canby, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/28/movies/film-john-sayles-s-matewan.html states, “The characters are either good or evil. They're the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.” Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners' negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film's distantly heard, mournful theme.” John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members. So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
During the 1980s the US economy was experiencing all sorts of upheavals. The country was shifting away from the heavy industries like mining, and union membership was slipping. At the same time, while the US overall was getting wealthier, the gap between the rich and poor was widening all while more women and new groups of immigrants were seeking entry to the workforce. As good a time as any to make a movie about the challenges of American capitalism and US labor relations? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am going to throw out one and say that since the Cold War isn't quite over yet that Matewan is some pretty serious pro-Communist revolution. To me, it's rare for American films to depict communists as anything other than bad people. Even in the film Few Clothes Johnson jokes about Joe Kenehan being a communist and not having a gun. While I know historically non-capitalist ideas were not all the uncommon in the States, but for a film to be okay with the idea of a Red doing good, productive stuff for communities is big.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:06, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the previous point does make a good statement that the movie has a pro-Communist revolution feel to it I must disagree that this is the main drive of the film. To me the film makes a plethora (always a good word) of statements about America and its labor force. Firstly, in regards to unions, this film seems to say that true American economy is based on unions; the only way to fight corrupt business is with unions. Also, while Kenehan's communist views are put in a positive light there are other periods were he himself says that unions are a democracy, further strengthening the connection between America and unions. So rather than this film being a pro-communism film I would say its more like a film that wants total equality for all, what some would call a "true democracy."-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
p.s. this film felt like a reworked Western. A single man comes into a corrupt town to save the people and inspire them to a better life. Did I just describe <em> My Darling Clementine </em> or <em> Matewan </em>?<br />
<br />
The joke by Few Clothes Johnson is clearly referring to the fact that all Communists fight with hammers and sickles, not guns. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out. It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one. Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
One of the readings, "The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are "Beelzebub." This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. More specifically, the reading about Eugene v. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were "civilizing and Christianizing" the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that's a stretch. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The movie reminded me of "The Tyranny of the Company Store". The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The film really depicted the "Tyranny of the Company Store". I couldn't believe that Hickey and his men came to the camp to take back food and supplies from the miners that they had earned with scrip. It was disgusting. Also, as Debbi S. said, I think the film did a very good job showing how much religion was a part of the miners' lives. - Celia<br />
<br />
The letters from the men trapped in the mine, referencing future reunions in heaven, convey how important religion was to the miners and their families. The movie, while also using Danny's preaching as a plot device, definitely shows how much the community relied on a faith in God to keep them going in the face of such poverty and desperation. The Protestants and the Catholic Italians all found comfort in their faith. Faith was one of the few things the company couldn't take away from the mining towns. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job at portraying the overreaching and controlling Company that was described in "The Tyranny of the Company Store". They also talked about the dangers that mine workers faced, even if it wasn't directly shown on screen.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The readings and movie both depicted the hardships of being a miner but also how the Miner's Union played a pivotal role in their lives. I thought the interview/reading was really important in showing how the miners felt about union activities, Ratliff said "it was the greatest thing he had ever heard in his life," and was eager to share the joy of the union but in the movie not all the men were eager to share such "joy". I wonder if mixed feelings about the Union were felt all over or did some states/specific mines favor it? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
This movie showed the terrible conditions in the mine just like readings showed. Even though the movie did not focus on the conditions of the mine, it did begin and end with those scenes which made them important and remembered. The readings were very shocking and it was difficult to read some of them because the explained terrible conditions and they were sad - like the Tennessee Coal Miners' Last Words. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me about the movie was the influence of Religion. It was also brought up in the readings, with the letters from the miners that were stranded in a collapsed mine. All of the letters told their families to be good and to trust that they will meet again in heaven. I assume that because this was such a dangerous job the people had to have a strong faith to get them through the day. It is also interesting to note that in one of the final letters a father writes to his son's to not become miners. So even they recognize that there are better alternatives. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I just have a question about the way Danny was the one who stole the coal and blew up the mine. Would they have had children do such things? - <br />
LeAnn</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-28T04:41:06Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..." --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Some of what the movie portrayed well was the monopoly that the coal companies had on the entire town, including the houses in which the miners lived. Then, there was the depiction of the coal companies raising the prices at the company general store the very same day that the price of coal had decreased. There was also the representation of danger around every corner that existed within the coal mining industry. Then there was the portrayal of Police Chief Hatfield, who did not want to receive bribes and was opposed to the eviction of the miner's families from company houses. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. about the way the film potrayed just how strong of a hold the coal company had on the town. It seemed like every single aspect of the people's lives was controlled by the company. The scene with the creepy preacher showed the general malevolence that a community could have towards a union. I also liked how there was very little romanticization of the miners' struggle. I think this had a lot to do with the very simple and authentic music. I think another point that the movie got across very well was the danger that men faced whether they joined the union or not - early in the film, one of the Italian miners said to Joe, "We join the union, they shoot us. We don't join the union, you shoot us." The filmmakers made it very clear that just because these men were in the union, it didn't necessarily mean that they were all noble, kind-hearted men. They were just as willing to use force as the company was. Kevin Tighe was unbelievably easy to hate as Hickey, the Baldwin-Felts man that Elma blew away with a shotgun. That guy always plays creeps. I wish someone had blown him away when he was on "Lost" as Locke's kidney-stealing father. I would have to disagree with Megan W. about Bob Gunton as C.E. Lively - Bob Gunton is always evil. Never trust Bob Gunton. - Celia<br />
<br />
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie. The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians. Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food. Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern." And nobody sounded like a moron. As a West Virginian, I'm grateful. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers. Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting). They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect. Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town. I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is. (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.) Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film. Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA? The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don't know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company "owned the town". In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company "provided" the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn't because it was too expensive. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil's work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got the dependence of the miners on the company right throughout the film. Hickey mentions several times that the company owns all of the housing, which we know would have been true. Additionally, when the scab workers are first touring the town with and learning about how they will be working, Few Clothes Johnson brings up the point that since everyone who mines in the town is paid in company scrip, the company store can jack up the prices whenever they want. This is echoed in the union meeting, when the men describe the wage cuts and increased prices. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
A moment that really struck me as accurate, was when Kenehan was speaking to the leader of the Italian mine workers, and tells him that they need to join the union. He responds by saying, so either we get shot by the company, or we get shot by the other miners, and Kenehan agrees that he is basically right. James Earl Jones different reactions to being called a n***** and being called a scab was very enlightening. It showed how truly offensive the term scab was, he didn't seem to care if he was called a n*****, but that no one was allowed to call him a scab. In response to Megan W's comments about Bob Gunton's character, I have to say that I thought from the opening meeting that he was a spy. I couldn't stop thinking of his character in ''Shawshank Redemption'' everytime I saw him, he even had on exactly the same glasses. Sid Hatfield was BAMF throughout the whole movie. When everyone else in a position of power was caving to the coal companies he never backed down. He was the true hero of the film to me. He didn't have to stand up to the Baldwin-Felts men, but he knew what was right and would not budge. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Yes, Michael G. I would just like to say that in my notes from watching this movie, you will find "David Strathairn (actor who played Sid Hatfield) is a BAMF". I also have "Darth Vader is a BAMF" - his BAMFness was superbly executed in the scene where he said "You shut your mouth, peckerwood." In addition, Chris Cooper is one of the most consistently fantastic actors working today. I would honestly watch him in anything. He could make a Quiznos commercial poignant. - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie got a lot of things right. First were the racial and nativist tensions between the coal miners. When Sid Hatfield stands up to the Baldwin-Felts men and stops them from evicting the families from their homes. I also thought that the scene when the African-American miners show up and the Company man is telling them about the town and how the Company owns everything, they get paid in Company script etc. and it showed how the Company really did try and control the entire town.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Rachel, I found the introduction to the company scene to be almost frightening in how calculating the company workers could be. Every cost had to be deducted from next month's pay, and every expense (including train tickets to get there) must be accounted. And the discussions about the company store as pay is spot on. You definitely get the sense of hopelessness that the miners would feel having nothing but the company to rely on for food and clothing items, tough luck that they are crooked and not interested in the miners. However what struck me even harder was the portrayal of violence, or at least potential violence on the part of company representatives. Throughout the film, they are armed with a rifle and watching the mines. Even though Kenehan is a pacifist and always looking for peaceful ways to mediate problems, the company does not even pretend to hide its willingness to defend company territory.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got right was the fear of Socialism and Communism. The pastor preaches about it in his sermon and one of the men asked Joe if he was a “red,” meaning a communist. Although Eugene Debs was able to run for president it did not stop people from worrying about “the reds.” –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
Another thing I feel the movie did a good job with was the impatience at the national union. They had to wait to act in their strike until they received word from the union. As a local union they probably wanted to strike sooner and have more of a say in what and when they did stuff. Kenehan said the union was a democracy, like the United States, but it’s more like a Republic, once again like the United States, not everyone gets a vote there are just representatives. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I like the ending of the movie and I think the director did a good job of portraying the little headway that many of these mining unions actually made. The movie made me believe that some headway would be made against the mining company, but that is lost when we see Danny back in the mine at the end and this foreshadows the Unions inability to make new contracts with non-union mines later in the 1920’s. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the Wobblie mentality in that the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) were hoping to create one big union but as it was said in the movie, the Matewan folks only knew from their own holler. It also demonstrates that the IWW accepted all workers into the union whether they were immigrants or Americans, white or black, which was somewhat unique to this particular union in a climate or natives and racism. Sayles also aptly demonstrates the hold that the company had on the entire town, from owning the homes, to the goods, and eventually evicting the strikers from the land that they had lived on their entire life. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a very good job of portraying the clear separation in wealth and class between the miners and the mining company. They made it very clear that there were no personal feelings towards them and I think it was Kenehan who said that these people do not care about you and you are simply workers to them and are easily replaceable. The movie captured the fear that the townspeople had of the mining industry and the men in the Baldwin-Felts’ agency and how it took so much to overcome this fear of unions and finally try to get something organized. I like how the two agents came in and did not care who stood in their way and the movie did a good job of portraying their almost distaste for the workers. –afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie seems to be pretty accurate. It shows how important the Coal Company is on their lives. Many of the people risked their lives to fight the Coal Company. It seemed like everyone wanted better situations, but not everyone agreed that forming a Union is the best thing to do. This movie showed well how the Coal Company affected everyone: the miners (old and young), mothers, people who lived in the town, and people who are not from the town. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things that the movie portrayed well was the contempt that the Company's people had for the miners. Well, contempt might be too strong of a word... more of "you are no more than dirt beneath my shoe" kind of feeling. (I can't think of the word right now) They really didn't care about the miner's family situations, or lifestyle in general. Because in their eyes they were just bodies to be replaced. This really emphasized the tensions that formed and had been forming for awhile. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna about Few Clothes Johnson. I was definitely expecting him to come more to the forefront of the movie but he never did, which was disappointing. James Earl Jones could have been used much better. - Celia<br />
<br />
Though Danny served as a representation of the children who worked in the mines, there should have been more children shown in the film. We saw in the readings how they often got injured and sick working the mining jobs that no one else wanted, for very low wages, but that was not depicted in the movie. Also, I was surprised that none of the miners seemed to have any health problems that related to the years that they spent in the mines. There was occasional coughing, but other than that, no depiction of the black lung that became so famous among miners, or even any real mining injuries. Showing these would have helped to represent the dangers of mining at the time, and the poor treatment of the men. I think that it would help the audience to understand why the miners wanted the union so much. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Meagan about the lack of mining injuries and illnesses. The cave in that killed Danny's father is highlighted, but the movie definitely plays up the economic aspect of the drive for unionization. My great grandfather worked in a Pennsylvania mine around this same time period and lost parts of three of his fingers. Seems like many of the men would have had similar injuries, even if they had attained them years earlier while working as breaker boys themselves. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am not really surprised the there wasn't much about mine injuries or related-diseases. Once the characters decided to unionize the mine completely fell out of the picture. The director has you put all your attention on the conflicts, twists and turns of the company vs. the miners. Also I think we go back to the whole problem of creating fictional characters for the purpose of what...easier to make films? Joe Kenehan is an interesting character, but is he honestly necessary? The movie shows a fictional character starting up the entire union at Matewan and therefore is just bad history. The real characters are almost put aside for characters that can say whatever the screen writer wants. It's harder to manipulate the real historical figures. I mean the sheriff and mayor show up in a handful of scenes and Few Clothes drops completely off of the movie at one point.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The kid preacher totally, if I remember right,totally got the story of Joseph wrong. He did not die at the hands of Potiphar and his men, it was this false accusation of rape that got Joseph noticed by Pharaoh for Joe's ability to interpret dreams[http://www.essortment.com/all/genesisjoseph_rrwi.htm]. Now I know this isn't detrimental to the historical accuracy of the film, but it kind of hurts the plot. A church full of strong Christians would be more likely to get angry and correct him rather than be like "Oh my god! He's being meta!"-Isaac Whaeln<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann, Sayles did narrow his focus on the socio-economy of the town but left out the impact that the injuries and dangers of the mines truly had on the town at this time. Though it is mentioned that Danny’s father died in the mines, but the men who worked in the mines in Sayles’ Matewan seemed to be in great health and perfectly intact. Isaac you are totally correct, Joseph was imprisoned after being falsely accused of rape and languished their somewhat forgotten until he began to interpret Pharaohs’ dreams. http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/genesis/week10.php – Caryn<br />
<br />
I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think they should have had more scenes about the terrible conditions in the coal mine. They did show it in the beginning and at the end, but they should have shown it more. Also they should have shown more children working in the mine. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles's 'Matewan'”, by Vincent Canby, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/28/movies/film-john-sayles-s-matewan.html states, “The characters are either good or evil. They're the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.” Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners' negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film's distantly heard, mournful theme.” John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members. So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
During the 1980s the US economy was experiencing all sorts of upheavals. The country was shifting away from the heavy industries like mining, and union membership was slipping. At the same time, while the US overall was getting wealthier, the gap between the rich and poor was widening all while more women and new groups of immigrants were seeking entry to the workforce. As good a time as any to make a movie about the challenges of American capitalism and US labor relations? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am going to throw out one and say that since the Cold War isn't quite over yet that Matewan is some pretty serious pro-Communist revolution. To me, it's rare for American films to depict communists as anything other than bad people. Even in the film Few Clothes Johnson jokes about Joe Kenehan being a communist and not having a gun. While I know historically non-capitalist ideas were not all the uncommon in the States, but for a film to be okay with the idea of a Red doing good, productive stuff for communities is big.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:06, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the previous point does make a good statement that the movie has a pro-Communist revolution feel to it I must disagree that this is the main drive of the film. To me the film makes a plethora (always a good word) of statements about America and its labor force. Firstly, in regards to unions, this film seems to say that true American economy is based on unions; the only way to fight corrupt business is with unions. Also, while Kenehan's communist views are put in a positive light there are other periods were he himself says that unions are a democracy, further strengthening the connection between America and unions. So rather than this film being a pro-communism film I would say its more like a film that wants total equality for all, what some would call a "true democracy."-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
p.s. this film felt like a reworked Western. A single man comes into a corrupt town to save the people and inspire them to a better life. Did I just describe <em> My Darling Clementine </em> or <em> Matewan </em>?<br />
<br />
The joke by Few Clothes Johnson is clearly referring to the fact that all Communists fight with hammers and sickles, not guns. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out. It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one. Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
One of the readings, "The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are "Beelzebub." This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. More specifically, the reading about Eugene v. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were "civilizing and Christianizing" the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that's a stretch. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The movie reminded me of "The Tyranny of the Company Store". The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The letters from the men trapped in the mine, referencing future reunions in heaven, convey how important religion was to the miners and their families. The movie, while also using Danny's preaching as a plot device, definitely shows how much the community relied on a faith in God to keep them going in the face of such poverty and desperation. The Protestants and the Catholic Italians all found comfort in their faith. Faith was one of the few things the company couldn't take away from the mining towns. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job at portraying the overreaching and controlling Company that was described in "The Tyranny of the Company Store". They also talked about the dangers that mine workers faced, even if it wasn't directly shown on screen.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The readings and movie both depicted the hardships of being a miner but also how the Miner's Union played a pivotal role in their lives. I thought the interview/reading was really important in showing how the miners felt about union activities, Ratliff said "it was the greatest thing he had ever heard in his life," and was eager to share the joy of the union but in the movie not all the men were eager to share such "joy". I wonder if mixed feelings about the Union were felt all over or did some states/specific mines favor it? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
This movie showed the terrible conditions in the mine just like readings showed. Even though the movie did not focus on the conditions of the mine, it did begin and end with those scenes which made them important and remembered. The readings were very shocking and it was difficult to read some of them because the explained terrible conditions and they were sad - like the Tennessee Coal Miners' Last Words. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me about the movie was the influence of Religion. It was also brought up in the readings, with the letters from the miners that were stranded in a collapsed mine. All of the letters told their families to be good and to trust that they will meet again in heaven. I assume that because this was such a dangerous job the people had to have a strong faith to get them through the day. It is also interesting to note that in one of the final letters a father writes to his son's to not become miners. So even they recognize that there are better alternatives. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I just have a question about the way Danny was the one who stole the coal and blew up the mine. Would they have had children do such things? - <br />
LeAnn</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-28T04:33:44Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..." --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Some of what the movie portrayed well was the monopoly that the coal companies had on the entire town, including the houses in which the miners lived. Then, there was the depiction of the coal companies raising the prices at the company general store the very same day that the price of coal had decreased. There was also the representation of danger around every corner that existed within the coal mining industry. Then there was the portrayal of Police Chief Hatfield, who did not want to receive bribes and was opposed to the eviction of the miner's families from company houses. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. about the way the film potrayed just how strong of a hold the coal company had on the town. It seemed like every single aspect of the people's lives was controlled by the company. The scene with the creepy preacher showed the general malevolence that a community could have towards a union. I also liked how there was very little romanticization of the miners' struggle. I think this had a lot to do with the very simple and authentic music. I think another point that the movie got across very well was the danger that men faced whether they joined the union or not - early in the film, one of the Italian miners said to Joe, "We join the union, they shoot us. We don't join the union, you shoot us." The filmmakers made it very clear that just because these men were in the union, it didn't necessarily mean that they were all noble, kind-hearted men. They were just as willing to use force as the company was. I would have to disagree with Megan W. about Bob Gunton as C.E. Lively - Bob Gunton is always evil. Never trust Bob Gunton. - Celia<br />
<br />
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie. The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians. Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food. Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern." And nobody sounded like a moron. As a West Virginian, I'm grateful. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers. Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting). They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect. Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town. I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is. (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.) Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film. Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA? The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don't know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company "owned the town". In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company "provided" the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn't because it was too expensive. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil's work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got the dependence of the miners on the company right throughout the film. Hickey mentions several times that the company owns all of the housing, which we know would have been true. Additionally, when the scab workers are first touring the town with and learning about how they will be working, Few Clothes Johnson brings up the point that since everyone who mines in the town is paid in company scrip, the company store can jack up the prices whenever they want. This is echoed in the union meeting, when the men describe the wage cuts and increased prices. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
A moment that really struck me as accurate, was when Kenehan was speaking to the leader of the Italian mine workers, and tells him that they need to join the union. He responds by saying, so either we get shot by the company, or we get shot by the other miners, and Kenehan agrees that he is basically right. James Earl Jones different reactions to being called a n***** and being called a scab was very enlightening. It showed how truly offensive the term scab was, he didn't seem to care if he was called a n*****, but that no one was allowed to call him a scab. In response to Megan W's comments about Bob Gunton's character, I have to say that I thought from the opening meeting that he was a spy. I couldn't stop thinking of his character in ''Shawshank Redemption'' everytime I saw him, he even had on exactly the same glasses. Sid Hatfield was BAMF throughout the whole movie. When everyone else in a position of power was caving to the coal companies he never backed down. He was the true hero of the film to me. He didn't have to stand up to the Baldwin-Felts men, but he knew what was right and would not budge. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Yes, Michael G. I would just like to say that in my notes from watching this movie, you will find "David Strathairn (actor who played Sid Hatfield) is a BAMF". I also have "Darth Vader is a BAMF" - his BAMFness was superbly executed in the scene where he said "You shut your mouth, peckerwood." In addition, Chris Cooper is one of the most consistently fantastic actors working today. I would honestly watch him in anything. He could make a Quiznos commercial poignant. - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie got a lot of things right. First were the racial and nativist tensions between the coal miners. When Sid Hatfield stands up to the Baldwin-Felts men and stops them from evicting the families from their homes. I also thought that the scene when the African-American miners show up and the Company man is telling them about the town and how the Company owns everything, they get paid in Company script etc. and it showed how the Company really did try and control the entire town.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Rachel, I found the introduction to the company scene to be almost frightening in how calculating the company workers could be. Every cost had to be deducted from next month's pay, and every expense (including train tickets to get there) must be accounted. And the discussions about the company store as pay is spot on. You definitely get the sense of hopelessness that the miners would feel having nothing but the company to rely on for food and clothing items, tough luck that they are crooked and not interested in the miners. However what struck me even harder was the portrayal of violence, or at least potential violence on the part of company representatives. Throughout the film, they are armed with a rifle and watching the mines. Even though Kenehan is a pacifist and always looking for peaceful ways to mediate problems, the company does not even pretend to hide its willingness to defend company territory.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got right was the fear of Socialism and Communism. The pastor preaches about it in his sermon and one of the men asked Joe if he was a “red,” meaning a communist. Although Eugene Debs was able to run for president it did not stop people from worrying about “the reds.” –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
Another thing I feel the movie did a good job with was the impatience at the national union. They had to wait to act in their strike until they received word from the union. As a local union they probably wanted to strike sooner and have more of a say in what and when they did stuff. Kenehan said the union was a democracy, like the United States, but it’s more like a Republic, once again like the United States, not everyone gets a vote there are just representatives. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I like the ending of the movie and I think the director did a good job of portraying the little headway that many of these mining unions actually made. The movie made me believe that some headway would be made against the mining company, but that is lost when we see Danny back in the mine at the end and this foreshadows the Unions inability to make new contracts with non-union mines later in the 1920’s. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the Wobblie mentality in that the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) were hoping to create one big union but as it was said in the movie, the Matewan folks only knew from their own holler. It also demonstrates that the IWW accepted all workers into the union whether they were immigrants or Americans, white or black, which was somewhat unique to this particular union in a climate or natives and racism. Sayles also aptly demonstrates the hold that the company had on the entire town, from owning the homes, to the goods, and eventually evicting the strikers from the land that they had lived on their entire life. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a very good job of portraying the clear separation in wealth and class between the miners and the mining company. They made it very clear that there were no personal feelings towards them and I think it was Kenehan who said that these people do not care about you and you are simply workers to them and are easily replaceable. The movie captured the fear that the townspeople had of the mining industry and the men in the Baldwin-Felts’ agency and how it took so much to overcome this fear of unions and finally try to get something organized. I like how the two agents came in and did not care who stood in their way and the movie did a good job of portraying their almost distaste for the workers. –afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie seems to be pretty accurate. It shows how important the Coal Company is on their lives. Many of the people risked their lives to fight the Coal Company. It seemed like everyone wanted better situations, but not everyone agreed that forming a Union is the best thing to do. This movie showed well how the Coal Company affected everyone: the miners (old and young), mothers, people who lived in the town, and people who are not from the town. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things that the movie portrayed well was the contempt that the Company's people had for the miners. Well, contempt might be too strong of a word... more of "you are no more than dirt beneath my shoe" kind of feeling. (I can't think of the word right now) They really didn't care about the miner's family situations, or lifestyle in general. Because in their eyes they were just bodies to be replaced. This really emphasized the tensions that formed and had been forming for awhile. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna about Few Clothes Johnson. I was definitely expecting him to come more to the forefront of the movie but he never did, which was disappointing. James Earl Jones could have been used much better. - Celia<br />
<br />
Though Danny served as a representation of the children who worked in the mines, there should have been more children shown in the film. We saw in the readings how they often got injured and sick working the mining jobs that no one else wanted, for very low wages, but that was not depicted in the movie. Also, I was surprised that none of the miners seemed to have any health problems that related to the years that they spent in the mines. There was occasional coughing, but other than that, no depiction of the black lung that became so famous among miners, or even any real mining injuries. Showing these would have helped to represent the dangers of mining at the time, and the poor treatment of the men. I think that it would help the audience to understand why the miners wanted the union so much. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Meagan about the lack of mining injuries and illnesses. The cave in that killed Danny's father is highlighted, but the movie definitely plays up the economic aspect of the drive for unionization. My great grandfather worked in a Pennsylvania mine around this same time period and lost parts of three of his fingers. Seems like many of the men would have had similar injuries, even if they had attained them years earlier while working as breaker boys themselves. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am not really surprised the there wasn't much about mine injuries or related-diseases. Once the characters decided to unionize the mine completely fell out of the picture. The director has you put all your attention on the conflicts, twists and turns of the company vs. the miners. Also I think we go back to the whole problem of creating fictional characters for the purpose of what...easier to make films? Joe Kenehan is an interesting character, but is he honestly necessary? The movie shows a fictional character starting up the entire union at Matewan and therefore is just bad history. The real characters are almost put aside for characters that can say whatever the screen writer wants. It's harder to manipulate the real historical figures. I mean the sheriff and mayor show up in a handful of scenes and Few Clothes drops completely off of the movie at one point.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The kid preacher totally, if I remember right,totally got the story of Joseph wrong. He did not die at the hands of Potiphar and his men, it was this false accusation of rape that got Joseph noticed by Pharaoh for Joe's ability to interpret dreams[http://www.essortment.com/all/genesisjoseph_rrwi.htm]. Now I know this isn't detrimental to the historical accuracy of the film, but it kind of hurts the plot. A church full of strong Christians would be more likely to get angry and correct him rather than be like "Oh my god! He's being meta!"-Isaac Whaeln<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann, Sayles did narrow his focus on the socio-economy of the town but left out the impact that the injuries and dangers of the mines truly had on the town at this time. Though it is mentioned that Danny’s father died in the mines, but the men who worked in the mines in Sayles’ Matewan seemed to be in great health and perfectly intact. Isaac you are totally correct, Joseph was imprisoned after being falsely accused of rape and languished their somewhat forgotten until he began to interpret Pharaohs’ dreams. http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/genesis/week10.php – Caryn<br />
<br />
I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think they should have had more scenes about the terrible conditions in the coal mine. They did show it in the beginning and at the end, but they should have shown it more. Also they should have shown more children working in the mine. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles's 'Matewan'”, by Vincent Canby, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/28/movies/film-john-sayles-s-matewan.html states, “The characters are either good or evil. They're the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.” Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners' negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film's distantly heard, mournful theme.” John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members. So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
During the 1980s the US economy was experiencing all sorts of upheavals. The country was shifting away from the heavy industries like mining, and union membership was slipping. At the same time, while the US overall was getting wealthier, the gap between the rich and poor was widening all while more women and new groups of immigrants were seeking entry to the workforce. As good a time as any to make a movie about the challenges of American capitalism and US labor relations? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am going to throw out one and say that since the Cold War isn't quite over yet that Matewan is some pretty serious pro-Communist revolution. To me, it's rare for American films to depict communists as anything other than bad people. Even in the film Few Clothes Johnson jokes about Joe Kenehan being a communist and not having a gun. While I know historically non-capitalist ideas were not all the uncommon in the States, but for a film to be okay with the idea of a Red doing good, productive stuff for communities is big.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:06, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the previous point does make a good statement that the movie has a pro-Communist revolution feel to it I must disagree that this is the main drive of the film. To me the film makes a plethora (always a good word) of statements about America and its labor force. Firstly, in regards to unions, this film seems to say that true American economy is based on unions; the only way to fight corrupt business is with unions. Also, while Kenehan's communist views are put in a positive light there are other periods were he himself says that unions are a democracy, further strengthening the connection between America and unions. So rather than this film being a pro-communism film I would say its more like a film that wants total equality for all, what some would call a "true democracy."-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
p.s. this film felt like a reworked Western. A single man comes into a corrupt town to save the people and inspire them to a better life. Did I just describe <em> My Darling Clementine </em> or <em> Matewan </em>?<br />
<br />
The joke by Few Clothes Johnson is clearly referring to the fact that all Communists fight with hammers and sickles, not guns. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out. It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one. Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
One of the readings, "The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are "Beelzebub." This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. More specifically, the reading about Eugene v. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were "civilizing and Christianizing" the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that's a stretch. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The movie reminded me of "The Tyranny of the Company Store". The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The letters from the men trapped in the mine, referencing future reunions in heaven, convey how important religion was to the miners and their families. The movie, while also using Danny's preaching as a plot device, definitely shows how much the community relied on a faith in God to keep them going in the face of such poverty and desperation. The Protestants and the Catholic Italians all found comfort in their faith. Faith was one of the few things the company couldn't take away from the mining towns. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job at portraying the overreaching and controlling Company that was described in "The Tyranny of the Company Store". They also talked about the dangers that mine workers faced, even if it wasn't directly shown on screen.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The readings and movie both depicted the hardships of being a miner but also how the Miner's Union played a pivotal role in their lives. I thought the interview/reading was really important in showing how the miners felt about union activities, Ratliff said "it was the greatest thing he had ever heard in his life," and was eager to share the joy of the union but in the movie not all the men were eager to share such "joy". I wonder if mixed feelings about the Union were felt all over or did some states/specific mines favor it? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
This movie showed the terrible conditions in the mine just like readings showed. Even though the movie did not focus on the conditions of the mine, it did begin and end with those scenes which made them important and remembered. The readings were very shocking and it was difficult to read some of them because the explained terrible conditions and they were sad - like the Tennessee Coal Miners' Last Words. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me about the movie was the influence of Religion. It was also brought up in the readings, with the letters from the miners that were stranded in a collapsed mine. All of the letters told their families to be good and to trust that they will meet again in heaven. I assume that because this was such a dangerous job the people had to have a strong faith to get them through the day. It is also interesting to note that in one of the final letters a father writes to his son's to not become miners. So even they recognize that there are better alternatives. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I just have a question about the way Danny was the one who stole the coal and blew up the mine. Would they have had children do such things? - <br />
LeAnn</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-28T04:31:23Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..." --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Some of what the movie portrayed well was the monopoly that the coal companies had on the entire town, including the houses in which the miners lived. Then, there was the depiction of the coal companies raising the prices at the company general store the very same day that the price of coal had decreased. There was also the representation of danger around every corner that existed within the coal mining industry. Then there was the portrayal of Police Chief Hatfield, who did not want to receive bribes and was opposed to the eviction of the miner's families from company houses. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. about the way the film potrayed just how strong of a hold the coal company had on the town. It seemed like every single aspect of the people's lives was controlled by the company. The scene with the creepy preacher showed the general malevolence that a community could have towards a union. I also liked how there was very little romanticization of the miners' struggle. I think this had a lot to do with the very simple and authentic music. I think another point that the movie got across very well was the danger that men faced whether they joined the union or not - early in the film, one of the Italian miners said to Joe, "We join the union, they shoot us. We don't join the union, you shoot us." The filmmakers made it very clear that just because these men were in the union, it didn't necessarily mean that they were all noble, kind-hearted men. They were just as willing to use force as the company was. I would have to disagree with Megan W. about Bob Gunton as C.E. Lively - Bob Gunton is always evil. Never trust Bob Gunton. - Celia<br />
<br />
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie. The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians. Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food. Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern." And nobody sounded like a moron. As a West Virginian, I'm grateful. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers. Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting). They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect. Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town. I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is. (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.) Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film. Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA? The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don't know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company "owned the town". In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company "provided" the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn't because it was too expensive. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil's work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got the dependence of the miners on the company right throughout the film. Hickey mentions several times that the company owns all of the housing, which we know would have been true. Additionally, when the scab workers are first touring the town with and learning about how they will be working, Few Clothes Johnson brings up the point that since everyone who mines in the town is paid in company scrip, the company store can jack up the prices whenever they want. This is echoed in the union meeting, when the men describe the wage cuts and increased prices. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
A moment that really struck me as accurate, was when Kenehan was speaking to the leader of the Italian mine workers, and tells him that they need to join the union. He responds by saying, so either we get shot by the company, or we get shot by the other miners, and Kenehan agrees that he is basically right. James Earl Jones different reactions to being called a n***** and being called a scab was very enlightening. It showed how truly offensive the term scab was, he didn't seem to care if he was called a n*****, but that no one was allowed to call him a scab. In response to Megan W's comments about Bob Gunton's character, I have to say that I thought from the opening meeting that he was a spy. I couldn't stop thinking of his character in ''Shawshank Redemption'' everytime I saw him, he even had on exactly the same glasses. Sid Hatfield was BAMF throughout the whole movie. When everyone else in a position of power was caving to the coal companies he never backed down. He was the true hero of the film to me. He didn't have to stand up to the Baldwin-Felts men, but he knew what was right and would not budge. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Yes, Michael G. I would just like to say that in my notes from watching this movie, you will find "David Strathairn (actor who played Sid Hatfield) is a BAMF". I also have "Darth Vader is a BAMF" - his BAMFness was superbly executed in the scene where he said "You shut your mouth, peckerwood." In addition, Chris Cooper is one of the most consistently fantastic actors working today. I would honestly watch him in anything. He could make a Quiznos commercial poignant. - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie got a lot of things right. First were the racial and nativist tensions between the coal miners. When Sid Hatfield stands up to the Baldwin-Felts men and stops them from evicting the families from their homes. I also thought that the scene when the African-American miners show up and the Company man is telling them about the town and how the Company owns everything, they get paid in Company script etc. and it showed how the Company really did try and control the entire town.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Rachel, I found the introduction to the company scene to be almost frightening in how calculating the company workers could be. Every cost had to be deducted from next month's pay, and every expense (including train tickets to get there) must be accounted. And the discussions about the company store as pay is spot on. You definitely get the sense of hopelessness that the miners would feel having nothing but the company to rely on for food and clothing items, tough luck that they are crooked and not interested in the miners. However what struck me even harder was the portrayal of violence, or at least potential violence on the part of company representatives. Throughout the film, they are armed with a rifle and watching the mines. Even though Kenehan is a pacifist and always looking for peaceful ways to mediate problems, the company does not even pretend to hide its willingness to defend company territory.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got right was the fear of Socialism and Communism. The pastor preaches about it in his sermon and one of the men asked Joe if he was a “red,” meaning a communist. Although Eugene Debs was able to run for president it did not stop people from worrying about “the reds.” –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
Another thing I feel the movie did a good job with was the impatience at the national union. They had to wait to act in their strike until they received word from the union. As a local union they probably wanted to strike sooner and have more of a say in what and when they did stuff. Kenehan said the union was a democracy, like the United States, but it’s more like a Republic, once again like the United States, not everyone gets a vote there are just representatives. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I like the ending of the movie and I think the director did a good job of portraying the little headway that many of these mining unions actually made. The movie made me believe that some headway would be made against the mining company, but that is lost when we see Danny back in the mine at the end and this foreshadows the Unions inability to make new contracts with non-union mines later in the 1920’s. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the Wobblie mentality in that the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) were hoping to create one big union but as it was said in the movie, the Matewan folks only knew from their own holler. It also demonstrates that the IWW accepted all workers into the union whether they were immigrants or Americans, white or black, which was somewhat unique to this particular union in a climate or natives and racism. Sayles also aptly demonstrates the hold that the company had on the entire town, from owning the homes, to the goods, and eventually evicting the strikers from the land that they had lived on their entire life. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a very good job of portraying the clear separation in wealth and class between the miners and the mining company. They made it very clear that there were no personal feelings towards them and I think it was Kenehan who said that these people do not care about you and you are simply workers to them and are easily replaceable. The movie captured the fear that the townspeople had of the mining industry and the men in the Baldwin-Felts’ agency and how it took so much to overcome this fear of unions and finally try to get something organized. I like how the two agents came in and did not care who stood in their way and the movie did a good job of portraying their almost distaste for the workers. –afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie seems to be pretty accurate. It shows how important the Coal Company is on their lives. Many of the people risked their lives to fight the Coal Company. It seemed like everyone wanted better situations, but not everyone agreed that forming a Union is the best thing to do. This movie showed well how the Coal Company affected everyone: the miners (old and young), mothers, people who lived in the town, and people who are not from the town. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things that the movie portrayed well was the contempt that the Company's people had for the miners. Well, contempt might be too strong of a word... more of "you are no more than dirt beneath my shoe" kind of feeling. (I can't think of the word right now) They really didn't care about the miner's family situations, or lifestyle in general. Because in their eyes they were just bodies to be replaced. This really emphasized the tensions that formed and had been forming for awhile. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Though Danny served as a representation of the children who worked in the mines, there should have been more children shown in the film. We saw in the readings how they often got injured and sick working the mining jobs that no one else wanted, for very low wages, but that was not depicted in the movie. Also, I was surprised that none of the miners seemed to have any health problems that related to the years that they spent in the mines. There was occasional coughing, but other than that, no depiction of the black lung that became so famous among miners, or even any real mining injuries. Showing these would have helped to represent the dangers of mining at the time, and the poor treatment of the men. I think that it would help the audience to understand why the miners wanted the union so much. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Meagan about the lack of mining injuries and illnesses. The cave in that killed Danny's father is highlighted, but the movie definitely plays up the economic aspect of the drive for unionization. My great grandfather worked in a Pennsylvania mine around this same time period and lost parts of three of his fingers. Seems like many of the men would have had similar injuries, even if they had attained them years earlier while working as breaker boys themselves. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am not really surprised the there wasn't much about mine injuries or related-diseases. Once the characters decided to unionize the mine completely fell out of the picture. The director has you put all your attention on the conflicts, twists and turns of the company vs. the miners. Also I think we go back to the whole problem of creating fictional characters for the purpose of what...easier to make films? Joe Kenehan is an interesting character, but is he honestly necessary? The movie shows a fictional character starting up the entire union at Matewan and therefore is just bad history. The real characters are almost put aside for characters that can say whatever the screen writer wants. It's harder to manipulate the real historical figures. I mean the sheriff and mayor show up in a handful of scenes and Few Clothes drops completely off of the movie at one point.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The kid preacher totally, if I remember right,totally got the story of Joseph wrong. He did not die at the hands of Potiphar and his men, it was this false accusation of rape that got Joseph noticed by Pharaoh for Joe's ability to interpret dreams[http://www.essortment.com/all/genesisjoseph_rrwi.htm]. Now I know this isn't detrimental to the historical accuracy of the film, but it kind of hurts the plot. A church full of strong Christians would be more likely to get angry and correct him rather than be like "Oh my god! He's being meta!"-Isaac Whaeln<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann, Sayles did narrow his focus on the socio-economy of the town but left out the impact that the injuries and dangers of the mines truly had on the town at this time. Though it is mentioned that Danny’s father died in the mines, but the men who worked in the mines in Sayles’ Matewan seemed to be in great health and perfectly intact. Isaac you are totally correct, Joseph was imprisoned after being falsely accused of rape and languished their somewhat forgotten until he began to interpret Pharaohs’ dreams. http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/genesis/week10.php – Caryn<br />
<br />
I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think they should have had more scenes about the terrible conditions in the coal mine. They did show it in the beginning and at the end, but they should have shown it more. Also they should have shown more children working in the mine. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles's 'Matewan'”, by Vincent Canby, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/28/movies/film-john-sayles-s-matewan.html states, “The characters are either good or evil. They're the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.” Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners' negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film's distantly heard, mournful theme.” John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members. So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
During the 1980s the US economy was experiencing all sorts of upheavals. The country was shifting away from the heavy industries like mining, and union membership was slipping. At the same time, while the US overall was getting wealthier, the gap between the rich and poor was widening all while more women and new groups of immigrants were seeking entry to the workforce. As good a time as any to make a movie about the challenges of American capitalism and US labor relations? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am going to throw out one and say that since the Cold War isn't quite over yet that Matewan is some pretty serious pro-Communist revolution. To me, it's rare for American films to depict communists as anything other than bad people. Even in the film Few Clothes Johnson jokes about Joe Kenehan being a communist and not having a gun. While I know historically non-capitalist ideas were not all the uncommon in the States, but for a film to be okay with the idea of a Red doing good, productive stuff for communities is big.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:06, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the previous point does make a good statement that the movie has a pro-Communist revolution feel to it I must disagree that this is the main drive of the film. To me the film makes a plethora (always a good word) of statements about America and its labor force. Firstly, in regards to unions, this film seems to say that true American economy is based on unions; the only way to fight corrupt business is with unions. Also, while Kenehan's communist views are put in a positive light there are other periods were he himself says that unions are a democracy, further strengthening the connection between America and unions. So rather than this film being a pro-communism film I would say its more like a film that wants total equality for all, what some would call a "true democracy."-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
p.s. this film felt like a reworked Western. A single man comes into a corrupt town to save the people and inspire them to a better life. Did I just describe <em> My Darling Clementine </em> or <em> Matewan </em>?<br />
<br />
The joke by Few Clothes Johnson is clearly referring to the fact that all Communists fight with hammers and sickles, not guns. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out. It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one. Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
One of the readings, "The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are "Beelzebub." This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. More specifically, the reading about Eugene v. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were "civilizing and Christianizing" the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that's a stretch. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The movie reminded me of "The Tyranny of the Company Store". The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The letters from the men trapped in the mine, referencing future reunions in heaven, convey how important religion was to the miners and their families. The movie, while also using Danny's preaching as a plot device, definitely shows how much the community relied on a faith in God to keep them going in the face of such poverty and desperation. The Protestants and the Catholic Italians all found comfort in their faith. Faith was one of the few things the company couldn't take away from the mining towns. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job at portraying the overreaching and controlling Company that was described in "The Tyranny of the Company Store". They also talked about the dangers that mine workers faced, even if it wasn't directly shown on screen.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The readings and movie both depicted the hardships of being a miner but also how the Miner's Union played a pivotal role in their lives. I thought the interview/reading was really important in showing how the miners felt about union activities, Ratliff said "it was the greatest thing he had ever heard in his life," and was eager to share the joy of the union but in the movie not all the men were eager to share such "joy". I wonder if mixed feelings about the Union were felt all over or did some states/specific mines favor it? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
This movie showed the terrible conditions in the mine just like readings showed. Even though the movie did not focus on the conditions of the mine, it did begin and end with those scenes which made them important and remembered. The readings were very shocking and it was difficult to read some of them because the explained terrible conditions and they were sad - like the Tennessee Coal Miners' Last Words. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me about the movie was the influence of Religion. It was also brought up in the readings, with the letters from the miners that were stranded in a collapsed mine. All of the letters told their families to be good and to trust that they will meet again in heaven. I assume that because this was such a dangerous job the people had to have a strong faith to get them through the day. It is also interesting to note that in one of the final letters a father writes to his son's to not become miners. So even they recognize that there are better alternatives. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I just have a question about the way Danny was the one who stole the coal and blew up the mine. Would they have had children do such things? - <br />
LeAnn</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-28T04:30:27Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..." --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Some of what the movie portrayed well was the monopoly that the coal companies had on the entire town, including the houses in which the miners lived. Then, there was the depiction of the coal companies raising the prices at the company general store the very same day that the price of coal had decreased. There was also the representation of danger around every corner that existed within the coal mining industry. Then there was the portrayal of Police Chief Hatfield, who did not want to receive bribes and was opposed to the eviction of the miner's families from company houses. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. about the way the film potrayed just how strong of a hold the coal company had on the town. It seemed like every single aspect of the people's lives was controlled by the company. I also liked how there was very little romanticization of the miners' struggle. I think this had a lot to do with the very simple and authentic music. I think another point that the movie got across very well was the danger that men faced whether they joined the union or not - early in the film, one of the Italian miners said to Joe, "We join the union, they shoot us. We don't join the union, you shoot us." The filmmakers made it very clear that just because these men were in the union, it didn't necessarily mean that they were all noble, kind-hearted men. They were just as willing to use force as the company was. I would have to disagree with Megan W. about Bob Gunton as C.E. Lively - Bob Gunton is always evil. Never trust Bob Gunton. - Celia<br />
<br />
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie. The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians. Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food. Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern." And nobody sounded like a moron. As a West Virginian, I'm grateful. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers. Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting). They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect. Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town. I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is. (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.) Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film. Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA? The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don't know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company "owned the town". In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company "provided" the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn't because it was too expensive. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil's work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got the dependence of the miners on the company right throughout the film. Hickey mentions several times that the company owns all of the housing, which we know would have been true. Additionally, when the scab workers are first touring the town with and learning about how they will be working, Few Clothes Johnson brings up the point that since everyone who mines in the town is paid in company scrip, the company store can jack up the prices whenever they want. This is echoed in the union meeting, when the men describe the wage cuts and increased prices. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
A moment that really struck me as accurate, was when Kenehan was speaking to the leader of the Italian mine workers, and tells him that they need to join the union. He responds by saying, so either we get shot by the company, or we get shot by the other miners, and Kenehan agrees that he is basically right. James Earl Jones different reactions to being called a n***** and being called a scab was very enlightening. It showed how truly offensive the term scab was, he didn't seem to care if he was called a n*****, but that no one was allowed to call him a scab. In response to Megan W's comments about Bob Gunton's character, I have to say that I thought from the opening meeting that he was a spy. I couldn't stop thinking of his character in ''Shawshank Redemption'' everytime I saw him, he even had on exactly the same glasses. Sid Hatfield was BAMF throughout the whole movie. When everyone else in a position of power was caving to the coal companies he never backed down. He was the true hero of the film to me. He didn't have to stand up to the Baldwin-Felts men, but he knew what was right and would not budge. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Yes, Michael G. I would just like to say that in my notes from watching this movie, you will find "David Strathairn (actor who played Sid Hatfield) is a BAMF". I also have "Darth Vader is a BAMF" - his BAMFness was superbly executed in the scene where he said "You shut your mouth, peckerwood." In addition, Chris Cooper is one of the most consistently fantastic actors working today. I would honestly watch him in anything. He could make a Quiznos commercial poignant. - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie got a lot of things right. First were the racial and nativist tensions between the coal miners. When Sid Hatfield stands up to the Baldwin-Felts men and stops them from evicting the families from their homes. I also thought that the scene when the African-American miners show up and the Company man is telling them about the town and how the Company owns everything, they get paid in Company script etc. and it showed how the Company really did try and control the entire town.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Rachel, I found the introduction to the company scene to be almost frightening in how calculating the company workers could be. Every cost had to be deducted from next month's pay, and every expense (including train tickets to get there) must be accounted. And the discussions about the company store as pay is spot on. You definitely get the sense of hopelessness that the miners would feel having nothing but the company to rely on for food and clothing items, tough luck that they are crooked and not interested in the miners. However what struck me even harder was the portrayal of violence, or at least potential violence on the part of company representatives. Throughout the film, they are armed with a rifle and watching the mines. Even though Kenehan is a pacifist and always looking for peaceful ways to mediate problems, the company does not even pretend to hide its willingness to defend company territory.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got right was the fear of Socialism and Communism. The pastor preaches about it in his sermon and one of the men asked Joe if he was a “red,” meaning a communist. Although Eugene Debs was able to run for president it did not stop people from worrying about “the reds.” –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
Another thing I feel the movie did a good job with was the impatience at the national union. They had to wait to act in their strike until they received word from the union. As a local union they probably wanted to strike sooner and have more of a say in what and when they did stuff. Kenehan said the union was a democracy, like the United States, but it’s more like a Republic, once again like the United States, not everyone gets a vote there are just representatives. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I like the ending of the movie and I think the director did a good job of portraying the little headway that many of these mining unions actually made. The movie made me believe that some headway would be made against the mining company, but that is lost when we see Danny back in the mine at the end and this foreshadows the Unions inability to make new contracts with non-union mines later in the 1920’s. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the Wobblie mentality in that the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) were hoping to create one big union but as it was said in the movie, the Matewan folks only knew from their own holler. It also demonstrates that the IWW accepted all workers into the union whether they were immigrants or Americans, white or black, which was somewhat unique to this particular union in a climate or natives and racism. Sayles also aptly demonstrates the hold that the company had on the entire town, from owning the homes, to the goods, and eventually evicting the strikers from the land that they had lived on their entire life. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a very good job of portraying the clear separation in wealth and class between the miners and the mining company. They made it very clear that there were no personal feelings towards them and I think it was Kenehan who said that these people do not care about you and you are simply workers to them and are easily replaceable. The movie captured the fear that the townspeople had of the mining industry and the men in the Baldwin-Felts’ agency and how it took so much to overcome this fear of unions and finally try to get something organized. I like how the two agents came in and did not care who stood in their way and the movie did a good job of portraying their almost distaste for the workers. –afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie seems to be pretty accurate. It shows how important the Coal Company is on their lives. Many of the people risked their lives to fight the Coal Company. It seemed like everyone wanted better situations, but not everyone agreed that forming a Union is the best thing to do. This movie showed well how the Coal Company affected everyone: the miners (old and young), mothers, people who lived in the town, and people who are not from the town. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things that the movie portrayed well was the contempt that the Company's people had for the miners. Well, contempt might be too strong of a word... more of "you are no more than dirt beneath my shoe" kind of feeling. (I can't think of the word right now) They really didn't care about the miner's family situations, or lifestyle in general. Because in their eyes they were just bodies to be replaced. This really emphasized the tensions that formed and had been forming for awhile. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Though Danny served as a representation of the children who worked in the mines, there should have been more children shown in the film. We saw in the readings how they often got injured and sick working the mining jobs that no one else wanted, for very low wages, but that was not depicted in the movie. Also, I was surprised that none of the miners seemed to have any health problems that related to the years that they spent in the mines. There was occasional coughing, but other than that, no depiction of the black lung that became so famous among miners, or even any real mining injuries. Showing these would have helped to represent the dangers of mining at the time, and the poor treatment of the men. I think that it would help the audience to understand why the miners wanted the union so much. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Meagan about the lack of mining injuries and illnesses. The cave in that killed Danny's father is highlighted, but the movie definitely plays up the economic aspect of the drive for unionization. My great grandfather worked in a Pennsylvania mine around this same time period and lost parts of three of his fingers. Seems like many of the men would have had similar injuries, even if they had attained them years earlier while working as breaker boys themselves. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am not really surprised the there wasn't much about mine injuries or related-diseases. Once the characters decided to unionize the mine completely fell out of the picture. The director has you put all your attention on the conflicts, twists and turns of the company vs. the miners. Also I think we go back to the whole problem of creating fictional characters for the purpose of what...easier to make films? Joe Kenehan is an interesting character, but is he honestly necessary? The movie shows a fictional character starting up the entire union at Matewan and therefore is just bad history. The real characters are almost put aside for characters that can say whatever the screen writer wants. It's harder to manipulate the real historical figures. I mean the sheriff and mayor show up in a handful of scenes and Few Clothes drops completely off of the movie at one point.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The kid preacher totally, if I remember right,totally got the story of Joseph wrong. He did not die at the hands of Potiphar and his men, it was this false accusation of rape that got Joseph noticed by Pharaoh for Joe's ability to interpret dreams[http://www.essortment.com/all/genesisjoseph_rrwi.htm]. Now I know this isn't detrimental to the historical accuracy of the film, but it kind of hurts the plot. A church full of strong Christians would be more likely to get angry and correct him rather than be like "Oh my god! He's being meta!"-Isaac Whaeln<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann, Sayles did narrow his focus on the socio-economy of the town but left out the impact that the injuries and dangers of the mines truly had on the town at this time. Though it is mentioned that Danny’s father died in the mines, but the men who worked in the mines in Sayles’ Matewan seemed to be in great health and perfectly intact. Isaac you are totally correct, Joseph was imprisoned after being falsely accused of rape and languished their somewhat forgotten until he began to interpret Pharaohs’ dreams. http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/genesis/week10.php – Caryn<br />
<br />
I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think they should have had more scenes about the terrible conditions in the coal mine. They did show it in the beginning and at the end, but they should have shown it more. Also they should have shown more children working in the mine. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles's 'Matewan'”, by Vincent Canby, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/28/movies/film-john-sayles-s-matewan.html states, “The characters are either good or evil. They're the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.” Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners' negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film's distantly heard, mournful theme.” John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members. So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
During the 1980s the US economy was experiencing all sorts of upheavals. The country was shifting away from the heavy industries like mining, and union membership was slipping. At the same time, while the US overall was getting wealthier, the gap between the rich and poor was widening all while more women and new groups of immigrants were seeking entry to the workforce. As good a time as any to make a movie about the challenges of American capitalism and US labor relations? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am going to throw out one and say that since the Cold War isn't quite over yet that Matewan is some pretty serious pro-Communist revolution. To me, it's rare for American films to depict communists as anything other than bad people. Even in the film Few Clothes Johnson jokes about Joe Kenehan being a communist and not having a gun. While I know historically non-capitalist ideas were not all the uncommon in the States, but for a film to be okay with the idea of a Red doing good, productive stuff for communities is big.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:06, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the previous point does make a good statement that the movie has a pro-Communist revolution feel to it I must disagree that this is the main drive of the film. To me the film makes a plethora (always a good word) of statements about America and its labor force. Firstly, in regards to unions, this film seems to say that true American economy is based on unions; the only way to fight corrupt business is with unions. Also, while Kenehan's communist views are put in a positive light there are other periods were he himself says that unions are a democracy, further strengthening the connection between America and unions. So rather than this film being a pro-communism film I would say its more like a film that wants total equality for all, what some would call a "true democracy."-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
p.s. this film felt like a reworked Western. A single man comes into a corrupt town to save the people and inspire them to a better life. Did I just describe <em> My Darling Clementine </em> or <em> Matewan </em>?<br />
<br />
The joke by Few Clothes Johnson is clearly referring to the fact that all Communists fight with hammers and sickles, not guns. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out. It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one. Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
One of the readings, "The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are "Beelzebub." This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. More specifically, the reading about Eugene v. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were "civilizing and Christianizing" the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that's a stretch. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The movie reminded me of "The Tyranny of the Company Store". The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The letters from the men trapped in the mine, referencing future reunions in heaven, convey how important religion was to the miners and their families. The movie, while also using Danny's preaching as a plot device, definitely shows how much the community relied on a faith in God to keep them going in the face of such poverty and desperation. The Protestants and the Catholic Italians all found comfort in their faith. Faith was one of the few things the company couldn't take away from the mining towns. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job at portraying the overreaching and controlling Company that was described in "The Tyranny of the Company Store". They also talked about the dangers that mine workers faced, even if it wasn't directly shown on screen.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The readings and movie both depicted the hardships of being a miner but also how the Miner's Union played a pivotal role in their lives. I thought the interview/reading was really important in showing how the miners felt about union activities, Ratliff said "it was the greatest thing he had ever heard in his life," and was eager to share the joy of the union but in the movie not all the men were eager to share such "joy". I wonder if mixed feelings about the Union were felt all over or did some states/specific mines favor it? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
This movie showed the terrible conditions in the mine just like readings showed. Even though the movie did not focus on the conditions of the mine, it did begin and end with those scenes which made them important and remembered. The readings were very shocking and it was difficult to read some of them because the explained terrible conditions and they were sad - like the Tennessee Coal Miners' Last Words. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me about the movie was the influence of Religion. It was also brought up in the readings, with the letters from the miners that were stranded in a collapsed mine. All of the letters told their families to be good and to trust that they will meet again in heaven. I assume that because this was such a dangerous job the people had to have a strong faith to get them through the day. It is also interesting to note that in one of the final letters a father writes to his son's to not become miners. So even they recognize that there are better alternatives. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I just have a question about the way Danny was the one who stole the coal and blew up the mine. Would they have had children do such things? - <br />
LeAnn</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-28T04:25:13Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..." --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Some of what the movie portrayed well was the monopoly that the coal companies had on the entire town, including the houses in which the miners lived. Then, there was the depiction of the coal companies raising the prices at the company general store the very same day that the price of coal had decreased. There was also the representation of danger around every corner that existed within the coal mining industry. Then there was the portrayal of Police Chief Hatfield, who did not want to receive bribes and was opposed to the eviction of the miner's families from company houses. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. about the way the film potrayed just how strong of a hold the coal company had on the town. It seemed like every single aspect of the people's lives was controlled by the company. I also liked how there was very little romanticization of the miners' struggle. I think this had a lot to do with the very simple and authentic music. I think another point that the movie got across very well was the danger that men faced whether they joined the union or not - early in the film, one of the Italian miners said to Joe, "We join the union, they shoot us. We don't join the union, you shoot us." The filmmakers made it very clear that just because these men were in the union, it didn't necessarily mean that they were all noble, kind-hearted men. They were just as willing to use force as the company was. I would have to disagree with Megan W. about Bob Gunton as C.E. Lively - Bob Gunton is always evil. Never trust Bob Gunton. - Celia<br />
<br />
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie. The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians. Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food. Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern." And nobody sounded like a moron. As a West Virginian, I'm grateful. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers. Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting). They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect. Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town. I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is. (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.) Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film. Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA? The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don't know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company "owned the town". In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company "provided" the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn't because it was too expensive. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil's work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got the dependence of the miners on the company right throughout the film. Hickey mentions several times that the company owns all of the housing, which we know would have been true. Additionally, when the scab workers are first touring the town with and learning about how they will be working, Few Clothes Johnson brings up the point that since everyone who mines in the town is paid in company scrip, the company store can jack up the prices whenever they want. This is echoed in the union meeting, when the men describe the wage cuts and increased prices. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
A moment that really struck me as accurate, was when Kenehan was speaking to the leader of the Italian mine workers, and tells him that they need to join the union. He responds by saying, so either we get shot by the company, or we get shot by the other miners, and Kenehan agrees that he is basically right. James Earl Jones different reactions to being called a n***** and being called a scab was very enlightening. It showed how truly offensive the term scab was, he didn't seem to care if he was called a n*****, but that no one was allowed to call him a scab. In response to Megan W's comments about Bob Gunton's character, I have to say that I thought from the opening meeting that he was a spy. I couldn't stop thinking of his character in ''Shawshank Redemption'' everytime I saw him, he even had on exactly the same glasses. Sid Hatfield was BAMF throughout the whole movie. When everyone else in a position of power was caving to the coal companies he never backed down. He was the true hero of the film to me. He didn't have to stand up to the Baldwin-Felts men, but he knew what was right and would not budge. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie got a lot of things right. First were the racial and nativist tensions between the coal miners. When Sid Hatfield stands up to the Baldwin-Felts men and stops them from evicting the families from their homes. I also thought that the scene when the African-American miners show up and the Company man is telling them about the town and how the Company owns everything, they get paid in Company script etc. and it showed how the Company really did try and control the entire town.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Rachel, I found the introduction to the company scene to be almost frightening in how calculating the company workers could be. Every cost had to be deducted from next month's pay, and every expense (including train tickets to get there) must be accounted. And the discussions about the company store as pay is spot on. You definitely get the sense of hopelessness that the miners would feel having nothing but the company to rely on for food and clothing items, tough luck that they are crooked and not interested in the miners. However what struck me even harder was the portrayal of violence, or at least potential violence on the part of company representatives. Throughout the film, they are armed with a rifle and watching the mines. Even though Kenehan is a pacifist and always looking for peaceful ways to mediate problems, the company does not even pretend to hide its willingness to defend company territory.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got right was the fear of Socialism and Communism. The pastor preaches about it in his sermon and one of the men asked Joe if he was a “red,” meaning a communist. Although Eugene Debs was able to run for president it did not stop people from worrying about “the reds.” –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
Another thing I feel the movie did a good job with was the impatience at the national union. They had to wait to act in their strike until they received word from the union. As a local union they probably wanted to strike sooner and have more of a say in what and when they did stuff. Kenehan said the union was a democracy, like the United States, but it’s more like a Republic, once again like the United States, not everyone gets a vote there are just representatives. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I like the ending of the movie and I think the director did a good job of portraying the little headway that many of these mining unions actually made. The movie made me believe that some headway would be made against the mining company, but that is lost when we see Danny back in the mine at the end and this foreshadows the Unions inability to make new contracts with non-union mines later in the 1920’s. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the Wobblie mentality in that the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) were hoping to create one big union but as it was said in the movie, the Matewan folks only knew from their own holler. It also demonstrates that the IWW accepted all workers into the union whether they were immigrants or Americans, white or black, which was somewhat unique to this particular union in a climate or natives and racism. Sayles also aptly demonstrates the hold that the company had on the entire town, from owning the homes, to the goods, and eventually evicting the strikers from the land that they had lived on their entire life. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a very good job of portraying the clear separation in wealth and class between the miners and the mining company. They made it very clear that there were no personal feelings towards them and I think it was Kenehan who said that these people do not care about you and you are simply workers to them and are easily replaceable. The movie captured the fear that the townspeople had of the mining industry and the men in the Baldwin-Felts’ agency and how it took so much to overcome this fear of unions and finally try to get something organized. I like how the two agents came in and did not care who stood in their way and the movie did a good job of portraying their almost distaste for the workers. –afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie seems to be pretty accurate. It shows how important the Coal Company is on their lives. Many of the people risked their lives to fight the Coal Company. It seemed like everyone wanted better situations, but not everyone agreed that forming a Union is the best thing to do. This movie showed well how the Coal Company affected everyone: the miners (old and young), mothers, people who lived in the town, and people who are not from the town. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Though Danny served as a representation of the children who worked in the mines, there should have been more children shown in the film. We saw in the readings how they often got injured and sick working the mining jobs that no one else wanted, for very low wages, but that was not depicted in the movie. Also, I was surprised that none of the miners seemed to have any health problems that related to the years that they spent in the mines. There was occasional coughing, but other than that, no depiction of the black lung that became so famous among miners, or even any real mining injuries. Showing these would have helped to represent the dangers of mining at the time, and the poor treatment of the men. I think that it would help the audience to understand why the miners wanted the union so much. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Meagan about the lack of mining injuries and illnesses. The cave in that killed Danny's father is highlighted, but the movie definitely plays up the economic aspect of the drive for unionization. My great grandfather worked in a Pennsylvania mine around this same time period and lost parts of three of his fingers. Seems like many of the men would have had similar injuries, even if they had attained them years earlier while working as breaker boys themselves. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am not really surprised the there wasn't much about mine injuries or related-diseases. Once the characters decided to unionize the mine completely fell out of the picture. The director has you put all your attention on the conflicts, twists and turns of the company vs. the miners. Also I think we go back to the whole problem of creating fictional characters for the purpose of what...easier to make films? Joe Kenehan is an interesting character, but is he honestly necessary? The movie shows a fictional character starting up the entire union at Matewan and therefore is just bad history. The real characters are almost put aside for characters that can say whatever the screen writer wants. It's harder to manipulate the real historical figures. I mean the sheriff and mayor show up in a handful of scenes and Few Clothes drops completely off of the movie at one point.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The kid preacher totally, if I remember right,totally got the story of Joseph wrong. He did not die at the hands of Potiphar and his men, it was this false accusation of rape that got Joseph noticed by Pharaoh for Joe's ability to interpret dreams[http://www.essortment.com/all/genesisjoseph_rrwi.htm]. Now I know this isn't detrimental to the historical accuracy of the film, but it kind of hurts the plot. A church full of strong Christians would be more likely to get angry and correct him rather than be like "Oh my god! He's being meta!"-Isaac Whaeln<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann, Sayles did narrow his focus on the socio-economy of the town but left out the impact that the injuries and dangers of the mines truly had on the town at this time. Though it is mentioned that Danny’s father died in the mines, but the men who worked in the mines in Sayles’ Matewan seemed to be in great health and perfectly intact. Isaac you are totally correct, Joseph was imprisoned after being falsely accused of rape and languished their somewhat forgotten until he began to interpret Pharaohs’ dreams. http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/genesis/week10.php – Caryn<br />
<br />
I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think they should have had more scenes about the terrible conditions in the coal mine. They did show it in the beginning and at the end, but they should have shown it more. Also they should have shown more children working in the mine. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles's 'Matewan'”, by Vincent Canby, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/28/movies/film-john-sayles-s-matewan.html states, “The characters are either good or evil. They're the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.” Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners' negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film's distantly heard, mournful theme.” John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members. So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
During the 1980s the US economy was experiencing all sorts of upheavals. The country was shifting away from the heavy industries like mining, and union membership was slipping. At the same time, while the US overall was getting wealthier, the gap between the rich and poor was widening all while more women and new groups of immigrants were seeking entry to the workforce. As good a time as any to make a movie about the challenges of American capitalism and US labor relations? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am going to throw out one and say that since the Cold War isn't quite over yet that Matewan is some pretty serious pro-Communist revolution. To me, it's rare for American films to depict communists as anything other than bad people. Even in the film Few Clothes Johnson jokes about Joe Kenehan being a communist and not having a gun. While I know historically non-capitalist ideas were not all the uncommon in the States, but for a film to be okay with the idea of a Red doing good, productive stuff for communities is big.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:06, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the previous point does make a good statement that the movie has a pro-Communist revolution feel to it I must disagree that this is the main drive of the film. To me the film makes a plethora (always a good word) of statements about America and its labor force. Firstly, in regards to unions, this film seems to say that true American economy is based on unions; the only way to fight corrupt business is with unions. Also, while Kenehan's communist views are put in a positive light there are other periods were he himself says that unions are a democracy, further strengthening the connection between America and unions. So rather than this film being a pro-communism film I would say its more like a film that wants total equality for all, what some would call a "true democracy."-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
p.s. this film felt like a reworked Western. A single man comes into a corrupt town to save the people and inspire them to a better life. Did I just describe <em> My Darling Clementine </em> or <em> Matewan </em>?<br />
<br />
The joke by Few Clothes Johnson is clearly referring to the fact that all Communists fight with hammers and sickles, not guns. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out. It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one. Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
One of the readings, "The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are "Beelzebub." This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. More specifically, the reading about Eugene v. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were "civilizing and Christianizing" the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that's a stretch. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The movie reminded me of "The Tyranny of the Company Store". The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The letters from the men trapped in the mine, referencing future reunions in heaven, convey how important religion was to the miners and their families. The movie, while also using Danny's preaching as a plot device, definitely shows how much the community relied on a faith in God to keep them going in the face of such poverty and desperation. The Protestants and the Catholic Italians all found comfort in their faith. Faith was one of the few things the company couldn't take away from the mining towns. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job at portraying the overreaching and controlling Company that was described in "The Tyranny of the Company Store". They also talked about the dangers that mine workers faced, even if it wasn't directly shown on screen.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The readings and movie both depicted the hardships of being a miner but also how the Miner's Union played a pivotal role in their lives. I thought the interview/reading was really important in showing how the miners felt about union activities, Ratliff said "it was the greatest thing he had ever heard in his life," and was eager to share the joy of the union but in the movie not all the men were eager to share such "joy". I wonder if mixed feelings about the Union were felt all over or did some states/specific mines favor it? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
This movie showed the terrible conditions in the mine just like readings showed. Even though the movie did not focus on the conditions of the mine, it did begin and end with those scenes which made them important and remembered. The readings were very shocking and it was difficult to read some of them because the explained terrible conditions and they were sad - like the Tennessee Coal Miners' Last Words. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me about the movie was the influence of Religion. It was also brought up in the readings, with the letters from the miners that were stranded in a collapsed mine. All of the letters told their families to be good and to trust that they will meet again in heaven. I assume that because this was such a dangerous job the people had to have a strong faith to get them through the day. It is also interesting to note that in one of the final letters a father writes to his son's to not become miners. So even they recognize that there are better alternatives. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I just have a question about the way Danny was the one who stole the coal and blew up the mine. Would they have had children do such things? - <br />
LeAnn</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-21T03:37:40Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately captured the lawlessness of the West in Tombstone. It seemed as though whoever was the strongest or quickest gun had volunteered for the position of maintaining peace and order. The rivalry between the Clantons and Earps was also evident. The Clantons had been an established, formidable family then the Earps came through town and challenged their authority. No one likes to give up their power, especially to newcomers who seem to be arrogant whipper-snappers. Another area the movie accurately portrayed was the extent of danger that went along with cattle ranching. When you travel land that you do not personally own or can defend, competition of the fittest is a reality. It wasn’t smart of the Earp’s part to leave the youngest boy in charge of so many cattle to defend at night after two men show interest in the cattle. They just set themselves up to be taken advantage of and the youngest brother paid that mistake with his life.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly showed the lack of law enforment that the West had at the time. I think it also depicted the racism against Native Americans when the drunk Indian was shooting at everything. I think it was funny to see the reactions to when peopel thought a gight would break out. They all got really quiet and backed away quickly. I bet that is a pretty accurate description of what it was like to live in a place where the law was a joke. They did a good job showing Doc Holiday's TB although I doubt his bitterness to having it had to do with him being a doctor who could not cure his own health. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I think the portrayal of Doc Holliday in the movie was fairly accurate. We talked in class about how he moved westward and gave up his practice back east. We also found out that he had Tuberculosis. In the movie he was sick, I assume he had TB. Even though Clementine may have been a fictional character, it was through her that we learned where Doc originally came from. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
Debbie M. pointed out that the movie captured the lawlessness and violence of the times, and I agree. The townsfolk of Tombstone were used to sudden gunshots, and unexpected quarrels; they were as sensitive as rabbits to signs of trouble. In the scene where Wyatt and Doc meet for the first time, everyone in the saloon was watching them closely to see if a gunfight was going to break out. When the two men quit posturing and cooled off, the customers came back to the bar and started drinking again. The movie also shows how quickly, even casually, death can happen---but by emphasizing the brothers' grief, it also says that death is terrible, a waste and a crime against nature. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Another aspect of Western life the movie got right was the polyglot nature of Tombstone's population. Dr. McClurken told us about the racial mix in the early Western towns, and in the movie we saw a French cook, Latina kitchen/hotel staff, Latin-American musicians, and Native Americans (the drunken one at the beginning, and then the workers at the Wells Fargo Corral). The movie did not show any racial tensions among these groups, however. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The movie hinted at the importance of the railroad to the west. In one of the opening scenes, the barber mentions that he got a new chair all the way from Chicago. The west did not have the factories or the means to make such equipment, so they relied on the east and therefore the railroads, to supply them with manufactured goods. Another accuracy of the film was the gambling nature of Doc Holliday. He and Wyatt Earp were both professional gamblers by the time they reached Tombstone. Also, as Debbi mentioned, the various ethnic groups of the west were shown in the film very accurately. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There wasn't a whole lot that the movie got right. Yes Wyatt Earp was a Marshall in Tombstone and Doc Holliday had TB. The film did do a good job at showing what a western town was like, there is a saloon and that is where people go to hangout and near the beginning of the film Wyatt is asked what kid of job he has and the man mentions ranching and mining which were two of the most prominent jobs out west.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I agree with Rachael. The film got some of the most basic facts right - there were four Earp brothers (even if for a very short time in the movie), Doc Holliday had tuberculosis, and there was tension between the Earp and Clanton families. I think it also portrayed the random chaos and violence that was common in towns like Tombstone. The sense of disorder is made clear in the first part of the film, especially in the scene with the drunk Native American that was causing havoc but no one wanted to deal with. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with those who said that the movie depicted some of the violence of the west, but it also showed that the people of Tombstone were really trying to establish the institutions that would make their town a "civilized" home. They were raising money for a church, they had a theater (albeit with a rather rowdy crowd), and Clementine is going to be their new schoolteacher. Those aspects of western life were realistic and make Tombstone more than just a caricature of a lawless mining town. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
A small and silly detail but the film does depict Wyatt buffaloing (sp?) one of the cowboys. As we all know this was one of Wyatt's favorite pastimes. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:29, 20 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One fact that the movie got right was the variety of jobs that the Earpe brothers held prior to coming to Tombstone. They were herding cattle at the start of the film, and later the mayor refers to Wyatt's earlier job as a lawman. Wyatt was also portrayed as quite the gambler, which was fairly accurate. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I think the movie portrayed well how the west was mainly a male dominated society. There were not many women shown in the movie because not a lot of women took the journey out west. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Funny, unlike Justine I thought there were maybe too many women in the movie. Not as main characters, but there seemed to be many in the background scenes, and even a fair number of children. Would there have been that many families in a town like Tombstone? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the main points the movie got wrong was Clementine, she was never with "Doc" Holliday and we never discussed a woman who traveled from Boston to be with him. Another point was the fact that the movie was a typical Hollywood take on the West- good guy vs. bad with both sides losing at times but the good guy always comes out on top and is always white. It seemed that the real Wyatt Earp was not a good person even though he had points in his life where he committed good deeds. Overall the movie was pretty entertaining but it was just that- entertaining not one of the movies that was more historically accurate. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Clementine Carter says she traveled from town to town looking for "Dr. John Holliday." She seems to have been completely unescorted, and unprotected. I highly doubt that she would have arrived in Tombstone quite so untouched. She stops conversation whenever she enters a room, now is it reasonable to expect that she would have made it through all those towns without being molested, or forced into prostitution, or kidnapped by some woman-hungry miner?---Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There are few details in the movie that were historically accurate. At first glance, it appears that this movie was the least accurate movie so far. Wyatt Earp did not meet Doc Holliday for the first time in Tombstone, he actually met him in Dodge City, Kansas. Also, it was Virgil who was the first one to become a U.S. Marshall in Tombstone and his brothers joined him later. The killing of James in the very beginning never happened, but is a useful reason for Wyatt becoming a Marshall. Though the portrayal of him pistol whipping a couple of men is accurate, there was no evidence that he was a quick draw gun fighter. Thus, there's no way that he would have been able to out draw Doc who was known for his quickness. Then there is Wyatt's reputation that seemed to proceed him. These types of miscues would have been used by Lake to bolster the legend behind a somewhat meaningless person. Lastly, there was no presence of the Earp's wives. <br />
<br />
P.S. The movie Tombstone is a much better watch for those that are interested in this event. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. The movie <em> Tombstone</em> is a better portray of the event. Val Kilmer made the best Doc Holiday. "Not me I'm in my prime."-Isaac Whalen<br />
P.S. From what I understand, during the shoot-out team Earp actually used shot-guns[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/earp/scenarios.html] not just empty ones.<br />
<br />
<br />
The shootout at the O.K. Corral was a huge disappointment. First of all, some of the people who were supposed to be there had already been killed, like Virgil and Billy Clanton. Along the same lines, Newman Clanton, was there which never happened. Then, as we learned in class it was not actually at the O.K. Corral, but in a vacant lot that no one knows the name of. Also, it seemed like all the people died. Doc Holliday was killed which is not true because he didn't die until a few years later of Tuberculosis. Lastly, neither of the Earp brothers that were there were injured. The only thing about this event that was somewhat promising was the fighting style. They hid behind objects instead of lining the streets in a typical Hollywood shootout. After watching the shootout I can understand why Hollywood likes to use the stand-off style because it is more exciting than hiding behind fences and cattle. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
Where were the women doing the dirty work such as cleaning and cooking? I know there were not that many women in the west but the only occupation you see them doing to sleeping around. Where were the African American cowboys? I loved how they made the Clayton brothers look all scruffy and the Earps look clean cut. I doubt any of them were all that clean and well shaven. I also do not buy the way Wyatt was all chivalrous to woman. He was gambler and a dangerous man. I cannot imagine he would be so polite. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
In the movie, one of Wyatt Earp's brothers gets killed by the father of the Clanton boys. When Wyatt Earp finds that out, he wants to seek revenge. Doc also joins up in the fight mostly to avenge Chihuahua's death. In class we talked about how the fight at O.K. Corral (really a vacant lot) was actually started due to political reasons involving John Behan, a Republican, who ran against Earp in an election. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Who knew that the shoot-out at the OK Corral (which was so helpfully labeled in the film) was partly caused by the death of a loyal Chihuahua? Both of the main female characters were completely fictional, which seems stupid when you have great historical material like Kate Elder/Fisher, Mattie Blaylock, and Josephine Marcus. Who wants a Boston schoolmarm when you can have a prostitute? Also, the reasons for the shoot-out at the end were mostly about revenge - mainly to avenge the deaths of James and Chihuahua. James Earp didn't die until the 1920s. Also, what the hell was up with that Shakespearean actor? I was so confused as to why he was around, besides giving the filmmakers a chance to show Doc as a sensitive soul (he knows lines from Hamlet!), as they did several times with both Doc and Wyatt Earp. Aw, Wyatt smells like honeysuckle! Aw, Doc knows Shakespeare! It seemed very heavy-handed and sappy. It also seemed sort of strange that the movie is called "My Darling Clementine" when Clementine is the most boring character in the film. The title suggests that Wyatt and Clementine will have some epic romance. Instead, they just awkwardly talk to each other and dance. I really think that if the movie had used non-fictional women without dog names, it would have been much more interesting. - Celia<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the people of Tombstone threw out the drunk Indian who was shooting up the place, telling him to go back to his reservation. In class, we talked about how Indians were moved off their land to reservations and alcoholism was one of the ramifications of that displacement. While only a small, almost non-existent part of the movie, I'm not sure if it was just for entertainment or if it was just a poor attempt on the filmmakers part to try and have some accuracy in the movie. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
<br />
It really bothers me that the film changed many aspects of history in order to provide the audience with noble protagonists. Wyatt Earp is not exactly the most virtuous man. He is a sporting man and befriends another violent gambler, Doc Holliday. He gambles in the film, but he is portrayed more as a letter of the law type marshal (except for the fact that he only took the job to avenge his brother’s death). I had to look online for historical inaccuracies, and found that James Earp did not die in 1882 as his tombstone shows in the film, he lives until 1926! Morgan Earp is the brother who is murdered during a game of billiards (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpJ.htm). The O.K. Corral fight actually took place on Oct. 26, 1881 (http://www.kansasheritage.org/gunfighters/okcorral.html). In the film it has to take place after 1881 since James is supposed to have been murdered in 1882. There also is no mention of Wyatt’s personal life (as it really happened). The film does not mention Mattie Blaylock or Josephine Marcus. Clementine appears to have been completely made up for dramatic purposes. Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Claibourne are also absent from the film. Doc Holliday is not killed at the O.K. Corral fight, he dies of tuberculosis. One major inaccuracy: Virgil was marshal of Tombstone, not Wyatt (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpM.htm).–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Everything about the Earps was reconstructed for dramatic purposes, and it did make good drama. Samantha mentions James not really dying in 1882---well, the movie needed an innocent, good-looking kid to bite the dust or there would have been no conflict. And you knew right away that James was a goner, from the way Ford lit his scenes. The kid might just as well have been wearing a Red Shirt! --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie completely left out any reference to the political struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Wyatt did not run for office against Behan and there was no tension shown between farmers and cattlemen. Very few Latinos were in the film and none of them had major roles. I also had a major problem with the portrayal of Native Americans in the film. The only native american who had a role was the drunk Indian who was firing wantonly around the town. He is knocked out and kicked out of town by Wyatt Earp. He disgustedly comments that no decent town would sell liquor to Indians. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the chef with the French accent. Tombstone has high culinary standards. - Celia<br />
<br />
Others have mentioned specific inaccuracies related to the Wyatt Earp "legend." The movie credits say the screenplay is based on the Stuart Lake book Dr. McClurken mentioned, which is rife with falsehoods that attempt to mythologize Wyatt Earp. Given that, John Ford apparently felt he had free rein to reinvent the Earp myth for a modern audience. The same goes for the character of Doc Holliday, doomed, yet noble and charismatic. The logic of the movie absolutely required Holliday to die on the field of battle instead of choking to death on his own blood in a TB ward. So...the actual narrative of the movie was a tissue of lies from beginning to end---but the setting and period details were fairly accurate. You have the church being built by the law-abiding citizenry; the cattle rustling that we read about in Granville Stuart's diary; the racial mix in Tombstone; and the casual violence of the times. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
A major inaccuracy of the film was the Wyatt Earp knew Doc Holliday before he was in Tombstone. The two actually met and became friends in Dodge City. They were not enemies as the film portrays. Another falsehood was Wyatt being depicted as a moral man trying to make society safe and just. Wyatt Earp actually had a rough reputation and was not known as a law-abiding citizen. Finally, Wyatt never was the sheriff. He ran against John Beham in 1881 for the position but he lost the election, although he did win over Beham's mistress Josephine Marcus, who was never mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Old Man" Clanton was not killed by the Earps. Instead, he was killed in an ambush called the "Guadalupe Canyon Massacre" in August of 1881. He, along with a few others, was most likely murdered by Mexican Rurales. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Clanton) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Doc Holliday was trained as a dentist not a surgeon. They also made Wyatt and his brothers seem like great men who wanted to end the lawlessness of the west, which we learned in class was not true. Wyatt and Doc were also friends before Tombstone.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Like Mike, I did not like how the shootout at the OK Corral or should I say the shootout at the vacant lot was portrayed. Virgil and Billy Clanton were supposed to be there but Virgil was killed while leaving the Clanton’s house and Billy was killed riding into home. Therefore, if these people were supposed to be there, then the scene at the Clanton's home never happened. I did like how the characters hid and ran around buildings instead of just attempting to kill each other in the middle of the street but as we learned in class, thirty shots were fired in a matter of about 20 seconds and I don’t think the Earp’s hit the magic number. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie shows stereotype of the wild west. There are the good guys vs. the bad guys. Also, they show a lot of gambling and prostitution. The town looks like a very typical west town even with signs that have the wild west font...like the jail sign. It kind of reminded me of an amusement park. I did not like how a lot of this was very inaccurate according to the people and how they were actually like in real life. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The movie makes an effort to depict the racial/ethnic diversity of the West, but it definitely does not reflect the fact that white Americans were in the minority in the Southwest at the time. There probably would have been many more Spanish speakers especially, and their absence erased any racial tensions that would have also existed. Also, the movie was filmed in Monument Valley, which is substantially more interesting and dramatic geographically than the real relatively flat, scruffy Tombstone. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
The movie, clearly draws a line between good and evil. It makes the Clanton family seem as sinister as possible, and the Earp brothers appear as a wholesome family. By having the Clanton family kill James, the most innocent of the brothers at the beginning of the movie, it gives the Earp brothers justification to seek revenge. Also, Wyatt Earp and his brothers are put on a pedestal, while in real life they were horse thieves, drunkards, and spent a lot of time with women of ill repute. However, in the movie, Clementine is the only woman, that Wyatt shows any interest in and she is a very wholesome character herself. Chihuahua, the singer from the saloon, the type of woman that Earp would have gone for in real life, he dumps in a water trough. John Ford seems to have decided that Wyatt Earp needed to be the western version of a knight in shining armor, so he created a damsel in distress for him to rescue. Clearly John Ford was wanted to create an idealistic movie about the Old West, forget about the historical details. I mean, he did get a few things right, there was a town called Tombstone and the Cowboys rode horses. Michael G.<br />
<br />
Other posts have mentioned the fictional character of Clementine Carter, and Debbie M. wondered why the movie was named for her. Well, I think John Ford saw Clementine as the real future of the West, and of the U.S. as a whole. She was a proper, educated Boston lady, yet she had the grit to travel through the west ("from cow town to cow town") to find the man she loved. This proper but strong-minded lady decided to stay in Tombstone, where the air was so fresh and clean, to be its schoolmarm. Through education, Clementine will bring civilization to the West and therefore she symbolizes Manifest Destiny. In 1946, when this movie was made, Americans had just helped win World War II, and there was a newer, bigger version of Manifest Destiny that spread beyond our borders. Americans were the heroes of World War II, bringing justice to a chaotic world---which is exactly what Wyatt Earp did in this movie. When he was talking to James' grave, he said he wanted to make the West safe so that kids could grow past the age of 18 in safety. Clementine turned out to be his spiritual partner, who would teach those kids and thus ensure the safety of the next generation as well. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
John Ford was a Lieutenant Commander in the Marines during WWII and also part of the Naval Reserve (http://www.filmreference.com/Directors-Du-Fr/Ford-John.html). With his military background, it makes sense that John Ford would direct a movie with the noble official saving the day and bringing order to the chaos. Western films were growing in popularity during this time period and Ford jumped on the bandwagon making numerous westerns including Stagecoach, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (also a good movie!), and Rio Grande (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000406/bio). The concept of a legend of the West became prevalent in Hollywood. In the foreword of Stuart Lakes’s book, Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, “Lake noted that the things Wyatt Earp did made him a legend while he lived. But he added: ‘In true perspective, he is recognized as something more, as an epitomizing symbol of a powerful factor…in the history of the Western United States of America. The Old West cannot be understood unless Wyatt Earp is also understood’” (http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=105&sid=bcb02b64-57ea-490d-9a0c-88d5e423525f%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=29965192). –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
This movie is a good example of culturally altered storytelling. It is clear the John Ford the director wanted to tell a thrilling tale of the West, but since he not only knew Earp on a personal level and he grew-up in a different time the manner in which he portrayed this story changes everything. Ford tell the story of the O.K. Corral shoot-out like any normal person in the 40s would: there is clearly defined good and evil, the law is upstanding, and justice always prevails. As mentioned many times already, Doc Holiday was very uniquely portrayed-like a 1940s Hollywood bad-boy. He puts on a tough exterior, but on the inside he was a good guy and followed Wyatt's morale code. Wyatt comes across as a "perfect man", he is respectful to women, doesn't cheat, and goes to church. Therefore I would say that this movie is a great primary source to understanding the 1940-1950 definition of good. The lead women knows her place, the lead man is a perfect gentlemen, and the bad guys get their comeuppance. No one-other than the Indian-is show actually being drunk, team Earp actually takes empty shotguns to a gunfight and the character's mustaches are defiantly not big enough. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Teddy Roosevelt's comments on "Cowboy-Land" were quite interesting, and strongly reflect his ideology of masculinity. One point he makes touches on the movie. He writes that people "were not given to inquiring too curiously into a strong man's past, or to criticize him too harshly for a failure to discriminate in finer ethical questions" ("Major Problems of the American West," 203). This explains why the townspeople of Tombstone accepted Doc Holliday without much quibble. They also didn't object to Wyatt Earp's methods. Roosevelt goes on to say that if those men were "asked outright as to their stories, they would have refused to tell them, or else would have lied about them" (204). We saw that happen in the real life of Wyatt Earp, who went from being a horse thief to a "sporting man" to a lawman---and then made up flattering lies about himself when his day was over. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The women in the movie play a very small role. They are either portrayed as whores that have no sense of how to act like a lady or they are love sick for a man that wants nothing to do with them. In reality, these women were just as strong as the men they lived with. In the ''Writing Women's Lives,'' Mary A. Abell discusses having to kill rattle snakes that "produced enough venom to kill an army." The role of women in everyday life was severely down played in the movie and most of their roles were just plain left out. Believe it or not, these women actually though about everyday matters like providing her children with a safe house to live in. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie doesn't really address any of the problems that people who moved west faced. The readings talked about how the weather and drought made agriculture difficult and the only mention of any problems in the film was when Clanton mentions that the Earp's cattle looked thin.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
As other's have mentioned the movie did not really show Native Americans outside of the crazy drunk Indian in the beginning shot and the reading truly shows how difficult white civilization was on them. I think it was correct in showing that Wyatt just dragged the Indian out and made him get lost, he even degrades him to the point of kicking him in the back- it seemed that the reservations sort of gave off the same message. The government wanted to control Native Americans because they believed the Indians were uncivilized or maybe "semicivilized" (447, Congressional Report on Indian Affairs). I think it truly shows the government could careless about what happened to the Native Americans as long as they, were out of sight out of mind.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie lacked a great deal of the hardships that people living in the West faced. In the beginning of the film, Newman Clanton suggests that the Earpes' cattle are pretty thin, but the brothers just brush the issue off. In reality, when settlers were traveling across the West, many of their livestock were starving and dying on the road, as we see in Lydia Allen Rudd's diary. She also brings up the issue of diseases in the West, which are largely absent from the film. Yes, Doc Holliday has tuberculosis, but that is a disease which he contracted back in Boston, not on the way West or once he settled there. There were not a lot of concerns shown in the film about measles or other diseases, which would have most likely been a pretty big problem, as they turn up several times in the readings. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Two of the readings were diaries of women migrating and relayed some of the hardships that they faced on that move. In the diaries by Mary Abell, she tells about the hardships of starting a farm, how much work was involved and how things like prairie fires and the economy could contribute to mishaps. In Sisters Monica’s diary she talks about the constant hardships of migrating ranging from traveling all day and becoming incredibly tired to the threat of being attacked by Indians. Overall, moving west was very difficult and the people who choose to faced many hardships. The readings presented these hardships very well, which is something the movie did not do. We did not see any migration or long journeys westward, although it is hinted at the end of the movie; just the Earp’s extended stay in Tombstone. I thought some aspect of the westward migration should have been included. -afrisk<br />
<br />
A few of the readings talked about vigilante justice. I'm not sure that vigilante justice is what was going on in Tombstone in the movie. First off, you had Wyatt Earp who became the marshal of Tombstone once his brother was killed. He pretty much took care of business in the town with the help of his other brothers and people who were close to him. I think the only instance of vigilante justice was when the drunk indian was running around shooting people and a mob tried to grab him. Other than that, there were never any groups of people enforcing the laws or punishing criminals, especially in a way that was described in "Edward Gould Buffum: Six Months in the Gold Mines." --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting in the movie how they made the Clanton’s the bad guys killing James right off the back. I feel like if the movie had been made a little later you would find the cowboy vs. Indian thing going on and have the Natives be the “bad guys” of the film with them attacking many settlers heading west. The nun in one of the readings certainly seemed to be concerned about the Native’s attack. Based on the lecture, however, this belief that they would be attacked seemed rather odd as only 262 were killed in attacks. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
John Ford loved the West (see "Stagecoach," for instance) and he used its landscape to illustrate American values, such as loyalty, familial ties, determination, and hard work. In "My Darling Clementine" the land is not the enemy; we don't see natural disasters such as the prairie fire that Mary Abell's diary describes, nor the hardships forced on settlers moving into a treeless region. Neither is the land a victim; we don't see the ravages of mining or lumbering. John Ford's West is a majestic panorama, vast and unsullied. It is a backdrop to mythic themes of human passions, triumphs, griefs and victories. --- Debbi S.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-21T03:27:58Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately captured the lawlessness of the West in Tombstone. It seemed as though whoever was the strongest or quickest gun had volunteered for the position of maintaining peace and order. The rivalry between the Clantons and Earps was also evident. The Clantons had been an established, formidable family then the Earps came through town and challenged their authority. No one likes to give up their power, especially to newcomers who seem to be arrogant whipper-snappers. Another area the movie accurately portrayed was the extent of danger that went along with cattle ranching. When you travel land that you do not personally own or can defend, competition of the fittest is a reality. It wasn’t smart of the Earp’s part to leave the youngest boy in charge of so many cattle to defend at night after two men show interest in the cattle. They just set themselves up to be taken advantage of and the youngest brother paid that mistake with his life.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly showed the lack of law enforment that the West had at the time. I think it also depicted the racism against Native Americans when the drunk Indian was shooting at everything. I think it was funny to see the reactions to when peopel thought a gight would break out. They all got really quiet and backed away quickly. I bet that is a pretty accurate description of what it was like to live in a place where the law was a joke. They did a good job showing Doc Holiday's TB although I doubt his bitterness to having it had to do with him being a doctor who could not cure his own health. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I think the portrayal of Doc Holliday in the movie was fairly accurate. We talked in class about how he moved westward and gave up his practice back east. We also found out that he had Tuberculosis. In the movie he was sick, I assume he had TB. Even though Clementine may have been a fictional character, it was through her that we learned where Doc originally came from. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
Debbie M. pointed out that the movie captured the lawlessness and violence of the times, and I agree. The townsfolk of Tombstone were used to sudden gunshots, and unexpected quarrels; they were as sensitive as rabbits to signs of trouble. In the scene where Wyatt and Doc meet for the first time, everyone in the saloon was watching them closely to see if a gunfight was going to break out. When the two men quit posturing and cooled off, the customers came back to the bar and started drinking again. The movie also shows how quickly, even casually, death can happen---but by emphasizing the brothers' grief, it also says that death is terrible, a waste and a crime against nature. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Another aspect of Western life the movie got right was the polyglot nature of Tombstone's population. Dr. McClurken told us about the racial mix in the early Western towns, and in the movie we saw a French cook, Latina kitchen/hotel staff, Latin-American musicians, and Native Americans (the drunken one at the beginning, and then the workers at the Wells Fargo Corral). The movie did not show any racial tensions among these groups, however. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The movie hinted at the importance of the railroad to the west. In one of the opening scenes, the barber mentions that he got a new chair all the way from Chicago. The west did not have the factories or the means to make such equipment, so they relied on the east and therefore the railroads, to supply them with manufactured goods. Another accuracy of the film was the gambling nature of Doc Holliday. He and Wyatt Earp were both professional gamblers by the time they reached Tombstone. Also, as Debbi mentioned, the various ethnic groups of the west were shown in the film very accurately. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There wasn't a whole lot that the movie got right. Yes Wyatt Earp was a Marshall in Tombstone and Doc Holliday had TB. The film did do a good job at showing what a western town was like, there is a saloon and that is where people go to hangout and near the beginning of the film Wyatt is asked what kid of job he has and the man mentions ranching and mining which were two of the most prominent jobs out west.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I agree with Rachael. The film got some of the most basic facts right - there were four Earp brothers (even if for a very short time in the movie), Doc Holliday had tuberculosis, and there was tension between the Earp and Clanton families. I think it also portrayed the random chaos and violence that was common in towns like Tombstone. The sense of disorder is made clear in the first part of the film, especially in the scene with the drunk Native American that was causing havoc but no one wanted to deal with. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with those who said that the movie depicted some of the violence of the west, but it also showed that the people of Tombstone were really trying to establish the institutions that would make their town a "civilized" home. They were raising money for a church, they had a theater (albeit with a rather rowdy crowd), and Clementine is going to be their new schoolteacher. Those aspects of western life were realistic and make Tombstone more than just a caricature of a lawless mining town. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
A small and silly detail but the film does depict Wyatt buffaloing (sp?) one of the cowboys. As we all know this was one of Wyatt's favorite pastimes. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:29, 20 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One fact that the movie got right was the variety of jobs that the Earpe brothers held prior to coming to Tombstone. They were herding cattle at the start of the film, and later the mayor refers to Wyatt's earlier job as a lawman. Wyatt was also portrayed as quite the gambler, which was fairly accurate. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I think the movie portrayed well how the west was mainly a male dominated society. There were not many women shown in the movie because not a lot of women took the journey out west. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Funny, unlike Justine I thought there were maybe too many women in the movie. Not as main characters, but there seemed to be many in the background scenes, and even a fair number of children. Would there have been that many families in a town like Tombstone? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the main points the movie got wrong was Clementine, she was never with "Doc" Holliday and we never discussed a woman who traveled from Boston to be with him. Another point was the fact that the movie was a typical Hollywood take on the West- good guy vs. bad with both sides losing at times but the good guy always comes out on top and is always white. It seemed that the real Wyatt Earp was not a good person even though he had points in his life where he committed good deeds. Overall the movie was pretty entertaining but it was just that- entertaining not one of the movies that was more historically accurate. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Clementine Carter says she traveled from town to town looking for "Dr. John Holliday." She seems to have been completely unescorted, and unprotected. I highly doubt that she would have arrived in Tombstone quite so untouched. She stops conversation whenever she enters a room, now is it reasonable to expect that she would have made it through all those towns without being molested, or forced into prostitution, or kidnapped by some woman-hungry miner?---Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There are few details in the movie that were historically accurate. At first glance, it appears that this movie was the least accurate movie so far. Wyatt Earp did not meet Doc Holliday for the first time in Tombstone, he actually met him in Dodge City, Kansas. Also, it was Virgil who was the first one to become a U.S. Marshall in Tombstone and his brothers joined him later. The killing of James in the very beginning never happened, but is a useful reason for Wyatt becoming a Marshall. Though the portrayal of him pistol whipping a couple of men is accurate, there was no evidence that he was a quick draw gun fighter. Thus, there's no way that he would have been able to out draw Doc who was known for his quickness. Then there is Wyatt's reputation that seemed to proceed him. These types of miscues would have been used by Lake to bolster the legend behind a somewhat meaningless person. Lastly, there was no presence of the Earp's wives. <br />
<br />
P.S. The movie Tombstone is a much better watch for those that are interested in this event. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. The movie <em> Tombstone</em> is a better portray of the event. Val Kilmer made the best Doc Holiday. "Not me I'm in my prime."-Isaac Whalen<br />
P.S. From what I understand, during the shoot-out team Earp actually used shot-guns[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/earp/scenarios.html] not just empty ones.<br />
<br />
<br />
The shootout at the O.K. Corral was a huge disappointment. First of all, some of the people who were supposed to be there had already been killed, like Virgil and Billy Clanton. Along the same lines, Newman Clanton, was there which never happened. Then, as we learned in class it was not actually at the O.K. Corral, but in a vacant lot that no one knows the name of. Also, it seemed like all the people died. Doc Holliday was killed which is not true because he didn't die until a few years later of Tuberculosis. Lastly, neither of the Earp brothers that were there were injured. The only thing about this event that was somewhat promising was the fighting style. They hid behind objects instead of lining the streets in a typical Hollywood shootout. After watching the shootout I can understand why Hollywood likes to use the stand-off style because it is more exciting than hiding behind fences and cattle. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
Where were the women doing the dirty work such as cleaning and cooking? I know there were not that many women in the west but the only occupation you see them doing to sleeping around. Where were the African American cowboys? I loved how they made the Clayton brothers look all scruffy and the Earps look clean cut. I doubt any of them were all that clean and well shaven. I also do not buy the way Wyatt was all chivalrous to woman. He was gambler and a dangerous man. I cannot imagine he would be so polite. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
In the movie, one of Wyatt Earp's brothers gets killed by the father of the Clanton boys. When Wyatt Earp finds that out, he wants to seek revenge. Doc also joins up in the fight mostly to avenge Chihuahua's death. In class we talked about how the fight at O.K. Corral (really a vacant lot) was actually started due to political reasons involving John Behan, a Republican, who ran against Earp in an election. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Who knew that the shoot-out at the OK Corral (which was so helpfully labeled in the film) was partly caused by the death of a loyal Chihuahua? Both of the main female characters were completely fictional, which seems stupid when you have great historical material like Kate Elder/Fisher, Mattie Blaylock, and Josephine Marcus. Who wants a Boston schoolmarm when you can have a prostitute? Also, the reasons for the shoot-out at the end were mostly about revenge - mainly to avenge the deaths of James and Chihuahua. James Earp didn't die until the 1920s. Also, what the hell was up with that Shakespearean actor? I was so confused as to why he was around, besides giving the filmmakers a chance to show Doc as a sensitive soul (he knows lines from Hamlet!), as they did several times with both Doc and Wyatt Earp. Aw, Wyatt smells like honeysuckle! Aw, Doc knows Shakespeare! It seemed very heavy-handed and sappy. It also seemed sort of strange that the movie is called "My Darling Clementine" when Clementine is the most boring character in the film. The title suggests that Wyatt and Clementine will have some epic romance. Instead, the just awkwardly talk to each other and dance. I really think that if the movie had used non-fictional women without dog names, it would have been much more interesting. - Celia<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the people of Tombstone threw out the drunk Indian who was shooting up the place, telling him to go back to his reservation. In class, we talked about how Indians were moved off their land to reservations and alcoholism was one of the ramifications of that displacement. While only a small, almost non-existent part of the movie, I'm not sure if it was just for entertainment or if it was just a poor attempt on the filmmakers part to try and have some accuracy in the movie. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
<br />
It really bothers me that the film changed many aspects of history in order to provide the audience with noble protagonists. Wyatt Earp is not exactly the most virtuous man. He is a sporting man and befriends another violent gambler, Doc Holliday. He gambles in the film, but he is portrayed more as a letter of the law type marshal (except for the fact that he only took the job to avenge his brother’s death). I had to look online for historical inaccuracies, and found that James Earp did not die in 1882 as his tombstone shows in the film, he lives until 1926! Morgan Earp is the brother who is murdered during a game of billiards (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpJ.htm). The O.K. Corral fight actually took place on Oct. 26, 1881 (http://www.kansasheritage.org/gunfighters/okcorral.html). In the film it has to take place after 1881 since James is supposed to have been murdered in 1882. There also is no mention of Wyatt’s personal life (as it really happened). The film does not mention Mattie Blaylock or Josephine Marcus. Clementine appears to have been completely made up for dramatic purposes. Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Claibourne are also absent from the film. Doc Holliday is not killed at the O.K. Corral fight, he dies of tuberculosis. One major inaccuracy: Virgil was marshal of Tombstone, not Wyatt (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpM.htm).–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Everything about the Earps was reconstructed for dramatic purposes, and it did make good drama. Samantha mentions James not really dying in 1882---well, the movie needed an innocent, good-looking kid to bite the dust or there would have been no conflict. And you knew right away that James was a goner, from the way Ford lit his scenes. The kid might just as well have been wearing a Red Shirt! --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie completely left out any reference to the political struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Wyatt did not run for office against Behan and there was no tension shown between farmers and cattlemen. Very few Latinos were in the film and none of them had major roles. I also had a major problem with the portrayal of Native Americans in the film. The only native american who had a role was the drunk Indian who was firing wantonly around the town. He is knocked out and kicked out of town by Wyatt Earp. He disgustedly comments that no decent town would sell liquor to Indians. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed the chef with the French accent. Tombstone has high culinary standards. - Celia<br />
<br />
Others have mentioned specific inaccuracies related to the Wyatt Earp "legend." The movie credits say the screenplay is based on the Stuart Lake book Dr. McClurken mentioned, which is rife with falsehoods that attempt to mythologize Wyatt Earp. Given that, John Ford apparently felt he had free rein to reinvent the Earp myth for a modern audience. The same goes for the character of Doc Holliday, doomed, yet noble and charismatic. The logic of the movie absolutely required Holliday to die on the field of battle instead of choking to death on his own blood in a TB ward. So...the actual narrative of the movie was a tissue of lies from beginning to end---but the setting and period details were fairly accurate. You have the church being built by the law-abiding citizenry; the cattle rustling that we read about in Granville Stuart's diary; the racial mix in Tombstone; and the casual violence of the times. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
A major inaccuracy of the film was the Wyatt Earp knew Doc Holliday before he was in Tombstone. The two actually met and became friends in Dodge City. They were not enemies as the film portrays. Another falsehood was Wyatt being depicted as a moral man trying to make society safe and just. Wyatt Earp actually had a rough reputation and was not known as a law-abiding citizen. Finally, Wyatt never was the sheriff. He ran against John Beham in 1881 for the position but he lost the election, although he did win over Beham's mistress Josephine Marcus, who was never mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Old Man" Clanton was not killed by the Earps. Instead, he was killed in an ambush called the "Guadalupe Canyon Massacre" in August of 1881. He, along with a few others, was most likely murdered by Mexican Rurales. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Clanton) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Doc Holliday was trained as a dentist not a surgeon. They also made Wyatt and his brothers seem like great men who wanted to end the lawlessness of the west, which we learned in class was not true. Wyatt and Doc were also friends before Tombstone.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Like Mike, I did not like how the shootout at the OK Corral or should I say the shootout at the vacant lot was portrayed. Virgil and Billy Clanton were supposed to be there but Virgil was killed while leaving the Clanton’s house and Billy was killed riding into home. Therefore, if these people were supposed to be there, then the scene at the Clanton's home never happened. I did like how the characters hid and ran around buildings instead of just attempting to kill each other in the middle of the street but as we learned in class, thirty shots were fired in a matter of about 20 seconds and I don’t think the Earp’s hit the magic number. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie shows stereotype of the wild west. There are the good guys vs. the bad guys. Also, they show a lot of gambling and prostitution. The town looks like a very typical west town even with signs that have the wild west font...like the jail sign. It kind of reminded me of an amusement park. I did not like how a lot of this was very inaccurate according to the people and how they were actually like in real life. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The movie makes an effort to depict the racial/ethnic diversity of the West, but it definitely does not reflect the fact that white Americans were in the minority in the Southwest at the time. There probably would have been many more Spanish speakers especially, and their absence erased any racial tensions that would have also existed. Also, the movie was filmed in Monument Valley, which is substantially more interesting and dramatic geographically than the real relatively flat, scruffy Tombstone. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
The movie, clearly draws a line between good and evil. It makes the Clanton family seem as sinister as possible, and the Earp brothers appear as a wholesome family. By having the Clanton family kill James, the most innocent of the brothers at the beginning of the movie, it gives the Earp brothers justification to seek revenge. Also, Wyatt Earp and his brothers are put on a pedestal, while in real life they were horse thieves, drunkards, and spent a lot of time with women of ill repute. However, in the movie, Clementine is the only woman, that Wyatt shows any interest in and she is a very wholesome character herself. Chihuahua, the singer from the saloon, the type of woman that Earp would have gone for in real life, he dumps in a water trough. John Ford seems to have decided that Wyatt Earp needed to be the western version of a knight in shining armor, so he created a damsel in distress for him to rescue. Clearly John Ford was wanted to create an idealistic movie about the Old West, forget about the historical details. I mean, he did get a few things right, there was a town called Tombstone and the Cowboys rode horses. Michael G.<br />
<br />
Other posts have mentioned the fictional character of Clementine Carter, and Debbie M. wondered why the movie was named for her. Well, I think John Ford saw Clementine as the real future of the West, and of the U.S. as a whole. She was a proper, educated Boston lady, yet she had the grit to travel through the west ("from cow town to cow town") to find the man she loved. This proper but strong-minded lady decided to stay in Tombstone, where the air was so fresh and clean, to be its schoolmarm. Through education, Clementine will bring civilization to the West and therefore she symbolizes Manifest Destiny. In 1946, when this movie was made, Americans had just helped win World War II, and there was a newer, bigger version of Manifest Destiny that spread beyond our borders. Americans were the heroes of World War II, bringing justice to a chaotic world---which is exactly what Wyatt Earp did in this movie. When he was talking to James' grave, he said he wanted to make the West safe so that kids could grow past the age of 18 in safety. Clementine turned out to be his spiritual partner, who would teach those kids and thus ensure the safety of the next generation as well. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
John Ford was a Lieutenant Commander in the Marines during WWII and also part of the Naval Reserve (http://www.filmreference.com/Directors-Du-Fr/Ford-John.html). With his military background, it makes sense that John Ford would direct a movie with the noble official saving the day and bringing order to the chaos. Western films were growing in popularity during this time period and Ford jumped on the bandwagon making numerous westerns including Stagecoach, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (also a good movie!), and Rio Grande (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000406/bio). The concept of a legend of the West became prevalent in Hollywood. In the foreword of Stuart Lakes’s book, Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, “Lake noted that the things Wyatt Earp did made him a legend while he lived. But he added: ‘In true perspective, he is recognized as something more, as an epitomizing symbol of a powerful factor…in the history of the Western United States of America. The Old West cannot be understood unless Wyatt Earp is also understood’” (http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=105&sid=bcb02b64-57ea-490d-9a0c-88d5e423525f%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=29965192). –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
This movie is a good example of culturally altered storytelling. It is clear the John Ford the director wanted to tell a thrilling tale of the West, but since he not only knew Earp on a personal level and he grew-up in a different time the manner in which he portrayed this story changes everything. Ford tell the story of the O.K. Corral shoot-out like any normal person in the 40s would: there is clearly defined good and evil, the law is upstanding, and justice always prevails. As mentioned many times already, Doc Holiday was very uniquely portrayed-like a 1940s Hollywood bad-boy. He puts on a tough exterior, but on the inside he was a good guy and followed Wyatt's morale code. Wyatt comes across as a "perfect man", he is respectful to women, doesn't cheat, and goes to church. Therefore I would say that this movie is a great primary source to understanding the 1940-1950 definition of good. The lead women knows her place, the lead man is a perfect gentlemen, and the bad guys get their comeuppance. No one-other than the Indian-is show actually being drunk, team Earp actually takes empty shotguns to a gunfight and the character's mustaches are defiantly not big enough. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Teddy Roosevelt's comments on "Cowboy-Land" were quite interesting, and strongly reflect his ideology of masculinity. One point he makes touches on the movie. He writes that people "were not given to inquiring too curiously into a strong man's past, or to criticize him too harshly for a failure to discriminate in finer ethical questions" ("Major Problems of the American West," 203). This explains why the townspeople of Tombstone accepted Doc Holliday without much quibble. They also didn't object to Wyatt Earp's methods. Roosevelt goes on to say that if those men were "asked outright as to their stories, they would have refused to tell them, or else would have lied about them" (204). We saw that happen in the real life of Wyatt Earp, who went from being a horse thief to a "sporting man" to a lawman---and then made up flattering lies about himself when his day was over. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The women in the movie play a very small role. They are either portrayed as whores that have no sense of how to act like a lady or they are love sick for a man that wants nothing to do with them. In reality, these women were just as strong as the men they lived with. In the ''Writing Women's Lives,'' Mary A. Abell discusses having to kill rattle snakes that "produced enough venom to kill an army." The role of women in everyday life was severely down played in the movie and most of their roles were just plain left out. Believe it or not, these women actually though about everyday matters like providing her children with a safe house to live in. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie doesn't really address any of the problems that people who moved west faced. The readings talked about how the weather and drought made agriculture difficult and the only mention of any problems in the film was when Clanton mentions that the Earp's cattle looked thin.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
As other's have mentioned the movie did not really show Native Americans outside of the crazy drunk Indian in the beginning shot and the reading truly shows how difficult white civilization was on them. I think it was correct in showing that Wyatt just dragged the Indian out and made him get lost, he even degrades him to the point of kicking him in the back- it seemed that the reservations sort of gave off the same message. The government wanted to control Native Americans because they believed the Indians were uncivilized or maybe "semicivilized" (447, Congressional Report on Indian Affairs). I think it truly shows the government could careless about what happened to the Native Americans as long as they, were out of sight out of mind.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie lacked a great deal of the hardships that people living in the West faced. In the beginning of the film, Newman Clanton suggests that the Earpes' cattle are pretty thin, but the brothers just brush the issue off. In reality, when settlers were traveling across the West, many of their livestock were starving and dying on the road, as we see in Lydia Allen Rudd's diary. She also brings up the issue of diseases in the West, which are largely absent from the film. Yes, Doc Holliday has tuberculosis, but that is a disease which he contracted back in Boston, not on the way West or once he settled there. There were not a lot of concerns shown in the film about measles or other diseases, which would have most likely been a pretty big problem, as they turn up several times in the readings. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Two of the readings were diaries of women migrating and relayed some of the hardships that they faced on that move. In the diaries by Mary Abell, she tells about the hardships of starting a farm, how much work was involved and how things like prairie fires and the economy could contribute to mishaps. In Sisters Monica’s diary she talks about the constant hardships of migrating ranging from traveling all day and becoming incredibly tired to the threat of being attacked by Indians. Overall, moving west was very difficult and the people who choose to faced many hardships. The readings presented these hardships very well, which is something the movie did not do. We did not see any migration or long journeys westward, although it is hinted at the end of the movie; just the Earp’s extended stay in Tombstone. I thought some aspect of the westward migration should have been included. -afrisk<br />
<br />
A few of the readings talked about vigilante justice. I'm not sure that vigilante justice is what was going on in Tombstone in the movie. First off, you had Wyatt Earp who became the marshal of Tombstone once his brother was killed. He pretty much took care of business in the town with the help of his other brothers and people who were close to him. I think the only instance of vigilante justice was when the drunk indian was running around shooting people and a mob tried to grab him. Other than that, there were never any groups of people enforcing the laws or punishing criminals, especially in a way that was described in "Edward Gould Buffum: Six Months in the Gold Mines." --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting in the movie how they made the Clanton’s the bad guys killing James right off the back. I feel like if the movie had been made a little later you would find the cowboy vs. Indian thing going on and have the Natives be the “bad guys” of the film with them attacking many settlers heading west. The nun in one of the readings certainly seemed to be concerned about the Native’s attack. Based on the lecture, however, this belief that they would be attacked seemed rather odd as only 262 were killed in attacks. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
John Ford loved the West (see "Stagecoach," for instance) and he used its landscape to illustrate American values, such as loyalty, familial ties, determination, and hard work. In "My Darling Clementine" the land is not the enemy; we don't see natural disasters such as the prairie fire that Mary Abell's diary describes, nor the hardships forced on settlers moving into a treeless region. Neither is the land a victim; we don't see the ravages of mining or lumbering. John Ford's West is a majestic panorama, vast and unsullied. It is a backdrop to mythic themes of human passions, triumphs, griefs and victories. --- Debbi S.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-21T03:24:07Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately captured the lawlessness of the West in Tombstone. It seemed as though whoever was the strongest or quickest gun had volunteered for the position of maintaining peace and order. The rivalry between the Clantons and Earps was also evident. The Clantons had been an established, formidable family then the Earps came through town and challenged their authority. No one likes to give up their power, especially to newcomers who seem to be arrogant whipper-snappers. Another area the movie accurately portrayed was the extent of danger that went along with cattle ranching. When you travel land that you do not personally own or can defend, competition of the fittest is a reality. It wasn’t smart of the Earp’s part to leave the youngest boy in charge of so many cattle to defend at night after two men show interest in the cattle. They just set themselves up to be taken advantage of and the youngest brother paid that mistake with his life.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly showed the lack of law enforment that the West had at the time. I think it also depicted the racism against Native Americans when the drunk Indian was shooting at everything. I think it was funny to see the reactions to when peopel thought a gight would break out. They all got really quiet and backed away quickly. I bet that is a pretty accurate description of what it was like to live in a place where the law was a joke. They did a good job showing Doc Holiday's TB although I doubt his bitterness to having it had to do with him being a doctor who could not cure his own health. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I think the portrayal of Doc Holliday in the movie was fairly accurate. We talked in class about how he moved westward and gave up his practice back east. We also found out that he had Tuberculosis. In the movie he was sick, I assume he had TB. Even though Clementine may have been a fictional character, it was through her that we learned where Doc originally came from. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
Debbie M. pointed out that the movie captured the lawlessness and violence of the times, and I agree. The townsfolk of Tombstone were used to sudden gunshots, and unexpected quarrels; they were as sensitive as rabbits to signs of trouble. In the scene where Wyatt and Doc meet for the first time, everyone in the saloon was watching them closely to see if a gunfight was going to break out. When the two men quit posturing and cooled off, the customers came back to the bar and started drinking again. The movie also shows how quickly, even casually, death can happen---but by emphasizing the brothers' grief, it also says that death is terrible, a waste and a crime against nature. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Another aspect of Western life the movie got right was the polyglot nature of Tombstone's population. Dr. McClurken told us about the racial mix in the early Western towns, and in the movie we saw a French cook, Latina kitchen/hotel staff, Latin-American musicians, and Native Americans (the drunken one at the beginning, and then the workers at the Wells Fargo Corral). The movie did not show any racial tensions among these groups, however. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The movie hinted at the importance of the railroad to the west. In one of the opening scenes, the barber mentions that he got a new chair all the way from Chicago. The west did not have the factories or the means to make such equipment, so they relied on the east and therefore the railroads, to supply them with manufactured goods. Another accuracy of the film was the gambling nature of Doc Holliday. He and Wyatt Earp were both professional gamblers by the time they reached Tombstone. Also, as Debbi mentioned, the various ethnic groups of the west were shown in the film very accurately. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There wasn't a whole lot that the movie got right. Yes Wyatt Earp was a Marshall in Tombstone and Doc Holliday had TB. The film did do a good job at showing what a western town was like, there is a saloon and that is where people go to hangout and near the beginning of the film Wyatt is asked what kid of job he has and the man mentions ranching and mining which were two of the most prominent jobs out west.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I agree with Rachael. The film got some of the most basic facts right - there were four Earp brothers (even if for a very short time in the movie), Doc Holliday had tuberculosis, and there was tension between the Earp and Clanton families. I think it also portrayed the random chaos and violence that was common in towns like Tombstone. The sense of disorder is made clear in the first part of the film, especially in the scene with the drunk Native American that was causing havoc but no one wanted to deal with. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with those who said that the movie depicted some of the violence of the west, but it also showed that the people of Tombstone were really trying to establish the institutions that would make their town a "civilized" home. They were raising money for a church, they had a theater (albeit with a rather rowdy crowd), and Clementine is going to be their new schoolteacher. Those aspects of western life were realistic and make Tombstone more than just a caricature of a lawless mining town. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
A small and silly detail but the film does depict Wyatt buffaloing (sp?) one of the cowboys. As we all know this was one of Wyatt's favorite pastimes. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:29, 20 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One fact that the movie got right was the variety of jobs that the Earpe brothers held prior to coming to Tombstone. They were herding cattle at the start of the film, and later the mayor refers to Wyatt's earlier job as a lawman. Wyatt was also portrayed as quite the gambler, which was fairly accurate. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I think the movie portrayed well how the west was mainly a male dominated society. There were not many women shown in the movie because not a lot of women took the journey out west. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Funny, unlike Justine I thought there were maybe too many women in the movie. Not as main characters, but there seemed to be many in the background scenes, and even a fair number of children. Would there have been that many families in a town like Tombstone? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the main points the movie got wrong was Clementine, she was never with "Doc" Holliday and we never discussed a woman who traveled from Boston to be with him. Another point was the fact that the movie was a typical Hollywood take on the West- good guy vs. bad with both sides losing at times but the good guy always comes out on top and is always white. It seemed that the real Wyatt Earp was not a good person even though he had points in his life where he committed good deeds. Overall the movie was pretty entertaining but it was just that- entertaining not one of the movies that was more historically accurate. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Clementine Carter says she traveled from town to town looking for "Dr. John Holliday." She seems to have been completely unescorted, and unprotected. I highly doubt that she would have arrived in Tombstone quite so untouched. She stops conversation whenever she enters a room, now is it reasonable to expect that she would have made it through all those towns without being molested, or forced into prostitution, or kidnapped by some woman-hungry miner?---Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There are few details in the movie that were historically accurate. At first glance, it appears that this movie was the least accurate movie so far. Wyatt Earp did not meet Doc Holliday for the first time in Tombstone, he actually met him in Dodge City, Kansas. Also, it was Virgil who was the first one to become a U.S. Marshall in Tombstone and his brothers joined him later. The killing of James in the very beginning never happened, but is a useful reason for Wyatt becoming a Marshall. Though the portrayal of him pistol whipping a couple of men is accurate, there was no evidence that he was a quick draw gun fighter. Thus, there's no way that he would have been able to out draw Doc who was known for his quickness. Then there is Wyatt's reputation that seemed to proceed him. These types of miscues would have been used by Lake to bolster the legend behind a somewhat meaningless person. Lastly, there was no presence of the Earp's wives. <br />
<br />
P.S. The movie Tombstone is a much better watch for those that are interested in this event. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. The movie <em> Tombstone</em> is a better portray of the event. Val Kilmer made the best Doc Holiday. "Not me I'm in my prime."-Isaac Whalen<br />
P.S. From what I understand, during the shoot-out team Earp actually used shot-guns[http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/earp/scenarios.html] not just empty ones.<br />
<br />
<br />
The shootout at the O.K. Corral was a huge disappointment. First of all, some of the people who were supposed to be there had already been killed, like Virgil and Billy Clanton. Along the same lines, Newman Clanton, was there which never happened. Then, as we learned in class it was not actually at the O.K. Corral, but in a vacant lot that no one knows the name of. Also, it seemed like all the people died. Doc Holliday was killed which is not true because he didn't die until a few years later of Tuberculosis. Lastly, neither of the Earp brothers that were there were injured. The only thing about this event that was somewhat promising was the fighting style. They hid behind objects instead of lining the streets in a typical Hollywood shootout. After watching the shootout I can understand why Hollywood likes to use the stand-off style because it is more exciting than hiding behind fences and cattle. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
Where were the women doing the dirty work such as cleaning and cooking? I know there were not that many women in the west but the only occupation you see them doing to sleeping around. Where were the African American cowboys? I loved how they made the Clayton brothers look all scruffy and the Earps look clean cut. I doubt any of them were all that clean and well shaven. I also do not buy the way Wyatt was all chivalrous to woman. He was gambler and a dangerous man. I cannot imagine he would be so polite. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
In the movie, one of Wyatt Earp's brothers gets killed by the father of the Clanton boys. When Wyatt Earp finds that out, he wants to seek revenge. Doc also joins up in the fight mostly to avenge Chihuahua's death. In class we talked about how the fight at O.K. Corral (really a vacant lot) was actually started due to political reasons involving John Behan, a Republican, who ran against Earp in an election. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Who knew that the shoot-out at the OK Corral (which was so helpfully labeled in the film) was partly caused by the death of a loyal Chihuahua? Both of the main female characters were completely fictional, which seems stupid when you have great historical material like Kate Elder/Fisher, Mattie Blaylock, and Josephine Marcus. Who wants a Boston schoolmarm when you can have a prostitute? Also, the reasons for the shoot-out at the end were mostly about revenge - mainly to avenge the deaths of James and Chihuahua. James Earp didn't die until the 1920s. Also, what the hell was up with that Shakespearean actor? I was so confused as to why he was around, besides giving the filmmakers a chance to show Doc as a sensitive soul (he knows lines from Hamlet!), as they did several times with both Doc and Wyatt Earp. Aw, Wyatt smells like honeysuckle! Aw, Doc knows Shakespeare! It seemed very heavy-handed and sappy. It also seemed sort of strange that the movie is called "My Darling Clementine" when Clementine is the most boring character in the film. The title suggests that Wyatt and Clementine will be together by the end, but nope. I really think that if the movie had used non-fictional women without dog names, it would have been much more interesting. - Celia<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the people of Tombstone threw out the drunk Indian who was shooting up the place, telling him to go back to his reservation. In class, we talked about how Indians were moved off their land to reservations and alcoholism was one of the ramifications of that displacement. While only a small, almost non-existent part of the movie, I'm not sure if it was just for entertainment or if it was just a poor attempt on the filmmakers part to try and have some accuracy in the movie. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
<br />
It really bothers me that the film changed many aspects of history in order to provide the audience with noble protagonists. Wyatt Earp is not exactly the most virtuous man. He is a sporting man and befriends another violent gambler, Doc Holliday. He gambles in the film, but he is portrayed more as a letter of the law type marshal (except for the fact that he only took the job to avenge his brother’s death). I had to look online for historical inaccuracies, and found that James Earp did not die in 1882 as his tombstone shows in the film, he lives until 1926! Morgan Earp is the brother who is murdered during a game of billiards (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpJ.htm). The O.K. Corral fight actually took place on Oct. 26, 1881 (http://www.kansasheritage.org/gunfighters/okcorral.html). In the film it has to take place after 1881 since James is supposed to have been murdered in 1882. There also is no mention of Wyatt’s personal life (as it really happened). The film does not mention Mattie Blaylock or Josephine Marcus. Clementine appears to have been completely made up for dramatic purposes. Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Claibourne are also absent from the film. Doc Holliday is not killed at the O.K. Corral fight, he dies of tuberculosis. One major inaccuracy: Virgil was marshal of Tombstone, not Wyatt (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpM.htm).–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Everything about the Earps was reconstructed for dramatic purposes, and it did make good drama. Samantha mentions James not really dying in 1882---well, the movie needed an innocent, good-looking kid to bite the dust or there would have been no conflict. And you knew right away that James was a goner, from the way Ford lit his scenes. The kid might just as well have been wearing a Red Shirt! --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie completely left out any reference to the political struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Wyatt did not run for office against Behan and there was no tension shown between farmers and cattlemen. Very few Latinos were in the film and none of them had major roles. I also had a major problem with the portrayal of Native Americans in the film. The only native american who had a role was the drunk Indian who was firing wantonly around the town. He is knocked out and kicked out of town by Wyatt Earp. He disgustedly comments that no decent town would sell liquor to Indians. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Others have mentioned specific inaccuracies related to the Wyatt Earp "legend." The movie credits say the screenplay is based on the Stuart Lake book Dr. McClurken mentioned, which is rife with falsehoods that attempt to mythologize Wyatt Earp. Given that, John Ford apparently felt he had free rein to reinvent the Earp myth for a modern audience. The same goes for the character of Doc Holliday, doomed, yet noble and charismatic. The logic of the movie absolutely required Holliday to die on the field of battle instead of choking to death on his own blood in a TB ward. So...the actual narrative of the movie was a tissue of lies from beginning to end---but the setting and period details were fairly accurate. You have the church being built by the law-abiding citizenry; the cattle rustling that we read about in Granville Stuart's diary; the racial mix in Tombstone; and the casual violence of the times. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
A major inaccuracy of the film was the Wyatt Earp knew Doc Holliday before he was in Tombstone. The two actually met and became friends in Dodge City. They were not enemies as the film portrays. Another falsehood was Wyatt being depicted as a moral man trying to make society safe and just. Wyatt Earp actually had a rough reputation and was not known as a law-abiding citizen. Finally, Wyatt never was the sheriff. He ran against John Beham in 1881 for the position but he lost the election, although he did win over Beham's mistress Josephine Marcus, who was never mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Old Man" Clanton was not killed by the Earps. Instead, he was killed in an ambush called the "Guadalupe Canyon Massacre" in August of 1881. He, along with a few others, was most likely murdered by Mexican Rurales. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Clanton) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Doc Holliday was trained as a dentist not a surgeon. They also made Wyatt and his brothers seem like great men who wanted to end the lawlessness of the west, which we learned in class was not true. Wyatt and Doc were also friends before Tombstone.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Like Mike, I did not like how the shootout at the OK Corral or should I say the shootout at the vacant lot was portrayed. Virgil and Billy Clanton were supposed to be there but Virgil was killed while leaving the Clanton’s house and Billy was killed riding into home. Therefore, if these people were supposed to be there, then the scene at the Clanton's home never happened. I did like how the characters hid and ran around buildings instead of just attempting to kill each other in the middle of the street but as we learned in class, thirty shots were fired in a matter of about 20 seconds and I don’t think the Earp’s hit the magic number. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie shows stereotype of the wild west. There are the good guys vs. the bad guys. Also, they show a lot of gambling and prostitution. The town looks like a very typical west town even with signs that have the wild west font...like the jail sign. It kind of reminded me of an amusement park. I did not like how a lot of this was very inaccurate according to the people and how they were actually like in real life. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The movie makes an effort to depict the racial/ethnic diversity of the West, but it definitely does not reflect the fact that white Americans were in the minority in the Southwest at the time. There probably would have been many more Spanish speakers especially, and their absence erased any racial tensions that would have also existed. Also, the movie was filmed in Monument Valley, which is substantially more interesting and dramatic geographically than the real relatively flat, scruffy Tombstone. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
The movie, clearly draws a line between good and evil. It makes the Clanton family seem as sinister as possible, and the Earp brothers appear as a wholesome family. By having the Clanton family kill James, the most innocent of the brothers at the beginning of the movie, it gives the Earp brothers justification to seek revenge. Also, Wyatt Earp and his brothers are put on a pedestal, while in real life they were horse thieves, drunkards, and spent a lot of time with women of ill repute. However, in the movie, Clementine is the only woman, that Wyatt shows any interest in and she is a very wholesome character herself. Chihuahua, the singer from the saloon, the type of woman that Earp would have gone for in real life, he dumps in a water trough. John Ford seems to have decided that Wyatt Earp needed to be the western version of a knight in shining armor, so he created a damsel in distress for him to rescue. Clearly John Ford was wanted to create an idealistic movie about the Old West, forget about the historical details. I mean, he did get a few things right, there was a town called Tombstone and the Cowboys rode horses. Michael G.<br />
<br />
Other posts have mentioned the fictional character of Clementine Carter, and Debbie M. wondered why the movie was named for her. Well, I think John Ford saw Clementine as the real future of the West, and of the U.S. as a whole. She was a proper, educated Boston lady, yet she had the grit to travel through the west ("from cow town to cow town") to find the man she loved. This proper but strong-minded lady decided to stay in Tombstone, where the air was so fresh and clean, to be its schoolmarm. Through education, Clementine will bring civilization to the West and therefore she symbolizes Manifest Destiny. In 1946, when this movie was made, Americans had just helped win World War II, and there was a newer, bigger version of Manifest Destiny that spread beyond our borders. Americans were the heroes of World War II, bringing justice to a chaotic world---which is exactly what Wyatt Earp did in this movie. When he was talking to James' grave, he said he wanted to make the West safe so that kids could grow past the age of 18 in safety. Clementine turned out to be his spiritual partner, who would teach those kids and thus ensure the safety of the next generation as well. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
John Ford was a Lieutenant Commander in the Marines during WWII and also part of the Naval Reserve (http://www.filmreference.com/Directors-Du-Fr/Ford-John.html). With his military background, it makes sense that John Ford would direct a movie with the noble official saving the day and bringing order to the chaos. Western films were growing in popularity during this time period and Ford jumped on the bandwagon making numerous westerns including Stagecoach, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (also a good movie!), and Rio Grande (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000406/bio). The concept of a legend of the West became prevalent in Hollywood. In the foreword of Stuart Lakes’s book, Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, “Lake noted that the things Wyatt Earp did made him a legend while he lived. But he added: ‘In true perspective, he is recognized as something more, as an epitomizing symbol of a powerful factor…in the history of the Western United States of America. The Old West cannot be understood unless Wyatt Earp is also understood’” (http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=105&sid=bcb02b64-57ea-490d-9a0c-88d5e423525f%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=29965192). –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
This movie is a good example of culturally altered storytelling. It is clear the John Ford the director wanted to tell a thrilling tale of the West, but since he not only knew Earp on a personal level and he grew-up in a different time the manner in which he portrayed this story changes everything. Ford tell the story of the O.K. Corral shoot-out like any normal person in the 40s would: there is clearly defined good and evil, the law is upstanding, and justice always prevails. As mentioned many times already, Doc Holiday was very uniquely portrayed-like a 1940s Hollywood bad-boy. He puts on a tough exterior, but on the inside he was a good guy and followed Wyatt's morale code. Wyatt comes across as a "perfect man", he is respectful to women, doesn't cheat, and goes to church. Therefore I would say that this movie is a great primary source to understanding the 1940-1950 definition of good. The lead women knows her place, the lead man is a perfect gentlemen, and the bad guys get their comeuppance. No one-other than the Indian-is show actually being drunk, team Earp actually takes empty shotguns to a gunfight and the character's mustaches are defiantly not big enough. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Teddy Roosevelt's comments on "Cowboy-Land" were quite interesting, and strongly reflect his ideology of masculinity. One point he makes touches on the movie. He writes that people "were not given to inquiring too curiously into a strong man's past, or to criticize him too harshly for a failure to discriminate in finer ethical questions" ("Major Problems of the American West," 203). This explains why the townspeople of Tombstone accepted Doc Holliday without much quibble. They also didn't object to Wyatt Earp's methods. Roosevelt goes on to say that if those men were "asked outright as to their stories, they would have refused to tell them, or else would have lied about them" (204). We saw that happen in the real life of Wyatt Earp, who went from being a horse thief to a "sporting man" to a lawman---and then made up flattering lies about himself when his day was over. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The women in the movie play a very small role. They are either portrayed as whores that have no sense of how to act like a lady or they are love sick for a man that wants nothing to do with them. In reality, these women were just as strong as the men they lived with. In the ''Writing Women's Lives,'' Mary A. Abell discusses having to kill rattle snakes that "produced enough venom to kill an army." The role of women in everyday life was severely down played in the movie and most of their roles were just plain left out. Believe it or not, these women actually though about everyday matters like providing her children with a safe house to live in. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie doesn't really address any of the problems that people who moved west faced. The readings talked about how the weather and drought made agriculture difficult and the only mention of any problems in the film was when Clanton mentions that the Earp's cattle looked thin.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
As other's have mentioned the movie did not really show Native Americans outside of the crazy drunk Indian in the beginning shot and the reading truly shows how difficult white civilization was on them. I think it was correct in showing that Wyatt just dragged the Indian out and made him get lost, he even degrades him to the point of kicking him in the back- it seemed that the reservations sort of gave off the same message. The government wanted to control Native Americans because they believed the Indians were uncivilized or maybe "semicivilized" (447, Congressional Report on Indian Affairs). I think it truly shows the government could careless about what happened to the Native Americans as long as they, were out of sight out of mind.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie lacked a great deal of the hardships that people living in the West faced. In the beginning of the film, Newman Clanton suggests that the Earpes' cattle are pretty thin, but the brothers just brush the issue off. In reality, when settlers were traveling across the West, many of their livestock were starving and dying on the road, as we see in Lydia Allen Rudd's diary. She also brings up the issue of diseases in the West, which are largely absent from the film. Yes, Doc Holliday has tuberculosis, but that is a disease which he contracted back in Boston, not on the way West or once he settled there. There were not a lot of concerns shown in the film about measles or other diseases, which would have most likely been a pretty big problem, as they turn up several times in the readings. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Two of the readings were diaries of women migrating and relayed some of the hardships that they faced on that move. In the diaries by Mary Abell, she tells about the hardships of starting a farm, how much work was involved and how things like prairie fires and the economy could contribute to mishaps. In Sisters Monica’s diary she talks about the constant hardships of migrating ranging from traveling all day and becoming incredibly tired to the threat of being attacked by Indians. Overall, moving west was very difficult and the people who choose to faced many hardships. The readings presented these hardships very well, which is something the movie did not do. We did not see any migration or long journeys westward, although it is hinted at the end of the movie; just the Earp’s extended stay in Tombstone. I thought some aspect of the westward migration should have been included. -afrisk<br />
<br />
A few of the readings talked about vigilante justice. I'm not sure that vigilante justice is what was going on in Tombstone in the movie. First off, you had Wyatt Earp who became the marshal of Tombstone once his brother was killed. He pretty much took care of business in the town with the help of his other brothers and people who were close to him. I think the only instance of vigilante justice was when the drunk indian was running around shooting people and a mob tried to grab him. Other than that, there were never any groups of people enforcing the laws or punishing criminals, especially in a way that was described in "Edward Gould Buffum: Six Months in the Gold Mines." --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting in the movie how they made the Clanton’s the bad guys killing James right off the back. I feel like if the movie had been made a little later you would find the cowboy vs. Indian thing going on and have the Natives be the “bad guys” of the film with them attacking many settlers heading west. The nun in one of the readings certainly seemed to be concerned about the Native’s attack. Based on the lecture, however, this belief that they would be attacked seemed rather odd as only 262 were killed in attacks. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
John Ford loved the West (see "Stagecoach," for instance) and he used its landscape to illustrate American values, such as loyalty, familial ties, determination, and hard work. In "My Darling Clementine" the land is not the enemy; we don't see natural disasters such as the prairie fire that Mary Abell's diary describes, nor the hardships forced on settlers moving into a treeless region. Neither is the land a victim; we don't see the ravages of mining or lumbering. John Ford's West is a majestic panorama, vast and unsullied. It is a backdrop to mythic themes of human passions, triumphs, griefs and victories. --- Debbi S.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-21T03:11:52Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately captured the lawlessness of the West in Tombstone. It seemed as though whoever was the strongest or quickest gun had volunteered for the position of maintaining peace and order. The rivalry between the Clantons and Earps was also evident. The Clantons had been an established, formidable family then the Earps came through town and challenged their authority. No one likes to give up their power, especially to newcomers who seem to be arrogant whipper-snappers. Another area the movie accurately portrayed was the extent of danger that went along with cattle ranching. When you travel land that you do not personally own or can defend, competition of the fittest is a reality. It wasn’t smart of the Earp’s part to leave the youngest boy in charge of so many cattle to defend at night after two men show interest in the cattle. They just set themselves up to be taken advantage of and the youngest brother paid that mistake with his life.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly showed the lack of law enforment that the West had at the time. I think it also depicted the racism against Native Americans when the drunk Indian was shooting at everything. I think it was funny to see the reactions to when peopel thought a gight would break out. They all got really quiet and backed away quickly. I bet that is a pretty accurate description of what it was like to live in a place where the law was a joke. They did a good job showing Doc Holiday's TB although I doubt his bitterness to having it had to do with him being a doctor who could not cure his own health. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I think the portrayal of Doc Holliday in the movie was fairly accurate. We talked in class about how he moved westward and gave up his practice back east. We also found out that he had Tuberculosis. In the movie he was sick, I assume he had TB. Even though Clementine may have been a fictional character, it was through her that we learned where Doc originally came from. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
Debbie M. pointed out that the movie captured the lawlessness and violence of the times, and I agree. The townsfolk of Tombstone were used to sudden gunshots, and unexpected quarrels; they were as sensitive as rabbits to signs of trouble. In the scene where Wyatt and Doc meet for the first time, everyone in the saloon was watching them closely to see if a gunfight was going to break out. When the two men quit posturing and cooled off, the customers came back to the bar and started drinking again. The movie also shows how quickly, even casually, death can happen---but by emphasizing the brothers' grief, it also says that death is terrible, a waste and a crime against nature. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Another aspect of Western life the movie got right was the polyglot nature of Tombstone's population. Dr. McClurken told us about the racial mix in the early Western towns, and in the movie we saw a French cook, Latina kitchen/hotel staff, Latin-American musicians, and Native Americans (the drunken one at the beginning, and then the workers at the Wells Fargo Corral). The movie did not show any racial tensions among these groups, however. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The movie hinted at the importance of the railroad to the west. In one of the opening scenes, the barber mentions that he got a new chair all the way from Chicago. The west did not have the factories or the means to make such equipment, so they relied on the east and therefore the railroads, to supply them with manufactured goods. Another accuracy of the film was the gambling nature of Doc Holliday. He and Wyatt Earp were both professional gamblers by the time they reached Tombstone. Also, as Debbi mentioned, the various ethnic groups of the west were shown in the film very accurately. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There wasn't a whole lot that the movie got right. Yes Wyatt Earp was a Marshall in Tombstone and Doc Holliday had TB. The film did do a good job at showing what a western town was like, there is a saloon and that is where people go to hangout and near the beginning of the film Wyatt is asked what kid of job he has and the man mentions ranching and mining which were two of the most prominent jobs out west.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I agree with Rachael. The film got some of the most basic facts right - there were four Earp brothers (even if for a very short time in the movie), Doc Holliday had tuberculosis, and there was tension between the Earp and Clanton families. I think it also portrayed the random chaos and violence that was common in towns like Tombstone. The sense of disorder is made clear in the first part of the film, especially in the scene with the drunk Native American that was causing havoc but no one wanted to deal with. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with those who said that the movie depicted some of the violence of the west, but it also showed that the people of Tombstone were really trying to establish the institutions that would make their town a "civilized" home. They were raising money for a church, they had a theater (albeit with a rather rowdy crowd), and Clementine is going to be their new schoolteacher. Those aspects of western life were realistic and make Tombstone more than just a caricature of a lawless mining town. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
A small and silly detail but the film does depict Wyatt buffaloing (sp?) one of the cowboys. As we all know this was one of Wyatt's favorite pastimes. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 17:29, 20 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One fact that the movie got right was the variety of jobs that the Earpe brothers held prior to coming to Tombstone. They were herding cattle at the start of the film, and later the mayor refers to Wyatt's earlier job as a lawman. Wyatt was also portrayed as quite the gambler, which was fairly accurate. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I think the movie portrayed well how the west was mainly a male dominated society. There were not many women shown in the movie because not a lot of women took the journey out west. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the main points the movie got wrong was Clementine, she was never with "Doc" Holliday and we never discussed a woman who traveled from Boston to be with him. Another point was the fact that the movie was a typical Hollywood take on the West- good guy vs. bad with both sides losing at times but the good guy always comes out on top and is always white. It seemed that the real Wyatt Earp was not a good person even though he had points in his life where he committed good deeds. Overall the movie was pretty entertaining but it was just that- entertaining not one of the movies that was more historically accurate. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Clementine Carter says she traveled from town to town looking for "Dr. John Holliday." She seems to have been completely unescorted, and unprotected. I highly doubt that she would have arrived in Tombstone quite so untouched. She stops conversation whenever she enters a room, now is it reasonable to expect that she would have made it through all those towns without being molested, or forced into prostitution, or kidnapped by some woman-hungry miner?---Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There are few details in the movie that were historically accurate. At first glance, it appears that this movie was the least accurate movie so far. Wyatt Earp did not meet Doc Holliday for the first time in Tombstone, he actually met him in Dodge City, Kansas. Also, it was Virgil who was the first one to become a U.S. Marshall in Tombstone and his brothers joined him later. The killing of James in the very beginning never happened, but is a useful reason for Wyatt becoming a Marshall. Though the portrayal of him pistol whipping a couple of men is accurate, there was no evidence that he was a quick draw gun fighter. Thus, there's no way that he would have been able to out draw Doc who was known for his quickness. Then there is Wyatt's reputation that seemed to proceed him. These types of miscues would have been used by Lake to bolster the legend behind a somewhat meaningless person. Lastly, there was no presence of the Earp's wives. <br />
<br />
P.S. The movie Tombstone is a much better watch for those that are interested in this event. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. The movie <em> Tombstone</em> is a better portray of the event. Val Kilmer made the best Doc Holiday. "Not me I'm in my prime."-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
<br />
The shootout at the O.K. Corral was a huge disappointment. First of all, some of the people who were supposed to be there had already been killed, like Virgil and Billy Clanton. Along the same lines, Newman Clanton, was there which never happened. Then, as we learned in class it was not actually at the O.K. Corral, but in a vacant lot that no one knows the name of. Also, it seemed like all the people died. Doc Holliday was killed which is not true because he didn't die until a few years later of Tuberculosis. Lastly, neither of the Earp brothers that were there were injured. The only thing about this event that was somewhat promising was the fighting style. They hid behind objects instead of lining the streets in a typical Hollywood shootout. After watching the shootout I can understand why Hollywood likes to use the stand-off style because it is more exciting than hiding behind fences and cattle. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
Where were the women doing the dirty work such as cleaning and cooking? I know there were not that many women in the west but the only occupation you see them doing to sleeping around. Where were the African American cowboys? I loved how they made the Clayton brothers look all scruffy and the Earps look clean cut. I doubt any of them were all that clean and well shaven. I also do not buy the way Wyatt was all chivalrous to woman. He was gambler and a dangerous man. I cannot imagine he would be so polite. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
In the movie, one of Wyatt Earp's brothers gets killed by the father of the Clanton boys. When Wyatt Earp finds that out, he wants to seek revenge. Doc also joins up in the fight mostly to avenge Chihuahua's death. In class we talked about how the fight at O.K. Corral (really a vacant lot) was actually started due to political reasons involving John Behan, a Republican, who ran against Earp in an election. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the people of Tombstone threw out the drunk Indian who was shooting up the place, telling him to go back to his reservation. In class, we talked about how Indians were moved off their land to reservations and alcoholism was one of the ramifications of that displacement. While only a small, almost non-existent part of the movie, I'm not sure if it was just for entertainment or if it was just a poor attempt on the filmmakers part to try and have some accuracy in the movie. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
<br />
It really bothers me that the film changed many aspects of history in order to provide the audience with noble protagonists. Wyatt Earp is not exactly the most virtuous man. He is a sporting man and befriends another violent gambler, Doc Holliday. He gambles in the film, but he is portrayed more as a letter of the law type marshal (except for the fact that he only took the job to avenge his brother’s death). I had to look online for historical inaccuracies, and found that James Earp did not die in 1882 as his tombstone shows in the film, he lives until 1926! Morgan Earp is the brother who is murdered during a game of billiards (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpJ.htm). The O.K. Corral fight actually took place on Oct. 26, 1881 (http://www.kansasheritage.org/gunfighters/okcorral.html). In the film it has to take place after 1881 since James is supposed to have been murdered in 1882. There also is no mention of Wyatt’s personal life (as it really happened). The film does not mention Mattie Blaylock or Josephine Marcus. Clementine appears to have been completely made up for dramatic purposes. Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Claibourne are also absent from the film. Doc Holliday is not killed at the O.K. Corral fight, he dies of tuberculosis. One major inaccuracy: Virgil was marshal of Tombstone, not Wyatt (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpM.htm).–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Everything about the Earps was reconstructed for dramatic purposes, and it did make good drama. Samantha mentions James not really dying in 1882---well, the movie needed an innocent, good-looking kid to bite the dust or there would have been no conflict. And you knew right away that James was a goner, from the way Ford lit his scenes. The kid might just as well have been wearing a Red Shirt! --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie completely left out any reference to the political struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Wyatt did not run for office against Behan and there was no tension shown between farmers and cattlemen. Very few Latinos were in the film and none of them had major roles. I also had a major problem with the portrayal of Native Americans in the film. The only native american who had a role was the drunk Indian who was firing wantonly around the town. He is knocked out and kicked out of town by Wyatt Earp. He disgustedly comments that no decent town would sell liquor to Indians. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Others have mentioned specific inaccuracies related to the Wyatt Earp "legend." The movie credits say the screenplay is based on the Stuart Lake book Dr. McClurken mentioned, which is rife with falsehoods that attempt to mythologize Wyatt Earp. Given that, John Ford apparently felt he had free rein to reinvent the Earp myth for a modern audience. The same goes for the character of Doc Holliday, doomed, yet noble and charismatic. The logic of the movie absolutely required Holliday to die on the field of battle instead of choking to death on his own blood in a TB ward. So...the actual narrative of the movie was a tissue of lies from beginning to end---but the setting and period details were fairly accurate. You have the church being built by the law-abiding citizenry; the cattle rustling that we read about in Granville Stuart's diary; the racial mix in Tombstone; and the casual violence of the times. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
A major inaccuracy of the film was the Wyatt Earp knew Doc Holliday before he was in Tombstone. The two actually met and became friends in Dodge City. They were not enemies as the film portrays. Another falsehood was Wyatt being depicted as a moral man trying to make society safe and just. Wyatt Earp actually had a rough reputation and was not known as a law-abiding citizen. Finally, Wyatt never was the sheriff. He ran against John Beham in 1881 for the position but he lost the election, although he did win over Beham's mistress Josephine Marcus, who was never mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Old Man" Clanton was not killed by the Earps. Instead, he was killed in an ambush called the "Guadalupe Canyon Massacre" in August of 1881. He, along with a few others, was most likely murdered by Mexican Rurales. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Clanton) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Doc Holliday was trained as a dentist not a surgeon. They also made Wyatt and his brothers seem like great men who wanted to end the lawlessness of the west, which we learned in class was not true. Wyatt and Doc were also friends before Tombstone.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Like Mike, I did not like how the shootout at the OK Corral or should I say the shootout at the vacant lot was portrayed. Virgil and Billy Clanton were supposed to be there but Virgil was killed while leaving the Clanton’s house and Billy was killed riding into home. Therefore, if these people were supposed to be there, then the scene at the Clanton's home never happened. I did like how the characters hid and ran around buildings instead of just attempting to kill each other in the middle of the street but as we learned in class, thirty shots were fired in a matter of about 20 seconds and I don’t think the Earp’s hit the magic number. -afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie shows stereotype of the wild west. There are the good guys vs. the bad guys. Also, they show a lot of gambling and prostitution. The town looks like a very typical west town even with signs that have the wild west font...like the jail sign. It kind of reminded me of an amusement park. I did not like how a lot of this was very inaccurate according to the people and how they were actually like in real life. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The movie was filmed in Monument Valley, which is substantially more interesting and dramatic geographically than the real relatively flat, scruffy Tombstone. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
The movie, clearly draws a line between good and evil. It makes the Clanton family seem as sinister as possible, and the Earp brothers appear as a wholesome family. By having the Clanton family kill James, the most innocent of the brothers at the beginning of the movie, it gives the Earp brothers justification to seek revenge. Also, Wyatt Earp and his brothers are put on a pedestal, while in real life they were horse thieves, drunkards, and spent a lot of time with women of ill repute. However, in the movie, Clementine is the only woman, that Wyatt shows any interest in and she is a very wholesome character herself. Chihuahua, the singer from the saloon, the type of woman that Earp would have gone for in real life, he dumps in a water trough. John Ford seems to have decided that Wyatt Earp needed to be the western version of a knight in shining armor, so he created a damsel in distress for him to rescue. Clearly John Ford was wanted to create an idealistic movie about the Old West, forget about the historical details. I mean, he did get a few things right, there was a town called Tombstone and the Cowboys rode horses. Michael G.<br />
<br />
Other posts have mentioned the fictional character of Clementine Carter, and Debbie M. wondered why the movie was named for her. Well, I think John Ford saw Clementine as the real future of the West, and of the U.S. as a whole. She was a proper, educated Boston lady, yet she had the grit to travel through the west ("from cow town to cow town") to find the man she loved. This proper but strong-minded lady decided to stay in Tombstone, where the air was so fresh and clean, to be its schoolmarm. Through education, Clementine will bring civilization to the West and therefore she symbolizes Manifest Destiny. In 1946, when this movie was made, Americans had just helped win World War II, and there was a newer, bigger version of Manifest Destiny that spread beyond our borders. Americans were the heroes of World War II, bringing justice to a chaotic world---which is exactly what Wyatt Earp did in this movie. When he was talking to James' grave, he said he wanted to make the West safe so that kids could grow past the age of 18 in safety. Clementine turned out to be his spiritual partner, who would teach those kids and thus ensure the safety of the next generation as well. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
John Ford was a Lieutenant Commander in the Marines during WWII and also part of the Naval Reserve (http://www.filmreference.com/Directors-Du-Fr/Ford-John.html). With his military background, it makes sense that John Ford would direct a movie with the noble official saving the day and bringing order to the chaos. Western films were growing in popularity during this time period and Ford jumped on the bandwagon making numerous westerns including Stagecoach, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (also a good movie!), and Rio Grande (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000406/bio). The concept of a legend of the West became prevalent in Hollywood. In the foreword of Stuart Lakes’s book, Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal, “Lake noted that the things Wyatt Earp did made him a legend while he lived. But he added: ‘In true perspective, he is recognized as something more, as an epitomizing symbol of a powerful factor…in the history of the Western United States of America. The Old West cannot be understood unless Wyatt Earp is also understood’” (http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.umw.edu:2048/ehost/detail?vid=1&hid=105&sid=bcb02b64-57ea-490d-9a0c-88d5e423525f%40sessionmgr104&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=29965192). –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Teddy Roosevelt's comments on "Cowboy-Land" were quite interesting, and strongly reflect his ideology of masculinity. One point he makes touches on the movie. He writes that people "were not given to inquiring too curiously into a strong man's past, or to criticize him too harshly for a failure to discriminate in finer ethical questions" ("Major Problems of the American West," 203). This explains why the townspeople of Tombstone accepted Doc Holliday without much quibble. They also didn't object to Wyatt Earp's methods. Roosevelt goes on to say that if those men were "asked outright as to their stories, they would have refused to tell them, or else would have lied about them" (204). We saw that happen in the real life of Wyatt Earp, who went from being a horse thief to a "sporting man" to a lawman---and then made up flattering lies about himself when his day was over. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The women in the movie play a very small role. They are either portrayed as whores that have no sense of how to act like a lady or they are love sick for a man that wants nothing to do with them. In reality, these women were just as strong as the men they lived with. In the ''Writing Women's Lives,'' Mary A. Abell discusses having to kill rattle snakes that "produced enough venom to kill an army." The role of women in everyday life was severely down played in the movie and most of their roles were just plain left out. Believe it or not, these women actually though about everyday matters like providing her children with a safe house to live in. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie doesn't really address any of the problems that people who moved west faced. The readings talked about how the weather and drought made agriculture difficult and the only mention of any problems in the film was when Clanton mentions that the Earp's cattle looked thin.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
As other's have mentioned the movie did not really show Native Americans outside of the crazy drunk Indian in the beginning shot and the reading truly shows how difficult white civilization was on them. I think it was correct in showing that Wyatt just dragged the Indian out and made him get lost, he even degrades him to the point of kicking him in the back- it seemed that the reservations sort of gave off the same message. The government wanted to control Native Americans because they believed the Indians were uncivilized or maybe "semicivilized" (447, Congressional Report on Indian Affairs). I think it truly shows the government could careless about what happened to the Native Americans as long as they, were out of sight out of mind.-Megan W.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie lacked a great deal of the hardships that people living in the West faced. In the beginning of the film, Newman Clanton suggests that the Earpes' cattle are pretty thin, but the brothers just brush the issue off. In reality, when settlers were traveling across the West, many of their livestock were starving and dying on the road, as we see in Lydia Allen Rudd's diary. She also brings up the issue of diseases in the West, which are largely absent from the film. Yes, Doc Holliday has tuberculosis, but that is a disease which he contracted back in Boston, not on the way West or once he settled there. There were not a lot of concerns shown in the film about measles or other diseases, which would have most likely been a pretty big problem, as they turn up several times in the readings. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Two of the readings were diaries of women migrating and relayed some of the hardships that they faced on that move. In the diaries by Mary Abell, she tells about the hardships of starting a farm, how much work was involved and how things like prairie fires and the economy could contribute to mishaps. In Sisters Monica’s diary she talks about the constant hardships of migrating ranging from traveling all day and becoming incredibly tired to the threat of being attacked by Indians. Overall, moving west was very difficult and the people who choose to faced many hardships. The readings presented these hardships very well, which is something the movie did not do. We did not see any migration or long journeys westward, although it is hinted at the end of the movie; just the Earp’s extended stay in Tombstone. I thought some aspect of the westward migration should have been included. -afrisk<br />
<br />
A few of the readings talked about vigilante justice. I'm not sure that vigilante justice is what was going on in Tombstone in the movie. First off, you had Wyatt Earp who became the marshal of Tombstone once his brother was killed. He pretty much took care of business in the town with the help of his other brothers and people who were close to him. I think the only instance of vigilante justice was when the drunk indian was running around shooting people and a mob tried to grab him. Other than that, there were never any groups of people enforcing the laws or punishing criminals, especially in a way that was described in "Edward Gould Buffum: Six Months in the Gold Mines." --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
John Ford loved the West (see "Stagecoach," for instance) and he used its landscape to illustrate American values, such as loyalty, familial ties, determination, and hard work. In "My Darling Clementine" the land is not the enemy; we don't see natural disasters such as the prairie fire that Mary Abell's diary describes, nor the hardships forced on settlers moving into a treeless region. Neither is the land a victim; we don't see the ravages of mining or lumbering. John Ford's West is a majestic panorama, vast and unsullied. It is a backdrop to mythic themes of human passions, triumphs, griefs and victories. --- Debbi S.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments2010-10-07T04:35:54Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The different relationships that formed within Col. Shaw's unit were accurate. The tension between Col. Shaw and his Capt would have arose out of different views as to what was expected. Col. Shaw saw the importance of ensuring the enlisted's competence in the eventuality of battle, while the Capt. believed the men would never see battle, so was initially satisfied with their unskilled experience. Another issue that the movie got right about Col. Shaw was in the way he respected his men and endlessly worked to have their contributions to the Civil War be more than just one of menial work. These me, most being escaped slaves, desired to participate in the events which would make all blacks American citizens.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
This movie seems to get many small details correct. For instance, there is the presence of a non-commissioned office in the form of Morgan Freeman's character. Also, the 54th like other black regiments were used mostly for manual labor instead of getting their chance to fight. Then there is the appointment of Robert Gould Shaw to colonel of the regiment. He was appointed because of political reasons and who his family knew. He was not promoted because he was a great commanding officer. Moreover, Shaw seems to be somewhat incapable on the field of battle as depicted in the opening battle at Antietam. Thus, Ferris Bueller is the perfect candidate for this position. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie did a god job at portraying the tensions between the white and African-American troops and the discrimination they faced. They brought up the fact that the 54th were going to be paid less than the average soldiers and were not given proper supplies. They also showed the 54th working as labors instead of fighting and the white soldiers being racist toward the 54th soldiers.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I agree with Rachael about the tensions between the white and African-American troops, and I also think that the film did a good job showing tension between the African-American troops, as depicted in the relationship between Trip, a runaway slave, and Thomas, a free man. I thought there were several well-done moments in referencing actual events, such as the mention of "contraband". You could hear one soldier say the line about rather having hogs than black soldiers near the beginning of the film. I really enjoyed Matthew Broderick as Shaw, as well as his characterization (early on, you see him walking by some African-Americans, and he makes room for them to walk by him. Nice touch). When the movie started out with Shaw narrating, I can't lie - I almost expected him to talk about licking his palms a la Ferris Bueller. But I liked that Shaw wasn't shown as a bleeding-heart abolitionist, either. He is clearly sympathetic for his troops but he doesn't make a huge speech about how inspiring they are. I LOVED that Edward Zwick didn't find it necessary to add a ROMANCE to this movie. That was so refreshing. Shaw's dedication to his troops was touching without being sappy. Also, I just have to say this as a music major: James Horner's score is seriously awesome. One of the top ten film scores of the past 25 years. A little over-the-top at times? Yes. But if his music isn't making you cry during that last scene, you have no soul. - Celia<br />
<br />
One aspect the movie showed in the the opening scene was how much contact Col. Shaw had with his family, specifically his mother, back home through the letters he wrote. This scene definitely gives insight into what every other Union soldier was doing at that time, showing how they could have easily tell those at home how the war was going and influence their thoughts on the war. Also the first scene with Frederick Douglass (who is one SCARY looking dude!) shows him actively campaigning for the creation of an African American regiment in the Union army. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The movie got how nasty the Civil War hospitals really were. When Col Shaw was getting stitches there was a glimps of a doctor dipping his hand in a bloody bowl and moving onto the next patient. It was also pretty accurate to see doctors just cutting off the limbs of people. It was also really disturbing. I also think it was accurate when the 54th was doing manual labor and the Union soldiers were saying very racist things to the black soldiers. Also when the white soldier told Shaw to loot the town and called the black men children. This shows how some white soldiers still were extremely racist. I think the movie did a great job of showing the consequences of slavery. Silas Trip (Denzel) had the scars of a whipping on his back. It was not wonder why he wanted to escape. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the war was not yet one for abolition. The North was somewhat antislavery, but there were some obvious racist elements in parts of the Union Army. When they walk into camp for the first time they are ridiculed. Also the scene where a white regiment passes by the area in which they are doing manual labor in South Carolina shows that Union soldiers did not see African Americans as equals and did not think they should be allowed to wear the Union uniform. Even when a superior officer, Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins, commands the white soldiers to move along, they ignore him and a fight almost breaks out. They make a very racist comment about giving stripes to an African American. One powerful scene was when Colonel Shaw saw the feet of the soldiers. He knew he had to demand shoes and uniforms because the superior officers in the war department were not going to listen to soft requests. What is interesting to note is the real life Shaw was a very young colonel, so it makes sense to cast a young actor. However, I am not quite sure if Matthew Broderick is a very convincing colonel. He definitely had his strong and noble moments, but there were some points where he could have reacted with more emotion. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Samantha brings up Broderick's performance. I think Shaw's stoicism lies in the fact that, as Samantha pointed out, Shaw was a very young colonel. He had to command respect from men older than himself--not only among other officers, but among his own regiment--and to do that he had to present an authoritative front. I've seen this kind of behavior in young officers myself; they are desperate to hide the fact that they don't know what the heck they're doing. Broderick conveyed that very well. He communicated how difficult Shaw's job was, especially in the scenes where he had to discipline his boyhood friends. Shaw's development into a leader--which includes his attempts to understand his men--is one of the fascinating parts of this film.-- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie showed the problems that Black soldiers faced, especially in the realm of not being able to fight. The 54th regiment, in the movie, was seen many times doing manual labor, digging trenches, cutting down trees,etc. Colonel Shaw was always finding ways for his men to be able to fight, which was how these men thought they could prove themselves: by fighting which would bring honor to the army and their regiment. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
I thought that the movie was pretty accurate overall, but the scene that stood out to me the most was the final one with the charge on Fort Wagner. The movie shows that the 54th was the first regiment to storm the fort and that they did endure heavy casualities but pursued on. The men picked up the colors from their fallen comrades and charged on, even though they were not successful the 54th proved to be a powerful force and changed the Union Army. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
"Glory" is an outstanding movie. Its achievements in dramatic narrative, character development, and evocation of time/place far outweigh the few liberties taken with historical fact. I agree wholeheartedly with Robert Brent Toplin in "Reel History" when he said, "..."Glory's" manipulations are not employed cavalierly; ... Most of the films's distortions serve the purpose of commmunicating broader truths about the Civil War experiences of African Americans" (203). Yes, Denzel's tent was full of fictional characters, but they represented a historically accurate range of backgrounds, with all the interpersonal conflicts and cultural clashes that resulted: the free black and the former slaves, the educated man and the field hand, the young and the old, religious and non-believer. And although the real 54th was comprised mostly of free blacks, and the movie's soldiers were mostly slaves, that was representative of historical truth as well, since Dr. McClurken told us that 55% of blacks who carried arms had been slaves. -Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job of showing the evolution in attitude toward black soldiers. It's obvious in the beginning that many people are uncomfortable and unhappy with black men serving as soldiers, from Forbes saying Shaw would be crazy to take the colonel position to the military denying the men shoes and full pay. Then they are accepted as soldiers, but only in support capacities and as "monkeys" useful for looting parties. Finally, at the end the white men cheer on the 54th, showing that they'd come to respect the black men as soldiers, if maybe not as full equals. That's important because black troops, being as numerous as they were, played such a big part in shaping white northerners' perceptions of African Americans during and after the war. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The looting and burning of Darien, Georgia on June 11, 1863 did historically occur. As portrayed in the film, the colored troops under the command of James Montgomery did break ranks and freely loot. Like in the movie, Colonel Shaw did permit the 54th Massachusetts to commit this atrocity reluctantly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien,_Georgia) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got correct was referring to the runaway slaves as contraband. This was mentioned at the beginning of the film, at the party where Shaw accepts lead of the 54th. This ensured the blacks could continue to be in the Union forces instead of being sent back to the Confederacy, where they would be enslaved again. Another thing the filmmakers did a good job portraying was the racist attitudes of Union soldiers toward blacks. The South was not the only racist region of the country, and "Glory" does a nice job of conveying this. They bring forth the fear of giving arms to blacks, which many whites disapproved of at the time. The movie also depicts the 54th's willingness to fight. Since many blacks were fighting for there freedom or the freedom of their family members, they were eager to get involved in the war and battle for their rights as American citizens. Lastly, "Glory" shows African American culture accurately. When enslaved, African Americans would often sing, often about God, to bring comfort and foster a sense of community. This is shown the night before the 54th attacks Fort Wagner when the men soothe themselves by singing a religious song and praying together. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
First of all I really enjoyed this movie. It was well directed and, for the most part, well acted. I think that Glory accurately portrayed the African American experience as a Union solider. At first they were ill equipped, poor or even missing shoes, no weapons, uniforms, etc. but Colonel Shaw procured these for them. The use of the soldiers was quite accurate as well; they were used as manual labor rather than fighters. I also appreciated the portrayal of the tensions between the white officers and the African American soldiers. Morgan Freeman’s character receiving the rank he did was also accurate. I also noticed how the media (Harpers Bazaar) was used to spread the word about the 54th regiment. Just as an aside I found out that many of the extras in the movie were actually Civil War re-enactors, I gather that this was helpful to maintain an accurate account http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x1664778899/Our-Saviors-Lutheran-students-participate-in-Civil-War-re-enactment.- Caryn - Caryn<br />
<br />
As mentioned above, many northerners, including many union soldiers were initially opposed to blacks joining the military. Forbes expressed this when he was talking to Shaw about whether or not he should accept the commission. He said, "You know how popular that will be, handing out a thousand guns to coloreds". When the black soldiers march into the camp in Massachusetts, one white union soldier says the quote you mentioned in class, "I'd rather have a hog than a nigger, because at least you can eat the hog." - Michael G.<br />
<br />
This movie was leagues better than the previous war movies we have seen. (It might because of the absence of Mel Gibson)However, I think that the movie accurately depicted the trials that this regiment had to go through in order to fight for what they believed in. Which included the lack of supplies such as clothing and weapons, difference in pay, and the difference in overall treatment. The movie also showed that even though the regiment was better trained than the other regiments (which Dr. McClurken alluded to in class) they still weren't allowed to fight because of their color. Near the end before the final battle one Officer alluded to this by asking Shaw if his men were capable of leading the charge even though they hadn't slept for 2 days. There Shaw went into something that what the 54th had was more than strength, they had something to fight for. Which I think alludes to the theme of the movie. And in case anyone was wonder they did use the [http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/flags/fedflag.shtml right flag] when marching. Yes, I looked it up! - Jenn<br />
<br />
Another thing the movie seemed to get right was the uniform of the black troops in the regiment in the South under the Colonel that ordered them to pillage the town. The black soldiers were wearing red trousers which Susie King Taylor describes in her piece, “The first suits worn by the boys were red coats and pants, which they disliked very much, for, they said, "The rebels see us, miles away."” They weren’t complete red suits in the movie but they did have the pants which I feel like were alluding to these. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This movie showed how there were so many things people had to deal with throughout the Civil War which were not clear. First, it portrayed well how this was not originally a war to abolish slavery (as mentioned in class). Next, it showed well how white northerners treated African-Americans in many different ways. Some were really racist and others were not. It showed the tension between the other military leaders on how tough they should be on the African-American soldiers. It seemed like each person had a different opinion. Also, with the burning of the town in Georgia, Shaw was cornered and had to decide what to do. If he refused to order his solders to burn the town then they could go under command of the bad General (I don't know his title). But if he agreed, then they would have to burn buildings and homes of innocent people. There was no right or wrong decision, because both were bad. I think this movie was very accurate and portrayed a lot of things that other civil war movies leave out. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I think this movie did very well in telling the story of the 54th regiment. In class, we talked about how Black soldiers faced a lot of discrimination from the white Union soldiers. It was definitely clear that the white soldiers lacked respect for the Black soldiers, even though they were fighting for the same side (but that didn't necessarily mean they were fighting for the same cause). In the lecture, we were told a quote by a union soldier comparing African Americans to hogs, and in the movie, a white Union soldier used that line as the new Black enlistees entered the camp. The second occurrence of discrimination was when the newly appointed Black officer stepped in to deescalate a fight between one of his men (Denzel Washington) and a white Union soldier. The soldier made a comment about the Black officer which just showed the blatant disregard for the Black officer as a person, as well as a soldier. One thing that made me wonder was about how the white Union soldiers began cheering for the 54th regiment as they left for Ft. Wagner. It makes me wonder if at any point during the war, whtie Union soldiers got over their prejudices and began to see themselves as one with colored regiments like the 54th. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the inaccuracies of the movie was in the way no camp prostitutes were shown in the movie. During the scenes the men experienced "liberty" from their duties, they are shown playing dice, singing, dancing, etc. (all that were accurate), but they left out the attendence of prostitutes and the roles of "respectable" women throughout camp. In an interview, Freeman mentions they filmed a scene where Col. Shaw escorted a prostitute into his tent for the night. He added, the scene was discarded because Col. Shaw was not the type of man (and there's no evidence) that he would have acted in such a way.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Debbie. Maybe I was wrong, but I thought it was kind of implied when Denzel (Trip) mentioned a women making biscutts and gravy for whoever wanted it. She might have been a prostitute but none of the men are shown going because it was supposed to be some sort of offence. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
This is kind of trivial, but in the movie, Sgt. Major John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) tells Denzel Washington's character that he should really appreciate the Union and the white soldiers for fighting in the war for him (him representing black people and slaves). He knew a lot had died because before he joined the regiment, Rawlins spent time digging the dead soldiers' graves. However, this time would have been before the middle of the war and before the reason to fight in the war for many soldiers changed from trying to save the Union to fighting for emancipation. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
There is one very important scene in the movie in which one of the black soldiers, Denzel Washington's character to be exact, is whipped for what the officers consider as trying to run away from camp. It would seem that whipping a black soldier would not have been allowed during the war. I can understand why the scene is used in the movie because it is very powerful and it helps in the development of Shaw's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
When the army is marching past the plantation house. One of the kids waving is wearing a digital watch. Bottom right of screen.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Oh Isaac that was just a young child time traveling for education on the Civil War. He is wearing the digital watch because it allows him to stay in the time period, otherwise he phases back to 20XX.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:19, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the other non-accidental things I noticed was that the film's 54th Regiment was comprised of what appeared to only be escaped slaves, and common free black men. To the best of my knowledge it didn't show Frederick Douglass' sons or the other well-to-do free black family of the North. Although I do suppose Thomas was meant to symbolize them, even though we was the "worst solider" and the Douglass boys were reportedly very distinguished. Also, its was very fortunate that all of the lead actors shared the same tent. -Isaac Whalen4<br />
<br />
I am not sure about this, but during the scene when the 54th is marching past the plantations, it shows white and black children playing together. Since the black children would have most likely been slaves, would this have been allowed? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
While it was very fortunate that all the lead actors shared the same tent, it is especially egregious, because the soldiers actually stayed in a barracks in Massachusetts, according to Corporal Gooding. A character that was particularly disturbing was the Colonel of the African American unit that Shaw meets upon his arrival in South Carolina. In class we discussed how the officers of black units were held to a higher standard of character and ability. However, he displays a complete lack of character and completely disrespects his soldiers. He repeatedly refers to them as monkeys that have to be kept under control, and shoots one of them for touching a white woman. He laughs at them as they burn and pillage, as if they are little kids misbehaving. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Debbie and LeAnn about the lack of prostitutes in the camp, but I was also bothered by the lack of any female presence throughout the movie. Who was doing laundry? Who was cooking? Who was reading to the wounded and helping them write letters home? While there may have been less women involved with the black regiments, these men clearly would have had wives, some of whom would have followed them into battle. Susie King Taylor, from our reading, is an excellent example of this. I think that there could have been a whole different dimension added to the emotional impact of the film if women had been working in the camps. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Once again, we reinforce the idea that only the South ever held slaves. When Shaw meets up with that Colonel in South Carolina, the other Colonel says that he can't imagine Boston with slaves. Come on, Hollywood, how many times do we have to go over this? - Cilla<br />
<br />
Yeah, I definitely noticed the line that Cilla mentions. I thought it was just weird and out of place, especially considering that it wasn't exactly true. - Celia<br />
<br />
It did not show Frederick Douglas's sons in the movie. I think it would of added something to the movie if both of them were shown. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The scene where the 54th is marching out of Boston with extreme patriotic fanfare is not something that I think was accurately portrayed. As we discussed in class, despite there being a minority of people who were in full support of black involvement in the war as soldiers, most in the North were still prejudiced about their capabilities. That being said, there wasn't a single person in the crowd that appeared offended or even not in full support of the 54th. None of that was shown in this scene, although the later scene with the Union soldier who insults Denzel's tries to portray that sentiment. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
As for the issue of women in the camp, there was the scene around Christmastime where they showed one woman mingling with the men. Then there was a mention of someone making biscuits and gravy, however that was it. Like the others above I feel like women definitely played a larger role in the life at camp. And the digital watch? That's where it went! I spent years looking for that! Now I just have to go back and get it, sigh... ;) -Jenn<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
In the commentaries, Freeman mentions how the first battle in the movie, Antietam Creek, was known as the last battle in which the English version of "gentlemanly" fighting occurred. No longer would men on opposite sides meet in the middle of a cleared field, stand in a line, and fire upon each other until one side was left standing.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
When trying to assess the film as a primary source the first thing I always do is look at the year in which it was made and what was happening in the world. <em>Glory</em> was made in 1989, a year everyone associates with the breaking up of the Eastern Bloc and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whether it was intentional or rather a collectively sub-conscious thinking of the time <em>Glory</em> can be seen as an allegory between the beginning demise of the Soviet Union and the freedom of the slaves in the Civil War. Like the Union of the 1800s America had actively taken part in the liberation of a people under the control of an opposing power. Yet, I think that if most people make this connection they will only go so far as to say that the film is simply offering ideological support to this endeavor. To me <em>Glory</em> seems to suggest a deeper question: So we're free...now what? After the Union declares all of the slaves free, the newly freed slaves are happy to be free but also skeptical of how they will be accepted by society. Denzel Washington's character says that even if the North wins, it won't matter because the prejudices are still there, strife will continue. When we look back at what happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we can see these problems as well. Not very many people disagree with ending the U.S.S.R., but there is still conflicts about how to deal with some of these countries, i.e. Afghanistan, etc. Even in Russia there is still strife between Chechnya and Russia.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
1988 was the 125th anniversary of Gettysburg (according to IMDB there are shots of the reenactment in the opening scene of the movie), and I imagine there was quite a bit of Civil War hooplah going on surrounding that milestone. While Glory doesn't deal with Gettysburg directly, it would have benefited from any renewed interest in the battle or the Civil War in general. The filmmakers utilized that spotlight (and all of the star power in the movie) to direct attention to an aspect of the Civil War story that doesn't get talked about nearly often enough which is pretty cool. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that a lot of the tensions between Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, and Andre Braugher's characters regarding race are particularly pertinent to modern discussions from the past 20 years or so. Washington often belittles Braugher for talking or acting "white," while Braugher just considers himself educated. Of course, Morgan Freeman was being Morgan Freeman and sort of mediating things, but the conversations in the film were just like ones being had around 1990 in the media, and that are still happening now. If this movie were made in the 1950s, none of that discussion would have been included. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
Just like in the film, Susie King in her book and James Henry Gooding in his letter talked about how African American soldiers did not receive equal pay as their white soldier counterparts. Taylor mentioned that the first colored troops did not receive any pay at all until 1863 when they were allowed to receive half of the pay. The African American troops did not accept it, however, and would serve for free until they received full pay. Gooding actually wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking to receive the same amount of pay that other white soldiers were given. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the film they mentioned the fact that the African-American soldiers were going to paid less than the white soldiers. I don't know if the African-American soldiers rioted when they found out that they were going to be paid less but it was at least mentioned.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
In James Henry Gooding’s Letter to President Lincoln, he appeals to Lincoln directly. He asks two significant questions, “Are we Soldiers or are we Laborers?...We have done a Soldier’s duty, why can’t we have a Soldier’s pay?” These questions are asked almost word for word in the movie. Denzel Washington does a fantastic job as Private Trip. He is a very passionate and strong-willed soldier and stands up against discrimination by the Union soldiers. He protests the unfair pay rate. When he is being whipped he does not scream or make any noise. He finally just begins to weep, which was a very hard scene to watch. I believe the movie accurately portrays the attitudes of African American soldiers discussed in the reading. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Comparing the movie's portrayal of the attack on Ft. Wagner to the description of the battle in Gooding's letters, it seems the movie did a pretty good job of depicting what happened, even with the flag bearer getting shot down. And I had thought it might have been a bit of dramatic license when they showed Shaw being buried with his men in the mass grave, but turns out he actually was buried alongside of them. I'm not sure if the Confederates treated all high ranking Northern casualties this way, but if not that certainly shows their disdain for white men who would lead black troops. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann is right the final battle was depicted very well, except (and perhaps I am seeing this wrong) the film shows the 54th at least getting a foothold inside of the base. While they didn't get very far into the fort, they definitely did not get wiped right by the fort walls. When Shaw fell and the army continued, they started to make some real progress and in the drama of the moment I forgot that they were going to be unsuccessful...damn history refuting Hollywood *sigh*--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:17, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Rachael mentioned the pay issue. In Susie King Taylor's journal of life in camp she says that the white officers supported the soldiers' protest against unequal pay (Section III). She says Cpt. Heasley told his company, "Boys, stand up for your full pay! I am with you and so are all the officers." I don't know if that means that he and the officers, like Shaw in the movie, volunteered to go without pay themselves, but it does back up the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Gooding's account of the expedition to Darien confirms that the town was looted and burned. He does not mention any acts of violence against the town's women, nor whether Col. Montgomery (or any other officer) shot one of his own soldiers for laying hands on a white woman. However, Dr. McClurken told us that Shaw later expressed great concerns about how that incident was handled.--Deborah <br />
<br />
In the reading by Gooding he mentions that African Americans, no matter if they are former slaves, intellectuals, or free men, should all band together to fight for freedom of their race. This is seen in the portrayal of the 54th, as Thomas, Morgan Freeman's character, and Denzel Washington's character, who all come from different backgrounds all join the regiment and fight alongside each other.--Anna Holman <br />
<br />
I completely agree with Deborah's point regarding the pay of the colored regiments and how it was also portrayed in the movie, it appears completely accurate, but I do wonder if it had something to do with white officers who were asked to command the colored troops? Did men who were just assigned command over the troops give up their pay as well? Also, through the reading African Americans appeared to truly respect the Union soldiers, as was seen in the movie when the regiments marched through parts of the South. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
Something that I saw in the readings that was not in the film was the aspect of retaliation of the former slaves against their masters. There was one account in the reading that described the capture of a Confederate soldier, who was whipped first by a Union officer, then by women whom he had owned as slaves. This did not seem to be an issue in the film, as none of the men who had been slaves ever encountered white men whom they knew from their time in bondage. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I think the readings, especially Gooding's account, were reflected well in the movie. A difference between the movie and the readings was that Gooding talked about how the training camp had wooden barracks for them to live in, while in the movie they lived in tents. Also, Gooding talks about how there were some Black men in the North from Massachusetts who did not register to serve in the 54th; he was always calling to them to join the cause and said some men just sat around not wanting to join and fight. The movie definitely did not depict the draft this way. It made it seem as though every free Black in the North wanted to join up in the 54th and serve. One thing that was depicted accurately was when Gooding talked about how Col. Shaw was buried. He was very upset because Shaw was not given a proper funeral, especially since he was a Colonel. Gooding claimed he had just been thrown in the ditch with the others bodies and that the Confederate soldiers could have at least honored him with a proper burial just as Col. Shaw had done for one of their officers. The movie pretty much ends with Col. Shaw's body being rolled into a grave along with his men, which was definitely one of the more intense scenes especially as a way to end the movie. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
When Robert Shaw is writing out his letters to his mother, are those actual letters he wrote or is that just wonderful hollywood soliloquy?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 16:51, 5 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Is it documented anywhere that Saw had symptoms of PTSD? (On a side-note is believed Broderick is related to Shaw [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/trivia?tr0693852], but thats form IMDB so I don't know how reliable it is.) - Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
IMDB is edited by the site users so I don't know how accurate that is, Isaac. However, if it is true, it is quite interesting. Also, I didn't know where to put this but what was with those American flags with the stars in the shape of a star during the parade of the 54th? -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I was wondering the same thing about the flags during the parade, I found that they used the right flag while marching into the battle. However I couldn't find any evidence of the star shaped flags. I know there were a lot of different flags during that time, but knowing where they came from would be nice. (If they existed at all) -Jenn</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments2010-10-07T04:35:15Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The different relationships that formed within Col. Shaw's unit were accurate. The tension between Col. Shaw and his Capt would have arose out of different views as to what was expected. Col. Shaw saw the importance of ensuring the enlisted's competence in the eventuality of battle, while the Capt. believed the men would never see battle, so was initially satisfied with their unskilled experience. Another issue that the movie got right about Col. Shaw was in the way he respected his men and endlessly worked to have their contributions to the Civil War be more than just one of menial work. These me, most being escaped slaves, desired to participate in the events which would make all blacks American citizens.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
This movie seems to get many small details correct. For instance, there is the presence of a non-commissioned office in the form of Morgan Freeman's character. Also, the 54th like other black regiments were used mostly for manual labor instead of getting their chance to fight. Then there is the appointment of Robert Gould Shaw to colonel of the regiment. He was appointed because of political reasons and who his family knew. He was not promoted because he was a great commanding officer. Moreover, Shaw seems to be somewhat incapable on the field of battle as depicted in the opening battle at Antietam. Thus, Ferris Bueller is the perfect candidate for this position. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie did a god job at portraying the tensions between the white and African-American troops and the discrimination they faced. They brought up the fact that the 54th were going to be paid less than the average soldiers and were not given proper supplies. They also showed the 54th working as labors instead of fighting and the white soldiers being racist toward the 54th soldiers.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I agree with Rachael about the tensions between the white and African-American troops, and I also think that the film did a good job showing tension between the African-American troops, as depicted in the relationship between Trip, a runaway slave, and Thomas, a free man. I thought there were several well-done moments in referencing actual events, such as the mention of "contraband". You could hear one soldier say the line about rather having hogs than black soldiers near the beginning of the film. I really enjoyed Matthew Broderick as Shaw, as well as his characterization (early on, you see him walking by some African-Americans, and he makes room for them to walk by him. Nice touch). When the movie started out with Shaw narrating, I can't lie - I almost expected him to talk about licking his palms a la Ferris Bueller. But I liked that Shaw wasn't shown as a bleeding-heart abolitionist, either. He is clearly sympathetic for his troops but he doesn't make a huge speech about how inspiring they are. I LOVED that Edward Zwick didn't find it necessary to add a ROMANCE to this movie. That was so refreshing. Shaw's dedication to his troops was touching without being sappy. Also, I just have to say this as a music major: James Horner's score is seriously awesome. One of the top ten film scores of the past 25 years. A little over-the-top at times? Yes. But if his music isn't making you cry during that last scene, you have no soul. - Celia<br />
<br />
One aspect the movie showed in the the opening scene was how much contact Col. Shaw had with his family, specifically his mother, back home through the letters he wrote. This scene definitely gives insight into what every other Union soldier was doing at that time, showing how they could have easily tell those at home how the war was going and influence their thoughts on the war. Also the first scene with Frederick Douglass (who is one SCARY looking dude!) shows him actively campaigning for the creation of an African American regiment in the Union army. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The movie got how nasty the Civil War hospitals really were. When Col Shaw was getting stitches there was a glimps of a doctor dipping his hand in a bloody bowl and moving onto the next patient. It was also pretty accurate to see doctors just cutting off the limbs of people. It was also really disturbing. I also think it was accurate when the 54th was doing manual labor and the Union soldiers were saying very racist things to the black soldiers. Also when the white soldier told Shaw to loot the town and called the black men children. This shows how some white soldiers still were extremely racist. I think the movie did a great job of showing the consequences of slavery. Silas Trip (Denzel) had the scars of a whipping on his back. It was not wonder why he wanted to escape. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the war was not yet one for abolition. The North was somewhat antislavery, but there were some obvious racist elements in parts of the Union Army. When they walk into camp for the first time they are ridiculed. Also the scene where a white regiment passes by the area in which they are doing manual labor in South Carolina shows that Union soldiers did not see African Americans as equals and did not think they should be allowed to wear the Union uniform. Even when a superior officer, Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins, commands the white soldiers to move along, they ignore him and a fight almost breaks out. They make a very racist comment about giving stripes to an African American. One powerful scene was when Colonel Shaw saw the feet of the soldiers. He knew he had to demand shoes and uniforms because the superior officers in the war department were not going to listen to soft requests. What is interesting to note is the real life Shaw was a very young colonel, so it makes sense to cast a young actor. However, I am not quite sure if Matthew Broderick is a very convincing colonel. He definitely had his strong and noble moments, but there were some points where he could have reacted with more emotion. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Samantha brings up Broderick's performance. I think Shaw's stoicism lies in the fact that, as Samantha pointed out, Shaw was a very young colonel. He had to command respect from men older than himself--not only among other officers, but among his own regiment--and to do that he had to present an authoritative front. I've seen this kind of behavior in young officers myself; they are desperate to hide the fact that they don't know what the heck they're doing. Broderick conveyed that very well. He communicated how difficult Shaw's job was, especially in the scenes where he had to discipline his boyhood friends. Shaw's development into a leader--which includes his attempts to understand his men--is one of the fascinating parts of this film.-- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie showed the problems that Black soldiers faced, especially in the realm of not being able to fight. The 54th regiment, in the movie, was seen many times doing manual labor, digging trenches, cutting down trees,etc. Colonel Shaw was always finding ways for his men to be able to fight, which was how these men thought they could prove themselves: by fighting which would bring honor to the army and their regiment. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
I thought that the movie was pretty accurate overall, but the scene that stood out to me the most was the final one with the charge on Fort Wagner. The movie shows that the 54th was the first regiment to storm the fort and that they did endure heavy casualities but pursued on. The men picked up the colors from their fallen comrades and charged on, even though they were not successful the 54th proved to be a powerful force and changed the Union Army. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
"Glory" is an outstanding movie. Its achievements in dramatic narrative, character development, and evocation of time/place far outweigh the few liberties taken with historical fact. I agree wholeheartedly with Robert Brent Toplin in "Reel History" when he said, "..."Glory's" manipulations are not employed cavalierly; ... Most of the films's distortions serve the purpose of commmunicating broader truths about the Civil War experiences of African Americans" (203). Yes, Denzel's tent was full of fictional characters, but they represented a historically accurate range of backgrounds, with all the interpersonal conflicts and cultural clashes that resulted: the free black and the former slaves, the educated man and the field hand, the young and the old, religious and non-believer. And although the real 54th was comprised mostly of free blacks, and the movie's soldiers were mostly slaves, that was representative of historical truth as well, since Dr. McClurken told us that 55% of blacks who carried arms had been slaves. -Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job of showing the evolution in attitude toward black soldiers. It's obvious in the beginning that many people are uncomfortable and unhappy with black men serving as soldiers, from Forbes saying Shaw would be crazy to take the colonel position to the military denying the men shoes and full pay. Then they are accepted as soldiers, but only in support capacities and as "monkeys" useful for looting parties. Finally, at the end the white men cheer on the 54th, showing that they'd come to respect the black men as soldiers, if maybe not as full equals. That's important because black troops, being as numerous as they were, played such a big part in shaping white northerners' perceptions of African Americans during and after the war. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The looting and burning of Darien, Georgia on June 11, 1863 did historically occur. As portrayed in the film, the colored troops under the command of James Montgomery did break ranks and freely loot. Like in the movie, Colonel Shaw did permit the 54th Massachusetts to commit this atrocity reluctantly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien,_Georgia) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got correct was referring to the runaway slaves as contraband. This was mentioned at the beginning of the film, at the party where Shaw accepts lead of the 54th. This ensured the blacks could continue to be in the Union forces instead of being sent back to the Confederacy, where they would be enslaved again. Another thing the filmmakers did a good job portraying was the racist attitudes of Union soldiers toward blacks. The South was not the only racist region of the country, and "Glory" does a nice job of conveying this. They bring forth the fear of giving arms to blacks, which many whites disapproved of at the time. The movie also depicts the 54th's willingness to fight. Since many blacks were fighting for there freedom or the freedom of their family members, they were eager to get involved in the war and battle for their rights as American citizens. Lastly, "Glory" shows African American culture accurately. When enslaved, African Americans would often sing, often about God, to bring comfort and foster a sense of community. This is shown the night before the 54th attacks Fort Wagner when the men soothe themselves by singing a religious song and praying together. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
First of all I really enjoyed this movie. It was well directed and, for the most part, well acted. I think that Glory accurately portrayed the African American experience as a Union solider. At first they were ill equipped, poor or even missing shoes, no weapons, uniforms, etc. but Colonel Shaw procured these for them. The use of the soldiers was quite accurate as well; they were used as manual labor rather than fighters. I also appreciated the portrayal of the tensions between the white officers and the African American soldiers. Morgan Freeman’s character receiving the rank he did was also accurate. I also noticed how the media (Harpers Bazaar) was used to spread the word about the 54th regiment. Just as an aside I found out that many of the extras in the movie were actually Civil War re-enactors, I gather that this was helpful to maintain an accurate account http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x1664778899/Our-Saviors-Lutheran-students-participate-in-Civil-War-re-enactment.- Caryn - Caryn<br />
<br />
As mentioned above, many northerners, including many union soldiers were initially opposed to blacks joining the military. Forbes expressed this when he was talking to Shaw about whether or not he should accept the commission. He said, "You know how popular that will be, handing out a thousand guns to coloreds". When the black soldiers march into the camp in Massachusetts, one white union soldier says the quote you mentioned in class, "I'd rather have a hog than a nigger, because at least you can eat the hog." - Michael G.<br />
<br />
This movie was leagues better than the previous war movies we have seen. (It might because of the absence of Mel Gibson)However, I think that the movie accurately depicted the trials that this regiment had to go through in order to fight for what they believed in. Which included the lack of supplies such as clothing and weapons, difference in pay, and the difference in overall treatment. The movie also showed that even though the regiment was better trained than the other regiments (which Dr. McClurken alluded to in class) they still weren't allowed to fight because of their color. Near the end before the final battle one Officer alluded to this by asking Shaw if his men were capable of leading the charge even though they hadn't slept for 2 days. There Shaw went into something that what the 54th had was more than strength, they had something to fight for. Which I think alludes to the theme of the movie. And in case anyone was wonder they did use the [http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/flags/fedflag.shtml right flag] when marching. Yes, I looked it up! - Jenn<br />
<br />
Another thing the movie seemed to get right was the uniform of the black troops in the regiment in the South under the Colonel that ordered them to pillage the town. The black soldiers were wearing red trousers which Susie King Taylor describes in her piece, “The first suits worn by the boys were red coats and pants, which they disliked very much, for, they said, "The rebels see us, miles away."” They weren’t complete red suits in the movie but they did have the pants which I feel like were alluding to these. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This movie showed how there were so many things people had to deal with throughout the Civil War which were not clear. First, it portrayed well how this was not originally a war to abolish slavery (as mentioned in class). Next, it showed well how white northerners treated African-Americans in many different ways. Some were really racist and others were not. It showed the tension between the other military leaders on how tough they should be on the African-American soldiers. It seemed like each person had a different opinion. Also, with the burning of the town in Georgia, Shaw was cornered and had to decide what to do. If he refused to order his solders to burn the town then they could go under command of the bad General (I don't know his title). But if he agreed, then they would have to burn buildings and homes of innocent people. There was no right or wrong decision, because both were bad. I think this movie was very accurate and portrayed a lot of things that other civil war movies leave out. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I think this movie did very well in telling the story of the 54th regiment. In class, we talked about how Black soldiers faced a lot of discrimination from the white Union soldiers. It was definitely clear that the white soldiers lacked respect for the Black soldiers, even though they were fighting for the same side (but that didn't necessarily mean they were fighting for the same cause). In the lecture, we were told a quote by a union soldier comparing African Americans to hogs, and in the movie, a white Union soldier used that line as the new Black enlistees entered the camp. The second occurrence of discrimination was when the newly appointed Black officer stepped in to deescalate a fight between one of his men (Denzel Washington) and a white Union soldier. The soldier made a comment about the Black officer which just showed the blatant disregard for the Black officer as a person, as well as a soldier. One thing that made me wonder was about how the white Union soldiers began cheering for the 54th regiment as they left for Ft. Wagner. It makes me wonder if at any point during the war, whtie Union soldiers got over their prejudices and began to see themselves as one with colored regiments like the 54th. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the inaccuracies of the movie was in the way no camp prostitutes were shown in the movie. During the scenes the men experienced "liberty" from their duties, they are shown playing dice, singing, dancing, etc. (all that were accurate), but they left out the attendence of prostitutes and the roles of "respectable" women throughout camp. In an interview, Freeman mentions they filmed a scene where Col. Shaw escorted a prostitute into his tent for the night. He added, the scene was discarded because Col. Shaw was not the type of man (and there's no evidence) that he would have acted in such a way.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Debbie. Maybe I was wrong, but I thought it was kind of implied when Denzel (Trip) mentioned a women making biscutts and gravy for whoever wanted it. She might have been a prostitute but none of the men are shown going because it was supposed to be some sort of offence. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
This is kind of trivial, but in the movie, Sgt. Major John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) tells Denzel Washington's character that he should really appreciate the Union and the white soldiers for fighting in the war for him (him representing black people and slaves). He knew a lot had died because before he joined the regiment, Rawlins spent time digging the dead soldiers' graves. However, this time would have been before the middle of the war and before the reason to fight in the war for many soldiers changed from trying to save the Union to fighting for emancipation. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
There is one very important scene in the movie in which one of the black soldiers, Denzel Washington's character to be exact, is whipped for what the officers consider as trying to run away from camp. It would seem that whipping a black soldier would not have been allowed during the war. I can understand why the scene is used in the movie because it is very powerful and it helps in the development of Shaw's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
When the army is marching past the plantation house. One of the kids waving is wearing a digital watch. Bottom right of screen.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Oh Isaac that was just a young child time traveling for education on the Civil War. He is wearing the digital watch because it allows him to stay in the time period, otherwise he phases back to 20XX.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:19, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the other non-accidental things I noticed was that the film's 54th Regiment was comprised of what appeared to only be escaped slaves, and common free black men. To the best of my knowledge it didn't show Frederick Douglass' sons or the other well-to-do free black family of the North. Although I do suppose Thomas was meant to symbolize them, even though we was the "worst solider" and the Douglass boys were reportedly very distinguished. Also, its was very fortunate that all of the lead actors shared the same tent. -Isaac Whalen4<br />
<br />
I am not sure about this, but during the scene when the 54th is marching past the plantations, it shows white and black children playing together. Since the black children would have most likely been slaves, would this have been allowed? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
While it was very fortunate that all the lead actors shared the same tent, it is especially egregious, because the soldiers actually stayed in a barracks in Massachusetts, according to Corporal Gooding. A character that was particularly disturbing was the Colonel of the African American unit that Shaw meets upon his arrival in South Carolina. In class we discussed how the officers of black units were held to a higher standard of character and ability. However, he displays a complete lack of character and completely disrespects his soldiers. He repeatedly refers to them as monkeys that have to be kept under control, and shoots one of them for touching a white woman. He laughs at them as they burn and pillage, as if they are little kids misbehaving. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Debbie and LeAnn about the lack of prostitutes in the camp, but I was also bothered by the lack of any female presence throughout the movie. Who was doing laundry? Who was cooking? Who was reading to the wounded and helping them write letters home? While there may have been less women involved with the black regiments, these men clearly would have had wives, some of whom would have followed them into battle. Susie King Taylor, from our reading, is an excellent example of this. I think that there could have been a whole different dimension added to the emotional impact of the film if women had been working in the camps. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Once again, we reinforce the idea that only the South ever held slaves. When Shaw meets up with that Colonel in South Carolina, the other Colonel says that he can't imagine Boston with slaves. Come on, Hollywood, how many times do we have to go over this? - Cilla<br />
<br />
Yeah, I definitely noticed the line that Cilla mentions. I thought it was just weird and out of place, especially considering that it wasn't exactly true. - Celia<br />
It did not show Frederick Douglas's sons in the movie. I think it would of added something to the movie if both of them were shown. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The scene where the 54th is marching out of Boston with extreme patriotic fanfare is not something that I think was accurately portrayed. As we discussed in class, despite there being a minority of people who were in full support of black involvement in the war as soldiers, most in the North were still prejudiced about their capabilities. That being said, there wasn't a single person in the crowd that appeared offended or even not in full support of the 54th. None of that was shown in this scene, although the later scene with the Union soldier who insults Denzel's tries to portray that sentiment. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
As for the issue of women in the camp, there was the scene around Christmastime where they showed one woman mingling with the men. Then there was a mention of someone making biscuits and gravy, however that was it. Like the others above I feel like women definitely played a larger role in the life at camp. And the digital watch? That's where it went! I spent years looking for that! Now I just have to go back and get it, sigh... ;) -Jenn<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
In the commentaries, Freeman mentions how the first battle in the movie, Antietam Creek, was known as the last battle in which the English version of "gentlemanly" fighting occurred. No longer would men on opposite sides meet in the middle of a cleared field, stand in a line, and fire upon each other until one side was left standing.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
When trying to assess the film as a primary source the first thing I always do is look at the year in which it was made and what was happening in the world. <em>Glory</em> was made in 1989, a year everyone associates with the breaking up of the Eastern Bloc and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whether it was intentional or rather a collectively sub-conscious thinking of the time <em>Glory</em> can be seen as an allegory between the beginning demise of the Soviet Union and the freedom of the slaves in the Civil War. Like the Union of the 1800s America had actively taken part in the liberation of a people under the control of an opposing power. Yet, I think that if most people make this connection they will only go so far as to say that the film is simply offering ideological support to this endeavor. To me <em>Glory</em> seems to suggest a deeper question: So we're free...now what? After the Union declares all of the slaves free, the newly freed slaves are happy to be free but also skeptical of how they will be accepted by society. Denzel Washington's character says that even if the North wins, it won't matter because the prejudices are still there, strife will continue. When we look back at what happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we can see these problems as well. Not very many people disagree with ending the U.S.S.R., but there is still conflicts about how to deal with some of these countries, i.e. Afghanistan, etc. Even in Russia there is still strife between Chechnya and Russia.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
1988 was the 125th anniversary of Gettysburg (according to IMDB there are shots of the reenactment in the opening scene of the movie), and I imagine there was quite a bit of Civil War hooplah going on surrounding that milestone. While Glory doesn't deal with Gettysburg directly, it would have benefited from any renewed interest in the battle or the Civil War in general. The filmmakers utilized that spotlight (and all of the star power in the movie) to direct attention to an aspect of the Civil War story that doesn't get talked about nearly often enough which is pretty cool. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that a lot of the tensions between Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, and Andre Braugher's characters regarding race are particularly pertinent to modern discussions from the past 20 years or so. Washington often belittles Braugher for talking or acting "white," while Braugher just considers himself educated. Of course, Morgan Freeman was being Morgan Freeman and sort of mediating things, but the conversations in the film were just like ones being had around 1990 in the media, and that are still happening now. If this movie were made in the 1950s, none of that discussion would have been included. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
Just like in the film, Susie King in her book and James Henry Gooding in his letter talked about how African American soldiers did not receive equal pay as their white soldier counterparts. Taylor mentioned that the first colored troops did not receive any pay at all until 1863 when they were allowed to receive half of the pay. The African American troops did not accept it, however, and would serve for free until they received full pay. Gooding actually wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking to receive the same amount of pay that other white soldiers were given. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the film they mentioned the fact that the African-American soldiers were going to paid less than the white soldiers. I don't know if the African-American soldiers rioted when they found out that they were going to be paid less but it was at least mentioned.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
In James Henry Gooding’s Letter to President Lincoln, he appeals to Lincoln directly. He asks two significant questions, “Are we Soldiers or are we Laborers?...We have done a Soldier’s duty, why can’t we have a Soldier’s pay?” These questions are asked almost word for word in the movie. Denzel Washington does a fantastic job as Private Trip. He is a very passionate and strong-willed soldier and stands up against discrimination by the Union soldiers. He protests the unfair pay rate. When he is being whipped he does not scream or make any noise. He finally just begins to weep, which was a very hard scene to watch. I believe the movie accurately portrays the attitudes of African American soldiers discussed in the reading. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Comparing the movie's portrayal of the attack on Ft. Wagner to the description of the battle in Gooding's letters, it seems the movie did a pretty good job of depicting what happened, even with the flag bearer getting shot down. And I had thought it might have been a bit of dramatic license when they showed Shaw being buried with his men in the mass grave, but turns out he actually was buried alongside of them. I'm not sure if the Confederates treated all high ranking Northern casualties this way, but if not that certainly shows their disdain for white men who would lead black troops. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann is right the final battle was depicted very well, except (and perhaps I am seeing this wrong) the film shows the 54th at least getting a foothold inside of the base. While they didn't get very far into the fort, they definitely did not get wiped right by the fort walls. When Shaw fell and the army continued, they started to make some real progress and in the drama of the moment I forgot that they were going to be unsuccessful...damn history refuting Hollywood *sigh*--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:17, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Rachael mentioned the pay issue. In Susie King Taylor's journal of life in camp she says that the white officers supported the soldiers' protest against unequal pay (Section III). She says Cpt. Heasley told his company, "Boys, stand up for your full pay! I am with you and so are all the officers." I don't know if that means that he and the officers, like Shaw in the movie, volunteered to go without pay themselves, but it does back up the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Gooding's account of the expedition to Darien confirms that the town was looted and burned. He does not mention any acts of violence against the town's women, nor whether Col. Montgomery (or any other officer) shot one of his own soldiers for laying hands on a white woman. However, Dr. McClurken told us that Shaw later expressed great concerns about how that incident was handled.--Deborah <br />
<br />
In the reading by Gooding he mentions that African Americans, no matter if they are former slaves, intellectuals, or free men, should all band together to fight for freedom of their race. This is seen in the portrayal of the 54th, as Thomas, Morgan Freeman's character, and Denzel Washington's character, who all come from different backgrounds all join the regiment and fight alongside each other.--Anna Holman <br />
<br />
I completely agree with Deborah's point regarding the pay of the colored regiments and how it was also portrayed in the movie, it appears completely accurate, but I do wonder if it had something to do with white officers who were asked to command the colored troops? Did men who were just assigned command over the troops give up their pay as well? Also, through the reading African Americans appeared to truly respect the Union soldiers, as was seen in the movie when the regiments marched through parts of the South. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
Something that I saw in the readings that was not in the film was the aspect of retaliation of the former slaves against their masters. There was one account in the reading that described the capture of a Confederate soldier, who was whipped first by a Union officer, then by women whom he had owned as slaves. This did not seem to be an issue in the film, as none of the men who had been slaves ever encountered white men whom they knew from their time in bondage. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I think the readings, especially Gooding's account, were reflected well in the movie. A difference between the movie and the readings was that Gooding talked about how the training camp had wooden barracks for them to live in, while in the movie they lived in tents. Also, Gooding talks about how there were some Black men in the North from Massachusetts who did not register to serve in the 54th; he was always calling to them to join the cause and said some men just sat around not wanting to join and fight. The movie definitely did not depict the draft this way. It made it seem as though every free Black in the North wanted to join up in the 54th and serve. One thing that was depicted accurately was when Gooding talked about how Col. Shaw was buried. He was very upset because Shaw was not given a proper funeral, especially since he was a Colonel. Gooding claimed he had just been thrown in the ditch with the others bodies and that the Confederate soldiers could have at least honored him with a proper burial just as Col. Shaw had done for one of their officers. The movie pretty much ends with Col. Shaw's body being rolled into a grave along with his men, which was definitely one of the more intense scenes especially as a way to end the movie. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
When Robert Shaw is writing out his letters to his mother, are those actual letters he wrote or is that just wonderful hollywood soliloquy?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 16:51, 5 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Is it documented anywhere that Saw had symptoms of PTSD? (On a side-note is believed Broderick is related to Shaw [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/trivia?tr0693852], but thats form IMDB so I don't know how reliable it is.) - Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
IMDB is edited by the site users so I don't know how accurate that is, Isaac. However, if it is true, it is quite interesting. Also, I didn't know where to put this but what was with those American flags with the stars in the shape of a star during the parade of the 54th? -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I was wondering the same thing about the flags during the parade, I found that they used the right flag while marching into the battle. However I couldn't find any evidence of the star shaped flags. I know there were a lot of different flags during that time, but knowing where they came from would be nice. (If they existed at all) -Jenn</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments2010-10-07T04:30:04Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The different relationships that formed within Col. Shaw's unit were accurate. The tension between Col. Shaw and his Capt would have arose out of different views as to what was expected. Col. Shaw saw the importance of ensuring the enlisted's competence in the eventuality of battle, while the Capt. believed the men would never see battle, so was initially satisfied with their unskilled experience. Another issue that the movie got right about Col. Shaw was in the way he respected his men and endlessly worked to have their contributions to the Civil War be more than just one of menial work. These me, most being escaped slaves, desired to participate in the events which would make all blacks American citizens.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
This movie seems to get many small details correct. For instance, there is the presence of a non-commissioned office in the form of Morgan Freeman's character. Also, the 54th like other black regiments were used mostly for manual labor instead of getting their chance to fight. Then there is the appointment of Robert Gould Shaw to colonel of the regiment. He was appointed because of political reasons and who his family knew. He was not promoted because he was a great commanding officer. Moreover, Shaw seems to be somewhat incapable on the field of battle as depicted in the opening battle at Antietam. Thus, Ferris Bueller is the perfect candidate for this position. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie did a god job at portraying the tensions between the white and African-American troops and the discrimination they faced. They brought up the fact that the 54th were going to be paid less than the average soldiers and were not given proper supplies. They also showed the 54th working as labors instead of fighting and the white soldiers being racist toward the 54th soldiers.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I agree with Rachael about the tensions between the white and African-American troops, and I also think that the film did a good job showing tension between the African-American troops, as depicted in the relationship between Trip, a runaway slave, and Thomas, a free man. I thought there were several well-done moments in referencing actual events, such as the mention of "contraband". You could hear one soldier say the line about rather having hogs than black soldiers near the beginning of the film. I really enjoyed Matthew Broderick as Shaw, as well as his characterization (early on, you see him walking by some African-Americans, and he makes room for them to walk by him. Nice touch). When the movie started out with Shaw narrating, I can't lie - I almost expected him to talk about licking his palms a la Ferris Bueller. But I liked that Shaw wasn't shown as a bleeding-heart abolitionist, either. He is clearly sympathetic for his troops but he doesn't make a huge speech about how inspiring they are. I LOVED that Edward Zwick didn't find it necessary to add a ROMANCE to this movie. That was so refreshing. Shaw's dedication to his troops was touching without being sappy. Also, I just have to say this as a music major: James Horner's score is seriously awesome. One of the top ten film scores of the past 25 years. A little over-the-top at times? Yes. But if his music isn't making you cry during that last scene, you have no soul. - Celia<br />
<br />
One aspect the movie showed in the the opening scene was how much contact Col. Shaw had with his family, specifically his mother, back home through the letters he wrote. This scene definitely gives insight into what every other Union soldier was doing at that time, showing how they could have easily tell those at home how the war was going and influence their thoughts on the war. Also the first scene with Frederick Douglass (who is one SCARY looking dude!) shows him actively campaigning for the creation of an African American regiment in the Union army. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The movie got how nasty the Civil War hospitals really were. When Col Shaw was getting stitches there was a glimps of a doctor dipping his hand in a bloody bowl and moving onto the next patient. It was also pretty accurate to see doctors just cutting off the limbs of people. It was also really disturbing. I also think it was accurate when the 54th was doing manual labor and the Union soldiers were saying very racist things to the black soldiers. Also when the white soldier told Shaw to loot the town and called the black men children. This shows how some white soldiers still were extremely racist. I think the movie did a great job of showing the consequences of slavery. Silas Trip (Denzel) had the scars of a whipping on his back. It was not wonder why he wanted to escape. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the war was not yet one for abolition. The North was somewhat antislavery, but there were some obvious racist elements in parts of the Union Army. When they walk into camp for the first time they are ridiculed. Also the scene where a white regiment passes by the area in which they are doing manual labor in South Carolina shows that Union soldiers did not see African Americans as equals and did not think they should be allowed to wear the Union uniform. Even when a superior officer, Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins, commands the white soldiers to move along, they ignore him and a fight almost breaks out. They make a very racist comment about giving stripes to an African American. One powerful scene was when Colonel Shaw saw the feet of the soldiers. He knew he had to demand shoes and uniforms because the superior officers in the war department were not going to listen to soft requests. What is interesting to note is the real life Shaw was a very young colonel, so it makes sense to cast a young actor. However, I am not quite sure if Matthew Broderick is a very convincing colonel. He definitely had his strong and noble moments, but there were some points where he could have reacted with more emotion. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Samantha brings up Broderick's performance. I think Shaw's stoicism lies in the fact that, as Samantha pointed out, Shaw was a very young colonel. He had to command respect from men older than himself--not only among other officers, but among his own regiment--and to do that he had to present an authoritative front. I've seen this kind of behavior in young officers myself; they are desperate to hide the fact that they don't know what the heck they're doing. Broderick conveyed that very well. He communicated how difficult Shaw's job was, especially in the scenes where he had to discipline his boyhood friends. Shaw's development into a leader--which includes his attempts to understand his men--is one of the fascinating parts of this film.-- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie showed the problems that Black soldiers faced, especially in the realm of not being able to fight. The 54th regiment, in the movie, was seen many times doing manual labor, digging trenches, cutting down trees,etc. Colonel Shaw was always finding ways for his men to be able to fight, which was how these men thought they could prove themselves: by fighting which would bring honor to the army and their regiment. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
I thought that the movie was pretty accurate overall, but the scene that stood out to me the most was the final one with the charge on Fort Wagner. The movie shows that the 54th was the first regiment to storm the fort and that they did endure heavy casualities but pursued on. The men picked up the colors from their fallen comrades and charged on, even though they were not successful the 54th proved to be a powerful force and changed the Union Army. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
"Glory" is an outstanding movie. Its achievements in dramatic narrative, character development, and evocation of time/place far outweigh the few liberties taken with historical fact. I agree wholeheartedly with Robert Brent Toplin in "Reel History" when he said, "..."Glory's" manipulations are not employed cavalierly; ... Most of the films's distortions serve the purpose of commmunicating broader truths about the Civil War experiences of African Americans" (203). Yes, Denzel's tent was full of fictional characters, but they represented a historically accurate range of backgrounds, with all the interpersonal conflicts and cultural clashes that resulted: the free black and the former slaves, the educated man and the field hand, the young and the old, religious and non-believer. And although the real 54th was comprised mostly of free blacks, and the movie's soldiers were mostly slaves, that was representative of historical truth as well, since Dr. McClurken told us that 55% of blacks who carried arms had been slaves. -Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job of showing the evolution in attitude toward black soldiers. It's obvious in the beginning that many people are uncomfortable and unhappy with black men serving as soldiers, from Forbes saying Shaw would be crazy to take the colonel position to the military denying the men shoes and full pay. Then they are accepted as soldiers, but only in support capacities and as "monkeys" useful for looting parties. Finally, at the end the white men cheer on the 54th, showing that they'd come to respect the black men as soldiers, if maybe not as full equals. That's important because black troops, being as numerous as they were, played such a big part in shaping white northerners' perceptions of African Americans during and after the war. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The looting and burning of Darien, Georgia on June 11, 1863 did historically occur. As portrayed in the film, the colored troops under the command of James Montgomery did break ranks and freely loot. Like in the movie, Colonel Shaw did permit the 54th Massachusetts to commit this atrocity reluctantly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien,_Georgia) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got correct was referring to the runaway slaves as contraband. This was mentioned at the beginning of the film, at the party where Shaw accepts lead of the 54th. This ensured the blacks could continue to be in the Union forces instead of being sent back to the Confederacy, where they would be enslaved again. Another thing the filmmakers did a good job portraying was the racist attitudes of Union soldiers toward blacks. The South was not the only racist region of the country, and "Glory" does a nice job of conveying this. They bring forth the fear of giving arms to blacks, which many whites disapproved of at the time. The movie also depicts the 54th's willingness to fight. Since many blacks were fighting for there freedom or the freedom of their family members, they were eager to get involved in the war and battle for their rights as American citizens. Lastly, "Glory" shows African American culture accurately. When enslaved, African Americans would often sing, often about God, to bring comfort and foster a sense of community. This is shown the night before the 54th attacks Fort Wagner when the men soothe themselves by singing a religious song and praying together. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
First of all I really enjoyed this movie. It was well directed and, for the most part, well acted. I think that Glory accurately portrayed the African American experience as a Union solider. At first they were ill equipped, poor or even missing shoes, no weapons, uniforms, etc. but Colonel Shaw procured these for them. The use of the soldiers was quite accurate as well; they were used as manual labor rather than fighters. I also appreciated the portrayal of the tensions between the white officers and the African American soldiers. Morgan Freeman’s character receiving the rank he did was also accurate. I also noticed how the media (Harpers Bazaar) was used to spread the word about the 54th regiment. Just as an aside I found out that many of the extras in the movie were actually Civil War re-enactors, I gather that this was helpful to maintain an accurate account http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x1664778899/Our-Saviors-Lutheran-students-participate-in-Civil-War-re-enactment.- Caryn - Caryn<br />
<br />
As mentioned above, many northerners, including many union soldiers were initially opposed to blacks joining the military. Forbes expressed this when he was talking to Shaw about whether or not he should accept the commission. He said, "You know how popular that will be, handing out a thousand guns to coloreds". When the black soldiers march into the camp in Massachusetts, one white union soldier says the quote you mentioned in class, "I'd rather have a hog than a nigger, because at least you can eat the hog." - Michael G.<br />
<br />
This movie was leagues better than the previous war movies we have seen. (It might because of the absence of Mel Gibson)However, I think that the movie accurately depicted the trials that this regiment had to go through in order to fight for what they believed in. Which included the lack of supplies such as clothing and weapons, difference in pay, and the difference in overall treatment. The movie also showed that even though the regiment was better trained than the other regiments (which Dr. McClurken alluded to in class) they still weren't allowed to fight because of their color. Near the end before the final battle one Officer alluded to this by asking Shaw if his men were capable of leading the charge even though they hadn't slept for 2 days. There Shaw went into something that what the 54th had was more than strength, they had something to fight for. Which I think alludes to the theme of the movie. And in case anyone was wonder they did use the [http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/flags/fedflag.shtml right flag] when marching. Yes, I looked it up! - Jenn<br />
<br />
Another thing the movie seemed to get right was the uniform of the black troops in the regiment in the South under the Colonel that ordered them to pillage the town. The black soldiers were wearing red trousers which Susie King Taylor describes in her piece, “The first suits worn by the boys were red coats and pants, which they disliked very much, for, they said, "The rebels see us, miles away."” They weren’t complete red suits in the movie but they did have the pants which I feel like were alluding to these. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This movie showed how there were so many things people had to deal with throughout the Civil War which were not clear. First, it portrayed well how this was not originally a war to abolish slavery (as mentioned in class). Next, it showed well how white northerners treated African-Americans in many different ways. Some were really racist and others were not. It showed the tension between the other military leaders on how tough they should be on the African-American soldiers. It seemed like each person had a different opinion. Also, with the burning of the town in Georgia, Shaw was cornered and had to decide what to do. If he refused to order his solders to burn the town then they could go under command of the bad General (I don't know his title). But if he agreed, then they would have to burn buildings and homes of innocent people. There was no right or wrong decision, because both were bad. I think this movie was very accurate and portrayed a lot of things that other civil war movies leave out. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I think this movie did very well in telling the story of the 54th regiment. In class, we talked about how Black soldiers faced a lot of discrimination from the white Union soldiers. It was definitely clear that the white soldiers lacked respect for the Black soldiers, even though they were fighting for the same side (but that didn't necessarily mean they were fighting for the same cause). In the lecture, we were told a quote by a union soldier comparing African Americans to hogs, and in the movie, a white Union soldier used that line as the new Black enlistees entered the camp. The second occurrence of discrimination was when the newly appointed Black officer stepped in to deescalate a fight between one of his men (Denzel Washington) and a white Union soldier. The soldier made a comment about the Black officer which just showed the blatant disregard for the Black officer as a person, as well as a soldier. One thing that made me wonder was about how the white Union soldiers began cheering for the 54th regiment as they left for Ft. Wagner. It makes me wonder if at any point during the war, whtie Union soldiers got over their prejudices and began to see themselves as one with colored regiments like the 54th. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the inaccuracies of the movie was in the way no camp prostitutes were shown in the movie. During the scenes the men experienced "liberty" from their duties, they are shown playing dice, singing, dancing, etc. (all that were accurate), but they left out the attendence of prostitutes and the roles of "respectable" women throughout camp. In an interview, Freeman mentions they filmed a scene where Col. Shaw escorted a prostitute into his tent for the night. He added, the scene was discarded because Col. Shaw was not the type of man (and there's no evidence) that he would have acted in such a way.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Debbie. Maybe I was wrong, but I thought it was kind of implied when Denzel (Trip) mentioned a women making biscutts and gravy for whoever wanted it. She might have been a prostitute but none of the men are shown going because it was supposed to be some sort of offence. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
This is kind of trivial, but in the movie, Sgt. Major John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) tells Denzel Washington's character that he should really appreciate the Union and the white soldiers for fighting in the war for him (him representing black people and slaves). He knew a lot had died because before he joined the regiment, Rawlins spent time digging the dead soldiers' graves. However, this time would have been before the middle of the war and before the reason to fight in the war for many soldiers changed from trying to save the Union to fighting for emancipation. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
There is one very important scene in the movie in which one of the black soldiers, Denzel Washington's character to be exact, is whipped for what the officers consider as trying to run away from camp. It would seem that whipping a black soldier would not have been allowed during the war. I can understand why the scene is used in the movie because it is very powerful and it helps in the development of Shaw's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
When the army is marching past the plantation house. One of the kids waving is wearing a digital watch. Bottom right of screen.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Oh Isaac that was just a young child time traveling for education on the Civil War. He is wearing the digital watch because it allows him to stay in the time period, otherwise he phases back to 20XX.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:19, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the other non-accidental things I noticed was that the film's 54th Regiment was comprised of what appeared to only be escaped slaves, and common free black men. To the best of my knowledge it didn't show Frederick Douglass' sons or the other well-to-do free black family of the North. Although I do suppose Thomas was meant to symbolize them, even though we was the "worst solider" and the Douglass boys were reportedly very distinguished. Also, its was very fortunate that all of the lead actors shared the same tent. -Isaac Whalen4<br />
<br />
I am not sure about this, but during the scene when the 54th is marching past the plantations, it shows white and black children playing together. Since the black children would have most likely been slaves, would this have been allowed? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
While it was very fortunate that all the lead actors shared the same tent, it is especially egregious, because the soldiers actually stayed in a barracks in Massachusetts, according to Corporal Gooding. A character that was particularly disturbing was the Colonel of the African American unit that Shaw meets upon his arrival in South Carolina. In class we discussed how the officers of black units were held to a higher standard of character and ability. However, he displays a complete lack of character and completely disrespects his soldiers. He repeatedly refers to them as monkeys that have to be kept under control, and shoots one of them for touching a white woman. He laughs at them as they burn and pillage, as if they are little kids misbehaving. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Debbie and LeAnn about the lack of prostitutes in the camp, but I was also bothered by the lack of any female presence throughout the movie. Who was doing laundry? Who was cooking? Who was reading to the wounded and helping them write letters home? While there may have been less women involved with the black regiments, these men clearly would have had wives, some of whom would have followed them into battle. Susie King Taylor, from our reading, is an excellent example of this. I think that there could have been a whole different dimension added to the emotional impact of the film if women had been working in the camps. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Once again, we reinforce the idea that only the South ever held slaves. When Shaw meets up with that Colonel in South Carolina, the other Colonel says that he can't imagine Boston with slaves. Come on, Hollywood, how many times do we have to go over this? - Cilla<br />
<br />
It did not show Frederick Douglas's sons in the movie. I think it would of added something to the movie if both of them were shown. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The scene where the 54th is marching out of Boston with extreme patriotic fanfare is not something that I think was accurately portrayed. As we discussed in class, despite there being a minority of people who were in full support of black involvement in the war as soldiers, most in the North were still prejudiced about their capabilities. That being said, there wasn't a single person in the crowd that appeared offended or even not in full support of the 54th. None of that was shown in this scene, although the later scene with the Union soldier who insults Denzel's tries to portray that sentiment. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
As for the issue of women in the camp, there was the scene around Christmastime where they showed one woman mingling with the men. Then there was a mention of someone making biscuits and gravy, however that was it. Like the others above I feel like women definitely played a larger role in the life at camp. And the digital watch? That's where it went! I spent years looking for that! Now I just have to go back and get it, sigh... ;) -Jenn<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
In the commentaries, Freeman mentions how the first battle in the movie, Antietam Creek, was known as the last battle in which the English version of "gentlemanly" fighting occurred. No longer would men on opposite sides meet in the middle of a cleared field, stand in a line, and fire upon each other until one side was left standing.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
When trying to assess the film as a primary source the first thing I always do is look at the year in which it was made and what was happening in the world. <em>Glory</em> was made in 1989, a year everyone associates with the breaking up of the Eastern Bloc and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whether it was intentional or rather a collectively sub-conscious thinking of the time <em>Glory</em> can be seen as an allegory between the beginning demise of the Soviet Union and the freedom of the slaves in the Civil War. Like the Union of the 1800s America had actively taken part in the liberation of a people under the control of an opposing power. Yet, I think that if most people make this connection they will only go so far as to say that the film is simply offering ideological support to this endeavor. To me <em>Glory</em> seems to suggest a deeper question: So we're free...now what? After the Union declares all of the slaves free, the newly freed slaves are happy to be free but also skeptical of how they will be accepted by society. Denzel Washington's character says that even if the North wins, it won't matter because the prejudices are still there, strife will continue. When we look back at what happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we can see these problems as well. Not very many people disagree with ending the U.S.S.R., but there is still conflicts about how to deal with some of these countries, i.e. Afghanistan, etc. Even in Russia there is still strife between Chechnya and Russia.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
1988 was the 125th anniversary of Gettysburg (according to IMDB there are shots of the reenactment in the opening scene of the movie), and I imagine there was quite a bit of Civil War hooplah going on surrounding that milestone. While Glory doesn't deal with Gettysburg directly, it would have benefited from any renewed interest in the battle or the Civil War in general. The filmmakers utilized that spotlight (and all of the star power in the movie) to direct attention to an aspect of the Civil War story that doesn't get talked about nearly often enough which is pretty cool. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that a lot of the tensions between Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, and Andre Braugher's characters regarding race are particularly pertinent to modern discussions from the past 20 years or so. Washington often belittles Braugher for talking or acting "white," while Braugher just considers himself educated. Of course, Morgan Freeman was being Morgan Freeman and sort of mediating things, but the conversations in the film were just like ones being had around 1990 in the media, and that are still happening now. If this movie were made in the 1950s, none of that discussion would have been included. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
Just like in the film, Susie King in her book and James Henry Gooding in his letter talked about how African American soldiers did not receive equal pay as their white soldier counterparts. Taylor mentioned that the first colored troops did not receive any pay at all until 1863 when they were allowed to receive half of the pay. The African American troops did not accept it, however, and would serve for free until they received full pay. Gooding actually wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking to receive the same amount of pay that other white soldiers were given. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the film they mentioned the fact that the African-American soldiers were going to paid less than the white soldiers. I don't know if the African-American soldiers rioted when they found out that they were going to be paid less but it was at least mentioned.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
In James Henry Gooding’s Letter to President Lincoln, he appeals to Lincoln directly. He asks two significant questions, “Are we Soldiers or are we Laborers?...We have done a Soldier’s duty, why can’t we have a Soldier’s pay?” These questions are asked almost word for word in the movie. Denzel Washington does a fantastic job as Private Trip. He is a very passionate and strong-willed soldier and stands up against discrimination by the Union soldiers. He protests the unfair pay rate. When he is being whipped he does not scream or make any noise. He finally just begins to weep, which was a very hard scene to watch. I believe the movie accurately portrays the attitudes of African American soldiers discussed in the reading. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Comparing the movie's portrayal of the attack on Ft. Wagner to the description of the battle in Gooding's letters, it seems the movie did a pretty good job of depicting what happened, even with the flag bearer getting shot down. And I had thought it might have been a bit of dramatic license when they showed Shaw being buried with his men in the mass grave, but turns out he actually was buried alongside of them. I'm not sure if the Confederates treated all high ranking Northern casualties this way, but if not that certainly shows their disdain for white men who would lead black troops. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann is right the final battle was depicted very well, except (and perhaps I am seeing this wrong) the film shows the 54th at least getting a foothold inside of the base. While they didn't get very far into the fort, they definitely did not get wiped right by the fort walls. When Shaw fell and the army continued, they started to make some real progress and in the drama of the moment I forgot that they were going to be unsuccessful...damn history refuting Hollywood *sigh*--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:17, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Rachael mentioned the pay issue. In Susie King Taylor's journal of life in camp she says that the white officers supported the soldiers' protest against unequal pay (Section III). She says Cpt. Heasley told his company, "Boys, stand up for your full pay! I am with you and so are all the officers." I don't know if that means that he and the officers, like Shaw in the movie, volunteered to go without pay themselves, but it does back up the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Gooding's account of the expedition to Darien confirms that the town was looted and burned. He does not mention any acts of violence against the town's women, nor whether Col. Montgomery (or any other officer) shot one of his own soldiers for laying hands on a white woman. However, Dr. McClurken told us that Shaw later expressed great concerns about how that incident was handled.--Deborah <br />
<br />
In the reading by Gooding he mentions that African Americans, no matter if they are former slaves, intellectuals, or free men, should all band together to fight for freedom of their race. This is seen in the portrayal of the 54th, as Thomas, Morgan Freeman's character, and Denzel Washington's character, who all come from different backgrounds all join the regiment and fight alongside each other.--Anna Holman <br />
<br />
I completely agree with Deborah's point regarding the pay of the colored regiments and how it was also portrayed in the movie, it appears completely accurate, but I do wonder if it had something to do with white officers who were asked to command the colored troops? Did men who were just assigned command over the troops give up their pay as well? Also, through the reading African Americans appeared to truly respect the Union soldiers, as was seen in the movie when the regiments marched through parts of the South. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
Something that I saw in the readings that was not in the film was the aspect of retaliation of the former slaves against their masters. There was one account in the reading that described the capture of a Confederate soldier, who was whipped first by a Union officer, then by women whom he had owned as slaves. This did not seem to be an issue in the film, as none of the men who had been slaves ever encountered white men whom they knew from their time in bondage. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I think the readings, especially Gooding's account, were reflected well in the movie. A difference between the movie and the readings was that Gooding talked about how the training camp had wooden barracks for them to live in, while in the movie they lived in tents. Also, Gooding talks about how there were some Black men in the North from Massachusetts who did not register to serve in the 54th; he was always calling to them to join the cause and said some men just sat around not wanting to join and fight. The movie definitely did not depict the draft this way. It made it seem as though every free Black in the North wanted to join up in the 54th and serve. One thing that was depicted accurately was when Gooding talked about how Col. Shaw was buried. He was very upset because Shaw was not given a proper funeral, especially since he was a Colonel. Gooding claimed he had just been thrown in the ditch with the others bodies and that the Confederate soldiers could have at least honored him with a proper burial just as Col. Shaw had done for one of their officers. The movie pretty much ends with Col. Shaw's body being rolled into a grave along with his men, which was definitely one of the more intense scenes especially as a way to end the movie. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
When Robert Shaw is writing out his letters to his mother, are those actual letters he wrote or is that just wonderful hollywood soliloquy?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 16:51, 5 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Is it documented anywhere that Saw had symptoms of PTSD? (On a side-note is believed Broderick is related to Shaw [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/trivia?tr0693852], but thats form IMDB so I don't know how reliable it is.) - Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
IMDB is edited by the site users so I don't know how accurate that is, Isaac. However, if it is true, it is quite interesting. Also, I didn't know where to put this but what was with those American flags with the stars in the shape of a star during the parade of the 54th? -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I was wondering the same thing about the flags during the parade, I found that they used the right flag while marching into the battle. However I couldn't find any evidence of the star shaped flags. I know there were a lot of different flags during that time, but knowing where they came from would be nice. (If they existed at all) -Jenn</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T02:22:59Z<p>Celiacroft: /* The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The term brought up in class today, "Moonlight and Magnolias" accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder. This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice. Also, there were many female widows after the war and some did remarry (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I also think the movie did a good job showing the change in men after returning from the war. When Ashley returns home for Christmas you can already see a change in his attitude towards the war, and his conversation with Scarlett when he comes back to Tara shows how despondent and useless he feels. Ashley annoys me a LOT, but it's still sad to see. Another factor that the film did well was Scarlett's struggle to feed her family when she returns to Tara. She and her (whining) sisters would most likely have NO idea how to plant and grow their own food. - Celia<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken told us that half the soldiers lost in the Civil War died of disease, not battle wounds. The movie accurately reflects this when Charles Hamilton, Scarlett's first husband, dies of pneumonia following an attack of measles. The movie slants this as further proof that Charles was a supreme wuss, but although Scarlett regarded it as a lucky break (unaware of how confining a widow's life would be), the truth is that not every Confederate died leading a battle charge. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
A) Scarlett is the most annoying twit known to man. B) I believe that the movie accurately shows how the war affected the South. During the Battle of Atlanta, the movie shows the town burning down in an inferno of flames. They also accurately show that the supply lines were destroyed, courtesy of the "lovely" Shurman. Although the movie definitely shows the destruction done by the Union soldiers in Atlanta, it also depicts how much destruction was done by the south's own retreating Confederate soldiers and citizens. In the movie they blow up their own ammunition so that Union soldiers wouldn't get it, as well as attack Rhett and Scarlett as they were trying to escape the city. The destruction to the countryside that Shurman's Union soldiers unnecessarily did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point. <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene). Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves. There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The depiction of the antebellum South and the effects of the war brought on Georgia are quite accurate. The barbecue scene illustrates the rich culture of the antebellum period. Dr. McClurken mentioned that the planters basically controlled the government. This is especially true in the film in the scene with all of the men at the party in one room discussing plans for war. The scene with the thousands of soldiers lying in the streets outside of the hospital was very powerful. It shows in a strong manner just how bad the diseases really were and their effects on the soldiers. Also, the portrayal of Mrs. O’Hara demonstrates the point that plantation mistresses held a remarkable amount of power in household management, food and clothing, and caring for the ill. Mrs. O’Hara holds much power in the house; even her husband says that they should consult Mrs. O’Hara, or that Mrs. O’Hara will know what to do. I also just have to say that I love the character of Mammy. She is so full of attitude and one liners towards Scarlett. She provides comic relief to intense moments in the movie with her straightforwardness and blunt remarks to Scarlett’s stupidity. I’m not sure if slaves would have been allowed to voice such opinions, but I’m very glad that’s how she was in the movie. I will venture a guess that Grey’s Anatomy modeled one of its main characters after Mammy.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again. You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town. Another thing the movie did right was displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving the free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, the free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street. You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw the free Blacks in the street and all over the town. She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war (and how many didn't come back). Scarlett's first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone, including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn't have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
This movie showed correctly how terrible the Civil War was. It showed how people were really excited to go to war before it started, but then they realized how terrible it is. One shocking scene was the hundreds of wounded soldiers lying on the ground and railroad tracks waiting for the doctor or nurse (It showed how trivial Scarlett's problem was.) Also another shocking scene was in the hospital when they are amputating one soldiers leg. I can't blame Scarlett for running out of the hospital and not wanting to go back. As mentioned above, some of the soldiers who returned (in the movie) seemed to have PTSD. They didn't know what to do after the South lost the war and their home and everything they knew before was destroyed. They also showed a change in roles. I never saw Ashley do any labor or manual work before the war, but after he was trying to split wood. Scarlett's gained more authority during and after the war. She had to do physical work, such as work in the fields, or she would have starved. -- Justine<br />
<br />
One of the points that the movie got right was the reason that many of the men went to war. Scarlett's father says in the beginning of the movie that she can't hate Tara because their land was the only thing that was worth working or fighting for. this clearly drives Scarlett's motivation throughout the film, as her subsequent marriage to Frank Kennedy and work on the plantation are primarily to save Tara. I also thought that it was interesting that in the end of the film, Ashley says that he would have freed all of his slaves when his father died whether they were legally emancipated or not. Whether or not this is true, there were clearly members of wealthy plantation families who were opposed to slavery, like Mary Chestnut. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Prissy would probably have had intimate knowledge about birthin' babies because she would probably have had at least one herself. As we read in "The Trials of a Slave Girl," and heard in today's lecture, young female slaves were easy sexual pickings for white masters. As sexual prey, Prissy would have had two strikes against her: she was a house servant, and she was easily intimidated. Mammy's seemingly childless state is suspicious, too. Granted, her character was patently the neutered Aunt Jemima; however, it is unlikely that she would have had no offspring unless she was barren. It is true that slave women often lost their children in sales to new masters, or families were broken up when white estates were divided upon a master's death. Frederick Douglass in his first autobiography writes about his abandoned grandmother, who has no descendants around her to comfort her old age. ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners. In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie. Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie. You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee. Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett. In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex and Rachael's points, but I also think it's a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O'Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn't have any children, I don't think it's completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her. - Celia<br />
<br />
This movie made it seem like some of Scarlett's slaves were happy. They decided to stay with her during and after the war. As mentioned in class, most slaves worked in the fields. We did not see a lot of that in the movie, but we saw mostly the slaves working in the house. Also, most southerners did not live like the people in Twelve Oaks and Tara. That was only a small percentage of the population. It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is "Gone with the Wind." -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil. Also, it would make viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation. This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.Scarlett said it best herself, "After all, tomorrow is another day."<br />
Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to model yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett's character can be looked to for resilience. After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Mike's point. Scarlett's arrogant personality makes her an easy target for criticism, but it can't be denied that she gets the job done. Yes, it might be by stealing away her annoying sister's fiancee (Suellen had it coming), but that's better than starving to death. Her tactics might be brash, but she is trying to survive and hold onto her family's home. Is she a hero? No, but her resilience and persistance has to be admired. I can definitely see how an audience that had been suffering through the Great Depression would see her as an inspiration. - Celia<br />
<br />
In the credits before the movie, it lists the names of actors and actresses who played "servants." It does not say anything about slaves. In 1939, I don't think they would have called them "slaves," but today they would. Gone with the Wind does not show the terrible conditions for the slaves. Amistad definitely is vivid with showing how terrible the middle passage is because it was made in 1997 not 1939. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her "trash." She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. After reading "Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863," there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite. They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The Fitzhugh reading, which is the pro-slavery argument, contradicts certain points that Dr. McClurken made in class. It said that African American women did not have to do much work and that the slaves only worked about nine hour days. Dr. McClurken taught that slaves worked about 15 hours a day, and the women either were in the kitchens and houses or were doing field work. The Carl Schurz reading describes the end of the war and the circumstances people found themselves in. The planters, who used to be thought of as the elite, were now in poverty and participating in menial labor in order to survive. This appears in the movie when Scarlett and her family are picking cotton in the field in order to earn money to get food. It was also interesting to see that some of the former slaves who were in the O’Hara household could not perform certain tasks, for example, tying up the cow. One of the African Americans actually told Scarlett that they were domestic servants and had no experience with livestock. Prissy also did not seem to have many talents when it came to housekeeping. I’m not quite sure how accurate that is. I know Deborah mentioned that its inaccurate that Prissy had no knowledge of “birthin’ babies.”-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Because so much of Gone with the Wind actually takes place after the war is over, its imagining of Reconstruction is important. Scarlett returns home to a Tara that is "not only conquered in a political and military sense, but economically ruined" as Carl Shurz describes the post-war South. Scarlett, for some inexplicably reason, still had some of her former slaves to help rebuild Tara, but most Southerners had to learn how to restructure their entire way of doing things. Scarlett fits in with the all of the Southerners who "must do something, honest or dishonest, and must do it soon, to make a living." That sense of economic desperation makes Scarlett's decision to marry Mr. Kennedy and her drive to make money by any means possible seem relatively realistic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Compared to what Mike E. said, I actually found the grandmother in the "Trials of a Slave Girl" reading to be a little like the Mammy character. Mammy was a black women who held the respect of other slaves and even some white people, including Rhett Butler. At first I thought Harriet Jacobs (the slave girl) and maybe other black people in the family or community were the only ones who respected her a great deal but something in the primary source caught my eye. When the master was building a house for Jacobs the grandmother "had high words" with him and "told him pretty plainly what she thought of his character." I don't think a slave who wasn't at least a little bit respected by her owners or white people could get away with talking in that manner. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure if this was an actual question but Dr. McClurken did want us to acknowledge the memory of war. I felt that the memory of the war was not depicted well in the movie. Yes, the men came back bruised, wounded, some never came back, but they seemed to move right back into their lives. It is clear that the war left scars and Atlanta had to be rebuilt but yet it once again flourished. I thought the one point that showed hints of the war lingering around, was the $300 tax Scarlett's family had to pay during Reconstruction. It showed that Southerners were not forgiven and had to repay debts. Aside from the movie, the memory of the Civil War is alive and well, whether a Confederate flag is displayed or families pass down memorabilia, the time in history is significant to the structure of the United States and its history. -Megan W.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T02:16:41Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The term brought up in class today, "Moonlight and Magnolias" accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder. This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice. Also, there were many female widows after the war and some did remarry (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I also think the movie did a good job showing the change in men after returning from the war. When Ashley returns home for Christmas you can already see a change in his attitude towards the war, and his conversation with Scarlett when he comes back to Tara shows how despondent and useless he feels. Ashley annoys me a LOT, but it's still sad to see. Another factor that the film did well was Scarlett's struggle to feed her family when she returns to Tara. She and her (whining) sisters would most likely have NO idea how to plant and grow their own food. - Celia<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken told us that half the soldiers lost in the Civil War died of disease, not battle wounds. The movie accurately reflects this when Charles Hamilton, Scarlett's first husband, dies of pneumonia following an attack of measles. The movie slants this as further proof that Charles was a supreme wuss, but although Scarlett regarded it as a lucky break (unaware of how confining a widow's life would be), the truth is that not every Confederate died leading a battle charge. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
A) Scarlett is the most annoying twit known to man. B) I believe that the movie accurately shows how the war affected the South. During the Battle of Atlanta, the movie shows the town burning down in an inferno of flames. They also accurately show that the supply lines were destroyed, courtesy of the "lovely" Shurman. Although the movie definitely shows the destruction done by the Union soldiers in Atlanta, it also depicts how much destruction was done by the south's own retreating Confederate soldiers and citizens. In the movie they blow up their own ammunition so that Union soldiers wouldn't get it, as well as attack Rhett and Scarlett as they were trying to escape the city. The destruction to the countryside that Shurman's Union soldiers unnecessarily did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point. <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene). Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves. There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The depiction of the antebellum South and the effects of the war brought on Georgia are quite accurate. The barbecue scene illustrates the rich culture of the antebellum period. Dr. McClurken mentioned that the planters basically controlled the government. This is especially true in the film in the scene with all of the men at the party in one room discussing plans for war. The scene with the thousands of soldiers lying in the streets outside of the hospital was very powerful. It shows in a strong manner just how bad the diseases really were and their effects on the soldiers. Also, the portrayal of Mrs. O’Hara demonstrates the point that plantation mistresses held a remarkable amount of power in household management, food and clothing, and caring for the ill. Mrs. O’Hara holds much power in the house; even her husband says that they should consult Mrs. O’Hara, or that Mrs. O’Hara will know what to do. I also just have to say that I love the character of Mammy. She is so full of attitude and one liners towards Scarlett. She provides comic relief to intense moments in the movie with her straightforwardness and blunt remarks to Scarlett’s stupidity. I’m not sure if slaves would have been allowed to voice such opinions, but I’m very glad that’s how she was in the movie. I will venture a guess that Grey’s Anatomy modeled one of its main characters after Mammy.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again. You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town. Another thing the movie did right was displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving the free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, the free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street. You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw the free Blacks in the street and all over the town. She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war (and how many didn't come back). Scarlett's first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone, including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn't have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
This movie showed correctly how terrible the Civil War was. It showed how people were really excited to go to war before it started, but then they realized how terrible it is. One shocking scene was the hundreds of wounded soldiers lying on the ground and railroad tracks waiting for the doctor or nurse (It showed how trivial Scarlett's problem was.) Also another shocking scene was in the hospital when they are amputating one soldiers leg. I can't blame Scarlett for running out of the hospital and not wanting to go back. As mentioned above, some of the soldiers who returned (in the movie) seemed to have PTSD. They didn't know what to do after the South lost the war and their home and everything they knew before was destroyed. They also showed a change in roles. I never saw Ashley do any labor or manual work before the war, but after he was trying to split wood. Scarlett's gained more authority during and after the war. She had to do physical work, such as work in the fields, or she would have starved. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Prissy would probably have had intimate knowledge about birthin' babies because she would probably have had at least one herself. As we read in "The Trials of a Slave Girl," and heard in today's lecture, young female slaves were easy sexual pickings for white masters. As sexual prey, Prissy would have had two strikes against her: she was a house servant, and she was easily intimidated. Mammy's seemingly childless state is suspicious, too. Granted, her character was patently the neutered Aunt Jemima; however, it is unlikely that she would have had no offspring unless she was barren. It is true that slave women often lost their children in sales to new masters, or families were broken up when white estates were divided upon a master's death. Frederick Douglass in his first autobiography writes about his abandoned grandmother, who has no descendants around her to comfort her old age. ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners. In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie. Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie. You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee. Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett. In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex and Rachael's points, but I also think it's a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O'Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn't have any children, I don't think it's completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her. - Celia<br />
<br />
This movie made it seem like some of Scarlett's slaves were happy. They decided to stay with her during and after the war. As mentioned in class, most slaves worked in the fields. We did not see a lot of that in the movie, but we saw mostly the slaves working in the house. Also, most southerners did not live like the people in Twelve Oaks and Tara. That was only a small percentage of the population. It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is "Gone with the Wind." -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil. Also, it would make viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation. This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.Scarlett said it best herself, "After all, tomorrow is another day."<br />
Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to model yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett's character can be looked to for resilience. After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
In the credits before the movie, it lists the names of actors and actresses who played "servants." It does not say anything about slaves. In 1939, I don't think they would have called them "slaves," but today they would. Gone with the Wind does not show the terrible conditions for the slaves. Amistad definitely is vivid with showing how terrible the middle passage is because it was made in 1997 not 1939. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her "trash." She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. After reading "Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863," there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite. They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The Fitzhugh reading, which is the pro-slavery argument, contradicts certain points that Dr. McClurken made in class. It said that African American women did not have to do much work and that the slaves only worked about nine hour days. Dr. McClurken taught that slaves worked about 15 hours a day, and the women either were in the kitchens and houses or were doing field work. The Carl Schurz reading describes the end of the war and the circumstances people found themselves in. The planters, who used to be thought of as the elite, were now in poverty and participating in menial labor in order to survive. This appears in the movie when Scarlett and her family are picking cotton in the field in order to earn money to get food. It was also interesting to see that some of the former slaves who were in the O’Hara household could not perform certain tasks, for example, tying up the cow. One of the African Americans actually told Scarlett that they were domestic servants and had no experience with livestock. Prissy also did not seem to have many talents when it came to housekeeping. I’m not quite sure how accurate that is. I know Deborah mentioned that its inaccurate that Prissy had no knowledge of “birthin’ babies.”-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Because so much of Gone with the Wind actually takes place after the war is over, its imagining of Reconstruction is important. Scarlett returns home to a Tara that is "not only conquered in a political and military sense, but economically ruined" as Carl Shurz describes the post-war South. Scarlett, for some inexplicably reason, still had some of her former slaves to help rebuild Tara, but most Southerners had to learn how to restructure their entire way of doing things. Scarlett fits in with the all of the Southerners who "must do something, honest or dishonest, and must do it soon, to make a living." That sense of economic desperation makes Scarlett's decision to marry Mr. Kennedy and her drive to make money by any means possible seem relatively realistic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Compared to what Mike E. said, I actually found the grandmother in the "Trials of a Slave Girl" reading to be a little like the Mammy character. Mammy was a black women who held the respect of other slaves and even some white people, including Rhett Butler. At first I thought Harriet Jacobs (the slave girl) and maybe other black people in the family or community were the only ones who respected her a great deal but something in the primary source caught my eye. When the master was building a house for Jacobs the grandmother "had high words" with him and "told him pretty plainly what she thought of his character." I don't think a slave who wasn't at least a little bit respected by her owners or white people could get away with talking in that manner. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure if this was an actual question but Dr. McClurken did want us to acknowledge the memory of war. I felt that the memory of the war was not depicted well in the movie. Yes, the men came back bruised, wounded, some never came back, but they seemed to move right back into their lives. It is clear that the war left scars and Atlanta had to be rebuilt but yet it once again flourished. I thought the one point that showed hints of the war lingering around, was the $300 tax Scarlett's family had to pay during Reconstruction. It showed that Southerners were not forgiven and had to repay debts. Aside from the movie, the memory of the Civil War is alive and well, whether a Confederate flag is displayed or families pass down memorabilia, the time in history is significant to the structure of the United States and its history. -Megan W.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T02:14:02Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The term brought up in class today, "Moonlight and Magnolias" accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder. This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice. Also, there were many female widows after the war and some did remarry (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I also think the movie did a good job showing the change in men after returning from the war. When Ashley returns home for Christmas you can already see a change in his attitude towards the war, and his conversation with Scarlett when he comes back to Tara shows how despondent and useless he feels. Ashley annoys me a LOT, but it's still sad to see. Another factor that the film did well was Scarlett's struggle to feed her family when she returns to Tara. She and her (whining) sisters would most likely have NO idea how to plant and grow their own food. - Celia<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken told us that half the soldiers lost in the Civil War died of disease, not battle wounds. The movie accurately reflects this when Charles Hamilton, Scarlett's first husband, dies of pneumonia following an attack of measles. The movie slants this as further proof that Charles was a supreme wuss, but although Scarlett regarded it as a lucky break (unaware of how confining a widow's life would be), the truth is that not every Confederate died leading a battle charge. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
A) Scarlett is the most annoying twit known to man. B) I believe that the movie accurately shows how the war affected the South. During the Battle of Atlanta, the movie shows the town burning down in an inferno of flames. They also accurately show that the supply lines were destroyed, courtesy of the "lovely" Shurman. Although the movie definitely shows the destruction done by the Union soldiers in Atlanta, it also depicts how much destruction was done by the south's own retreating Confederate soldiers and citizens. In the movie they blow up their own ammunition so that Union soldiers wouldn't get it, as well as attack Rhett and Scarlett as they were trying to escape the city. The destruction to the countryside that Shurman's Union soldiers unnecessarily did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point. <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene). Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves. There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The depiction of the antebellum South and the effects of the war brought on Georgia are quite accurate. The barbecue scene illustrates the rich culture of the antebellum period. Dr. McClurken mentioned that the planters basically controlled the government. This is especially true in the film in the scene with all of the men at the party in one room discussing plans for war. The scene with the thousands of soldiers lying in the streets outside of the hospital was very powerful. It shows in a strong manner just how bad the diseases really were and their effects on the soldiers. Also, the portrayal of Mrs. O’Hara demonstrates the point that plantation mistresses held a remarkable amount of power in household management, food and clothing, and caring for the ill. Mrs. O’Hara holds much power in the house; even her husband says that they should consult Mrs. O’Hara, or that Mrs. O’Hara will know what to do. I also just have to say that I love the character of Mammy. She is so full of attitude and one liners towards Scarlett. She provides comic relief to intense moments in the movie with her straightforwardness and blunt remarks to Scarlett’s stupidity. I’m not sure if slaves would have been allowed to voice such opinions, but I’m very glad that’s how she was in the movie. I will venture a guess that Grey’s Anatomy modeled one of its main characters after Mammy.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again. You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town. Another thing the movie did right was displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving the free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, the free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street. You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw the free Blacks in the street and all over the town. She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war (and how many didn't come back). Scarlett's first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone, including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn't have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
This movie showed correctly how terrible the Civil War was. It showed how people were really excited to go to war before it started, but then they realized how terrible it is. One shocking scene was the hundreds of wounded soldiers lying on the ground and railroad tracks waiting for the doctor or nurse (It showed how trivial Scarlett's problem was.) Also another shocking scene was in the hospital when they are amputating one soldiers leg. I can't blame Scarlett for running out of the hospital and not wanting to go back. As mentioned above, some of the soldiers who returned (in the movie) seemed to have PTSD. They didn't know what to do after the South lost the war and their home and everything they knew before was destroyed. They also showed a change in roles. I never saw Ashley do any labor or manual work before the war, but after he was trying to split wood. Scarlett's gained more authority during and after the war. She had to do physical work, such as work in the fields, or she would have starved. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Prissy would probably have had intimate knowledge about birthin' babies because she would probably have had at least one herself. As we read in "The Trials of a Slave Girl," and heard in today's lecture, young female slaves were easy sexual pickings for white masters. As sexual prey, Prissy would have had two strikes against her: she was a house servant, and she was easily intimidated. Mammy's seemingly childless state is suspicious, too. Granted, her character was patently the neutered Aunt Jemima; however, it is unlikely that she would have had no offspring unless she was barren. It is true that slave women often lost their children in sales to new masters, or families were broken up when white estates were divided upon a master's death. Frederick Douglass in his first autobiography writes about his abandoned grandmother, who has no descendants around her to comfort her old age. ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners. In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie. Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie. You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee. Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett. In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex and Rachael's points, but I also think it's a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O'Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn't have any children, I don't think it's completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her. - Celia<br />
This movie made it seem like some of Scarlett's slaves were happy. They decided to stay with her during and after the war. As mentioned in class, most slaves worked in the fields. We did not see a lot of that in the movie, but we saw mostly the slaves working in the house. Also, most southerners did not live like the people in Twelve Oaks and Tara. That was only a small percentage of the population. It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is "Gone with the Wind." -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil. Also, it would make viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation. This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.Scarlett said it best herself, "After all, tomorrow is another day."<br />
Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to model yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett's character can be looked to for resilience. After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
In the credits before the movie, it lists the names of actors and actresses who played "servants." It does not say anything about slaves. In 1939, I don't think they would have called them "slaves," but today they would. Gone with the Wind does not show the terrible conditions for the slaves. Amistad definitely is vivid with showing how terrible the middle passage is because it was made in 1997 not 1939. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her "trash." She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. After reading "Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863," there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite. They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The Fitzhugh reading, which is the pro-slavery argument, contradicts certain points that Dr. McClurken made in class. It said that African American women did not have to do much work and that the slaves only worked about nine hour days. Dr. McClurken taught that slaves worked about 15 hours a day, and the women either were in the kitchens and houses or were doing field work. The Carl Schurz reading describes the end of the war and the circumstances people found themselves in. The planters, who used to be thought of as the elite, were now in poverty and participating in menial labor in order to survive. This appears in the movie when Scarlett and her family are picking cotton in the field in order to earn money to get food. It was also interesting to see that some of the former slaves who were in the O’Hara household could not perform certain tasks, for example, tying up the cow. One of the African Americans actually told Scarlett that they were domestic servants and had no experience with livestock. Prissy also did not seem to have many talents when it came to housekeeping. I’m not quite sure how accurate that is. I know Deborah mentioned that its inaccurate that Prissy had no knowledge of “birthin’ babies.”-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Because so much of Gone with the Wind actually takes place after the war is over, its imagining of Reconstruction is important. Scarlett returns home to a Tara that is "not only conquered in a political and military sense, but economically ruined" as Carl Shurz describes the post-war South. Scarlett, for some inexplicably reason, still had some of her former slaves to help rebuild Tara, but most Southerners had to learn how to restructure their entire way of doing things. Scarlett fits in with the all of the Southerners who "must do something, honest or dishonest, and must do it soon, to make a living." That sense of economic desperation makes Scarlett's decision to marry Mr. Kennedy and her drive to make money by any means possible seem relatively realistic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Compared to what Mike E. said, I actually found the grandmother in the "Trials of a Slave Girl" reading to be a little like the Mammy character. Mammy was a black women who held the respect of other slaves and even some white people, including Rhett Butler. At first I thought Harriet Jacobs (the slave girl) and maybe other black people in the family or community were the only ones who respected her a great deal but something in the primary source caught my eye. When the master was building a house for Jacobs the grandmother "had high words" with him and "told him pretty plainly what she thought of his character." I don't think a slave who wasn't at least a little bit respected by her owners or white people could get away with talking in that manner. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure if this was an actual question but Dr. McClurken did want us to acknowledge the memory of war. I felt that the memory of the war was not depicted well in the movie. Yes, the men came back bruised, wounded, some never came back, but they seemed to move right back into their lives. It is clear that the war left scars and Atlanta had to be rebuilt but yet it once again flourished. I thought the one point that showed hints of the war lingering around, was the $300 tax Scarlett's family had to pay during Reconstruction. It showed that Southerners were not forgiven and had to repay debts. Aside from the movie, the memory of the Civil War is alive and well, whether a Confederate flag is displayed or families pass down memorabilia, the time in history is significant to the structure of the United States and its history. -Megan W.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T02:07:06Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The term brought up in class today, "Moonlight and Magnolias" accurately did portray the antebellum South and was shown in the movie- at least through the eyes of the elite planters. The outlandish parties established what other planters should strive for in the South and how the elites celebrated and displayed their wealth/Southern culture. Moving on to war time, while I was not a fan of Scarlett she did serve as a nurse in the makeshift hospital, and witnessed death and the horrors of war first hand. It accurately displayed how women were thrust into roles they were unsure of and had not been privy to. She was however too emotional and maybe the director was trying to express how women broke down throughout the war, but I think she was just a wreck. Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind, she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder. This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice. Also, there were many female widows after the war and some did remarry (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I also think the movie did a good job showing the change in men after returning from the war. When Ashley returns home for Christmas you can already see a change in his attitude towards the war, and his conversation with Scarlett when he comes back to Tara shows how despondent and useless he feels. Ashley annoys me a LOT, but it's still sad to see. Another factor that the film did well was Scarlett's struggle to feed her family when she returns to Tara. She and her (whining) sisters would most likely have NO idea how to plant and grow their own food. - Celia<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken told us that half the soldiers lost in the Civil War died of disease, not battle wounds. The movie accurately reflects this when Charles Hamilton, Scarlett's first husband, dies of pneumonia following an attack of measles. The movie slants this as further proof that Charles was a supreme wuss, but although Scarlett regarded it as a lucky break (unaware of how confining a widow's life would be), the truth is that not every Confederate died leading a battle charge. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
A) Scarlett is the most annoying twit known to man. B) I believe that the movie accurately shows how the war affected the South. During the Battle of Atlanta, the movie shows the town burning down in an inferno of flames. They also accurately show that the supply lines were destroyed, courtesy of the "lovely" Shurman. Although the movie definitely shows the destruction done by the Union soldiers in Atlanta, it also depicts how much destruction was done by the south's own retreating Confederate soldiers and citizens. In the movie they blow up their own ammunition so that Union soldiers wouldn't get it, as well as attack Rhett and Scarlett as they were trying to escape the city. The destruction to the countryside that Shurman's Union soldiers unnecessarily did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point. <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene). Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves. There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The depiction of the antebellum South and the effects of the war brought on Georgia are quite accurate. The barbecue scene illustrates the rich culture of the antebellum period. Dr. McClurken mentioned that the planters basically controlled the government. This is especially true in the film in the scene with all of the men at the party in one room discussing plans for war. The scene with the thousands of soldiers lying in the streets outside of the hospital was very powerful. It shows in a strong manner just how bad the diseases really were and their effects on the soldiers. Also, the portrayal of Mrs. O’Hara demonstrates the point that plantation mistresses held a remarkable amount of power in household management, food and clothing, and caring for the ill. Mrs. O’Hara holds much power in the house; even her husband says that they should consult Mrs. O’Hara, or that Mrs. O’Hara will know what to do. I also just have to say that I love the character of Mammy. She is so full of attitude and one liners towards Scarlett. She provides comic relief to intense moments in the movie with her straightforwardness and blunt remarks to Scarlett’s stupidity. I’m not sure if slaves would have been allowed to voice such opinions, but I’m very glad that’s how she was in the movie. I will venture a guess that Grey’s Anatomy modeled one of its main characters after Mammy.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again. You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town. Another thing the movie did right was displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving the free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, the free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street. You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw the free Blacks in the street and all over the town. She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war (and how many didn't come back). Scarlett's first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone, including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn't have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
This movie showed correctly how terrible the Civil War was. It showed how people were really excited to go to war before it started, but then they realized how terrible it is. One shocking scene was the hundreds of wounded soldiers lying on the ground and railroad tracks waiting for the doctor or nurse (It showed how trivial Scarlett's problem was.) Also another shocking scene was in the hospital when they are amputating one soldiers leg. I can't blame Scarlett for running out of the hospital and not wanting to go back. As mentioned above, some of the soldiers who returned (in the movie) seemed to have PTSD. They didn't know what to do after the South lost the war and their home and everything they knew before was destroyed. They also showed a change in roles. I never saw Ashley do any labor or manual work before the war, but after he was trying to split wood. Scarlett's gained more authority during and after the war. She had to do physical work, such as work in the fields, or she would have starved. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
Prissy would probably have had intimate knowledge about birthin' babies because she would probably have had at least one herself. As we read in "The Trials of a Slave Girl," and heard in today's lecture, young female slaves were easy sexual pickings for white masters. As sexual prey, Prissy would have had two strikes against her: she was a house servant, and she was easily intimidated. Mammy's seemingly childless state is suspicious, too. Granted, her character was patently the neutered Aunt Jemima; however, it is unlikely that she would have had no offspring unless she was barren. It is true that slave women often lost their children in sales to new masters, or families were broken up when white estates were divided upon a master's death. Frederick Douglass in his first autobiography writes about his abandoned grandmother, who has no descendants around her to comfort her old age. ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners. In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie. Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie. You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee. Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett. In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
This movie made it seem like some of Scarlett's slaves were happy. They decided to stay with her during and after the war. As mentioned in class, most slaves worked in the fields. We did not see a lot of that in the movie, but we saw mostly the slaves working in the house. Also, most southerners did not live like the people in Twelve Oaks and Tara. That was only a small percentage of the population. It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is "Gone with the Wind." -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil. Also, it would make viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation. This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.Scarlett said it best herself, "After all, tomorrow is another day."<br />
Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to model yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett's character can be looked to for resilience. After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
In the credits before the movie, it lists the names of actors and actresses who played "servants." It does not say anything about slaves. In 1939, I don't think they would have called them "slaves," but today they would. Gone with the Wind does not show the terrible conditions for the slaves. Amistad definitely is vivid with showing how terrible the middle passage is because it was made in 1997 not 1939. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her "trash." She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. After reading "Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863," there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite. They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The Fitzhugh reading, which is the pro-slavery argument, contradicts certain points that Dr. McClurken made in class. It said that African American women did not have to do much work and that the slaves only worked about nine hour days. Dr. McClurken taught that slaves worked about 15 hours a day, and the women either were in the kitchens and houses or were doing field work. The Carl Schurz reading describes the end of the war and the circumstances people found themselves in. The planters, who used to be thought of as the elite, were now in poverty and participating in menial labor in order to survive. This appears in the movie when Scarlett and her family are picking cotton in the field in order to earn money to get food. It was also interesting to see that some of the former slaves who were in the O’Hara household could not perform certain tasks, for example, tying up the cow. One of the African Americans actually told Scarlett that they were domestic servants and had no experience with livestock. Prissy also did not seem to have many talents when it came to housekeeping. I’m not quite sure how accurate that is. I know Deborah mentioned that its inaccurate that Prissy had no knowledge of “birthin’ babies.”-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Because so much of Gone with the Wind actually takes place after the war is over, its imagining of Reconstruction is important. Scarlett returns home to a Tara that is "not only conquered in a political and military sense, but economically ruined" as Carl Shurz describes the post-war South. Scarlett, for some inexplicably reason, still had some of her former slaves to help rebuild Tara, but most Southerners had to learn how to restructure their entire way of doing things. Scarlett fits in with the all of the Southerners who "must do something, honest or dishonest, and must do it soon, to make a living." That sense of economic desperation makes Scarlett's decision to marry Mr. Kennedy and her drive to make money by any means possible seem relatively realistic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Compared to what Mike E. said, I actually found the grandmother in the "Trials of a Slave Girl" reading to be a little like the Mammy character. Mammy was a black women who held the respect of other slaves and even some white people, including Rhett Butler. At first I thought Harriet Jacobs (the slave girl) and maybe other black people in the family or community were the only ones who respected her a great deal but something in the primary source caught my eye. When the master was building a house for Jacobs the grandmother "had high words" with him and "told him pretty plainly what she thought of his character." I don't think a slave who wasn't at least a little bit respected by her owners or white people could get away with talking in that manner. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure if this was an actual question but Dr. McClurken did want us to acknowledge the memory of war. I felt that the memory of the war was not depicted well in the movie. Yes, the men came back bruised, wounded, some never came back, but they seemed to move right back into their lives. It is clear that the war left scars and Atlanta had to be rebuilt but yet it once again flourished. I thought the one point that showed hints of the war lingering around, was the $300 tax Scarlett's family had to pay during Reconstruction. It showed that Southerners were not forgiven and had to repay debts. Aside from the movie, the memory of the Civil War is alive and well, whether a Confederate flag is displayed or families pass down memorabilia, the time in history is significant to the structure of the United States and its history. -Megan W.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T02:58:35Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Questions asked in class */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Deborah's point. One of the first things that the film got very right was the sense of chaos and disorder during the revolt on the ship. The sense of total lack of communication throughout the whole film was very well-done. I also liked the attention paid to the character with the sharpened teeth, which was mentioned in one of the readings. In addition, casting Djimon Hounsou as Cinque was a great choice. His magnetism and presence made him very interesting to watch, and I think this holds true to the real Cinque. I also think that the sequence showing Cinque's experience on the ship was fairly accurate. That whole sequence was harrowing and extremely hard to watch. I admire the filmmakers for not shying away from any of the horrors that the slaves experienced. - Celia<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In the film when Ruiz and Montes steer the ship they trick the Africans into thinking that they are sailing back to Africa by telling them that the sun is in the east, which is the direction of Africa. They began to sail at sunset, so they actually were sailing west towards America. In the morning, when the Africans wake up, the boat is facing the sun (the east). That little trick correlates to the map that Dr. McClurken showed in class about the zigzag course La Amistad took. The attitudes of the North and South were accurate, especially that of John Calhoun. He arrives (or crashes?) the presidential dinner and gives the Spanish Ambassador an earful about how if slavery is taken away from the South, that will put the standard of living of the South even further behind that of the North. He expresses similar views in The Executive Review that Adams references in the Supreme Court session. The movie also accurately portrays President Van Buren’s lack of interest in the Amistad matter at first because of his focus on re-election. Van Buren’s later challenge to the judgment does not really give him the full political support he desires, because he loses the 1840 election. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie portrayed Cinque as a strong leader. He is ripped physically and he learns English the quickest although that may not be true in real life it shows he is the leader. Also they did a great job showing the language barrier and how they were walking though the streets saying numbers in Mendee. I think they did a good job displaying the Spanish annoyance that things were not going their way. I loved the conversation they had at the dinner table between Van Buren and John Calhoun.I also think the movie did a good job displaying the violence the slaves experienced on the middle passage. I felt kind of sick when they pushed all those people off the boat. I also found it sad when they only gave some people food and not others. It shows the reality of a slaves life. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Cinque's story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie did many things right. One of the was the language barrier that others mentioned, I however liked that they did not always use subtitles for Cinque because it was easy to see how Baldwin and others would have felt when trying to understand Cinque's story and how Cinque would have felt when people were speaking to him in Spanish and English. Second thing was the treatment of the tribe during Cinque's description of his capture. I also appreciated that it was shown that not everyone in the North was for Abolition, like when Baldwin is attacked and when he tells Cinque that he has received death threats.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Overall I was really pleased with the film in it's accuracy. From what I could tell, they got all the main points down correctly, such as their trip across the Atlantic, the uprising, and consequently their arrival in the colonies. The trial scenes all seemed accurate and probable for the time period. I really appreciated the films attention to little details. They could have left out "The Emancipator" or the change of judges to make things more simple, but I'm glad they didn't. It rounded out the story well. Although it was one of the most depressing parts of the film, I thought the capture and shipment of the slaves was very well done. I was glad to see that they showed other African tribes capturing slaves in exchange for weapons. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I thought that for the most part, the film got a lot of the big ideas across very well. The one that stuck out to me the most was that the ruling for the Mende did not mean the end of slavery in the United States; I think it would have been a very easy connection for the film makers to play up, but I'm glad that they did not. I also thought that the clear language barrier, and how translation helped the Mende case was well done, but not beat into the audience repeatedly. -Meagan P<br />
<br />
This film was very accurate (especially comparing to the other films we have seen so far). I liked how they showed the difficulty with the language barrier. This was not like Pocahontas where one minute they can't understand each other, and then the next minute they could understand each other perfectly. The film showed very well the confrontation of people from different cultures. It was nice not always having subtitles because it was like we were in the position of the Americans. They are trying to understand what the Mende are saying, but they can't. It also shows well how complicated the American legal system and I think they portrayed the different trials very well. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I have to say, overall, I was much less disappointed with this film than with most historical films. The major points were accurate without being dumbed down, such as the serious language barriers, the intricacies of the court system, and the gruesome voyage itself. It would have been easy to make the film shorter, less violent, more palatable, by cutting things out or changing bits and pieces of the storyline. I'm very glad that didn't happen. Parts of this movie are disgusting, off-putting, and morally uncomfortable. As they should be. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
In the movie you saw President Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour. The problem? Well, in 1840 presidents did not campaign. In addition, the characters also talked about the impending Civil War. Well, being 20 years away, how would they know that was to happen? And finally, the film is all about the Atlantic slave trade, which was actually illegal in 1840. Rather, the film should have dealt with slavery as a domestic institution.-- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character. Additionally, I don't believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be. The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time. Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two). Also, it's unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars. Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing. The court scenes were tedious enough as it was. <br />
In our textbook, "Reel History," Robert Brent Toplin talks about how "tainted" the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film's integrity (69-78). <br />
I don't know if I would call this "wrong," but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified. The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque's ancestor worship.) Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he's the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn't support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins' believability.--- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie does a good job of portraying that only a few people where for the abolition of slavery. But, when they first went to ask John Q. Adams to back them in their pursuit of winning the trials he claims that he is neutral in the matters that came between the abolitionists and those that were pro-slavery. This implies that there is an equally back constituency on both sides which we learned in class is not true. In the movie it seems that those who were neutral were the smallest minority, when in fact the abolitionists were seen as extremist and were the true minorities in the subject of slavery. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American's view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams' plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American's view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan that they should have made Matthew McConaughey look older. He looked too young to be a lawyer to me.I also agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman's character. Not only is he fictional he does not say much during the movie. He just kind of stood around. Obviously he was going for the big actors names but if he is fictional why even cast it? - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan and LeAnn. Casting Matthew McConaughey seems like a really vain attempt to attract younger audience members. He didn't do a terrible job, but honestly, the star of "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" and "Failure to Launch" seemed just a tad bit out of place on screen with Anthony Hopkins and Morgan Freeman. He could have been worse, I guess, but I think he was woefully miscast. Maybe the filmmakers were trying to cast Baldwin as a young upstart with lots of spirit and passion to contrast against John Quincy Adams. Also, it annoyed me a lot that Baldwin said NOTHING at the final court scene. I guess this was just to give Adams the floor the whole time, but I think that's pretty unfair. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn<br />
<br />
I don't know if this something that the movie got wrong in the sense of a factual/ historical mistake but the Supreme Court scene and Adams speech makes it look like his moral speech is what causes the decision, but it was really Baldwin's property statements that was used in the decision. However the use of property claims is still used in the various trials.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
According to the timeline we talked about it class, the Mende would have made it to Connecticut sometime during the summer, not during the snowy winter as in the film. That was an interesting choice by the filmmakers, perhaps done to make the Mende's plight seem that much dramatic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I have two main contentions with this movie. The first is that I believe more than two crew members were killed during the opening mutiny scene. I also am not positive that they portrayed Cinque as the only one who killed the men. In this scene, the crewmen were also seen reloading their guns in the rain. Could that be done? In "The Last of the Mohicans" they couldn't reload under the waterfall, not that Mann's film is a standard for historical accuracy. The second atrocity is that the counter suit the Mende filed was never mentioned. In the film, we never find out what happened to Ruiz and Montes. While I'm on this rant, I would like to point out how strait and white Cinque's teeth were. I find it remarkable that he had time to brush his teeth during the middle passage. His pearly whites are especially noticeable when he was reprimanding Baldwin. How could you resist such a bright, shiny smile, Van Buren? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned the sort of fumbling with languages that happens throughout the film. While there is no glade plug in moment granting Cinque magical English language powers, he seems to understand what other people are saying in English just fine. Just consider his interaction with Baldwin in the cell. Baldwin attempts to ask where Cinque has come from, but due to the language barrier nothing gets across, yet mysteriously (through the gift of subtitles) Cinque responds to Baldwin in his native tongue as if the only problem was his lack of English. Is that a small discrepancy? Sure! But am I going to complain? Hell yeah. While it doesn't relate to history, I felt like the on again off again use of subtitles just did not work. We only got subtitles when Spielberg decided subtitles would either be heart warming or make a nice joke. --[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:53, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I was a little unsettled by Morgan Freeman's character. I understand it was to add to the nobility of the cause of abolition, but he seemed out of place. Also, what was with that ship full of diners the Amistad encounters while still at sea? I didn't know they had cruise ships in the 1840's! I also noticed that they left out the "non-human" cargo the men divided after the trial was over, a small aspect of the trial. Oh, and were there women and children involved in the real trial, because there were in the film? And I know there wasn't a "glade plug-in" moment like Pocohontas, but the one Africans understanding of the Bible was pretty impressive to say the least.- Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin. This case does not change anything with slavery in the United States. It only discusses the slave trade across the Atlantic. Of course they want to make it dramatic my making this seem like the turning point of slavery in the United States. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
There were a few things I noticed in the movie that were inaccurate and the first the absence of the term “black Ladinos” which is what the Cubans called the slaves. I thought this could have been an important element in the few court cases regarding the slaves in the movie. Also, it seemed that Lewis Tappan was made to be a little less prominent than he was in reality. I thought he was more active in the case, and he seemed to take somewhat of a back seat in the movie. Another thing was what happened to Cinque after the final verdict of the Supreme Court. In the movie, they claimed he returned right away to Africa and back to his family, but he actually spent some time in Connecticut, and then later returned to Africa. -afrisk<br />
<br />
While it may be a minor detail, I thought that the scene before the ship arrives on land when they pass within 5 feet of a ship with wealthy, dining Americans was ridiculous. It might just be my opinion, but I think that had that actually occurred more would've happened than the orchestra stopping so the rich Americans could stare. I can't imagine that seeing a ship completely controlled by blacks in the 1840s was something that happened normally. While I think the film tried to use that scene as a way to transition from the ship to the mainland, it never actually happened and was just somewhat distracting. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
Even though we think of the 90s as a politically correct time perhaps it was also a time when people were beginning to talk in a serious way about slavery and its film portrayal. I'm no film buff but I can't think of many (any?) films that place the issue of slavery as the central focus of the film. That being said it is clear that while we were beginning to talk about it we weren't ready for a full-blown discussion on the US participation (mostly in Southern Plantations). The Amistad case is a unique one and not representative of what was really going on during this time with regards to slavery. But ''Amistad'' provides a starting point where the issue of slavery is the focus without making Americans "feel bad" for those couple centuries of slavery. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:36, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Spielberg actually made an accompanying [http://www.filmeducation.org/pdf/film/Amistad.pdf study guide]to encourage teachers to show the film in the classroom and discuss the nature of slavery. The guide tries to communicate the horrors of slavery, its history and how the film should be accepted as a representation of said history. There are a couple of statements that I don't really agree with such as Spielberg's final notes that it takes in to account the perspectives of both white and black people, yet in all reality this case did not represent a win for abolitionists. If nothing else, maybe the film makers want to demonstrate that certain peoples in the US have a long history of fighting against slavery and oppression? Although people might be convicted by the terrible events, the film still has its (mostly) happy ending. On a separate note, I bumped into this [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 essay]by Eric Foner who digs into ''Amistad's''producer for, "castigating historians for suppressing the “real history” of African-Americans and slavery." If nothing else you can still see how hollywood is trying to one up historians.--[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:41, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the issue of slavery takes the foreground in this film, I think it is important to look at what this film is saying about the judicial system and its relation to American politics. The film, after all, falls into the court room drama genre, and it is therefore making certain claims about said system. The first thing that I noticed was the obvious hints at judicial corruption. Whether this commentary is solely focused on the 1800s or if this view is being placed on the system as a whole is unclear. Yet the film certainly makes claims that the American ideal of checks-and-balances in government is not as true as believed. Also, the makers of this film seem to believe in the idea of a close interpretation of established law, i.e. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (while not directly mentioned). Yet despite these claims of corruption and blurring of political lines the film suggests that the true American spirit (freedom and justice) will prevail no matter what. Like previous films watched in this class, <em>Amistad</em> seems to make the same statments about America: yeah we messed up and time were tough, but because we were just and wanted freedom we prevailed. A message that fits with the feelings of '90s American culture, one that triumphed in the Cold War and now was having a mostly successful economy.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While this may be a small point in the grand scheme of the movie, I feel it says a lot about the filmmakers. While Yamba's interpretation of the illustrated New Testament is touching, any religious conversion of the Mende would not have been so clearly independent and self-guided. As discussed in class on Tuesday, the Mende received religious education. Conversion to Christianity was the entire point. But as upstanding Americans who value religious freedom, we could never possibly force faith on others... at least we can't show it that way in the movies we make. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I was glad to see that there did not seem to be much of a bias in the accuracy of the plot and specifics regarding the story. It is interesting to note the representation of the abolitionist in the film. While blacks were free at that point in the Northern states, that doesn't mean that they were treated well or respected. Much of the Northern population did not want to have anything to do with the free black population. Now I know that some abolitionist were a little on the far side, but Morgan Freeman's character was well regarded everywhere he went and treated just the same as a white man. This may have been influenced with the time periods ideas about the noble North and their crusade against slavery. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer. Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie. The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people. The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen. Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status. The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The David Walker reading, A Black Abolitionist Speaks Out, shows the extreme nature of their being. The reading displays a man that was shocked and "astonished" by the acts of an American, Christian nation. The talk of God and how he/she might look at the act of enslaving a man is brought up over and over in this piece. This is a stark contrast from the portrayal of the abolitionists in the movie. These characters were seen as well do and appeared to be excepted into the society in which they lived. They also seemed to be more gentlemen like than Walker, this may have something to do with them being white and him being the son of a former slave. Nonetheless, the reading gives a true portrayal of the intensity that was held about abolitionists on the topic, which was surely needed if one was to go against social norms in such a large way. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's seizure from his home jibes with Equiano's description of kidnapping practices in general. The brief shot of Cinque's son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving. The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque's wife. For them, as for Equiano's parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air. According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan's account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi's letter to John Quincy Adams was, "give us free". Cinque chanted "give us free" in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as "chief" and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn't a chief. He then went on to call him a "white man," probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman's character. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as "brother" and then said that he was a "white man" - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the scenes describing the capture and treatment of Cinque and the others was very similar to the Equiano's story. The kidnapping by other African tribes, being sold, and the horrors experienced on board ships like: people jumping overboard to escape, the rape of the women, and the violent whippings.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I really agree with Rachel, and to add on I thought how Equiano described how he was jealous of his countrymen who jumped off of the ship to be something that should of been emphasized. The people were taken away from everything and if they recieved a glimmer of hope by seeing a relative it was quickly taken from them. I also think how Equiano described his white captors to be equal to how Cinque and his people would of viewed them, they were essentially foreigners and ugly on the inside and out. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In both the readings and the film, the Africans begin picking up English and Christianity, but in the movie it seems almost accidental (as in, the Bible is stolen rather than given). In the readings though, it's quite clear that the Americans are actively seeking to teach the Mende. Lewis Tappan's letter mentions that he spent time working with them over religious texts, and the letter from Kalito Adams mentions a teacher that the group spoke with. Maybe the filmmakers wanted to avoid making it look as though the Americans were attempting to "Americanize" the Africans. They wanted to emphasize that being African, and preserving their culture, was perfectly legitimate, but that sounds to me like a fairly modern idea. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I felt that the letter to Adams had many of the same sentiments we witnessed in the movie. The Africans did not understand what they did wrong and just wanted their freedom. The desperation of the letter and the characters in the film is palpable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
David Walker mentions equal rights and the Declaration of Independence by saying, “Hear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776-‘We hold these truths to be self-evident-that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!! That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!!’ Compare your own language above…with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us.” This was the reality of the slaves' existence. They were not treated as humans and had zero rights whatsoever. In the film, John Adams refers to the Declaration in his address to the Supreme Court. He echoes the voice of David Walker (and obviously Cinque and all slaves) and the judges listen.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I wish Morgan Freeman’s character, Theodore Joadson, had a more prominent role in the movie. After doing the readings as well as watching the movie, I thought the narrative by David Walker could have been what Freeman brought to the screen. In Walker’s narrative, he speaks very strongly about the oppression of blacks and its tremendous conflict with morality and inalienable rights. While watching the movie, I could not help but wish Freeman’s character would kick it into gear and become a more open advocate for abolitionism. Clearly he is for the cause, but does so in a detached manner and I kept wishing his character would develop more instead of just pushing the plot along. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I thought that the readings coincided in a very meaningful way with the film, especially the letter from Kali to John Quincy Adams. The language barrier, which was portrayed consistently throughout the movie, shows as well in the letter, as well as the fact that the Mende relate themselves to the American people. There is also the clear recognition of the word "free" in both the letter and the movie- it is the first word that we see Cinque recognize when Baldwin is talking to him in the prison cell, and in the letter Kali states that "All we want is make us free." -Meagan P<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly. Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low. The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question. The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is "not a big man, but a lucky one," in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin or Adams. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I really admired John Quincy Adams’s explanation to Cinque about taking the case to the Supreme Court. He says to Cinque, “We’re battling a lion that’s threatening to tear our country apart. And all we have is a rock.” He does not talk down to him; he explains the situation in terms that Cinque understands. To a person who has never lived in a country with an intricate legal system, it would be very difficult to understand why a judgment does not stand without further challenge. During the Supreme Court session, Adams mentions Cinque’s invocation to his ancestors and that with them there, he will be saved. Adams then calls on America’s ancestors, our Founding Fathers. After the case is settled, Cinque asks Adams what he said to persuade them to rule in favor of the Africans. Adams replies, “Your words.” –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I understand what Mike was saying about making Baldwin or Adams look like the hero in the film because of Cinque's denial of leadership, but I don't agree with it completely. I do believe the film makes Baldwin (in particular) look like the hero, but I think Cinque's "humbleness" just adds to his majesty. He was still portrayed as a leader and as the strongest of the men (mentally and physically) and I think the viewers still see him as a strong hero who conquers the adversity he finds himself in. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I agree with Victoria. I was never unimpressed by Cinque's character - his story about what really happened with the lion only made me respect him more for admitting the truth. Obviously we feel sorry for Cinque and all of the captives, but it's the way Cinque carries himself that makes the audience respect him. From the moment Adams is introduced, he already seems like a hero, albeit a more unwilling one, but it's clear that he's to be respected. Baldwin is built up but he doesn't have a huge moment that changes the way the audience sees him. He starts the film as a noble lawyer and ends it as a noble lawyer. Baldwin may be a hero in this, but Cinque is THE hero. - Celia</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T02:48:54Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Deborah's point. One of the first things that the film got very right was the sense of chaos and disorder during the revolt on the ship. The sense of total lack of communication throughout the whole film was very well-done. I also liked the attention paid to the character with the sharpened teeth, which was mentioned in one of the readings. In addition, casting Djimon Hounsou as Cinque was a great choice. His magnetism and presence made him very interesting to watch, and I think this holds true to the real Cinque. I also think that the sequence showing Cinque's experience on the ship was fairly accurate. That whole sequence was harrowing and extremely hard to watch. I admire the filmmakers for not shying away from any of the horrors that the slaves experienced. - Celia<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In the film when Ruiz and Montes steer the ship they trick the Africans into thinking that they are sailing back to Africa by telling them that the sun is in the east, which is the direction of Africa. They began to sail at sunset, so they actually were sailing west towards America. In the morning, when the Africans wake up, the boat is facing the sun (the east). That little trick correlates to the map that Dr. McClurken showed in class about the zigzag course La Amistad took. The attitudes of the North and South were accurate, especially that of John Calhoun. He arrives (or crashes?) the presidential dinner and gives the Spanish Ambassador an earful about how if slavery is taken away from the South, that will put the standard of living of the South even further behind that of the North. He expresses similar views in The Executive Review that Adams references in the Supreme Court session. The movie also accurately portrays President Van Buren’s lack of interest in the Amistad matter at first because of his focus on re-election. Van Buren’s later challenge to the judgment does not really give him the full political support he desires, because he loses the 1840 election. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie portrayed Cinque as a strong leader. He is ripped physically and he learns English the quickest although that may not be true in real life it shows he is the leader. Also they did a great job showing the language barrier and how they were walking though the streets saying numbers in Mendee. I think they did a good job displaying the Spanish annoyance that things were not going their way. I loved the conversation they had at the dinner table between Van Buren and John Calhoun.I also think the movie did a good job displaying the violence the slaves experienced on the middle passage. I felt kind of sick when they pushed all those people off the boat. I also found it sad when they only gave some people food and not others. It shows the reality of a slaves life. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Cinque's story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie did many things right. One of the was the language barrier that others mentioned, I however liked that they did not always use subtitles for Cinque because it was easy to see how Baldwin and others would have felt when trying to understand Cinque's story and how Cinque would have felt when people were speaking to him in Spanish and English. Second thing was the treatment of the tribe during Cinque's description of his capture. I also appreciated that it was shown that not everyone in the North was for Abolition, like when Baldwin is attacked and when he tells Cinque that he has received death threats.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Overall I was really pleased with the film in it's accuracy. From what I could tell, they got all the main points down correctly, such as their trip across the Atlantic, the uprising, and consequently their arrival in the colonies. The trial scenes all seemed accurate and probable for the time period. I really appreciated the films attention to little details. They could have left out "The Emancipator" or the change of judges to make things more simple, but I'm glad they didn't. It rounded out the story well. Although it was one of the most depressing parts of the film, I thought the capture and shipment of the slaves was very well done. I was glad to see that they showed other African tribes capturing slaves in exchange for weapons. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I thought that for the most part, the film got a lot of the big ideas across very well. The one that stuck out to me the most was that the ruling for the Mende did not mean the end of slavery in the United States; I think it would have been a very easy connection for the film makers to play up, but I'm glad that they did not. I also thought that the clear language barrier, and how translation helped the Mende case was well done, but not beat into the audience repeatedly. -Meagan P<br />
<br />
This film was very accurate (especially comparing to the other films we have seen so far). I liked how they showed the difficulty with the language barrier. This was not like Pocahontas where one minute they can't understand each other, and then the next minute they could understand each other perfectly. The film showed very well the confrontation of people from different cultures. It was nice not always having subtitles because it was like we were in the position of the Americans. They are trying to understand what the Mende are saying, but they can't. It also shows well how complicated the American legal system and I think they portrayed the different trials very well. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I have to say, overall, I was much less disappointed with this film than with most historical films. The major points were accurate without being dumbed down, such as the serious language barriers, the intricacies of the court system, and the gruesome voyage itself. It would have been easy to make the film shorter, less violent, more palatable, by cutting things out or changing bits and pieces of the storyline. I'm very glad that didn't happen. Parts of this movie are disgusting, off-putting, and morally uncomfortable. As they should be. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
In the movie you saw President Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour. The problem? Well, in 1840 presidents did not campaign. In addition, the characters also talked about the impending Civil War. Well, being 20 years away, how would they know that was to happen? And finally, the film is all about the Atlantic slave trade, which was actually illegal in 1840. Rather, the film should have dealt with slavery as a domestic institution.-- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character. Additionally, I don't believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be. The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time. Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two). Also, it's unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars. Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing. The court scenes were tedious enough as it was. <br />
In our textbook, "Reel History," Robert Brent Toplin talks about how "tainted" the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film's integrity (69-78). <br />
I don't know if I would call this "wrong," but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified. The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque's ancestor worship.) Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he's the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn't support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins' believability.--- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie does a good job of portraying that only a few people where for the abolition of slavery. But, when they first went to ask John Q. Adams to back them in their pursuit of winning the trials he claims that he is neutral in the matters that came between the abolitionists and those that were pro-slavery. This implies that there is an equally back constituency on both sides which we learned in class is not true. In the movie it seems that those who were neutral were the smallest minority, when in fact the abolitionists were seen as extremist and were the true minorities in the subject of slavery. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American's view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams' plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American's view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan that they should have made Matthew McConaughey look older. He looked too young to be a lawyer to me.I also agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman's character. Not only is he fictional he does not say much during the movie. He just kind of stood around. Obviously he was going for the big actors names but if he is fictional why even cast it? - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan and LeAnn. Casting Matthew McConaughey seems like a really vain attempt to attract younger audience members. He didn't do a terrible job, but honestly, the star of "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" and "Failure to Launch" seemed just a tad bit out of place on screen with Anthony Hopkins and Morgan Freeman. He could have been worse, I guess, but I think he was woefully miscast. Maybe the filmmakers were trying to cast Baldwin as a young upstart with lots of spirit and passion to contrast against John Quincy Adams. Also, it annoyed me a lot that Baldwin said NOTHING at the final court scene. I guess this was just to give Adams the floor the whole time, but I think that's pretty unfair. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn<br />
<br />
I don't know if this something that the movie got wrong in the sense of a factual/ historical mistake but the Supreme Court scene and Adams speech makes it look like his moral speech is what causes the decision, but it was really Baldwin's property statements that was used in the decision. However the use of property claims is still used in the various trials.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
According to the timeline we talked about it class, the Mende would have made it to Connecticut sometime during the summer, not during the snowy winter as in the film. That was an interesting choice by the filmmakers, perhaps done to make the Mende's plight seem that much dramatic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I have two main contentions with this movie. The first is that I believe more than two crew members were killed during the opening mutiny scene. I also am not positive that they portrayed Cinque as the only one who killed the men. In this scene, the crewmen were also seen reloading their guns in the rain. Could that be done? In "The Last of the Mohicans" they couldn't reload under the waterfall, not that Mann's film is a standard for historical accuracy. The second atrocity is that the counter suit the Mende filed was never mentioned. In the film, we never find out what happened to Ruiz and Montes. While I'm on this rant, I would like to point out how strait and white Cinque's teeth were. I find it remarkable that he had time to brush his teeth during the middle passage. His pearly whites are especially noticeable when he was reprimanding Baldwin. How could you resist such a bright, shiny smile, Van Buren? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned the sort of fumbling with languages that happens throughout the film. While there is no glade plug in moment granting Cinque magical English language powers, he seems to understand what other people are saying in English just fine. Just consider his interaction with Baldwin in the cell. Baldwin attempts to ask where Cinque has come from, but due to the language barrier nothing gets across, yet mysteriously (through the gift of subtitles) Cinque responds to Baldwin in his native tongue as if the only problem was his lack of English. Is that a small discrepancy? Sure! But am I going to complain? Hell yeah. While it doesn't relate to history, I felt like the on again off again use of subtitles just did not work. We only got subtitles when Spielberg decided subtitles would either be heart warming or make a nice joke. --[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:53, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I was a little unsettled by Morgan Freeman's character. I understand it was to add to the nobility of the cause of abolition, but he seemed out of place. Also, what was with that ship full of diners the Amistad encounters while still at sea? I didn't know they had cruise ships in the 1840's! I also noticed that they left out the "non-human" cargo the men divided after the trial was over, a small aspect of the trial. Oh, and were there women and children involved in the real trial, because there were in the film? And I know there wasn't a "glade plug-in" moment like Pocohontas, but the one Africans understanding of the Bible was pretty impressive to say the least.- Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin. This case does not change anything with slavery in the United States. It only discusses the slave trade across the Atlantic. Of course they want to make it dramatic my making this seem like the turning point of slavery in the United States. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
There were a few things I noticed in the movie that were inaccurate and the first the absence of the term “black Ladinos” which is what the Cubans called the slaves. I thought this could have been an important element in the few court cases regarding the slaves in the movie. Also, it seemed that Lewis Tappan was made to be a little less prominent than he was in reality. I thought he was more active in the case, and he seemed to take somewhat of a back seat in the movie. Another thing was what happened to Cinque after the final verdict of the Supreme Court. In the movie, they claimed he returned right away to Africa and back to his family, but he actually spent some time in Connecticut, and then later returned to Africa. -afrisk<br />
<br />
While it may be a minor detail, I thought that the scene before the ship arrives on land when they pass within 5 feet of a ship with wealthy, dining Americans was ridiculous. It might just be my opinion, but I think that had that actually occurred more would've happened than the orchestra stopping so the rich Americans could stare. I can't imagine that seeing a ship completely controlled by blacks in the 1840s was something that happened normally. While I think the film tried to use that scene as a way to transition from the ship to the mainland, it never actually happened and was just somewhat distracting. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
Even though we think of the 90s as a politically correct time perhaps it was also a time when people were beginning to talk in a serious way about slavery and its film portrayal. I'm no film buff but I can't think of many (any?) films that place the issue of slavery as the central focus of the film. That being said it is clear that while we were beginning to talk about it we weren't ready for a full-blown discussion on the US participation (mostly in Southern Plantations). The Amistad case is a unique one and not representative of what was really going on during this time with regards to slavery. But ''Amistad'' provides a starting point where the issue of slavery is the focus without making Americans "feel bad" for those couple centuries of slavery. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:36, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Spielberg actually made an accompanying [http://www.filmeducation.org/pdf/film/Amistad.pdf study guide]to encourage teachers to show the film in the classroom and discuss the nature of slavery. The guide tries to communicate the horrors of slavery, its history and how the film should be accepted as a representation of said history. There are a couple of statements that I don't really agree with such as Spielberg's final notes that it takes in to account the perspectives of both white and black people, yet in all reality this case did not represent a win for abolitionists. If nothing else, maybe the film makers want to demonstrate that certain peoples in the US have a long history of fighting against slavery and oppression? Although people might be convicted by the terrible events, the film still has its (mostly) happy ending. On a separate note, I bumped into this [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 essay]by Eric Foner who digs into ''Amistad's''producer for, "castigating historians for suppressing the “real history” of African-Americans and slavery." If nothing else you can still see how hollywood is trying to one up historians.--[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:41, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the issue of slavery takes the foreground in this film, I think it is important to look at what this film is saying about the judicial system and its relation to American politics. The film, after all, falls into the court room drama genre, and it is therefore making certain claims about said system. The first thing that I noticed was the obvious hints at judicial corruption. Whether this commentary is solely focused on the 1800s or if this view is being placed on the system as a whole is unclear. Yet the film certainly makes claims that the American ideal of checks-and-balances in government is not as true as believed. Also, the makers of this film seem to believe in the idea of a close interpretation of established law, i.e. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (while not directly mentioned). Yet despite these claims of corruption and blurring of political lines the film suggests that the true American spirit (freedom and justice) will prevail no matter what. Like previous films watched in this class, <em>Amistad</em> seems to make the same statments about America: yeah we messed up and time were tough, but because we were just and wanted freedom we prevailed. A message that fits with the feelings of '90s American culture, one that triumphed in the Cold War and now was having a mostly successful economy.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While this may be a small point in the grand scheme of the movie, I feel it says a lot about the filmmakers. While Yamba's interpretation of the illustrated New Testament is touching, any religious conversion of the Mende would not have been so clearly independent and self-guided. As discussed in class on Tuesday, the Mende received religious education. Conversion to Christianity was the entire point. But as upstanding Americans who value religious freedom, we could never possibly force faith on others... at least we can't show it that way in the movies we make. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I was glad to see that there did not seem to be much of a bias in the accuracy of the plot and specifics regarding the story. It is interesting to note the representation of the abolitionist in the film. While blacks were free at that point in the Northern states, that doesn't mean that they were treated well or respected. Much of the Northern population did not want to have anything to do with the free black population. Now I know that some abolitionist were a little on the far side, but Morgan Freeman's character was well regarded everywhere he went and treated just the same as a white man. This may have been influenced with the time periods ideas about the noble North and their crusade against slavery. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer. Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie. The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people. The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen. Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status. The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The David Walker reading, A Black Abolitionist Speaks Out, shows the extreme nature of their being. The reading displays a man that was shocked and "astonished" by the acts of an American, Christian nation. The talk of God and how he/she might look at the act of enslaving a man is brought up over and over in this piece. This is a stark contrast from the portrayal of the abolitionists in the movie. These characters were seen as well do and appeared to be excepted into the society in which they lived. They also seemed to be more gentlemen like than Walker, this may have something to do with them being white and him being the son of a former slave. Nonetheless, the reading gives a true portrayal of the intensity that was held about abolitionists on the topic, which was surely needed if one was to go against social norms in such a large way. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's seizure from his home jibes with Equiano's description of kidnapping practices in general. The brief shot of Cinque's son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving. The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque's wife. For them, as for Equiano's parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air. According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan's account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi's letter to John Quincy Adams was, "give us free". Cinque chanted "give us free" in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as "chief" and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn't a chief. He then went on to call him a "white man," probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman's character. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as "brother" and then said that he was a "white man" - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the scenes describing the capture and treatment of Cinque and the others was very similar to the Equiano's story. The kidnapping by other African tribes, being sold, and the horrors experienced on board ships like: people jumping overboard to escape, the rape of the women, and the violent whippings.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I really agree with Rachel, and to add on I thought how Equiano described how he was jealous of his countrymen who jumped off of the ship to be something that should of been emphasized. The people were taken away from everything and if they recieved a glimmer of hope by seeing a relative it was quickly taken from them. I also think how Equiano described his white captors to be equal to how Cinque and his people would of viewed them, they were essentially foreigners and ugly on the inside and out. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In both the readings and the film, the Africans begin picking up English and Christianity, but in the movie it seems almost accidental (as in, the Bible is stolen rather than given). In the readings though, it's quite clear that the Americans are actively seeking to teach the Mende. Lewis Tappan's letter mentions that he spent time working with them over religious texts, and the letter from Kalito Adams mentions a teacher that the group spoke with. Maybe the filmmakers wanted to avoid making it look as though the Americans were attempting to "Americanize" the Africans. They wanted to emphasize that being African, and preserving their culture, was perfectly legitimate, but that sounds to me like a fairly modern idea. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I felt that the letter to Adams had many of the same sentiments we witnessed in the movie. The Africans did not understand what they did wrong and just wanted their freedom. The desperation of the letter and the characters in the film is palpable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
David Walker mentions equal rights and the Declaration of Independence by saying, “Hear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776-‘We hold these truths to be self-evident-that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!! That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!!’ Compare your own language above…with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us.” This was the reality of the slaves' existence. They were not treated as humans and had zero rights whatsoever. In the film, John Adams refers to the Declaration in his address to the Supreme Court. He echoes the voice of David Walker (and obviously Cinque and all slaves) and the judges listen.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I wish Morgan Freeman’s character, Theodore Joadson, had a more prominent role in the movie. After doing the readings as well as watching the movie, I thought the narrative by David Walker could have been what Freeman brought to the screen. In Walker’s narrative, he speaks very strongly about the oppression of blacks and its tremendous conflict with morality and inalienable rights. While watching the movie, I could not help but wish Freeman’s character would kick it into gear and become a more open advocate for abolitionism. Clearly he is for the cause, but does so in a detached manner and I kept wishing his character would develop more instead of just pushing the plot along. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I thought that the readings coincided in a very meaningful way with the film, especially the letter from Kali to John Quincy Adams. The language barrier, which was portrayed consistently throughout the movie, shows as well in the letter, as well as the fact that the Mende relate themselves to the American people. There is also the clear recognition of the word "free" in both the letter and the movie- it is the first word that we see Cinque recognize when Baldwin is talking to him in the prison cell, and in the letter Kali states that "All we want is make us free." -Meagan P<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly. Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low. The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question. The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is "not a big man, but a lucky one," in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin or Adams. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I really admired John Quincy Adams’s explanation to Cinque about taking the case to the Supreme Court. He says to Cinque, “We’re battling a lion that’s threatening to tear our country apart. And all we have is a rock.” He does not talk down to him; he explains the situation in terms that Cinque understands. To a person who has never lived in a country with an intricate legal system, it would be very difficult to understand why a judgment does not stand without further challenge. During the Supreme Court session, Adams mentions Cinque’s invocation to his ancestors and that with them there, he will be saved. Adams then calls on America’s ancestors, our Founding Fathers. After the case is settled, Cinque asks Adams what he said to persuade them to rule in favor of the Africans. Adams replies, “Your words.” –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I understand what Mike was saying about making Baldwin or Adams look like the hero in the film because of Cinque's denial of leadership, but I don't agree with it completely. I do believe the film makes Baldwin (in particular) look like the hero, but I think Cinque's "humbleness" just adds to his majesty. He was still portrayed as a leader and as the strongest of the men (mentally and physically) and I think the viewers still see him as a strong hero who conquers the adversity he finds himself in. - Victoria Y.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T02:45:09Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Deborah's point. One of the first things that the film got very right was the sense of chaos and disorder during the revolt on the ship. The sense of total lack of communication throughout the whole film was very well-done. I also liked the attention paid to the character with the sharpened teeth, which was mentioned in one of the readings. In addition, casting Djimon Hounsou as Cinque was a great choice. His magnetism and presence made him very interesting to watch, and I think this holds true to the real Cinque. - Celia<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In the film when Ruiz and Montes steer the ship they trick the Africans into thinking that they are sailing back to Africa by telling them that the sun is in the east, which is the direction of Africa. They began to sail at sunset, so they actually were sailing west towards America. In the morning, when the Africans wake up, the boat is facing the sun (the east). That little trick correlates to the map that Dr. McClurken showed in class about the zigzag course La Amistad took. The attitudes of the North and South were accurate, especially that of John Calhoun. He arrives (or crashes?) the presidential dinner and gives the Spanish Ambassador an earful about how if slavery is taken away from the South, that will put the standard of living of the South even further behind that of the North. He expresses similar views in The Executive Review that Adams references in the Supreme Court session. The movie also accurately portrays President Van Buren’s lack of interest in the Amistad matter at first because of his focus on re-election. Van Buren’s later challenge to the judgment does not really give him the full political support he desires, because he loses the 1840 election. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie portrayed Cinque as a strong leader. He is ripped physically and he learns English the quickest although that may not be true in real life it shows he is the leader. Also they did a great job showing the language barrier and how they were walking though the streets saying numbers in Mendee. I think they did a good job displaying the Spanish annoyance that things were not going their way. I loved the conversation they had at the dinner table between Van Buren and John Calhoun.I also think the movie did a good job displaying the violence the slaves experienced on the middle passage. I felt kind of sick when they pushed all those people off the boat. I also found it sad when they only gave some people food and not others. It shows the reality of a slaves life. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Cinque's story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie did many things right. One of the was the language barrier that others mentioned, I however liked that they did not always use subtitles for Cinque because it was easy to see how Baldwin and others would have felt when trying to understand Cinque's story and how Cinque would have felt when people were speaking to him in Spanish and English. Second thing was the treatment of the tribe during Cinque's description of his capture. I also appreciated that it was shown that not everyone in the North was for Abolition, like when Baldwin is attacked and when he tells Cinque that he has received death threats.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Overall I was really pleased with the film in it's accuracy. From what I could tell, they got all the main points down correctly, such as their trip across the Atlantic, the uprising, and consequently their arrival in the colonies. The trial scenes all seemed accurate and probable for the time period. I really appreciated the films attention to little details. They could have left out "The Emancipator" or the change of judges to make things more simple, but I'm glad they didn't. It rounded out the story well. Although it was one of the most depressing parts of the film, I thought the capture and shipment of the slaves was very well done. I was glad to see that they showed other African tribes capturing slaves in exchange for weapons. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I thought that for the most part, the film got a lot of the big ideas across very well. The one that stuck out to me the most was that the ruling for the Mende did not mean the end of slavery in the United States; I think it would have been a very easy connection for the film makers to play up, but I'm glad that they did not. I also thought that the clear language barrier, and how translation helped the Mende case was well done, but not beat into the audience repeatedly. -Meagan P<br />
<br />
This film was very accurate (especially comparing to the other films we have seen so far). I liked how they showed the difficulty with the language barrier. This was not like Pocahontas where one minute they can't understand each other, and then the next minute they could understand each other perfectly. The film showed very well the confrontation of people from different cultures. It was nice not always having subtitles because it was like we were in the position of the Americans. They are trying to understand what the Mende are saying, but they can't. It also shows well how complicated the American legal system and I think they portrayed the different trials very well. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
In the movie you saw President Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour. The problem? Well, in 1840 presidents did not campaign. In addition, the characters also talked about the impending Civil War. Well, being 20 years away, how would they know that was to happen? And finally, the film is all about the Atlantic slave trade, which was actually illegal in 1840. Rather, the film should have dealt with slavery as a domestic institution.-- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character. Additionally, I don't believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be. The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time. Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two). Also, it's unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars. Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing. The court scenes were tedious enough as it was. <br />
In our textbook, "Reel History," Robert Brent Toplin talks about how "tainted" the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film's integrity (69-78). <br />
I don't know if I would call this "wrong," but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified. The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque's ancestor worship.) Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he's the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn't support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins' believability.--- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie does a good job of portraying that only a few people where for the abolition of slavery. But, when they first went to ask John Q. Adams to back them in their pursuit of winning the trials he claims that he is neutral in the matters that came between the abolitionists and those that were pro-slavery. This implies that there is an equally back constituency on both sides which we learned in class is not true. In the movie it seems that those who were neutral were the smallest minority, when in fact the abolitionists were seen as extremist and were the true minorities in the subject of slavery. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American's view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams' plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American's view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan that they should have made Matthew McConaughey look older. He looked too young to be a lawyer to me.I also agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman's character. Not only is he fictional he does not say much during the movie. He just kind of stood around. Obviously he was going for the big actors names but if he is fictional why even cast it? - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan and LeAnn. Casting Matthew McConaughey seems like a really vain attempt to attract younger audience members. He didn't do a terrible job, but honestly, the star of "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days" and "Failure to Launch" seemed just a tad bit out of place on screen with Anthony Hopkins and Morgan Freeman. He could have been worse, I guess, but I think he was woefully miscast. Maybe the filmmakers were trying to cast Baldwin as a young upstart with lots of spirit and passion to contrast against John Quincy Adams. Also, it annoyed me a lot that Baldwin said NOTHING at the final court scene. I guess this was just to give Adams the floor the whole time, but I think that's pretty unfair. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn<br />
<br />
I don't know if this something that the movie got wrong in the sense of a factual/ historical mistake but the Supreme Court scene and Adams speech makes it look like his moral speech is what causes the decision, but it was really Baldwin's property statements that was used in the decision. However the use of property claims is still used in the various trials.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
According to the timeline we talked about it class, the Mende would have made it to Connecticut sometime during the summer, not during the snowy winter as in the film. That was an interesting choice by the filmmakers, perhaps done to make the Mende's plight seem that much dramatic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I have two main contentions with this movie. The first is that I believe more than two crew members were killed during the opening mutiny scene. I also am not positive that they portrayed Cinque as the only one who killed the men. In this scene, the crewmen were also seen reloading their guns in the rain. Could that be done? In "The Last of the Mohicans" they couldn't reload under the waterfall, not that Mann's film is a standard for historical accuracy. The second atrocity is that the counter suit the Mende filed was never mentioned. In the film, we never find out what happened to Ruiz and Montes. While I'm on this rant, I would like to point out how strait and white Cinque's teeth were. I find it remarkable that he had time to brush his teeth during the middle passage. His pearly whites are especially noticeable when he was reprimanding Baldwin. How could you resist such a bright, shiny smile, Van Buren? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned the sort of fumbling with languages that happens throughout the film. While there is no glade plug in moment granting Cinque magical English language powers, he seems to understand what other people are saying in English just fine. Just consider his interaction with Baldwin in the cell. Baldwin attempts to ask where Cinque has come from, but due to the language barrier nothing gets across, yet mysteriously (through the gift of subtitles) Cinque responds to Baldwin in his native tongue as if the only problem was his lack of English. Is that a small discrepancy? Sure! But am I going to complain? Hell yeah. While it doesn't relate to history, I felt like the on again off again use of subtitles just did not work. We only got subtitles when Spielberg decided subtitles would either be heart warming or make a nice joke. --[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:53, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I was a little unsettled by Morgan Freeman's character. I understand it was to add to the nobility of the cause of abolition, but he seemed out of place. Also, what was with that ship full of diners the Amistad encounters while still at sea? I didn't know they had cruise ships in the 1840's! I also noticed that they left out the "non-human" cargo the men divided after the trial was over, a small aspect of the trial. Oh, and were there women and children involved in the real trial, because there were in the film? And I know there wasn't a "glade plug-in" moment like Pocohontas, but the one Africans understanding of the Bible was pretty impressive to say the least.- Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin. This case does not change anything with slavery in the United States. It only discusses the slave trade across the Atlantic. Of course they want to make it dramatic my making this seem like the turning point of slavery in the United States. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
There were a few things I noticed in the movie that were inaccurate and the first the absence of the term “black Ladinos” which is what the Cubans called the slaves. I thought this could have been an important element in the few court cases regarding the slaves in the movie. Also, it seemed that Lewis Tappan was made to be a little less prominent than he was in reality. I thought he was more active in the case, and he seemed to take somewhat of a back seat in the movie. Another thing was what happened to Cinque after the final verdict of the Supreme Court. In the movie, they claimed he returned right away to Africa and back to his family, but he actually spent some time in Connecticut, and then later returned to Africa. -afrisk<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
Even though we think of the 90s as a politically correct time perhaps it was also a time when people were beginning to talk in a serious way about slavery and its film portrayal. I'm no film buff but I can't think of many (any?) films that place the issue of slavery as the central focus of the film. That being said it is clear that while we were beginning to talk about it we weren't ready for a full-blown discussion on the US participation (mostly in Southern Plantations). The Amistad case is a unique one and not representative of what was really going on during this time with regards to slavery. But ''Amistad'' provides a starting point where the issue of slavery is the focus without making Americans "feel bad" for those couple centuries of slavery. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:36, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Spielberg actually made an accompanying [http://www.filmeducation.org/pdf/film/Amistad.pdf study guide]to encourage teachers to show the film in the classroom and discuss the nature of slavery. The guide tries to communicate the horrors of slavery, its history and how the film should be accepted as a representation of said history. There are a couple of statements that I don't really agree with such as Spielberg's final notes that it takes in to account the perspectives of both white and black people, yet in all reality this case did not represent a win for abolitionists. If nothing else, maybe the film makers want to demonstrate that certain peoples in the US have a long history of fighting against slavery and oppression? Although people might be convicted by the terrible events, the film still has its (mostly) happy ending. On a separate note, I bumped into this [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 essay]by Eric Foner who digs into ''Amistad's''producer for, "castigating historians for suppressing the “real history” of African-Americans and slavery." If nothing else you can still see how hollywood is trying to one up historians.--[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:41, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the issue of slavery takes the foreground in this film, I think it is important to look at what this film is saying about the judicial system and its relation to American politics. The film, after all, falls into the court room drama genre, and it is therefore making certain claims about said system. The first thing that I noticed was the obvious hints at judicial corruption. Whether this commentary is solely focused on the 1800s or if this view is being placed on the system as a whole is unclear. Yet the film certainly makes claims that the American ideal of checks-and-balances in government is not as true as believed. Also, the makers of this film seem to believe in the idea of a close interpretation of established law, i.e. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (while not directly mentioned). Yet despite these claims of corruption and blurring of political lines the film suggests that the true American spirit (freedom and justice) will prevail no matter what. Like previous films watched in this class, <em>Amistad</em> seems to make the same statments about America: yeah we messed up and time were tough, but because we were just and wanted freedom we prevailed. A message that fits with the feelings of '90s American culture, one that triumphed in the Cold War and now was having a mostly successful economy.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While this may be a small point in the grand scheme of the movie, I feel it says a lot about the filmmakers. While Yamba's interpretation of the illustrated New Testament is touching, any religious conversion of the Mende would not have been so clearly independent and self-guided. As discussed in class on Tuesday, the Mende received religious education. Conversion to Christianity was the entire point. But as upstanding Americans who value religious freedom, we could never possibly force faith on others... at least we can't show it that way in the movies we make. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I was glad to see that there did not seem to be much of a bias in the accuracy of the plot and specifics regarding the story. It is interesting to note the representation of the abolitionist in the film. While blacks were free at that point in the Northern states, that doesn't mean that they were treated well or respected. Much of the Northern population did not want to have anything to do with the free black population. Now I know that some abolitionist were a little on the far side, but Morgan Freeman's character was well regarded everywhere he went and treated just the same as a white man. This may have been influenced with the time periods ideas about the noble North and their crusade against slavery. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer. Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie. The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people. The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen. Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status. The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The David Walker reading, A Black Abolitionist Speaks Out, shows the extreme nature of their being. The reading displays a man that was shocked and "astonished" by the acts of an American, Christian nation. The talk of God and how he/she might look at the act of enslaving a man is brought up over and over in this piece. This is a stark contrast from the portrayal of the abolitionists in the movie. These characters were seen as well do and appeared to be excepted into the society in which they lived. They also seemed to be more gentlemen like than Walker, this may have something to do with them being white and him being the son of a former slave. Nonetheless, the reading gives a true portrayal of the intensity that was held about abolitionists on the topic, which was surely needed if one was to go against social norms in such a large way. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's seizure from his home jibes with Equiano's description of kidnapping practices in general. The brief shot of Cinque's son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving. The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque's wife. For them, as for Equiano's parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air. According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan's account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi's letter to John Quincy Adams was, "give us free". Cinque chanted "give us free" in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as "chief" and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn't a chief. He then went on to call him a "white man," probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman's character. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as "brother" and then said that he was a "white man" - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the scenes describing the capture and treatment of Cinque and the others was very similar to the Equiano's story. The kidnapping by other African tribes, being sold, and the horrors experienced on board ships like: people jumping overboard to escape, the rape of the women, and the violent whippings.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I really agree with Rachel, and to add on I thought how Equiano described how he was jealous of his countrymen who jumped off of the ship to be something that should of been emphasized. The people were taken away from everything and if they recieved a glimmer of hope by seeing a relative it was quickly taken from them. I also think how Equiano described his white captors to be equal to how Cinque and his people would of viewed them, they were essentially foreigners and ugly on the inside and out. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In both the readings and the film, the Africans begin picking up English and Christianity, but in the movie it seems almost accidental (as in, the Bible is stolen rather than given). In the readings though, it's quite clear that the Americans are actively seeking to teach the Mende. Lewis Tappan's letter mentions that he spent time working with them over religious texts, and the letter from Kalito Adams mentions a teacher that the group spoke with. Maybe the filmmakers wanted to avoid making it look as though the Americans were attempting to "Americanize" the Africans. They wanted to emphasize that being African, and preserving their culture, was perfectly legitimate, but that sounds to me like a fairly modern idea. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I felt that the letter to Adams had many of the same sentiments we witnessed in the movie. The Africans did not understand what they did wrong and just wanted their freedom. The desperation of the letter and the characters in the film is palpable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
David Walker mentions equal rights and the Declaration of Independence by saying, “Hear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776-‘We hold these truths to be self-evident-that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!! That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!!’ Compare your own language above…with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us.” This was the reality of the slaves' existence. They were not treated as humans and had zero rights whatsoever. In the film, John Adams refers to the Declaration in his address to the Supreme Court. He echoes the voice of David Walker (and obviously Cinque and all slaves) and the judges listen.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I wish Morgan Freeman’s character, Theodore Joadson, had a more prominent role in the movie. After doing the readings as well as watching the movie, I thought the narrative by David Walker could have been what Freeman brought to the screen. In Walker’s narrative, he speaks very strongly about the oppression of blacks and its tremendous conflict with morality and inalienable rights. While watching the movie, I could not help but wish Freeman’s character would kick it into gear and become a more open advocate for abolitionism. Clearly he is for the cause, but does so in a detached manner and I kept wishing his character would develop more instead of just pushing the plot along. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I thought that the readings coincided in a very meaningful way with the film, especially the letter from Kali to John Quincy Adams. The language barrier, which was portrayed consistently throughout the movie, shows as well in the letter, as well as the fact that the Mende relate themselves to the American people. There is also the clear recognition of the word "free" in both the letter and the movie- it is the first word that we see Cinque recognize when Baldwin is talking to him in the prison cell, and in the letter Kali states that "All we want is make us free." -Meagan P<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly. Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low. The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question. The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is "not a big man, but a lucky one," in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin or Adams. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I really admired John Quincy Adams’s explanation to Cinque about taking the case to the Supreme Court. He says to Cinque, “We’re battling a lion that’s threatening to tear our country apart. And all we have is a rock.” He does not talk down to him; he explains the situation in terms that Cinque understands. To a person who has never lived in a country with an intricate legal system, it would be very difficult to understand why a judgment does not stand without further challenge. During the Supreme Court session, Adams mentions Cinque’s invocation to his ancestors and that with them there, he will be saved. Adams then calls on America’s ancestors, our Founding Fathers. After the case is settled, Cinque asks Adams what he said to persuade them to rule in favor of the Africans. Adams replies, “Your words.” –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I understand what Mike was saying about making Baldwin or Adams look like the hero in the film because of Cinque's denial of leadership, but I don't agree with it completely. I do believe the film makes Baldwin (in particular) look like the hero, but I think Cinque's "humbleness" just adds to his majesty. He was still portrayed as a leader and as the strongest of the men (mentally and physically) and I think the viewers still see him as a strong hero who conquers the adversity he finds himself in. - Victoria Y.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-23T02:37:31Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The producers of the ''Amistad'' did get some historical facts correct, the one that stood out to me the most was the portrayal of how important Cinque was to not only his people but the Americans as well. While I would of enjoyed more translation or subtitles of everything the Mende said throughout the film, Cinque's development of the English language proved pivotal. When he expressed in the courtroom, "get free" (I may have misquoted) it changed the courtroom feeling. Cinque was now clearly the leader of the group he was with and was the one who went to the Supreme Court trial. He helped the lawyers prove the case of being kidnapped from their homeland versus being "black ladinos." I believe showing the signifcance of the translator and how Cinque interpreted American culture to be a moving point for the whole film. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The constant misunderstandings created by the language and cultural barriers were very well portrayed. Screenwriter David Franzoni wisely added humor to some of these scenes, such as when the clearly baffled linguist misinterpreted the language, and when Baldwin and Cinque echoed each other's thought process without knowing it. For the Mende, surrounded by people speaking gibberish, visual clues were all-important, but since they were also dealing with an alien culture, as often as not they could not comprehend those clues, or they misunderstood what they were seeing. On the other hand, this visual way of perceiving the world meant that the Mende with the Bible was able to glean significant meaning from its illustrations of Jesus' life. (This scene was well-written, demonstrating how slaves identified with Jesus, who comforted children and protected women, was also whipped and killed, but had a mysterious power that could rescue them.) As for the whites, they had never seen anything like the Mendes' traditional, hyper-masculine way of challenge and assertion of individual power---the Mende shouting, glaring, widening the eyes, and thrusting their faces close was interpreted as signs of an impending attack, instead of a means of establishing rank. The movie's representation of culture clash was strong and realistic. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Deborah's point. One of the first things that the film got very right was the sense of chaos and disorder during the revolt on the ship. The sense of total lack of communication throughout the whole film was very well-done. I also liked the attention paid to the character with the sharpened teeth, which was mentioned in one of the readings. In addition, casting Djimon Hounsou as Cinque was a great choice. His magnetism and presence made him very interesting to watch, and I think this holds true to the real Cinque. - Celia<br />
<br />
The portrayal of the Martin Van Buren was very accurate. He was out purely to boost his chances at reelection and was willing to do everything in his power, including circumventing the separation of the judicial and executive branch to do so. Whether it was sending the Secretary of State to personally intervene, appointing a judge that he thought he could manipulate through his own ambition and family faith or having the case heard by the Supreme Court. I loved how Judge Colin's perceived weakness of being Catholic, as perceived by Martin Van Buren and his cronies, turned out to be his greatest strength, that prevented him from ruling against the Mendi. A great scene in the movie was when Baldwin has to explain to Cinque that they have to go to the Supreme Court. For a people such as the Mendi, who don't even have a word that means should, because you either do or you don't, the duplicity of the American judicial system was mystifying. John Calhoun provided a very succinct description of the importance of slavery from the southern landholding classes perspective, when he told Van Buren that, "To destroy slavery is to destroy us as a people," referring to southerners. <br />
- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
The language barrier, as Megan W. and Deborah mentioned, came to play again in this movie. (Thankfully there was no glade plug-in moment like in Pocahontas.) As Deborah said the scenes were written with some humor in them but one of the things that stuck out to me was the fact that Baldwin, and the others defending the Mende, assumed at first that the Mende would speak the one African language that the linguist knew (or perhaps, thought he knew). –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In the film when Ruiz and Montes steer the ship they trick the Africans into thinking that they are sailing back to Africa by telling them that the sun is in the east, which is the direction of Africa. They began to sail at sunset, so they actually were sailing west towards America. In the morning, when the Africans wake up, the boat is facing the sun (the east). That little trick correlates to the map that Dr. McClurken showed in class about the zigzag course La Amistad took. The attitudes of the North and South were accurate, especially that of John Calhoun. He arrives (or crashes?) the presidential dinner and gives the Spanish Ambassador an earful about how if slavery is taken away from the South, that will put the standard of living of the South even further behind that of the North. He expresses similar views in The Executive Review that Adams references in the Supreme Court session. The movie also accurately portrays President Van Buren’s lack of interest in the Amistad matter at first because of his focus on re-election. Van Buren’s later challenge to the judgment does not really give him the full political support he desires, because he loses the 1840 election. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie portrayed Cinque as a strong leader. He is ripped physically and he learns English the quickest although that may not be true in real life it shows he is the leader. Also they did a great job showing the language barrier and how they were walking though the streets saying numbers in Mendee. I think they did a good job displaying the Spanish annoyance that things were not going their way. I loved the conversation they had at the dinner table between Van Buren and John Calhoun.I also think the movie did a good job displaying the violence the slaves experienced on the middle passage. I felt kind of sick when they pushed all those people off the boat. I also found it sad when they only gave some people food and not others. It shows the reality of a slaves life. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Cinque's story about his voyage from Africa to America was very moving and, I thought, fairly accurate. The movie showed how he was taken abruptly from his family and life without anyone realizing it and it was Africans who captured Cinque and others to take them to the coast. The voyage on the ship was very...disgusting and shameful but according to class and the readings accurate. The treatment on the ships for the African Americans were horrible; they were shackleed up together in tight quarters, barely given any food to eat, and were dumped off the ship once the supply of food and materials started decreasing. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie clearly addresses the language barrier and communication issues slaves and other immigrants faced in America. If anyone was looking for that “glade plug-in moment” I think it may have been after Cinque and Baldwin kind of held hands in mutual respect of each other and then, for dramatic effect, asked each other the same questions in their own languages. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie did many things right. One of the was the language barrier that others mentioned, I however liked that they did not always use subtitles for Cinque because it was easy to see how Baldwin and others would have felt when trying to understand Cinque's story and how Cinque would have felt when people were speaking to him in Spanish and English. Second thing was the treatment of the tribe during Cinque's description of his capture. I also appreciated that it was shown that not everyone in the North was for Abolition, like when Baldwin is attacked and when he tells Cinque that he has received death threats.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Overall I was really pleased with the film in it's accuracy. From what I could tell, they got all the main points down correctly, such as their trip across the Atlantic, the uprising, and consequently their arrival in the colonies. The trial scenes all seemed accurate and probable for the time period. I really appreciated the films attention to little details. They could have left out "The Emancipator" or the change of judges to make things more simple, but I'm glad they didn't. It rounded out the story well. Although it was one of the most depressing parts of the film, I thought the capture and shipment of the slaves was very well done. I was glad to see that they showed other African tribes capturing slaves in exchange for weapons. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I thought that for the most part, the film got a lot of the big ideas across very well. The one that stuck out to me the most was that the ruling for the Mende did not mean the end of slavery in the United States; I think it would have been a very easy connection for the film makers to play up, but I'm glad that they did not. I also thought that the clear language barrier, and how translation helped the Mende case was well done, but not beat into the audience repeatedly. -Meagan P<br />
<br />
This film was very accurate (especially comparing to the other films we have seen so far). I liked how they showed the difficulty with the language barrier. This was not like Pocahontas where one minute they can't understand each other, and then the next minute they could understand each other perfectly. The film showed very well the confrontation of people from different cultures. It was nice not always having subtitles because it was like we were in the position of the Americans. They are trying to understand what the Mende are saying, but they can't. It also shows well how complicated the American legal system and I think they portrayed the different trials very well. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
In the movie you saw President Martin Van Buren campaigning for reelection on a whistle-stop train tour. The problem? Well, in 1840 presidents did not campaign. In addition, the characters also talked about the impending Civil War. Well, being 20 years away, how would they know that was to happen? And finally, the film is all about the Atlantic slave trade, which was actually illegal in 1840. Rather, the film should have dealt with slavery as a domestic institution.-- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I will never object to making room for Morgan Freeman in a movie; however, he could just as well have played an actual abolitionist instead of a fictional character. Additionally, I don't believe free blacks were quite so well-integrated as Theodore Joadson seemed to be. The North was not free of racism, and Joadson was accorded much more respect and attention in the movie than seems credible for that time. Other inaccuracies include the number of movie crewmen killed (six) compared with actual crewmen killed (two). Also, it's unlikely that Cinque could have conversed with the man who navigated the Amistad, or would have been able to read the stars. Finally, the movie simplified the court process---but that was a good thing. The court scenes were tedious enough as it was. <br />
In our textbook, "Reel History," Robert Brent Toplin talks about how "tainted" the movie became because of a series of small historical inaccuracies which, added together, undermined the film's integrity (69-78). <br />
I don't know if I would call this "wrong," but it was certainly jarring to see John Quincy Adams deified. The movie never explains why everyone regards him as an oracle, except that he is the son of a famous father. (This is designed to resonate with Cinque's ancestor worship.) Hopkins, who looks astonishingly like the photo of Adams, plays the old curmudgeon as a doddering relic whose mental powers are deserting him, yet Tappan, Joadson and later Baldwin believe he's the only one who can win their cause. The script doesn't support that conclusion, and it weakens Hopkins' believability.--- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie does a good job of portraying that only a few people where for the abolition of slavery. But, when they first went to ask John Q. Adams to back them in their pursuit of winning the trials he claims that he is neutral in the matters that came between the abolitionists and those that were pro-slavery. This implies that there is an equally back constituency on both sides which we learned in class is not true. In the movie it seems that those who were neutral were the smallest minority, when in fact the abolitionists were seen as extremist and were the true minorities in the subject of slavery. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The film misleadingly characterizes the case of the Amistad as a turning point in how American's view the issue of slavery by suggesting that John Quincy Adams' plea to abolish slavery convinced the Supreme Court to rule in favor of the Amistad slaves. Like we discussed in class, the case had no refection what-so-ever on how American's view domestic slavery, nor did it set any future precedents for how domestic slaves were to be handled. The case was solely about the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade that had, by that time, been made illegal. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
In my notes I had written that Baldwin (played by Matthew McConaughey’s) was older, in his 40s or 50s. McConaughey is clearly not that old in this movie. Perhaps this was because they felt that there were too many gray/white wigged older men in the movie and more people would see the film. Another reason could be to make it a bigger struggle. With Baldwin being younger and less experienced perhaps his win in the court case would be seen as greater success. (Also, why was Anna Paquin the Spanish Queen Isabella? Could they not find a young Spanish actress?) -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I agree with Megan that they should have made Matthew McConaughey look older. He looked too young to be a lawyer to me.I also agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman's character. Not only is he fictional he does not say much during the movie. He just kind of stood around. Obviously he was going for the big actors names but if he is fictional why even cast it? - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie about Morgan Freeman’s character Theodore Joadson. Considering that majority of the characters in the movie actually existed, Steven Spielberg could have chosen an actual historical black abolitionist. Even if there were no black abolitionists directly involved in the Amistad case, Spielberg had a few in the New England area to choose from if he wanted to. That being said, I think that the Joadson character most likely represented those black abolitionists such as Frederick Douglass, and David Walker to name two. Not that this has anything to do with the plot of the movie or has any bearing whatsoever on the movie itself, but when John Quincy Adams (Anthony Hopkins), Lewis Tappan (Stellan Skaarsgard) and Theodore Joadson (Morgan Freeman) were walking around the Capitol garden, I noticed a quick shot of the Capitol Dome…this was not actually built until 1859 http://www.aoc.gov/cc/capitol/dome.cfm and the Amistad case took place in 1841. Just saying… -Caryn<br />
<br />
I don't know if this something that the movie got wrong in the sense of a factual/ historical mistake but the Supreme Court scene and Adams speech makes it look like his moral speech is what causes the decision, but it was really Baldwin's property statements that was used in the decision. However the use of property claims is still used in the various trials.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
According to the timeline we talked about it class, the Mende would have made it to Connecticut sometime during the summer, not during the snowy winter as in the film. That was an interesting choice by the filmmakers, perhaps done to make the Mende's plight seem that much dramatic. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I have two main contentions with this movie. The first is that I believe more than two crew members were killed during the opening mutiny scene. I also am not positive that they portrayed Cinque as the only one who killed the men. In this scene, the crewmen were also seen reloading their guns in the rain. Could that be done? In "The Last of the Mohicans" they couldn't reload under the waterfall, not that Mann's film is a standard for historical accuracy. The second atrocity is that the counter suit the Mende filed was never mentioned. In the film, we never find out what happened to Ruiz and Montes. While I'm on this rant, I would like to point out how strait and white Cinque's teeth were. I find it remarkable that he had time to brush his teeth during the middle passage. His pearly whites are especially noticeable when he was reprimanding Baldwin. How could you resist such a bright, shiny smile, Van Buren? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I'm actually surprised no one has mentioned the sort of fumbling with languages that happens throughout the film. While there is no glade plug in moment granting Cinque magical English language powers, he seems to understand what other people are saying in English just fine. Just consider his interaction with Baldwin in the cell. Baldwin attempts to ask where Cinque has come from, but due to the language barrier nothing gets across, yet mysteriously (through the gift of subtitles) Cinque responds to Baldwin in his native tongue as if the only problem was his lack of English. Is that a small discrepancy? Sure! But am I going to complain? Hell yeah. While it doesn't relate to history, I felt like the on again off again use of subtitles just did not work. We only got subtitles when Spielberg decided subtitles would either be heart warming or make a nice joke. --[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:53, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I was a little unsettled by Morgan Freeman's character. I understand it was to add to the nobility of the cause of abolition, but he seemed out of place. Also, what was with that ship full of diners the Amistad encounters while still at sea? I didn't know they had cruise ships in the 1840's! I also noticed that they left out the "non-human" cargo the men divided after the trial was over, a small aspect of the trial. Oh, and were there women and children involved in the real trial, because there were in the film? And I know there wasn't a "glade plug-in" moment like Pocohontas, but the one Africans understanding of the Bible was pretty impressive to say the least.- Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
Even though we think of the 90s as a politically correct time perhaps it was also a time when people were beginning to talk in a serious way about slavery and its film portrayal. I'm no film buff but I can't think of many (any?) films that place the issue of slavery as the central focus of the film. That being said it is clear that while we were beginning to talk about it we weren't ready for a full-blown discussion on the US participation (mostly in Southern Plantations). The Amistad case is a unique one and not representative of what was really going on during this time with regards to slavery. But ''Amistad'' provides a starting point where the issue of slavery is the focus without making Americans "feel bad" for those couple centuries of slavery. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:36, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Spielberg actually made an accompanying [http://www.filmeducation.org/pdf/film/Amistad.pdf study guide]to encourage teachers to show the film in the classroom and discuss the nature of slavery. The guide tries to communicate the horrors of slavery, its history and how the film should be accepted as a representation of said history. There are a couple of statements that I don't really agree with such as Spielberg's final notes that it takes in to account the perspectives of both white and black people, yet in all reality this case did not represent a win for abolitionists. If nothing else, maybe the film makers want to demonstrate that certain peoples in the US have a long history of fighting against slavery and oppression? Although people might be convicted by the terrible events, the film still has its (mostly) happy ending. On a separate note, I bumped into this [http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/74 essay]by Eric Foner who digs into ''Amistad's''producer for, "castigating historians for suppressing the “real history” of African-Americans and slavery." If nothing else you can still see how hollywood is trying to one up historians.--[[Bakhtinjali]] 18:41, 22 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the issue of slavery takes the foreground in this film, I think it is important to look at what this film is saying about the judicial system and its relation to American politics. The film, after all, falls into the court room drama genre, and it is therefore making certain claims about said system. The first thing that I noticed was the obvious hints at judicial corruption. Whether this commentary is solely focused on the 1800s or if this view is being placed on the system as a whole is unclear. Yet the film certainly makes claims that the American ideal of checks-and-balances in government is not as true as believed. Also, the makers of this film seem to believe in the idea of a close interpretation of established law, i.e. Declaration of Independence and the Constitution (while not directly mentioned). Yet despite these claims of corruption and blurring of political lines the film suggests that the true American spirit (freedom and justice) will prevail no matter what. Like previous films watched in this class, <em>Amistad</em> seems to make the same statments about America: yeah we messed up and time were tough, but because we were just and wanted freedom we prevailed. A message that fits with the feelings of '90s American culture, one that triumphed in the Cold War and now was having a mostly successful economy.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While this may be a small point in the grand scheme of the movie, I feel it says a lot about the filmmakers. While Yamba's interpretation of the illustrated New Testament is touching, any religious conversion of the Mende would not have been so clearly independent and self-guided. As discussed in class on Tuesday, the Mende received religious education. Conversion to Christianity was the entire point. But as upstanding Americans who value religious freedom, we could never possibly force faith on others... at least we can't show it that way in the movies we make. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I was glad to see that there did not seem to be much of a bias in the accuracy of the plot and specifics regarding the story. It is interesting to note the representation of the abolitionist in the film. While blacks were free at that point in the Northern states, that doesn't mean that they were treated well or respected. Much of the Northern population did not want to have anything to do with the free black population. Now I know that some abolitionist were a little on the far side, but Morgan Freeman's character was well regarded everywhere he went and treated just the same as a white man. This may have been influenced with the time periods ideas about the noble North and their crusade against slavery. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The movie coincided well with much of the information the reading had to offer. Although there were some fictional characters, the people discussed in the readings were represented in the movie. The movie portrayed the emotionally daunting task Tappan, Baldwin and Joadson endured in fighting for the lives of the Mende people. The producers effective captured the way in which John Q. Adams lost his political influence over the younger congressmen. Another aspect of government the producers captured was the way in which laws were (and still are) manipulated to maintain minorities within an oppressive status. The way in which Baldwin gets hit over the head simply because he represented Africans gave a sense as to how whites who supported the benefits of blacks was negatively received by many other whites.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The David Walker reading, A Black Abolitionist Speaks Out, shows the extreme nature of their being. The reading displays a man that was shocked and "astonished" by the acts of an American, Christian nation. The talk of God and how he/she might look at the act of enslaving a man is brought up over and over in this piece. This is a stark contrast from the portrayal of the abolitionists in the movie. These characters were seen as well do and appeared to be excepted into the society in which they lived. They also seemed to be more gentlemen like than Walker, this may have something to do with them being white and him being the son of a former slave. Nonetheless, the reading gives a true portrayal of the intensity that was held about abolitionists on the topic, which was surely needed if one was to go against social norms in such a large way. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
Cinque's seizure from his home jibes with Equiano's description of kidnapping practices in general. The brief shot of Cinque's son hearing a noise, and looking back but seeing nothing, was very moving. The boy would have had no idea what had happened to his father, and neither would Cinque's wife. For them, as for Equiano's parents, it would seem as if he had vanished into thin air. According to the statistics Dr. McClurken quoted in the lecture, such mysterious disappearances disrupted the lives of thousands of families, adding the agony of uncertainty to the grief of loss. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
One glaring difference between Lewis Tappan's account and the movie, is the treatment of the Africans in the jail in Connecticut. In the reading Tappan states that the Africans were treated very well and were NEVER shackled once they arrived at the prison and that they were given comfortable rooms. In the movie, they were continuously threatened at gunpoint and were shackled on numerous occasions. This seems like a very unnecessary exaggeration on the part of Steven Spielberg. One phrase that was seen frequently in the Mendi's letter to John Quincy Adams was, "give us free". Cinque chanted "give us free" in a very stirring courtroom scene during the movie.- Michael Gardner<br />
<br />
What struck me in the movie versus the reading, which made no mention of these sorts of relationships, was the interactions between the Mende and other black Americans. The movie showed the first interaction between the Mende and an African American with one that was driving a carriage. The Mende referred to him as "chief" and tried to communicate with him. Cinque realized the man did not understand their language and told them he wasn't a chief. He then went on to call him a "white man," probably in order to explain that even someone who looked like them, if he was not able to communicate or acknowledge the Africans, was just as bad as the men who took them captive and held them in jail. As the movie progressed, you see Cinque and the other Mende warm up to other black Americans like the second translator and Morgan Freeman's character. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Amy, I noticed that as well. I also though that it was interesting in the movie that the Mende were first referring to the stagecoach driver as "brother" and then said that he was a "white man" - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the scenes describing the capture and treatment of Cinque and the others was very similar to the Equiano's story. The kidnapping by other African tribes, being sold, and the horrors experienced on board ships like: people jumping overboard to escape, the rape of the women, and the violent whippings.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I really agree with Rachel, and to add on I thought how Equiano described how he was jealous of his countrymen who jumped off of the ship to be something that should of been emphasized. The people were taken away from everything and if they recieved a glimmer of hope by seeing a relative it was quickly taken from them. I also think how Equiano described his white captors to be equal to how Cinque and his people would of viewed them, they were essentially foreigners and ugly on the inside and out. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In both the readings and the film, the Africans begin picking up English and Christianity, but in the movie it seems almost accidental (as in, the Bible is stolen rather than given). In the readings though, it's quite clear that the Americans are actively seeking to teach the Mende. Lewis Tappan's letter mentions that he spent time working with them over religious texts, and the letter from Kalito Adams mentions a teacher that the group spoke with. Maybe the filmmakers wanted to avoid making it look as though the Americans were attempting to "Americanize" the Africans. They wanted to emphasize that being African, and preserving their culture, was perfectly legitimate, but that sounds to me like a fairly modern idea. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I felt that the letter to Adams had many of the same sentiments we witnessed in the movie. The Africans did not understand what they did wrong and just wanted their freedom. The desperation of the letter and the characters in the film is palpable. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
David Walker mentions equal rights and the Declaration of Independence by saying, “Hear your languages, proclaimed to the world, July 4th, 1776-‘We hold these truths to be self-evident-that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL!! That they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness!!’ Compare your own language above…with your cruelties and murders inflicted by your cruel and unmerciful fathers and yourselves on our fathers and on us.” This was the reality of the slaves' existence. They were not treated as humans and had zero rights whatsoever. In the film, John Adams refers to the Declaration in his address to the Supreme Court. He echoes the voice of David Walker (and obviously Cinque and all slaves) and the judges listen.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I wish Morgan Freeman’s character, Theodore Joadson, had a more prominent role in the movie. After doing the readings as well as watching the movie, I thought the narrative by David Walker could have been what Freeman brought to the screen. In Walker’s narrative, he speaks very strongly about the oppression of blacks and its tremendous conflict with morality and inalienable rights. While watching the movie, I could not help but wish Freeman’s character would kick it into gear and become a more open advocate for abolitionism. Clearly he is for the cause, but does so in a detached manner and I kept wishing his character would develop more instead of just pushing the plot along. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I thought that the readings coincided in a very meaningful way with the film, especially the letter from Kali to John Quincy Adams. The language barrier, which was portrayed consistently throughout the movie, shows as well in the letter, as well as the fact that the Mende relate themselves to the American people. There is also the clear recognition of the word "free" in both the letter and the movie- it is the first word that we see Cinque recognize when Baldwin is talking to him in the prison cell, and in the letter Kali states that "All we want is make us free." -Meagan P<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
Someone (I think it was Mike) asked why traders treated valuable goods (captured people) so badly. Dr. McClurken explained that slaves were given only the minimum required to keep them alive, basically a method of keeping overhead costs low. The movie addresses that when the prosecutor asks the British official the same question. The British official---who was superb on the stand---said that when provisions ran low, slaves were simply dumped over the side of the ship and the manifest was amended accordingly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The question of how the movie portrays the character of Joseph Cinque came up in class on Tuesday. In class it was announced that Cinque was very impressive on the stand while giving his testimony. In this movie, Cinque is portrayed by his people as being the head or leader of the Mende captives. This position was not received well by Cinque. He claims that he is "not a big man, but a lucky one," in reference to the killing of a lion. The downplaying of this role significantly changes the way the movie is viewed by the audience. The audience is not impressed with his character, but after the show of how helpless he was in his capture they feel sorry for his situation. By down grading his stature, it boosts those around him to become the real heroes of the movie, like the lawyer Baldwin or Adams. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I really admired John Quincy Adams’s explanation to Cinque about taking the case to the Supreme Court. He says to Cinque, “We’re battling a lion that’s threatening to tear our country apart. And all we have is a rock.” He does not talk down to him; he explains the situation in terms that Cinque understands. To a person who has never lived in a country with an intricate legal system, it would be very difficult to understand why a judgment does not stand without further challenge. During the Supreme Court session, Adams mentions Cinque’s invocation to his ancestors and that with them there, he will be saved. Adams then calls on America’s ancestors, our Founding Fathers. After the case is settled, Cinque asks Adams what he said to persuade them to rule in favor of the Africans. Adams replies, “Your words.” –Samantha W.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-15T23:57:34Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
There are a few things I believe ''The Patriot'' got right. The main one that stood out to me was in beginning at the town meeting, the loyalists did use the quote that was also stated in class, "I would rather have 1 tyrant than 3,000" showing the distinction between loyalist and patriot thought. The movie also depicted, through Mel Gibson's character, the change from a neutral colonist into a patriot and what a colonist did to prove themselves to be worthy of the patriots. I wonder did the colonists shift roles how Mel Gibson's character did, because of death in their family? Or destruction to their community? I also found the relationship between the African Americans and the families they lived with to be an important role and I appreciated how the children cared for the African Americans and treated them as someone they loved (equals) rather than judge based on skin color. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire. That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact. It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service. First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn't belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today's lecture. I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that's why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed. But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old "Wonderful World of Disney" TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes. "Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time? And will his brave son Gabriel's teeth ever turn white again? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'The Hatchet Chucker!' " Of course it wasn't a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal). The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things "The Patriot" got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson leads his militia in the guerrilla tactics. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
A lot of information is given at the meeting in the beginning of the movie. They talk about how some people do not want to be involved because it would involve everyone including families. Someone(it might have been Mel Gibson) said that the battles were in Massachusetts and Virginia and the battles shouldn't be brought to the South. They also mention Bunker Hill and how the British advanced three times even after a lot of their soldiers were killed. That battle and advancements were mentioned in one of the readings for this week. I also noticed that one of the men (the man who eventually burned the church)switched sides and became a Loyalist. I was wondering if he really did change his mind during the course of the war or if he was a spy from the beginning? -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie did some to show that men who joined the fighting left behind families with no guarantee that their wives and children would be safe. There were probably many women like Aunt Charlotte, alone with five children. And like we learned in class, civilians feared the soldiers; they could be brutal to even women and children. The men walked a line between fighting for "The Cause," and by extension what they saw as the future good of their families, and providing for the very immediate security of those they loved still at home. It's difficult to imagine how many little kids watched their homes burn or had family killed right in front of them. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The things the movie got right was the brutality of war. Horrible things happen in war and I think the movie displayed that. I think they also did a good job showing how easily the British managed to piss off people into joining the other side. In the movie the "bad guy" basically tells the slaves that they can be free when he rides in on his horse. What a great way to piss off all the Southern elites. Another thing I thought was pretty good is when a colonial loyalist comes into talk to the British officers and says any neighbor of his that went to the Rebels was no longer his neighbor and should be hanged or something to that affect. Neighbors did hate each other and fought with each other. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn's point about the brutality in the film. The director didn't seem to shy away from the horrors of war, and I respect him for that. I think that the Revolutionary War is too often depicted in popular culture as simply a noble fight for independence against the evil, tyrannical Brits. While it may seem like the filmmakers are boiling down the entire Revolutionary War into one man's cause, I appreciate the focus on the home-front. The grisly image of bodies hanging from a tree and the frightening scene when the Redcoats burn down the church are two moments in particular that most likely would not have been shown in a typical historical fiction film fifty years ago. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel's girlfriend did in church? She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men. I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn't have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson's character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the "Redcoats" hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn't explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it's fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the "good guys"...but really? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna's point about the minister. That definitely bothered me, too, especially his line about a shepherd needing to tend his flock. It felt like it was written to make the minister seem like a bad-ass. While I liked his character (he was a bit of a bad-ass), I just didn't buy it. I also had to roll my eyes at Anne's impassioned speech in the church. If it had been a bit shorter, or maybe not accompanied by such epic music, it wouldn't have bothered me so much, but it just seemed so over-the-top. I think Anne's belief in the cause could have been expressed more realistically and just as effectively. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson's farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the "good guys," whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where "The Ghost" and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G<br />
<br />
I think the biggest thing that stood out to me which is totally wrong is when Gabriel and the black slave were talking and Gabriel reassured him that in the New World Slaves would be free. I do not know but I am pretty sure no South Carolina man would have said that to anyone because thats not how they thought about slavery. I also found the part where the English soldiers were taking the slaves away that they were not slaves they just worked the land. Once again I doubt they were getting paid so in affect were slaves. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Over the course of five years, the younger children basically never aged. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like "The Patriot," about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself. For instance, also in theaters that year were "Gladiator," "Erin Brokovich," and "The Perfect Storm." "The Patriot" fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America. That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush... It's also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia. "IN A WORLD" where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson's year to support revolutions. Remember "Chicken Run?" Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
A common theme I noticed in the readings and the movie was the brutality of this war. Granted, the readings expressed brutality in the Southern "Civil War" and the movie was mostly British/Colonial brutality, but this seemed to be a common tactic in the revolution overall, no matter what side you happened to be fighting for. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The thing I noticed about the movie and the reading was the horrors and brutal nature of war. The "Rise of Partisan Warfare" reading specifically references dragoons attacking Capt. Stokes. And in the movie the main antagonist is a dragoon that doesn't exactly act the gentleman he is supposed to be during war. -Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The letter from the British prisoner proved that colonial soldiers were just as capable of being cruel in their treatment as British soldiers were, and the "description is not equal to their barbarity." While the movie wanted the Patriots to come across as "the good guys" it also emphasized their eagerness to seek revenge. I don't know what the specific letter writer or his fellow soldiers did when not engaged in direct combat, but it's not hard to imagine that the exceptional brutality of their captors may have stemmed from atrocities committed against families at home. Violence just fed more violence. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-15T23:52:19Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
There are a few things I believe ''The Patriot'' got right. The main one that stood out to me was in beginning at the town meeting, the loyalists did use the quote that was also stated in class, "I would rather have 1 tyrant than 3,000" showing the distinction between loyalist and patriot thought. The movie also depicted, through Mel Gibson's character, the change from a neutral colonist into a patriot and what a colonist did to prove themselves to be worthy of the patriots. I wonder did the colonists shift roles how Mel Gibson's character did, because of death in their family? Or destruction to their community? I also found the relationship between the African Americans and the families they lived with to be an important role and I appreciated how the children cared for the African Americans and treated them as someone they loved (equals) rather than judge based on skin color. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire. That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact. It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service. First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn't belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today's lecture. I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that's why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed. But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old "Wonderful World of Disney" TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes. "Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time? And will his brave son Gabriel's teeth ever turn white again? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'The Hatchet Chucker!' " Of course it wasn't a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal). The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things "The Patriot" got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson leads his militia in the guerrilla tactics. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
A lot of information is given at the meeting in the beginning of the movie. They talk about how some people do not want to be involved because it would involve everyone including families. Someone(it might have been Mel Gibson) said that the battles were in Massachusetts and Virginia and the battles shouldn't be brought to the South. They also mention Bunker Hill and how the British advanced three times even after a lot of their soldiers were killed. That battle and advancements were mentioned in one of the readings for this week. I also noticed that one of the men (the man who eventually burned the church)switched sides and became a Loyalist. I was wondering if he really did change his mind during the course of the war or if he was a spy from the beginning? -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie did some to show that men who joined the fighting left behind families with no guarantee that their wives and children would be safe. There were probably many women like Aunt Charlotte, alone with five children. And like we learned in class, civilians feared the soldiers; they could be brutal to even women and children. The men walked a line between fighting for "The Cause," and by extension what they saw as the future good of their families, and providing for the very immediate security of those they loved still at home. It's difficult to imagine how many little kids watched their homes burn or had family killed right in front of them. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The things the movie got right was the brutality of war. Horrible things happen in war and I think the movie displayed that. I think they also did a good job showing how easily the British managed to piss off people into joining the other side. In the movie the "bad guy" basically tells the slaves that they can be free when he rides in on his horse. What a great way to piss off all the Southern elites. Another thing I thought was pretty good is when a colonial loyalist comes into talk to the British officers and says any neighbor of his that went to the Rebels was no longer his neighbor and should be hanged or something to that affect. Neighbors did hate each other and fought with each other. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn's point about the brutality in the film. The director didn't seem to shy away from the horrors of war, and I respect him for that. I think that the Revolutionary War is too often depicted in popular culture as simply a noble fight for independence against the evil, tyrannical Brits. While it may seem like the filmmakers are boiling down the entire Revolutionary War into one man's cause, I appreciate the focus on the home-front. The grisly image of bodies hanging from a tree and the frightening scene when the Redcoats burn down the church are two moments in particular that most likely would not have been shown in a typical historical fiction film fifty years ago. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel's girlfriend did in church? She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men. I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn't have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson's character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the "Redcoats" hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn't explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it's fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the "good guys"...but really? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
<br />
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson's farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the "good guys," whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where "The Ghost" and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G<br />
<br />
I think the biggest thing that stood out to me which is totally wrong is when Gabriel and the black slave were talking and Gabriel reassured him that in the New World Slaves would be free. I do not know but I am pretty sure no South Carolina man would have said that to anyone because thats not how they thought about slavery. I also found the part where the English soldiers were taking the slaves away that they were not slaves they just worked the land. Once again I doubt they were getting paid so in affect were slaves. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Over the course of five years, the younger children basically never aged. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like "The Patriot," about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself. For instance, also in theaters that year were "Gladiator," "Erin Brokovich," and "The Perfect Storm." "The Patriot" fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America. That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush... It's also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia. "IN A WORLD" where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson's year to support revolutions. Remember "Chicken Run?" Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
A common theme I noticed in the readings and the movie was the brutality of this war. Granted, the readings expressed brutality in the Southern "Civil War" and the movie was mostly British/Colonial brutality, but this seemed to be a common tactic in the revolution overall, no matter what side you happened to be fighting for. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The thing I noticed about the movie and the reading was the horrors and brutal nature of war. The "Rise of Partisan Warfare" reading specifically references dragoons attacking Capt. Stokes. And in the movie the main antagonist is a dragoon that doesn't exactly act the gentleman he is supposed to be during war. -Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The letter from the British prisoner proved that colonial soldiers were just as capable of being cruel in their treatment as British soldiers were, and the "description is not equal to their barbarity." While the movie wanted the Patriots to come across as "the good guys" it also emphasized their eagerness to seek revenge. I don't know what the specific letter writer or his fellow soldiers did when not engaged in direct combat, but it's not hard to imagine that the exceptional brutality of their captors may have stemmed from atrocities committed against families at home. Violence just fed more violence. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-09-09T03:55:07Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Questions asked in class */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The film shows how by the 1750s Native Americans had adapted British technology. This is shown by Native American use of the muskets in fighting and also the Mohicans wearing of colonial like clothing. Although the Hurons are depicted as still wearing more traditional(?) clothing I wonder if this is a way of showing them as more "savage" or maybe they still wore traditional clothing because they were from areas up north with less contact with settlers unlike a group like the Mohicans.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 12:56, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie did manage to get the Hawkeye's adoption correct. As mentioned in the reading "A Captivity Narrative" it said the natives would adopt their captives into their tribes and become pretty much family members. Hawkeye lost his parents and was raised by the Mohicans and saw them as his family and thought the native's life as a better life than the colonists' lives. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
The respect shown to Nathaniel by both whites and Indians seemed like a plot device to me, until I read "In a World of Warfare" that Phineas Stevens enjoyed the same kind of cross-cultural respect (pp. 126-127). --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Another aspect of the times that I think the movie captured is that neither European nor Indian, as individuals or as nations, were all good or all bad. The characters were complex---even the uber-villain Magua had reasons for his implacable hatred. An overall theme of the movie was the common brutality of man. The ruin that wars bring is epitomized by the "death of the innocents" Uncas and Alice. --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Deborah's point. Chingachgook and Uncas more or less played the part of the "noble savage" while Magua was more just...savage. But they took the pains to make him a more developed character by giving him a sad history. I did feel bad for Magua for one scene...and by the end, I really needed to see him get his. I think the scene with the Huron chief made it clear - that yes, Magua has a sad story, but what he does isn't okay. I also really enjoyed the fact that Chingachgook was the one to kill Magua. I was definitely expecting another slow-motion shot of Nathaniel running and attacking Magua in an epic battle, and I was really pleased to see Chingachgook avenge the death of his son. - Celia<br />
<br />
This film showed correctly (generally) the difference of fighting and war tactics between the Native Americans and the British. It seemed like the British were not that smart by walking along a road because the Native Americans could and did attack them from both sides. The Native Americans used the trees to help them hide so they can have a surprise attack on the British. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The deaths of the Cameron family and the destruction of their cabin got across some of the terror that accompanied life on the frontier that Susanna Johnson describe in her description of the days leading up to her capture. Frontier families lived one day to the next not knowing if they would be suddenly victims of one conflict or another between any number of different actors. The sense of fear conveyed in the film's depiction of Indian attackers as often invisible in the woods until the moment they strike is a strong one, and one that I think matches well Susanna's account of near constant, almost paralyzing fear. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann. Susanna's account shows ambiguous fear - of never feeling totally safe or sure of what was going to happen next. The scenes of Native Americans rushing out and attacking from the woods are terrifying. The director does a good job of capturing the sense of chaos in those scenes. It's clear that the English were not used to that way of fighting. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Justine's comment on the portrayal of the different fighting tactics. Especially when the Munroe sister's are attacked in the beginning. The Native Americans were all hiding in the woods and the British soldiers were standing around waiting to be told to fire, which was insane. I wonder why it took so long for people to change their fighting and war tactics?-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
My favorite part about this movie is that no matter how much I disliked or liked a character, there was good and bad in each of them, making them realistic. No one is perfect, in one direction or another. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I also agree with Justines comment because the movie depicted the English tactics and Native Americans tactics in a pretty accurate way. The Native Americans were doing the "skulking way of war" when they were stalking the English after the surrender of the fort. I think it was interesting though that the Hurans did not have as many guns and many were using Tomahawks against guns. I also think they did a good job depicting the French tactics of trying to take the fort down and if you looked you did not see many Indians in that scene but you saw them after when the Marquis was in his tent. It also depicted the generousity of the French and the anger of the Native Americans over the way it was done. The difference there was that Magua wanted to kill Monro and the actual story is they wanted loot. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
There's a scene in the fort that I really appreciated. It shows Native American children singing in Latin (I'm fairly sure they're singing some setting of the Catholic mass), so they've obviously been converted. I just thought that was a great little touch on the director's part. - Celia<br />
<br />
To add to Megan mc's paragraph on Hawkeye's adoption: The film also captured the major cultural differences that Hawkeye experienced after being adopted. The director speaks specifically to the issue of language. Cora asks Hawkeye how he knows English, and of course that's when Eleazar Wheelocks' school comes into play. That moment is at least a nod to a small detail which lends a dash more historical credibility to the film. Mind you that it seems films and television shows tend to not make much out of language barriers, everyone is assumed to speak English. Like Susana's son, Hawkeye, having been separated off from "civilized" culture for so long and at such an early age, can speak a Native language (also probably a bit of French considering the fur traders), but he must learn English with his brother.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:41, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think that the movie represented what we had spoken about in class on Tuesday regarding the warfare, specifically the English vs the Native Americans. While the English are fighting in lines the Native Americans are wielding their fire power through Guerrilla type warfare behind the trees and through the forest. I bet it was very easy to anticipate what the English would do in a battle and act accordingly. -Caryn<br />
<br />
Another aspect the movie got right was when Magua and Nathaniel came to the Huron to offer gifts. In the readings and class we learned that exchanging gifts was an important part of the Indian culture. Magua offered the gifts of people and Nathanial offered some kind of wampum I think. From this week's readings, however, most Indian captives were not offered as gifts to be killed but most became adopted into families and treated fairly decently. Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got more facts right than Disney's Pocahontas! One thing the movie did well on was showing the Indian's dependence on European settlers. It was very easy to tell that the Huron Indians depended greatly on the French in 2 ways... a) Where else would the Indians have found weapons such as guns to fight with? b) The relationship between the Indians and the French. Both sides knew they could use the other to get what they want. The Hurons, especially Magua, wanted revenge on the English for killing their children and families through settlement. On the other hand, the French saw the Indians as excess manpower to fight off the English at Ft. William Henry. In both cases, the French got what they wanted as did the Hurons. Just as in the actual French & Indian War, the Indians and Europeans gambled/sided with one another in order to achieve their own agendas. I think the movie did a good job portraying the Indian/European relationship. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie did a good job portraying the relationship between the Colonists/British and Native Americans, like Alex said. I also think that the movie did a good job portraying how the British felt about the Native Americans who chose to help them by scouting for the British, they had very little respect and there was a lot of mistrust. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One continually occurring theme throughout the movie was Hawkeye's amazing marksmanship and ability to shoot muskets from the hip, like a wild west gunslinger. Another major inaccuracy in the film was Magua cutting Colonel Monro's heart out. In fact Colonel Monro and other English officers were kept behind in the French Camp, and later safely escorted to Fort Edward by the French. (Starbuck, David R. ''Massacre at Fort William Henry''. Hanover, N. H.: University Press of New England, 2002, 25-35.) Michael G.<br />
<br />
The French did not actually occupy Fort William Henry. They deliberately demolished the already-damaged, wooden fort. Neither the British nor the Americans rebuilt it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_Henry) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One thing that is often inaccurate in movies like these is the reloading of the rifles and muskets. Most of the guns at the time, to my knowledge, were single shot meaning they'd need to reload after each shot and after an adventure to wikipedia it stated that the Long Rifle/Pennsylvania Rifle that Hawkeye used took a full minute to reload. Though if they showed him reloading every single shot it would make the already long movie even longer. In the movie's defense they did show him reloading it at least one time (while running) and then snatching the unused guns from the French that he killed. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
As said above, some of the types of guns do not exist at that time and they way they shoot them are not possible. It is hard to find more things the movie got wrong because this movie is not claiming to be historically accurate. I am not sure how similar this movie is to the book, because I did not read Cooper's book. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To me it seemed that the movie made at least <em>some</em> attempt at being accurate, but sacrificed a lot at the price of being dramatic. The thing that stuck out the most to me was that it seemed to imply that there are no more Mahicans left. Which I don't think is true[http://www.native-languages.org/mohican.htm].-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Overall, there are many elements of this movie that are correct such as make-up, hair styles and clothing. Even though, many elements were historically accurate I was able to find an interesting critique of the script that doesn’t just point out historical inaccuracies, but also things that could of made the movie better. One historical inaccuracy was the Bearskin miter caps worn by the Grenadiers. These were in fact not issued until 1768, and during the time period of the movie, the Grenadiers were in fact still wearing hard caps. Another historical miss-step which I found quite interesting was how Hawkeye handled his gun. He casually flipped it around to point it at Heyward’s chest. In reality, this would have been almost impossible because a British musket weighs about 11 pounds and has about a 42 inch barrel. Though incredibly small things, I thought they were very interesting. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think that one of the most important things that the movie got wrong was the role of the "bloodthirsty" natives like Magua. While there was certainly both violence and resentment present on both sides (white and Native American), we can see in the speeches given by the chiefs that more than anything, the Native Americans did want to continue to trade with the colonists, and be treated as equals. I don't really think that this came through in the film- we saw either the scalping, heart-eating savage like Magua, or the "noble" savage, like Nathaniel's adopted father and brother. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I don't care how historically inaccurate it is, dual wielding long rifles and shooting from the hips always score points in my book. To hell with it being unlikely! To respond to Isaac Whalen, I do recall even with the original book many of the surviving Mohicans being rather annoyed that a book would claim that there were essentially no Mohicans left. Not very nice Mr Cooper.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:51, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This is a hard one because I didn't find any commentary about why they felt the need to do ''The Last of the Mohicans'' again but I can say that during 90s they did do a couple of remakes of older movies (see [http://childrenofthenineties.blogspot.com/2009/09/90s-movie-remakes.html this site] for some examples). Not sure if this was an emergent phenomenon during the time or something Hollywood has always done but, it is something I noticed.<br />
The only other connection I can make with is the fact that the Gulf War occurred in '90/'91 and this film version came out in '92. Perhaps Americans had a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war in general, so it would be advantageous to create a film that portrayed war. In addition, it would probably be a smart move to use a story that so many people familiar with (and holds such an important place in U.S. popular literature) to draw in a crowd (which goes back to my point about remakinges of older films). --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 13:28, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Responding to the comment by Shauser, the only option I can think of for a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war would be Operation Desert Storm, which occurred in 1990-1991. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There may have also been a renewed interest in Native American history as well. Congress established the National Museum of the American Indian in 1989, and as we talked about with Pocahontas, the 90s saw a growing awareness of the importance of diversity and the contributions of different ethnic groups. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments which state that due to Desert Storm Americans were becoming more interested in their own military exploits, but I do think that it goes farther than this. When I watched the film I got a sense that there was a <em>very</em> pro-America sense coming through the film. Multiple times the film depicted how the colonialists were different from the British, and how they longed for freedom. Also, there was mentioning of the manifest destiny[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h337.html], that is the believed desire of all American to push west and discover new things. Treating these themes as a commentary on the '90s, they suggest that in the United States at this time there was a growing cultural notion that the American dream/desire to discover is noble. <br />
Also, the character of Hawkeye (sp) seemed to me to come across as more of a colonial with Native American tendencies, rather than an adopted colonial. This shift in character could either be due to something lost in the numerous adaptations, or be a result of '90s culture. One that promotes the conglomeration of differences, rather than finding pride in being separate.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
As far as the movie being a primary source, I was specifically intrigued by the final statement about the "Last of the Mohicans" I have not read the book so I do not know if this is verbatim or not (if I am wrong, I apologize). "Chingachgook: The frontier moves with the sun and pushes the Red Man of these wilderness forests in front of it until one day there will be nowhere left. Then our race will be no more, or be not us.<br />
Hawkeye: That is my father's sadness talking.<br />
Chingachgook: No, it is true. The frontier place is for people like my white son and his woman and their children. And one day there will be no more frontier. And men like you will go too, like the Mohicans. And new people will come, work, struggle. Some will make their life. But once, we were here." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104691/quotes These final lines could also reflect the expanding frontier through clear cutting in both America and South America that was such a hot topic in 1992 the year the film was made. - Caryn<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
In the readings, speeches by the various chiefs plainly state truths, such as their unequal role in the fighting, and unfair trade practices. The movie doesn't go into this aspect, choosing instead to show the growing tension between Britain and the colonists. European arrogance plays a role in both situations, though. The Europeans could not hear the truth in the Indians' speeches for two reasons: first, because it came from the mouths of people the Europeans still regarded as inferior savages; and second, because the Europeans wouldn't let anything stand in the way of acquiring land. The Abenaki speaker Atiwaneto got it right when he said, "...your mouth is of sugar but your heart of gall" (''In a World of Warfare'', p. 127). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There’s a line from the Calloway reading pg. 170 that says, “Indians mourning relatives might vent their grief by demanding that a captive be tortured to death.” According to the reading this did not always happen, sometimes Indians took their captives in and incorporated them into native society. The movie did a good job of portraying the hatred some Indians felt toward the British.<br />
Magua desires vengeance against General Munro because he destroyed Magua’s family. Magua viciously kills Munro, rips his heart out, and then captures his daughters. The chief of his Huron tribe orders that Alice Munro marry Magua and that Cora Munro be burned to death. Cora was to be burned as retribution for her father’s actions against Magua. (However Duncan saves her; one of the few things he does right in the movie.) -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
In Calloway's, "First Peoples," there is talk about the some captives being adopted by the natives. Those not adopted, the elderly and crying infants, were often killed. Those who were seen fit as joining the tribe were painted to traditionally match others in the tribe. Soon, this person would grow to love the tribe as his/her own and if given the chance would not leave the tribe. This is what Calloway refers to as "Indianization" (p 170). This simulation into the native culture was evident in Nathaniel's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
One of the ways in which the readings ran parallel to the movie was the way in which some settlers adopted and retained the native characteristic of living on the frontier. Nathaniel is a great example in the way his character keeps his hair long, wears clothing such as natives wore, spoke the native language as well as lived among the natives who adopted him. In Calloway's writing, when Sylvanus Johnson was taken and adopted into his tribe, he also accepted and retained a number of native characteristics he was taught, even after rejoining the settlers. Another aspect that was similar was in the way Magua, from his first appearance, was totally cognizant of the way in which he knew he was being used and attempted to get the most out of the situation. Although he was influenced by the French more, it was obvious in the movie, the only people he trusted were his own, not the outsiders who killed his family. Within the character of Magua, viewers are able to understand just how upset the natives who wrote the "Onandogas and Cayugas" portion of the readings felt. The way in which the movie portrayed the Mohicans, I saw them as much tolerant and less angry as Magua's people, even though they were both losing their future to the settlers.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I saw a lot of parallels between the movie and the readings, particularly in the "In a World of Warfare" speeches. In the Delaware Indians' "Response to the Moravian ambassador" they say that war is clearly between the English and French, and ask, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" This is paralleled in the film by Nathaniel's early refusal to fight with the militia; he, like many natives, wishes to remain neutral in a fight which he does not feel belongs to him or his adopted family. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I like Meagan saw many parallels between the movie and the readings, especially through the "Speech to Alexander Henry." Chief Minavavana states, "[i]t is our custom to retaliate until such time as the spirits of the slain are satisfied." (136). I thought this directly paralleled how Magua felt towards General Munro and I do think he was satisfied with his brutal killing in the movie. I also thought the question raised in "Response to the Moravian Ambassador" was striking, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" (133). It is a direct question to the English and one I think all of the Native American nations wanted answered but were not given enough respect from either the French or English. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
While I did see many similarities between the movie and the readings, there were one or two things I noticed in the readings that didn't show up in the movie. In "A World Turned Upside Down," on page 144, an Indian's account states "I am now to tell you the cause of all disorder and quarreling between us and our white men. It is Rum." (144) The movie did not have any Indians dealing with other drunken Indians or Europeans, but I do remember hearing it mentioned in the film. It makes me wonder, how much of a problem was alcohol for the Indians and Europeans in the larger scheme of things? Another difference I saw when comparing the movie to the readings was Indian treatment of captives. From Susanna Johnson's account, she said the Indians were very kind and compassionate to her. But the Abenakis were attempting to replace lost family members. In the movie, the Hurons were looking to get revenge on the "white people" for the loss of their loved ones. Maybe compassion and kindness from Indians varied from tribe to tribe. ---Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
*How are the British colonists portrayed?<br />
*How did the movie portray the relations between the colonists and the British?<br />
*Which Natives take which sides in the movie, and what roles did they play?<br />
*How did Cooper’s dualist vision of Native Americans affects the movie, as well as both scholarly and popular perceptions of Native Americans?<br />
<br />
<br />
In the film the Mohawks and the Mohicans fought on the side of the English and the Huron and Ottawa fought with the French. However, as discussed in class, the Mohawks did not participate in the French and Indian War. The Huron played the largest role in the film, perpetrating the massacre at Fort William Henry by themselves, with apparent French consent. The divide amongst the Huron, as shown by the confrontation between the Sachem, Magua, and Nathaniel was a great example of how Native Americans were divided on how to deal with Europeans. Magua represents the "new" Indian that has been created by living alongside the colonists. He values gold above all else and seeks to defeat the Colonists at their own game. While Sachem desires to try and hold on to as much of the Native American lifestyle as possible. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
During the lecture and based off of these questions we were asked to discuss what role did Anglo-Americans play in the Native American communities in comparison to The Last of the Mohicans. I saw several roles they played and the beginning of an American identity through Jack Winthrop and his wanting to serve for the British but also the pull to protect his family and land. Through his anger with General Munro (Monroe?) he showed the beginning of revolt against the British and also a need for separation. Aside from that role Anglo-Americans changed how the Native Americans fought, because of their need for claim over territory they pushed the Native Americans to fight one another (Huron versus the Mohicans) instead of working together to defeat the whites. I found the Huron to be the tribe who may of worked against the English and ideally helped the French, but to be the tribe who attempted to look out for themselves. I think the movie was really well done and portrayed a good picture of what America was like throughout the 1770s. I did not know it was based off a book and question the authority of the orignial book since Cooper had never met a Native American. I found the character, Magua, to be the character that clearly stood out to me, aside from Hawkeye. Magua was our definition of two-faced and even with his reasons for it I am not sure I could call someone "Grey-hair" and tell them I was going to ruin their family line as I cut their heart out. I do wonder with this account- did many Native Americans turn on whites who hurt their families? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie gave an accurate portrayal of the relationship between the British and the colonists. Many of the colonists have established themselves and have begun to know the lay of the land and the customs of the Native Americans. The haughty British assumed they were experts on fighting the Native Americans, but really they were clueless. Their system of fighting, forming orderly lines, proved ineffective in the movie. They walked along the paths in their perfect straight lines and the Indians would emerge from the forests and ambush them. It reminded me of a quote from Lord of the Rings, “Stay off the road.” <br />
The colonists and Nathaniel even tried to persuade the British officers to take a particular military action and the British ignored them, saying they had no authority. When Duncan is asked by Munro about the military situations at hand, he lies in order to silence Nathaniel’s claims. Munro trusts Duncan’s opinions over Nathaniel’s because Duncan is a British officer. The British were very distrusting of Native Americans, even though they were allies. They believed their way was the right way and that the “Royal opinion” should not be questioned.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I found it disturbing how the Native Americans were portrayed either as blood-thirsty fiends who consistently looked out for their own interests,like Magua, or were "the good guys" who backed up the white men and selflessly pursued the cause, such as Hawkeye and his family. Is there no middle ground here? It seems that the Native Americans who actually lived during the conflict were haphazardly drawn into it by Europeans demanding they choose a side. Magua and Hawkeye are both depicted as being wholly devoted to the conflict. It was also mentioned during lecture that the Native Americans abandoned the French midway into the war. This only reinforces the point that Native Americans did not really want to engage in this war, and thus would not completely devote themselves to it. I found the movie to be misleading in accurately portraying this point. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I really like Anna's point. I hadn't really thought of it that way but I totally agree - the film only shows opposite ends of the spectrum for Native Americans. Nathaniel and his family don't seem to be that impressed with the British soldiers that they encounter, so the fact that they just whole-heartedly join in their fight seems odd. I guess "whole-heartedly" isn't the right word, because Nathaniel warns his friends at the fort to get out while they still can - he doesn't expect them to stay and fight for a noble cause. I suppose we're to assume that Nathaniel stays in the fight simply for Cora? I think the motives of Nathaniel and his family could have been more developed. - Celia<br />
I definitely agree with Anna in that I don't think the movie really portrayed the sense that most Native Americans felt they were caught in the middle rather than being fully devoted to one side or another as most seemed to be in the film. Many of the readings show the Indians as confused and betrayed by both the English's and the French's concept of friendship and alliance. Those that do join the war do so because they want protection for their people and enough food and land to survive, not because of any deep rooted allegiance to the causes the Europeans are fighting for. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Samantha W. mentions several points that I noticed about the narrow-mindedness of the British officers. Duncan's character in particular is a good example of a man who cannot adjust his worldview. To him, it is incomprehensible that a British subject would refuse to fight, and equally incomprehensible that a British officer would lie. After he has himself lied about what he saw at the cabin, he tells Cora that when they return to England nothing that has happened "over here" will matter at all. For him, the New World does not fit into neat categories and he cannot comprehend it, therefore it is as insubstantial as a dream. Really, for him, it is as frightening and disorienting as a nightmare. I can easily believe that many real people felt that way. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The British colonists are portrayed as arrogant people. They think they are above and better than everyone else. In the movie, it seems like they do not understand the entire picture and they are only seeing things from their point of view. The British also thought they were better than the colonists. As stated in class, Cooper never met a Native American, so he created an image of the Native Americans that could have been more stereotypical. This does show in the movie because some of the Native Americans are shown as "savage" and "war mongers". -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I thought that the way the British military officers treated the militia men was accurate considering what we discussed in class on Tuesday. The officers basically treated the militia men like slaves and did not care that they had homes and families to protect. The colonists also seemed to refer to themselves as British citizens and we upset when their rights were not respected by the British officers, possibly foreshadowing some of the reasoning behind the American Revolution-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The British military officers treated the militia men like crap. The officers told them they could not go home to protect their families and if they were caught trying to leave they would be hanged. The officers thought they were ignorant of the importance of what they were doing when in reality the colonists did know what they were doing. They would just rather protect their family then fight a losing battle at the fort. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
For me, Cooper’s portrayal of the Native Americans greatly affected the movie and he gives two vastly different portrayals of Native Americans. The Huron’s are portrayed as savages and terrible, while the Mohawks with Hawkeye are portrayed as civilized and reasonable. It causes this huge gap in how I felt regarding two different tribes, who are still Indian, yet they are portrayed as totally different. It seems easy for one to root for one group of Native Americans, yet root against another. Even though, Hawkeye and his brother and father have somewhat adopted themselves into white society, I find it interesting how they are portrayed as poles apart. Regarding popular perceptions of Native Americans, the movie can present some confusion. The Huron’s are incredibly destructive and violent and this image permeates throughout the movie and is difficult to get over. However, at the end when Mohawk and his father are standing at the edge of the cliff, he recovers the sense of passion and kindness for the Native Americans based on their portrayal in the movie. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The movie depicts the British officers as horrible, arrogant men. They treat the colonists as lesser people. - Cilla<br />
<br />
Although the British did treat the colonial militias badly during the war, the movie goes out of its way to point to how independent and rights loving the colonists are. Also let's not forget that Cora herself while talking to Munro states that the colonists would be better off if the English were essentially wiped from the colony. Here's the problem with that idea, it sets up a non-existent dichotomy between the British and the not-yet-Americans. While I am of the thought that the militias were probably very upset with the British, any British-colonist interaction had way too much revolutionary mindset injected into it.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:55, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
In my opinion, I thought the British were portrayed as ignorant and also arrogant like Cilla said above. Duncan symbolizes the British well. He always thought he knew what was right, whether it had to do with Cora or the decision to tell Munro that a war party did not attack the innocent people that lived in that house. The British officers, including Munro, hardly listened to Nathaniel even though he knew a lot more about how other Indians and tribes fought and how to properly go about dealing with the Huron and other enemies. The British continuously got ambushed by war parties, they trusted Magua even though he was a real enemy and wanted the colonists to help fight a losing battle instead of return to protect their homes and families. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
What struck me about the portrayal of the British is that at first they seemed to be admirable, but the longer they stayed the less admirable they became. They appeared to be self-centered by upholding the values of the British Crown. The colonists who had lived in the Americas began to realize that values that the British held were not fit for the colonists, so tensions began to flair. There was one scene in particular where the colonists argued against the British about whether to stay at the Fort to defend it, or go send some troops to the frontier to warn families about possible attack. For this issue they were clearly divided, and it was at this point where the movie clearly depicted the relations between the two groups. - Jenn<br />
<br />
Cooper's dualist depiction of the Native American's present throughout the story can clearly be seen in the course of the film. The two distinct personalities available to the Native American characters are that of a brutal savage, such as Magua, and the noble, but doomed native, in Uncas, Nathaniel's adopted brother. In the film, the Native Americans all fall into these characterizations, and it is implied that the Huron warriors are all blood-thirsty savages, styled after Magua, their leader. Although Magua's motivations for revenge are made clear, his desire to harm innocent women simply to get back at their father suggests that he is unable to overcome the brutality that supposedly came naturally in the Native Americans. - Melissa E.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-09-09T03:47:55Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The film shows how by the 1750s Native Americans had adapted British technology. This is shown by Native American use of the muskets in fighting and also the Mohicans wearing of colonial like clothing. Although the Hurons are depicted as still wearing more traditional(?) clothing I wonder if this is a way of showing them as more "savage" or maybe they still wore traditional clothing because they were from areas up north with less contact with settlers unlike a group like the Mohicans.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 12:56, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie did manage to get the Hawkeye's adoption correct. As mentioned in the reading "A Captivity Narrative" it said the natives would adopt their captives into their tribes and become pretty much family members. Hawkeye lost his parents and was raised by the Mohicans and saw them as his family and thought the native's life as a better life than the colonists' lives. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
The respect shown to Nathaniel by both whites and Indians seemed like a plot device to me, until I read "In a World of Warfare" that Phineas Stevens enjoyed the same kind of cross-cultural respect (pp. 126-127). --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Another aspect of the times that I think the movie captured is that neither European nor Indian, as individuals or as nations, were all good or all bad. The characters were complex---even the uber-villain Magua had reasons for his implacable hatred. An overall theme of the movie was the common brutality of man. The ruin that wars bring is epitomized by the "death of the innocents" Uncas and Alice. --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Deborah's point. Chingachgook and Uncas more or less played the part of the "noble savage" while Magua was more just...savage. But they took the pains to make him a more developed character by giving him a sad history. I did feel bad for Magua for one scene...and by the end, I really needed to see him get his. I think the scene with the Huron chief made it clear - that yes, Magua has a sad story, but what he does isn't okay. I also really enjoyed the fact that Chingachgook was the one to kill Magua. I was definitely expecting another slow-motion shot of Nathaniel running and attacking Magua in an epic battle, and I was really pleased to see Chingachgook avenge the death of his son. - Celia<br />
<br />
This film showed correctly (generally) the difference of fighting and war tactics between the Native Americans and the British. It seemed like the British were not that smart by walking along a road because the Native Americans could and did attack them from both sides. The Native Americans used the trees to help them hide so they can have a surprise attack on the British. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The deaths of the Cameron family and the destruction of their cabin got across some of the terror that accompanied life on the frontier that Susanna Johnson describe in her description of the days leading up to her capture. Frontier families lived one day to the next not knowing if they would be suddenly victims of one conflict or another between any number of different actors. The sense of fear conveyed in the film's depiction of Indian attackers as often invisible in the woods until the moment they strike is a strong one, and one that I think matches well Susanna's account of near constant, almost paralyzing fear. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann. Susanna's account shows ambiguous fear - of never feeling totally safe or sure of what was going to happen next. The scenes of Native Americans rushing out and attacking from the woods are terrifying. The director does a good job of capturing the sense of chaos in those scenes. It's clear that the English were not used to that way of fighting. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Justine's comment on the portrayal of the different fighting tactics. Especially when the Munroe sister's are attacked in the beginning. The Native Americans were all hiding in the woods and the British soldiers were standing around waiting to be told to fire, which was insane. I wonder why it took so long for people to change their fighting and war tactics?-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
My favorite part about this movie is that no matter how much I disliked or liked a character, there was good and bad in each of them, making them realistic. No one is perfect, in one direction or another. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I also agree with Justines comment because the movie depicted the English tactics and Native Americans tactics in a pretty accurate way. The Native Americans were doing the "skulking way of war" when they were stalking the English after the surrender of the fort. I think it was interesting though that the Hurans did not have as many guns and many were using Tomahawks against guns. I also think they did a good job depicting the French tactics of trying to take the fort down and if you looked you did not see many Indians in that scene but you saw them after when the Marquis was in his tent. It also depicted the generousity of the French and the anger of the Native Americans over the way it was done. The difference there was that Magua wanted to kill Monro and the actual story is they wanted loot. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
There's a scene in the fort that I really appreciated. It shows Native American children singing in Latin (I'm fairly sure they're singing some setting of the Catholic mass), so they've obviously been converted. I just thought that was a great little touch on the director's part. - Celia<br />
<br />
To add to Megan mc's paragraph on Hawkeye's adoption: The film also captured the major cultural differences that Hawkeye experienced after being adopted. The director speaks specifically to the issue of language. Cora asks Hawkeye how he knows English, and of course that's when Eleazar Wheelocks' school comes into play. That moment is at least a nod to a small detail which lends a dash more historical credibility to the film. Mind you that it seems films and television shows tend to not make much out of language barriers, everyone is assumed to speak English. Like Susana's son, Hawkeye, having been separated off from "civilized" culture for so long and at such an early age, can speak a Native language (also probably a bit of French considering the fur traders), but he must learn English with his brother.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:41, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think that the movie represented what we had spoken about in class on Tuesday regarding the warfare, specifically the English vs the Native Americans. While the English are fighting in lines the Native Americans are wielding their fire power through Guerrilla type warfare behind the trees and through the forest. I bet it was very easy to anticipate what the English would do in a battle and act accordingly. -Caryn<br />
<br />
Another aspect the movie got right was when Magua and Nathaniel came to the Huron to offer gifts. In the readings and class we learned that exchanging gifts was an important part of the Indian culture. Magua offered the gifts of people and Nathanial offered some kind of wampum I think. From this week's readings, however, most Indian captives were not offered as gifts to be killed but most became adopted into families and treated fairly decently. Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got more facts right than Disney's Pocahontas! One thing the movie did well on was showing the Indian's dependence on European settlers. It was very easy to tell that the Huron Indians depended greatly on the French in 2 ways... a) Where else would the Indians have found weapons such as guns to fight with? b) The relationship between the Indians and the French. Both sides knew they could use the other to get what they want. The Hurons, especially Magua, wanted revenge on the English for killing their children and families through settlement. On the other hand, the French saw the Indians as excess manpower to fight off the English at Ft. William Henry. In both cases, the French got what they wanted as did the Hurons. Just as in the actual French & Indian War, the Indians and Europeans gambled/sided with one another in order to achieve their own agendas. I think the movie did a good job portraying the Indian/European relationship. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie did a good job portraying the relationship between the Colonists/British and Native Americans, like Alex said. I also think that the movie did a good job portraying how the British felt about the Native Americans who chose to help them by scouting for the British, they had very little respect and there was a lot of mistrust. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One continually occurring theme throughout the movie was Hawkeye's amazing marksmanship and ability to shoot muskets from the hip, like a wild west gunslinger. Another major inaccuracy in the film was Magua cutting Colonel Monro's heart out. In fact Colonel Monro and other English officers were kept behind in the French Camp, and later safely escorted to Fort Edward by the French. (Starbuck, David R. ''Massacre at Fort William Henry''. Hanover, N. H.: University Press of New England, 2002, 25-35.) Michael G.<br />
<br />
The French did not actually occupy Fort William Henry. They deliberately demolished the already-damaged, wooden fort. Neither the British nor the Americans rebuilt it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_Henry) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One thing that is often inaccurate in movies like these is the reloading of the rifles and muskets. Most of the guns at the time, to my knowledge, were single shot meaning they'd need to reload after each shot and after an adventure to wikipedia it stated that the Long Rifle/Pennsylvania Rifle that Hawkeye used took a full minute to reload. Though if they showed him reloading every single shot it would make the already long movie even longer. In the movie's defense they did show him reloading it at least one time (while running) and then snatching the unused guns from the French that he killed. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
As said above, some of the types of guns do not exist at that time and they way they shoot them are not possible. It is hard to find more things the movie got wrong because this movie is not claiming to be historically accurate. I am not sure how similar this movie is to the book, because I did not read Cooper's book. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To me it seemed that the movie made at least <em>some</em> attempt at being accurate, but sacrificed a lot at the price of being dramatic. The thing that stuck out the most to me was that it seemed to imply that there are no more Mahicans left. Which I don't think is true[http://www.native-languages.org/mohican.htm].-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Overall, there are many elements of this movie that are correct such as make-up, hair styles and clothing. Even though, many elements were historically accurate I was able to find an interesting critique of the script that doesn’t just point out historical inaccuracies, but also things that could of made the movie better. One historical inaccuracy was the Bearskin miter caps worn by the Grenadiers. These were in fact not issued until 1768, and during the time period of the movie, the Grenadiers were in fact still wearing hard caps. Another historical miss-step which I found quite interesting was how Hawkeye handled his gun. He casually flipped it around to point it at Heyward’s chest. In reality, this would have been almost impossible because a British musket weighs about 11 pounds and has about a 42 inch barrel. Though incredibly small things, I thought they were very interesting. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think that one of the most important things that the movie got wrong was the role of the "bloodthirsty" natives like Magua. While there was certainly both violence and resentment present on both sides (white and Native American), we can see in the speeches given by the chiefs that more than anything, the Native Americans did want to continue to trade with the colonists, and be treated as equals. I don't really think that this came through in the film- we saw either the scalping, heart-eating savage like Magua, or the "noble" savage, like Nathaniel's adopted father and brother. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I don't care how historically inaccurate it is, dual wielding long rifles and shooting from the hips always score points in my book. To hell with it being unlikely! To respond to Isaac Whalen, I do recall even with the original book many of the surviving Mohicans being rather annoyed that a book would claim that there were essentially no Mohicans left. Not very nice Mr Cooper.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:51, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This is a hard one because I didn't find any commentary about why they felt the need to do ''The Last of the Mohicans'' again but I can say that during 90s they did do a couple of remakes of older movies (see [http://childrenofthenineties.blogspot.com/2009/09/90s-movie-remakes.html this site] for some examples). Not sure if this was an emergent phenomenon during the time or something Hollywood has always done but, it is something I noticed.<br />
The only other connection I can make with is the fact that the Gulf War occurred in '90/'91 and this film version came out in '92. Perhaps Americans had a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war in general, so it would be advantageous to create a film that portrayed war. In addition, it would probably be a smart move to use a story that so many people familiar with (and holds such an important place in U.S. popular literature) to draw in a crowd (which goes back to my point about remakinges of older films). --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 13:28, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Responding to the comment by Shauser, the only option I can think of for a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war would be Operation Desert Storm, which occurred in 1990-1991. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There may have also been a renewed interest in Native American history as well. Congress established the National Museum of the American Indian in 1989, and as we talked about with Pocahontas, the 90s saw a growing awareness of the importance of diversity and the contributions of different ethnic groups. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments which state that due to Desert Storm Americans were becoming more interested in their own military exploits, but I do think that it goes farther than this. When I watched the film I got a sense that there was a <em>very</em> pro-America sense coming through the film. Multiple times the film depicted how the colonialists were different from the British, and how they longed for freedom. Also, there was mentioning of the manifest destiny[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h337.html], that is the believed desire of all American to push west and discover new things. Treating these themes as a commentary on the '90s, they suggest that in the United States at this time there was a growing cultural notion that the American dream/desire to discover is noble. <br />
Also, the character of Hawkeye (sp) seemed to me to come across as more of a colonial with Native American tendencies, rather than an adopted colonial. This shift in character could either be due to something lost in the numerous adaptations, or be a result of '90s culture. One that promotes the conglomeration of differences, rather than finding pride in being separate.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
As far as the movie being a primary source, I was specifically intrigued by the final statement about the "Last of the Mohicans" I have not read the book so I do not know if this is verbatim or not (if I am wrong, I apologize). "Chingachgook: The frontier moves with the sun and pushes the Red Man of these wilderness forests in front of it until one day there will be nowhere left. Then our race will be no more, or be not us.<br />
Hawkeye: That is my father's sadness talking.<br />
Chingachgook: No, it is true. The frontier place is for people like my white son and his woman and their children. And one day there will be no more frontier. And men like you will go too, like the Mohicans. And new people will come, work, struggle. Some will make their life. But once, we were here." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104691/quotes These final lines could also reflect the expanding frontier through clear cutting in both America and South America that was such a hot topic in 1992 the year the film was made. - Caryn<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
In the readings, speeches by the various chiefs plainly state truths, such as their unequal role in the fighting, and unfair trade practices. The movie doesn't go into this aspect, choosing instead to show the growing tension between Britain and the colonists. European arrogance plays a role in both situations, though. The Europeans could not hear the truth in the Indians' speeches for two reasons: first, because it came from the mouths of people the Europeans still regarded as inferior savages; and second, because the Europeans wouldn't let anything stand in the way of acquiring land. The Abenaki speaker Atiwaneto got it right when he said, "...your mouth is of sugar but your heart of gall" (''In a World of Warfare'', p. 127). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There’s a line from the Calloway reading pg. 170 that says, “Indians mourning relatives might vent their grief by demanding that a captive be tortured to death.” According to the reading this did not always happen, sometimes Indians took their captives in and incorporated them into native society. The movie did a good job of portraying the hatred some Indians felt toward the British.<br />
Magua desires vengeance against General Munro because he destroyed Magua’s family. Magua viciously kills Munro, rips his heart out, and then captures his daughters. The chief of his Huron tribe orders that Alice Munro marry Magua and that Cora Munro be burned to death. Cora was to be burned as retribution for her father’s actions against Magua. (However Duncan saves her; one of the few things he does right in the movie.) -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
In Calloway's, "First Peoples," there is talk about the some captives being adopted by the natives. Those not adopted, the elderly and crying infants, were often killed. Those who were seen fit as joining the tribe were painted to traditionally match others in the tribe. Soon, this person would grow to love the tribe as his/her own and if given the chance would not leave the tribe. This is what Calloway refers to as "Indianization" (p 170). This simulation into the native culture was evident in Nathaniel's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
One of the ways in which the readings ran parallel to the movie was the way in which some settlers adopted and retained the native characteristic of living on the frontier. Nathaniel is a great example in the way his character keeps his hair long, wears clothing such as natives wore, spoke the native language as well as lived among the natives who adopted him. In Calloway's writing, when Sylvanus Johnson was taken and adopted into his tribe, he also accepted and retained a number of native characteristics he was taught, even after rejoining the settlers. Another aspect that was similar was in the way Magua, from his first appearance, was totally cognizant of the way in which he knew he was being used and attempted to get the most out of the situation. Although he was influenced by the French more, it was obvious in the movie, the only people he trusted were his own, not the outsiders who killed his family. Within the character of Magua, viewers are able to understand just how upset the natives who wrote the "Onandogas and Cayugas" portion of the readings felt. The way in which the movie portrayed the Mohicans, I saw them as much tolerant and less angry as Magua's people, even though they were both losing their future to the settlers.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I saw a lot of parallels between the movie and the readings, particularly in the "In a World of Warfare" speeches. In the Delaware Indians' "Response to the Moravian ambassador" they say that war is clearly between the English and French, and ask, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" This is paralleled in the film by Nathaniel's early refusal to fight with the militia; he, like many natives, wishes to remain neutral in a fight which he does not feel belongs to him or his adopted family. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I like Meagan saw many parallels between the movie and the readings, especially through the "Speech to Alexander Henry." Chief Minavavana states, "[i]t is our custom to retaliate until such time as the spirits of the slain are satisfied." (136). I thought this directly paralleled how Magua felt towards General Munro and I do think he was satisfied with his brutal killing in the movie. I also thought the question raised in "Response to the Moravian Ambassador" was striking, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" (133). It is a direct question to the English and one I think all of the Native American nations wanted answered but were not given enough respect from either the French or English. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
*How are the British colonists portrayed?<br />
*How did the movie portray the relations between the colonists and the British?<br />
*Which Natives take which sides in the movie, and what roles did they play?<br />
*How did Cooper’s dualist vision of Native Americans affects the movie, as well as both scholarly and popular perceptions of Native Americans?<br />
<br />
<br />
In the film the Mohawks and the Mohicans fought on the side of the English and the Huron and Ottawa fought with the French. However, as discussed in class, the Mohawks did not participate in the French and Indian War. The Huron played the largest role in the film, perpetrating the massacre at Fort William Henry by themselves, with apparent French consent. The divide amongst the Huron, as shown by the confrontation between the Sachem, Magua, and Nathaniel was a great example of how Native Americans were divided on how to deal with Europeans. Magua represents the "new" Indian that has been created by living alongside the colonists. He values gold above all else and seeks to defeat the Colonists at their own game. While Sachem desires to try and hold on to as much of the Native American lifestyle as possible. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
During the lecture and based off of these questions we were asked to discuss what role did Anglo-Americans play in the Native American communities in comparison to The Last of the Mohicans. I saw several roles they played and the beginning of an American identity through Jack Winthrop and his wanting to serve for the British but also the pull to protect his family and land. Through his anger with General Munro (Monroe?) he showed the beginning of revolt against the British and also a need for separation. Aside from that role Anglo-Americans changed how the Native Americans fought, because of their need for claim over territory they pushed the Native Americans to fight one another (Huron versus the Mohicans) instead of working together to defeat the whites. I found the Huron to be the tribe who may of worked against the English and ideally helped the French, but to be the tribe who attempted to look out for themselves. I think the movie was really well done and portrayed a good picture of what America was like throughout the 1770s. I did not know it was based off a book and question the authority of the orignial book since Cooper had never met a Native American. I found the character, Magua, to be the character that clearly stood out to me, aside from Hawkeye. Magua was our definition of two-faced and even with his reasons for it I am not sure I could call someone "Grey-hair" and tell them I was going to ruin their family line as I cut their heart out. I do wonder with this account- did many Native Americans turn on whites who hurt their families? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie gave an accurate portrayal of the relationship between the British and the colonists. Many of the colonists have established themselves and have begun to know the lay of the land and the customs of the Native Americans. The haughty British assumed they were experts on fighting the Native Americans, but really they were clueless. Their system of fighting, forming orderly lines, proved ineffective in the movie. They walked along the paths in their perfect straight lines and the Indians would emerge from the forests and ambush them. It reminded me of a quote from Lord of the Rings, “Stay off the road.” <br />
The colonists and Nathaniel even tried to persuade the British officers to take a particular military action and the British ignored them, saying they had no authority. When Duncan is asked by Munro about the military situations at hand, he lies in order to silence Nathaniel’s claims. Munro trusts Duncan’s opinions over Nathaniel’s because Duncan is a British officer. The British were very distrusting of Native Americans, even though they were allies. They believed their way was the right way and that the “Royal opinion” should not be questioned.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I found it disturbing how the Native Americans were portrayed either as blood-thirsty fiends who consistently looked out for their own interests,like Magua, or were "the good guys" who backed up the white men and selflessly pursued the cause, such as Hawkeye and his family. Is there no middle ground here? It seems that the Native Americans who actually lived during the conflict were haphazardly drawn into it by Europeans demanding they choose a side. Magua and Hawkeye are both depicted as being wholly devoted to the conflict. It was also mentioned during lecture that the Native Americans abandoned the French midway into the war. This only reinforces the point that Native Americans did not really want to engage in this war, and thus would not completely devote themselves to it. I found the movie to be misleading in accurately portraying this point. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Anna in that I don't think the movie really portrayed the sense that most Native Americans felt they were caught in the middle rather than being fully devoted to one side or another as most seemed to be in the film. Many of the readings show the Indians as confused and betrayed by both the English's and the French's concept of friendship and alliance. Those that do join the war do so because they want protection for their people and enough food and land to survive, not because of any deep rooted allegiance to the causes the Europeans are fighting for. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Samantha W. mentions several points that I noticed about the narrow-mindedness of the British officers. Duncan's character in particular is a good example of a man who cannot adjust his worldview. To him, it is incomprehensible that a British subject would refuse to fight, and equally incomprehensible that a British officer would lie. After he has himself lied about what he saw at the cabin, he tells Cora that when they return to England nothing that has happened "over here" will matter at all. For him, the New World does not fit into neat categories and he cannot comprehend it, therefore it is as insubstantial as a dream. Really, for him, it is as frightening and disorienting as a nightmare. I can easily believe that many real people felt that way. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The British colonists are portrayed as arrogant people. They think they are above and better than everyone else. In the movie, it seems like they do not understand the entire picture and they are only seeing things from their point of view. The British also thought they were better than the colonists. As stated in class, Cooper never met a Native American, so he created an image of the Native Americans that could have been more stereotypical. This does show in the movie because some of the Native Americans are shown as "savage" and "war mongers". -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I thought that the way the British military officers treated the militia men was accurate considering what we discussed in class on Tuesday. The officers basically treated the militia men like slaves and did not care that they had homes and families to protect. The colonists also seemed to refer to themselves as British citizens and we upset when their rights were not respected by the British officers, possibly foreshadowing some of the reasoning behind the American Revolution-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The British military officers treated the militia men like crap. The officers told them they could not go home to protect their families and if they were caught trying to leave they would be hanged. The officers thought they were ignorant of the importance of what they were doing when in reality the colonists did know what they were doing. They would just rather protect their family then fight a losing battle at the fort. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
For me, Cooper’s portrayal of the Native Americans greatly affected the movie and he gives two vastly different portrayals of Native Americans. The Huron’s are portrayed as savages and terrible, while the Mohawks with Hawkeye are portrayed as civilized and reasonable. It causes this huge gap in how I felt regarding two different tribes, who are still Indian, yet they are portrayed as totally different. It seems easy for one to root for one group of Native Americans, yet root against another. Even though, Hawkeye and his brother and father have somewhat adopted themselves into white society, I find it interesting how they are portrayed as poles apart. Regarding popular perceptions of Native Americans, the movie can present some confusion. The Huron’s are incredibly destructive and violent and this image permeates throughout the movie and is difficult to get over. However, at the end when Mohawk and his father are standing at the edge of the cliff, he recovers the sense of passion and kindness for the Native Americans based on their portrayal in the movie. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The movie depicts the British officers as horrible, arrogant men. They treat the colonists as lesser people. - Cilla<br />
<br />
Although the British did treat the colonial militias badly during the war, the movie goes out of its way to point to how independent and rights loving the colonists are. Also let's not forget that Cora herself while talking to Munro states that the colonists would be better off if the English were essentially wiped from the colony. Here's the problem with that idea, it sets up a non-existent dichotomy between the British and the not-yet-Americans. While I am of the thought that the militias were probably very upset with the British, any British-colonist interaction had way too much revolutionary mindset injected into it.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:55, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
In my opinion, I thought the British were portrayed as ignorant and also arrogant like Cilla said above. Duncan symbolizes the British well. He always thought he knew what was right, whether it had to do with Cora or the decision to tell Munro that a war party did not attack the innocent people that lived in that house. The British officers, including Munro, hardly listened to Nathaniel even though he knew a lot more about how other Indians and tribes fought and how to properly go about dealing with the Huron and other enemies. The British continuously got ambushed by war parties, they trusted Magua even though he was a real enemy and wanted the colonists to help fight a losing battle instead of return to protect their homes and families. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
What struck me about the portrayal of the British is that at first they seemed to be admirable, but the longer they stayed the less admirable they became. They appeared to be self-centered by upholding the values of the British Crown. The colonists who had lived in the Americas began to realize that values that the British held were not fit for the colonists, so tensions began to flair. There was one scene in particular where the colonists argued against the British about whether to stay at the Fort to defend it, or go send some troops to the frontier to warn families about possible attack. For this issue they were clearly divided, and it was at this point where the movie clearly depicted the relations between the two groups. - Jenn</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-09-09T03:46:18Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The film shows how by the 1750s Native Americans had adapted British technology. This is shown by Native American use of the muskets in fighting and also the Mohicans wearing of colonial like clothing. Although the Hurons are depicted as still wearing more traditional(?) clothing I wonder if this is a way of showing them as more "savage" or maybe they still wore traditional clothing because they were from areas up north with less contact with settlers unlike a group like the Mohicans.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 12:56, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie did manage to get the Hawkeye's adoption correct. As mentioned in the reading "A Captivity Narrative" it said the natives would adopt their captives into their tribes and become pretty much family members. Hawkeye lost his parents and was raised by the Mohicans and saw them as his family and thought the native's life as a better life than the colonists' lives. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
The respect shown to Nathaniel by both whites and Indians seemed like a plot device to me, until I read "In a World of Warfare" that Phineas Stevens enjoyed the same kind of cross-cultural respect (pp. 126-127). --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Another aspect of the times that I think the movie captured is that neither European nor Indian, as individuals or as nations, were all good or all bad. The characters were complex---even the uber-villain Magua had reasons for his implacable hatred. An overall theme of the movie was the common brutality of man. The ruin that wars bring is epitomized by the "death of the innocents" Uncas and Alice. --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Deborah's point. Chingachgook and Uncas more or less played the part of the "noble savage" while Magua was more just...savage. But they took the pains to make him a more developed character by giving him a sad history. I did feel bad for Magua for one scene...and by the end, I really needed to see him get his. I think the scene with the Huron chief made it clear - that yes, Magua has a sad story, but what he does isn't okay. I also really enjoyed the fact that Chingachgook was the one to kill Magua. I was definitely expecting another slow-motion shot of Nathaniel running and attacking Magua in an epic battle, and I was really pleased to see Chingachgook avenge the death of his son. - Celia<br />
<br />
This film showed correctly (generally) the difference of fighting and war tactics between the Native Americans and the British. It seemed like the British were not that smart by walking along a road because the Native Americans could and did attack them from both sides. The Native Americans used the trees to help them hide so they can have a surprise attack on the British. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The deaths of the Cameron family and the destruction of their cabin got across some of the terror that accompanied life on the frontier that Susanna Johnson describe in her description of the days leading up to her capture. Frontier families lived one day to the next not knowing if they would be suddenly victims of one conflict or another between any number of different actors. The sense of fear conveyed in the film's depiction of Indian attackers as often invisible in the woods until the moment they strike is a strong one, and one that I think matches well Susanna's account of near constant, almost paralyzing fear. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann. Susanna's account shows ambiguous fear - of never feeling totally safe or sure of what was going to happen next. The scenes of Native Americans rushing out and attacking from the woods are terrifying. The director does a good job of capturing the sense of chaos in those scenes. It's clear that the English were not used to that way of fighting. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Justine's comment on the portrayal of the different fighting tactics. Especially when the Munroe sister's are attacked in the beginning. The Native Americans were all hiding in the woods and the British soldiers were standing around waiting to be told to fire, which was insane. I wonder why it took so long for people to change their fighting and war tactics?-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
My favorite part about this movie is that no matter how much I disliked or liked a character, there was good and bad in each of them, making them realistic. No one is perfect, in one direction or another. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I also agree with Justines comment because the movie depicted the English tactics and Native Americans tactics in a pretty accurate way. The Native Americans were doing the "skulking way of war" when they were stalking the English after the surrender of the fort. I think it was interesting though that the Hurans did not have as many guns and many were using Tomahawks against guns. I also think they did a good job depicting the French tactics of trying to take the fort down and if you looked you did not see many Indians in that scene but you saw them after when the Marquis was in his tent. It also depicted the generousity of the French and the anger of the Native Americans over the way it was done. The difference there was that Magua wanted to kill Monro and the actual story is they wanted loot. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
To add to Megan mc's paragraph on Hawkeye's adoption: The film also captured the major cultural differences that Hawkeye experienced after being adopted. The director speaks specifically to the issue of language. Cora asks Hawkeye how he knows English, and of course that's when Eleazar Wheelocks' school comes into play. That moment is at least a nod to a small detail which lends a dash more historical credibility to the film. Mind you that it seems films and television shows tend to not make much out of language barriers, everyone is assumed to speak English. Like Susana's son, Hawkeye, having been separated off from "civilized" culture for so long and at such an early age, can speak a Native language (also probably a bit of French considering the fur traders), but he must learn English with his brother.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:41, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think that the movie represented what we had spoken about in class on Tuesday regarding the warfare, specifically the English vs the Native Americans. While the English are fighting in lines the Native Americans are wielding their fire power through Guerrilla type warfare behind the trees and through the forest. I bet it was very easy to anticipate what the English would do in a battle and act accordingly. -Caryn<br />
<br />
Another aspect the movie got right was when Magua and Nathaniel came to the Huron to offer gifts. In the readings and class we learned that exchanging gifts was an important part of the Indian culture. Magua offered the gifts of people and Nathanial offered some kind of wampum I think. From this week's readings, however, most Indian captives were not offered as gifts to be killed but most became adopted into families and treated fairly decently. Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got more facts right than Disney's Pocahontas! One thing the movie did well on was showing the Indian's dependence on European settlers. It was very easy to tell that the Huron Indians depended greatly on the French in 2 ways... a) Where else would the Indians have found weapons such as guns to fight with? b) The relationship between the Indians and the French. Both sides knew they could use the other to get what they want. The Hurons, especially Magua, wanted revenge on the English for killing their children and families through settlement. On the other hand, the French saw the Indians as excess manpower to fight off the English at Ft. William Henry. In both cases, the French got what they wanted as did the Hurons. Just as in the actual French & Indian War, the Indians and Europeans gambled/sided with one another in order to achieve their own agendas. I think the movie did a good job portraying the Indian/European relationship. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie did a good job portraying the relationship between the Colonists/British and Native Americans, like Alex said. I also think that the movie did a good job portraying how the British felt about the Native Americans who chose to help them by scouting for the British, they had very little respect and there was a lot of mistrust. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One continually occurring theme throughout the movie was Hawkeye's amazing marksmanship and ability to shoot muskets from the hip, like a wild west gunslinger. Another major inaccuracy in the film was Magua cutting Colonel Monro's heart out. In fact Colonel Monro and other English officers were kept behind in the French Camp, and later safely escorted to Fort Edward by the French. (Starbuck, David R. ''Massacre at Fort William Henry''. Hanover, N. H.: University Press of New England, 2002, 25-35.) Michael G.<br />
<br />
The French did not actually occupy Fort William Henry. They deliberately demolished the already-damaged, wooden fort. Neither the British nor the Americans rebuilt it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_Henry) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One thing that is often inaccurate in movies like these is the reloading of the rifles and muskets. Most of the guns at the time, to my knowledge, were single shot meaning they'd need to reload after each shot and after an adventure to wikipedia it stated that the Long Rifle/Pennsylvania Rifle that Hawkeye used took a full minute to reload. Though if they showed him reloading every single shot it would make the already long movie even longer. In the movie's defense they did show him reloading it at least one time (while running) and then snatching the unused guns from the French that he killed. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
As said above, some of the types of guns do not exist at that time and they way they shoot them are not possible. It is hard to find more things the movie got wrong because this movie is not claiming to be historically accurate. I am not sure how similar this movie is to the book, because I did not read Cooper's book. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To me it seemed that the movie made at least <em>some</em> attempt at being accurate, but sacrificed a lot at the price of being dramatic. The thing that stuck out the most to me was that it seemed to imply that there are no more Mahicans left. Which I don't think is true[http://www.native-languages.org/mohican.htm].-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Overall, there are many elements of this movie that are correct such as make-up, hair styles and clothing. Even though, many elements were historically accurate I was able to find an interesting critique of the script that doesn’t just point out historical inaccuracies, but also things that could of made the movie better. One historical inaccuracy was the Bearskin miter caps worn by the Grenadiers. These were in fact not issued until 1768, and during the time period of the movie, the Grenadiers were in fact still wearing hard caps. Another historical miss-step which I found quite interesting was how Hawkeye handled his gun. He casually flipped it around to point it at Heyward’s chest. In reality, this would have been almost impossible because a British musket weighs about 11 pounds and has about a 42 inch barrel. Though incredibly small things, I thought they were very interesting. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think that one of the most important things that the movie got wrong was the role of the "bloodthirsty" natives like Magua. While there was certainly both violence and resentment present on both sides (white and Native American), we can see in the speeches given by the chiefs that more than anything, the Native Americans did want to continue to trade with the colonists, and be treated as equals. I don't really think that this came through in the film- we saw either the scalping, heart-eating savage like Magua, or the "noble" savage, like Nathaniel's adopted father and brother. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I don't care how historically inaccurate it is, dual wielding long rifles and shooting from the hips always score points in my book. To hell with it being unlikely! To respond to Isaac Whalen, I do recall even with the original book many of the surviving Mohicans being rather annoyed that a book would claim that there were essentially no Mohicans left. Not very nice Mr Cooper.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:51, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This is a hard one because I didn't find any commentary about why they felt the need to do ''The Last of the Mohicans'' again but I can say that during 90s they did do a couple of remakes of older movies (see [http://childrenofthenineties.blogspot.com/2009/09/90s-movie-remakes.html this site] for some examples). Not sure if this was an emergent phenomenon during the time or something Hollywood has always done but, it is something I noticed.<br />
The only other connection I can make with is the fact that the Gulf War occurred in '90/'91 and this film version came out in '92. Perhaps Americans had a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war in general, so it would be advantageous to create a film that portrayed war. In addition, it would probably be a smart move to use a story that so many people familiar with (and holds such an important place in U.S. popular literature) to draw in a crowd (which goes back to my point about remakinges of older films). --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 13:28, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Responding to the comment by Shauser, the only option I can think of for a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war would be Operation Desert Storm, which occurred in 1990-1991. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There may have also been a renewed interest in Native American history as well. Congress established the National Museum of the American Indian in 1989, and as we talked about with Pocahontas, the 90s saw a growing awareness of the importance of diversity and the contributions of different ethnic groups. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments which state that due to Desert Storm Americans were becoming more interested in their own military exploits, but I do think that it goes farther than this. When I watched the film I got a sense that there was a <em>very</em> pro-America sense coming through the film. Multiple times the film depicted how the colonialists were different from the British, and how they longed for freedom. Also, there was mentioning of the manifest destiny[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h337.html], that is the believed desire of all American to push west and discover new things. Treating these themes as a commentary on the '90s, they suggest that in the United States at this time there was a growing cultural notion that the American dream/desire to discover is noble. <br />
Also, the character of Hawkeye (sp) seemed to me to come across as more of a colonial with Native American tendencies, rather than an adopted colonial. This shift in character could either be due to something lost in the numerous adaptations, or be a result of '90s culture. One that promotes the conglomeration of differences, rather than finding pride in being separate.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
As far as the movie being a primary source, I was specifically intrigued by the final statement about the "Last of the Mohicans" I have not read the book so I do not know if this is verbatim or not (if I am wrong, I apologize). "Chingachgook: The frontier moves with the sun and pushes the Red Man of these wilderness forests in front of it until one day there will be nowhere left. Then our race will be no more, or be not us.<br />
Hawkeye: That is my father's sadness talking.<br />
Chingachgook: No, it is true. The frontier place is for people like my white son and his woman and their children. And one day there will be no more frontier. And men like you will go too, like the Mohicans. And new people will come, work, struggle. Some will make their life. But once, we were here." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104691/quotes These final lines could also reflect the expanding frontier through clear cutting in both America and South America that was such a hot topic in 1992 the year the film was made. - Caryn<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
In the readings, speeches by the various chiefs plainly state truths, such as their unequal role in the fighting, and unfair trade practices. The movie doesn't go into this aspect, choosing instead to show the growing tension between Britain and the colonists. European arrogance plays a role in both situations, though. The Europeans could not hear the truth in the Indians' speeches for two reasons: first, because it came from the mouths of people the Europeans still regarded as inferior savages; and second, because the Europeans wouldn't let anything stand in the way of acquiring land. The Abenaki speaker Atiwaneto got it right when he said, "...your mouth is of sugar but your heart of gall" (''In a World of Warfare'', p. 127). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There’s a line from the Calloway reading pg. 170 that says, “Indians mourning relatives might vent their grief by demanding that a captive be tortured to death.” According to the reading this did not always happen, sometimes Indians took their captives in and incorporated them into native society. The movie did a good job of portraying the hatred some Indians felt toward the British.<br />
Magua desires vengeance against General Munro because he destroyed Magua’s family. Magua viciously kills Munro, rips his heart out, and then captures his daughters. The chief of his Huron tribe orders that Alice Munro marry Magua and that Cora Munro be burned to death. Cora was to be burned as retribution for her father’s actions against Magua. (However Duncan saves her; one of the few things he does right in the movie.) -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
In Calloway's, "First Peoples," there is talk about the some captives being adopted by the natives. Those not adopted, the elderly and crying infants, were often killed. Those who were seen fit as joining the tribe were painted to traditionally match others in the tribe. Soon, this person would grow to love the tribe as his/her own and if given the chance would not leave the tribe. This is what Calloway refers to as "Indianization" (p 170). This simulation into the native culture was evident in Nathaniel's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
One of the ways in which the readings ran parallel to the movie was the way in which some settlers adopted and retained the native characteristic of living on the frontier. Nathaniel is a great example in the way his character keeps his hair long, wears clothing such as natives wore, spoke the native language as well as lived among the natives who adopted him. In Calloway's writing, when Sylvanus Johnson was taken and adopted into his tribe, he also accepted and retained a number of native characteristics he was taught, even after rejoining the settlers. Another aspect that was similar was in the way Magua, from his first appearance, was totally cognizant of the way in which he knew he was being used and attempted to get the most out of the situation. Although he was influenced by the French more, it was obvious in the movie, the only people he trusted were his own, not the outsiders who killed his family. Within the character of Magua, viewers are able to understand just how upset the natives who wrote the "Onandogas and Cayugas" portion of the readings felt. The way in which the movie portrayed the Mohicans, I saw them as much tolerant and less angry as Magua's people, even though they were both losing their future to the settlers.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I saw a lot of parallels between the movie and the readings, particularly in the "In a World of Warfare" speeches. In the Delaware Indians' "Response to the Moravian ambassador" they say that war is clearly between the English and French, and ask, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" This is paralleled in the film by Nathaniel's early refusal to fight with the militia; he, like many natives, wishes to remain neutral in a fight which he does not feel belongs to him or his adopted family. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I like Meagan saw many parallels between the movie and the readings, especially through the "Speech to Alexander Henry." Chief Minavavana states, "[i]t is our custom to retaliate until such time as the spirits of the slain are satisfied." (136). I thought this directly paralleled how Magua felt towards General Munro and I do think he was satisfied with his brutal killing in the movie. I also thought the question raised in "Response to the Moravian Ambassador" was striking, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" (133). It is a direct question to the English and one I think all of the Native American nations wanted answered but were not given enough respect from either the French or English. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
*How are the British colonists portrayed?<br />
*How did the movie portray the relations between the colonists and the British?<br />
*Which Natives take which sides in the movie, and what roles did they play?<br />
*How did Cooper’s dualist vision of Native Americans affects the movie, as well as both scholarly and popular perceptions of Native Americans?<br />
<br />
<br />
In the film the Mohawks and the Mohicans fought on the side of the English and the Huron and Ottawa fought with the French. However, as discussed in class, the Mohawks did not participate in the French and Indian War. The Huron played the largest role in the film, perpetrating the massacre at Fort William Henry by themselves, with apparent French consent. The divide amongst the Huron, as shown by the confrontation between the Sachem, Magua, and Nathaniel was a great example of how Native Americans were divided on how to deal with Europeans. Magua represents the "new" Indian that has been created by living alongside the colonists. He values gold above all else and seeks to defeat the Colonists at their own game. While Sachem desires to try and hold on to as much of the Native American lifestyle as possible. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
During the lecture and based off of these questions we were asked to discuss what role did Anglo-Americans play in the Native American communities in comparison to The Last of the Mohicans. I saw several roles they played and the beginning of an American identity through Jack Winthrop and his wanting to serve for the British but also the pull to protect his family and land. Through his anger with General Munro (Monroe?) he showed the beginning of revolt against the British and also a need for separation. Aside from that role Anglo-Americans changed how the Native Americans fought, because of their need for claim over territory they pushed the Native Americans to fight one another (Huron versus the Mohicans) instead of working together to defeat the whites. I found the Huron to be the tribe who may of worked against the English and ideally helped the French, but to be the tribe who attempted to look out for themselves. I think the movie was really well done and portrayed a good picture of what America was like throughout the 1770s. I did not know it was based off a book and question the authority of the orignial book since Cooper had never met a Native American. I found the character, Magua, to be the character that clearly stood out to me, aside from Hawkeye. Magua was our definition of two-faced and even with his reasons for it I am not sure I could call someone "Grey-hair" and tell them I was going to ruin their family line as I cut their heart out. I do wonder with this account- did many Native Americans turn on whites who hurt their families? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie gave an accurate portrayal of the relationship between the British and the colonists. Many of the colonists have established themselves and have begun to know the lay of the land and the customs of the Native Americans. The haughty British assumed they were experts on fighting the Native Americans, but really they were clueless. Their system of fighting, forming orderly lines, proved ineffective in the movie. They walked along the paths in their perfect straight lines and the Indians would emerge from the forests and ambush them. It reminded me of a quote from Lord of the Rings, “Stay off the road.” <br />
The colonists and Nathaniel even tried to persuade the British officers to take a particular military action and the British ignored them, saying they had no authority. When Duncan is asked by Munro about the military situations at hand, he lies in order to silence Nathaniel’s claims. Munro trusts Duncan’s opinions over Nathaniel’s because Duncan is a British officer. The British were very distrusting of Native Americans, even though they were allies. They believed their way was the right way and that the “Royal opinion” should not be questioned.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I found it disturbing how the Native Americans were portrayed either as blood-thirsty fiends who consistently looked out for their own interests,like Magua, or were "the good guys" who backed up the white men and selflessly pursued the cause, such as Hawkeye and his family. Is there no middle ground here? It seems that the Native Americans who actually lived during the conflict were haphazardly drawn into it by Europeans demanding they choose a side. Magua and Hawkeye are both depicted as being wholly devoted to the conflict. It was also mentioned during lecture that the Native Americans abandoned the French midway into the war. This only reinforces the point that Native Americans did not really want to engage in this war, and thus would not completely devote themselves to it. I found the movie to be misleading in accurately portraying this point. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Anna in that I don't think the movie really portrayed the sense that most Native Americans felt they were caught in the middle rather than being fully devoted to one side or another as most seemed to be in the film. Many of the readings show the Indians as confused and betrayed by both the English's and the French's concept of friendship and alliance. Those that do join the war do so because they want protection for their people and enough food and land to survive, not because of any deep rooted allegiance to the causes the Europeans are fighting for. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Samantha W. mentions several points that I noticed about the narrow-mindedness of the British officers. Duncan's character in particular is a good example of a man who cannot adjust his worldview. To him, it is incomprehensible that a British subject would refuse to fight, and equally incomprehensible that a British officer would lie. After he has himself lied about what he saw at the cabin, he tells Cora that when they return to England nothing that has happened "over here" will matter at all. For him, the New World does not fit into neat categories and he cannot comprehend it, therefore it is as insubstantial as a dream. Really, for him, it is as frightening and disorienting as a nightmare. I can easily believe that many real people felt that way. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The British colonists are portrayed as arrogant people. They think they are above and better than everyone else. In the movie, it seems like they do not understand the entire picture and they are only seeing things from their point of view. The British also thought they were better than the colonists. As stated in class, Cooper never met a Native American, so he created an image of the Native Americans that could have been more stereotypical. This does show in the movie because some of the Native Americans are shown as "savage" and "war mongers". -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I thought that the way the British military officers treated the militia men was accurate considering what we discussed in class on Tuesday. The officers basically treated the militia men like slaves and did not care that they had homes and families to protect. The colonists also seemed to refer to themselves as British citizens and we upset when their rights were not respected by the British officers, possibly foreshadowing some of the reasoning behind the American Revolution-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The British military officers treated the militia men like crap. The officers told them they could not go home to protect their families and if they were caught trying to leave they would be hanged. The officers thought they were ignorant of the importance of what they were doing when in reality the colonists did know what they were doing. They would just rather protect their family then fight a losing battle at the fort. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
For me, Cooper’s portrayal of the Native Americans greatly affected the movie and he gives two vastly different portrayals of Native Americans. The Huron’s are portrayed as savages and terrible, while the Mohawks with Hawkeye are portrayed as civilized and reasonable. It causes this huge gap in how I felt regarding two different tribes, who are still Indian, yet they are portrayed as totally different. It seems easy for one to root for one group of Native Americans, yet root against another. Even though, Hawkeye and his brother and father have somewhat adopted themselves into white society, I find it interesting how they are portrayed as poles apart. Regarding popular perceptions of Native Americans, the movie can present some confusion. The Huron’s are incredibly destructive and violent and this image permeates throughout the movie and is difficult to get over. However, at the end when Mohawk and his father are standing at the edge of the cliff, he recovers the sense of passion and kindness for the Native Americans based on their portrayal in the movie. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The movie depicts the British officers as horrible, arrogant men. They treat the colonists as lesser people. - Cilla<br />
<br />
Although the British did treat the colonial militias badly during the war, the movie goes out of its way to point to how independent and rights loving the colonists are. Also let's not forget that Cora herself while talking to Munro states that the colonists would be better off if the English were essentially wiped from the colony. Here's the problem with that idea, it sets up a non-existent dichotomy between the British and the not-yet-Americans. While I am of the thought that the militias were probably very upset with the British, any British-colonist interaction had way too much revolutionary mindset injected into it.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:55, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
In my opinion, I thought the British were portrayed as ignorant and also arrogant like Cilla said above. Duncan symbolizes the British well. He always thought he knew what was right, whether it had to do with Cora or the decision to tell Munro that a war party did not attack the innocent people that lived in that house. The British officers, including Munro, hardly listened to Nathaniel even though he knew a lot more about how other Indians and tribes fought and how to properly go about dealing with the Huron and other enemies. The British continuously got ambushed by war parties, they trusted Magua even though he was a real enemy and wanted the colonists to help fight a losing battle instead of return to protect their homes and families. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
What struck me about the portrayal of the British is that at first they seemed to be admirable, but the longer they stayed the less admirable they became. They appeared to be self-centered by upholding the values of the British Crown. The colonists who had lived in the Americas began to realize that values that the British held were not fit for the colonists, so tensions began to flair. There was one scene in particular where the colonists argued against the British about whether to stay at the Fort to defend it, or go send some troops to the frontier to warn families about possible attack. For this issue they were clearly divided, and it was at this point where the movie clearly depicted the relations between the two groups. - Jenn</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-09-09T03:43:45Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The film shows how by the 1750s Native Americans had adapted British technology. This is shown by Native American use of the muskets in fighting and also the Mohicans wearing of colonial like clothing. Although the Hurons are depicted as still wearing more traditional(?) clothing I wonder if this is a way of showing them as more "savage" or maybe they still wore traditional clothing because they were from areas up north with less contact with settlers unlike a group like the Mohicans.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 12:56, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie did manage to get the Hawkeye's adoption correct. As mentioned in the reading "A Captivity Narrative" it said the natives would adopt their captives into their tribes and become pretty much family members. Hawkeye lost his parents and was raised by the Mohicans and saw them as his family and thought the native's life as a better life than the colonists' lives. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
The respect shown to Nathaniel by both whites and Indians seemed like a plot device to me, until I read "In a World of Warfare" that Phineas Stevens enjoyed the same kind of cross-cultural respect (pp. 126-127). --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Another aspect of the times that I think the movie captured is that neither European nor Indian, as individuals or as nations, were all good or all bad. The characters were complex---even the uber-villain Magua had reasons for his implacable hatred. An overall theme of the movie was the common brutality of man. The ruin that wars bring is epitomized by the "death of the innocents" Uncas and Alice. --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Deborah's point. Chingachgook and Uncas more or less played the part of the "noble savage" while Magua was more just...savage. But they took the pains to make him a more developed character by giving him a sad history. I did feel bad for Magua for one scene...and by the end, I really needed to see him get his. I think the scene with the Huron chief made it clear - that yes, Magua has a sad story, but what he does isn't okay. I also really enjoyed the fact that Chingachgook was the one to kill Magua. I was definitely expecting another slow-motion shot of Nathaniel running and attacking Magua in an epic battle, and I was really pleased to see Chingachgook avenge the death of his son. - Celia<br />
<br />
This film showed correctly (generally) the difference of fighting and war tactics between the Native Americans and the British. It seemed like the British were not that smart by walking along a road because the Native Americans could and did attack them from both sides. The Native Americans used the trees to help them hide so they can have a surprise attack on the British. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The deaths of the Cameron family and the destruction of their cabin got across some of the terror that accompanied life on the frontier that Susanna Johnson describe in her description of the days leading up to her capture. Frontier families lived one day to the next not knowing if they would be suddenly victims of one conflict or another between any number of different actors. The sense of fear conveyed in the film's depiction of Indian attackers as often invisible in the woods until the moment they strike is a strong one, and one that I think matches well Susanna's account of near constant, almost paralyzing fear. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Justine's comment on the portrayal of the different fighting tactics. Especially when the Munroe sister's are attacked in the beginning. The Native Americans were all hiding in the woods and the British soldiers were standing around waiting to be told to fire, which was insane. I wonder why it took so long for people to change their fighting and war tactics?-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
My favorite part about this movie is that no matter how much I disliked or liked a character, there was good and bad in each of them, making them realistic. No one is perfect, in one direction or another. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I also agree with Justines comment because the movie depicted the English tactics and Native Americans tactics in a pretty accurate way. The Native Americans were doing the "skulking way of war" when they were stalking the English after the surrender of the fort. I think it was interesting though that the Hurans did not have as many guns and many were using Tomahawks against guns. I also think they did a good job depicting the French tactics of trying to take the fort down and if you looked you did not see many Indians in that scene but you saw them after when the Marquis was in his tent. It also depicted the generousity of the French and the anger of the Native Americans over the way it was done. The difference there was that Magua wanted to kill Monro and the actual story is they wanted loot. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
To add to Megan mc's paragraph on Hawkeye's adoption: The film also captured the major cultural differences that Hawkeye experienced after being adopted. The director speaks specifically to the issue of language. Cora asks Hawkeye how he knows English, and of course that's when Eleazar Wheelocks' school comes into play. That moment is at least a nod to a small detail which lends a dash more historical credibility to the film. Mind you that it seems films and television shows tend to not make much out of language barriers, everyone is assumed to speak English. Like Susana's son, Hawkeye, having been separated off from "civilized" culture for so long and at such an early age, can speak a Native language (also probably a bit of French considering the fur traders), but he must learn English with his brother.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:41, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think that the movie represented what we had spoken about in class on Tuesday regarding the warfare, specifically the English vs the Native Americans. While the English are fighting in lines the Native Americans are wielding their fire power through Guerrilla type warfare behind the trees and through the forest. I bet it was very easy to anticipate what the English would do in a battle and act accordingly. -Caryn<br />
<br />
Another aspect the movie got right was when Magua and Nathaniel came to the Huron to offer gifts. In the readings and class we learned that exchanging gifts was an important part of the Indian culture. Magua offered the gifts of people and Nathanial offered some kind of wampum I think. From this week's readings, however, most Indian captives were not offered as gifts to be killed but most became adopted into families and treated fairly decently. Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got more facts right than Disney's Pocahontas! One thing the movie did well on was showing the Indian's dependence on European settlers. It was very easy to tell that the Huron Indians depended greatly on the French in 2 ways... a) Where else would the Indians have found weapons such as guns to fight with? b) The relationship between the Indians and the French. Both sides knew they could use the other to get what they want. The Hurons, especially Magua, wanted revenge on the English for killing their children and families through settlement. On the other hand, the French saw the Indians as excess manpower to fight off the English at Ft. William Henry. In both cases, the French got what they wanted as did the Hurons. Just as in the actual French & Indian War, the Indians and Europeans gambled/sided with one another in order to achieve their own agendas. I think the movie did a good job portraying the Indian/European relationship. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie did a good job portraying the relationship between the Colonists/British and Native Americans, like Alex said. I also think that the movie did a good job portraying how the British felt about the Native Americans who chose to help them by scouting for the British, they had very little respect and there was a lot of mistrust. - Jenn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One continually occurring theme throughout the movie was Hawkeye's amazing marksmanship and ability to shoot muskets from the hip, like a wild west gunslinger. Another major inaccuracy in the film was Magua cutting Colonel Monro's heart out. In fact Colonel Monro and other English officers were kept behind in the French Camp, and later safely escorted to Fort Edward by the French. (Starbuck, David R. ''Massacre at Fort William Henry''. Hanover, N. H.: University Press of New England, 2002, 25-35.) Michael G.<br />
<br />
The French did not actually occupy Fort William Henry. They deliberately demolished the already-damaged, wooden fort. Neither the British nor the Americans rebuilt it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_Henry) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One thing that is often inaccurate in movies like these is the reloading of the rifles and muskets. Most of the guns at the time, to my knowledge, were single shot meaning they'd need to reload after each shot and after an adventure to wikipedia it stated that the Long Rifle/Pennsylvania Rifle that Hawkeye used took a full minute to reload. Though if they showed him reloading every single shot it would make the already long movie even longer. In the movie's defense they did show him reloading it at least one time (while running) and then snatching the unused guns from the French that he killed. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
As said above, some of the types of guns do not exist at that time and they way they shoot them are not possible. It is hard to find more things the movie got wrong because this movie is not claiming to be historically accurate. I am not sure how similar this movie is to the book, because I did not read Cooper's book. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To me it seemed that the movie made at least <em>some</em> attempt at being accurate, but sacrificed a lot at the price of being dramatic. The thing that stuck out the most to me was that it seemed to imply that there are no more Mahicans left. Which I don't think is true[http://www.native-languages.org/mohican.htm].-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Overall, there are many elements of this movie that are correct such as make-up, hair styles and clothing. Even though, many elements were historically accurate I was able to find an interesting critique of the script that doesn’t just point out historical inaccuracies, but also things that could of made the movie better. One historical inaccuracy was the Bearskin miter caps worn by the Grenadiers. These were in fact not issued until 1768, and during the time period of the movie, the Grenadiers were in fact still wearing hard caps. Another historical miss-step which I found quite interesting was how Hawkeye handled his gun. He casually flipped it around to point it at Heyward’s chest. In reality, this would have been almost impossible because a British musket weighs about 11 pounds and has about a 42 inch barrel. Though incredibly small things, I thought they were very interesting. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think that one of the most important things that the movie got wrong was the role of the "bloodthirsty" natives like Magua. While there was certainly both violence and resentment present on both sides (white and Native American), we can see in the speeches given by the chiefs that more than anything, the Native Americans did want to continue to trade with the colonists, and be treated as equals. I don't really think that this came through in the film- we saw either the scalping, heart-eating savage like Magua, or the "noble" savage, like Nathaniel's adopted father and brother. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I don't care how historically inaccurate it is, dual wielding long rifles and shooting from the hips always score points in my book. To hell with it being unlikely! To respond to Isaac Whalen, I do recall even with the original book many of the surviving Mohicans being rather annoyed that a book would claim that there were essentially no Mohicans left. Not very nice Mr Cooper.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:51, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This is a hard one because I didn't find any commentary about why they felt the need to do ''The Last of the Mohicans'' again but I can say that during 90s they did do a couple of remakes of older movies (see [http://childrenofthenineties.blogspot.com/2009/09/90s-movie-remakes.html this site] for some examples). Not sure if this was an emergent phenomenon during the time or something Hollywood has always done but, it is something I noticed.<br />
The only other connection I can make with is the fact that the Gulf War occurred in '90/'91 and this film version came out in '92. Perhaps Americans had a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war in general, so it would be advantageous to create a film that portrayed war. In addition, it would probably be a smart move to use a story that so many people familiar with (and holds such an important place in U.S. popular literature) to draw in a crowd (which goes back to my point about remakinges of older films). --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 13:28, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Responding to the comment by Shauser, the only option I can think of for a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war would be Operation Desert Storm, which occurred in 1990-1991. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There may have also been a renewed interest in Native American history as well. Congress established the National Museum of the American Indian in 1989, and as we talked about with Pocahontas, the 90s saw a growing awareness of the importance of diversity and the contributions of different ethnic groups. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments which state that due to Desert Storm Americans were becoming more interested in their own military exploits, but I do think that it goes farther than this. When I watched the film I got a sense that there was a <em>very</em> pro-America sense coming through the film. Multiple times the film depicted how the colonialists were different from the British, and how they longed for freedom. Also, there was mentioning of the manifest destiny[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h337.html], that is the believed desire of all American to push west and discover new things. Treating these themes as a commentary on the '90s, they suggest that in the United States at this time there was a growing cultural notion that the American dream/desire to discover is noble. <br />
Also, the character of Hawkeye (sp) seemed to me to come across as more of a colonial with Native American tendencies, rather than an adopted colonial. This shift in character could either be due to something lost in the numerous adaptations, or be a result of '90s culture. One that promotes the conglomeration of differences, rather than finding pride in being separate.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
As far as the movie being a primary source, I was specifically intrigued by the final statement about the "Last of the Mohicans" I have not read the book so I do not know if this is verbatim or not (if I am wrong, I apologize). "Chingachgook: The frontier moves with the sun and pushes the Red Man of these wilderness forests in front of it until one day there will be nowhere left. Then our race will be no more, or be not us.<br />
Hawkeye: That is my father's sadness talking.<br />
Chingachgook: No, it is true. The frontier place is for people like my white son and his woman and their children. And one day there will be no more frontier. And men like you will go too, like the Mohicans. And new people will come, work, struggle. Some will make their life. But once, we were here." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104691/quotes These final lines could also reflect the expanding frontier through clear cutting in both America and South America that was such a hot topic in 1992 the year the film was made. - Caryn<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
In the readings, speeches by the various chiefs plainly state truths, such as their unequal role in the fighting, and unfair trade practices. The movie doesn't go into this aspect, choosing instead to show the growing tension between Britain and the colonists. European arrogance plays a role in both situations, though. The Europeans could not hear the truth in the Indians' speeches for two reasons: first, because it came from the mouths of people the Europeans still regarded as inferior savages; and second, because the Europeans wouldn't let anything stand in the way of acquiring land. The Abenaki speaker Atiwaneto got it right when he said, "...your mouth is of sugar but your heart of gall" (''In a World of Warfare'', p. 127). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There’s a line from the Calloway reading pg. 170 that says, “Indians mourning relatives might vent their grief by demanding that a captive be tortured to death.” According to the reading this did not always happen, sometimes Indians took their captives in and incorporated them into native society. The movie did a good job of portraying the hatred some Indians felt toward the British.<br />
Magua desires vengeance against General Munro because he destroyed Magua’s family. Magua viciously kills Munro, rips his heart out, and then captures his daughters. The chief of his Huron tribe orders that Alice Munro marry Magua and that Cora Munro be burned to death. Cora was to be burned as retribution for her father’s actions against Magua. (However Duncan saves her; one of the few things he does right in the movie.) -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
In Calloway's, "First Peoples," there is talk about the some captives being adopted by the natives. Those not adopted, the elderly and crying infants, were often killed. Those who were seen fit as joining the tribe were painted to traditionally match others in the tribe. Soon, this person would grow to love the tribe as his/her own and if given the chance would not leave the tribe. This is what Calloway refers to as "Indianization" (p 170). This simulation into the native culture was evident in Nathaniel's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
One of the ways in which the readings ran parallel to the movie was the way in which some settlers adopted and retained the native characteristic of living on the frontier. Nathaniel is a great example in the way his character keeps his hair long, wears clothing such as natives wore, spoke the native language as well as lived among the natives who adopted him. In Calloway's writing, when Sylvanus Johnson was taken and adopted into his tribe, he also accepted and retained a number of native characteristics he was taught, even after rejoining the settlers. Another aspect that was similar was in the way Magua, from his first appearance, was totally cognizant of the way in which he knew he was being used and attempted to get the most out of the situation. Although he was influenced by the French more, it was obvious in the movie, the only people he trusted were his own, not the outsiders who killed his family. Within the character of Magua, viewers are able to understand just how upset the natives who wrote the "Onandogas and Cayugas" portion of the readings felt. The way in which the movie portrayed the Mohicans, I saw them as much tolerant and less angry as Magua's people, even though they were both losing their future to the settlers.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I saw a lot of parallels between the movie and the readings, particularly in the "In a World of Warfare" speeches. In the Delaware Indians' "Response to the Moravian ambassador" they say that war is clearly between the English and French, and ask, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" This is paralleled in the film by Nathaniel's early refusal to fight with the militia; he, like many natives, wishes to remain neutral in a fight which he does not feel belongs to him or his adopted family. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I like Meagan saw many parallels between the movie and the readings, especially through the "Speech to Alexander Henry." Chief Minavavana states, "[i]t is our custom to retaliate until such time as the spirits of the slain are satisfied." (136). I thought this directly paralleled how Magua felt towards General Munro and I do think he was satisfied with his brutal killing in the movie. I also thought the question raised in "Response to the Moravian Ambassador" was striking, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" (133). It is a direct question to the English and one I think all of the Native American nations wanted answered but were not given enough respect from either the French or English. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
*How are the British colonists portrayed?<br />
*How did the movie portray the relations between the colonists and the British?<br />
*Which Natives take which sides in the movie, and what roles did they play?<br />
*How did Cooper’s dualist vision of Native Americans affects the movie, as well as both scholarly and popular perceptions of Native Americans?<br />
<br />
<br />
In the film the Mohawks and the Mohicans fought on the side of the English and the Huron and Ottawa fought with the French. However, as discussed in class, the Mohawks did not participate in the French and Indian War. The Huron played the largest role in the film, perpetrating the massacre at Fort William Henry by themselves, with apparent French consent. The divide amongst the Huron, as shown by the confrontation between the Sachem, Magua, and Nathaniel was a great example of how Native Americans were divided on how to deal with Europeans. Magua represents the "new" Indian that has been created by living alongside the colonists. He values gold above all else and seeks to defeat the Colonists at their own game. While Sachem desires to try and hold on to as much of the Native American lifestyle as possible. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
During the lecture and based off of these questions we were asked to discuss what role did Anglo-Americans play in the Native American communities in comparison to The Last of the Mohicans. I saw several roles they played and the beginning of an American identity through Jack Winthrop and his wanting to serve for the British but also the pull to protect his family and land. Through his anger with General Munro (Monroe?) he showed the beginning of revolt against the British and also a need for separation. Aside from that role Anglo-Americans changed how the Native Americans fought, because of their need for claim over territory they pushed the Native Americans to fight one another (Huron versus the Mohicans) instead of working together to defeat the whites. I found the Huron to be the tribe who may of worked against the English and ideally helped the French, but to be the tribe who attempted to look out for themselves. I think the movie was really well done and portrayed a good picture of what America was like throughout the 1770s. I did not know it was based off a book and question the authority of the orignial book since Cooper had never met a Native American. I found the character, Magua, to be the character that clearly stood out to me, aside from Hawkeye. Magua was our definition of two-faced and even with his reasons for it I am not sure I could call someone "Grey-hair" and tell them I was going to ruin their family line as I cut their heart out. I do wonder with this account- did many Native Americans turn on whites who hurt their families? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie gave an accurate portrayal of the relationship between the British and the colonists. Many of the colonists have established themselves and have begun to know the lay of the land and the customs of the Native Americans. The haughty British assumed they were experts on fighting the Native Americans, but really they were clueless. Their system of fighting, forming orderly lines, proved ineffective in the movie. They walked along the paths in their perfect straight lines and the Indians would emerge from the forests and ambush them. It reminded me of a quote from Lord of the Rings, “Stay off the road.” <br />
The colonists and Nathaniel even tried to persuade the British officers to take a particular military action and the British ignored them, saying they had no authority. When Duncan is asked by Munro about the military situations at hand, he lies in order to silence Nathaniel’s claims. Munro trusts Duncan’s opinions over Nathaniel’s because Duncan is a British officer. The British were very distrusting of Native Americans, even though they were allies. They believed their way was the right way and that the “Royal opinion” should not be questioned.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I found it disturbing how the Native Americans were portrayed either as blood-thirsty fiends who consistently looked out for their own interests,like Magua, or were "the good guys" who backed up the white men and selflessly pursued the cause, such as Hawkeye and his family. Is there no middle ground here? It seems that the Native Americans who actually lived during the conflict were haphazardly drawn into it by Europeans demanding they choose a side. Magua and Hawkeye are both depicted as being wholly devoted to the conflict. It was also mentioned during lecture that the Native Americans abandoned the French midway into the war. This only reinforces the point that Native Americans did not really want to engage in this war, and thus would not completely devote themselves to it. I found the movie to be misleading in accurately portraying this point. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Anna in that I don't think the movie really portrayed the sense that most Native Americans felt they were caught in the middle rather than being fully devoted to one side or another as most seemed to be in the film. Many of the readings show the Indians as confused and betrayed by both the English's and the French's concept of friendship and alliance. Those that do join the war do so because they want protection for their people and enough food and land to survive, not because of any deep rooted allegiance to the causes the Europeans are fighting for. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Samantha W. mentions several points that I noticed about the narrow-mindedness of the British officers. Duncan's character in particular is a good example of a man who cannot adjust his worldview. To him, it is incomprehensible that a British subject would refuse to fight, and equally incomprehensible that a British officer would lie. After he has himself lied about what he saw at the cabin, he tells Cora that when they return to England nothing that has happened "over here" will matter at all. For him, the New World does not fit into neat categories and he cannot comprehend it, therefore it is as insubstantial as a dream. Really, for him, it is as frightening and disorienting as a nightmare. I can easily believe that many real people felt that way. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The British colonists are portrayed as arrogant people. They think they are above and better than everyone else. In the movie, it seems like they do not understand the entire picture and they are only seeing things from their point of view. The British also thought they were better than the colonists. As stated in class, Cooper never met a Native American, so he created an image of the Native Americans that could have been more stereotypical. This does show in the movie because some of the Native Americans are shown as "savage" and "war mongers". -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I thought that the way the British military officers treated the militia men was accurate considering what we discussed in class on Tuesday. The officers basically treated the militia men like slaves and did not care that they had homes and families to protect. The colonists also seemed to refer to themselves as British citizens and we upset when their rights were not respected by the British officers, possibly foreshadowing some of the reasoning behind the American Revolution-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The British military officers treated the militia men like crap. The officers told them they could not go home to protect their families and if they were caught trying to leave they would be hanged. The officers thought they were ignorant of the importance of what they were doing when in reality the colonists did know what they were doing. They would just rather protect their family then fight a losing battle at the fort. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
For me, Cooper’s portrayal of the Native Americans greatly affected the movie and he gives two vastly different portrayals of Native Americans. The Huron’s are portrayed as savages and terrible, while the Mohawks with Hawkeye are portrayed as civilized and reasonable. It causes this huge gap in how I felt regarding two different tribes, who are still Indian, yet they are portrayed as totally different. It seems easy for one to root for one group of Native Americans, yet root against another. Even though, Hawkeye and his brother and father have somewhat adopted themselves into white society, I find it interesting how they are portrayed as poles apart. Regarding popular perceptions of Native Americans, the movie can present some confusion. The Huron’s are incredibly destructive and violent and this image permeates throughout the movie and is difficult to get over. However, at the end when Mohawk and his father are standing at the edge of the cliff, he recovers the sense of passion and kindness for the Native Americans based on their portrayal in the movie. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The movie depicts the British officers as horrible, arrogant men. They treat the colonists as lesser people. - Cilla<br />
<br />
Although the British did treat the colonial militias badly during the war, the movie goes out of its way to point to how independent and rights loving the colonists are. Also let's not forget that Cora herself while talking to Munro states that the colonists would be better off if the English were essentially wiped from the colony. Here's the problem with that idea, it sets up a non-existent dichotomy between the British and the not-yet-Americans. While I am of the thought that the militias were probably very upset with the British, any British-colonist interaction had way too much revolutionary mindset injected into it.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:55, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
In my opinion, I thought the British were portrayed as ignorant and also arrogant like Cilla said above. Duncan symbolizes the British well. He always thought he knew what was right, whether it had to do with Cora or the decision to tell Munro that a war party did not attack the innocent people that lived in that house. The British officers, including Munro, hardly listened to Nathaniel even though he knew a lot more about how other Indians and tribes fought and how to properly go about dealing with the Huron and other enemies. The British continuously got ambushed by war parties, they trusted Magua even though he was a real enemy and wanted the colonists to help fight a losing battle instead of return to protect their homes and families. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
What struck me about the portrayal of the British is that at first they seemed to be admirable, but the longer they stayed the less admirable they became. They appeared to be self-centered by upholding the values of the British Crown. The colonists who had lived in the Americas began to realize that values that the British held were not fit for the colonists, so tensions began to flair. There was one scene in particular where the colonists argued against the British about whether to stay at the Fort to defend it, or go send some troops to the frontier to warn families about possible attack. For this issue they were clearly divided, and it was at this point where the movie clearly depicted the relations between the two groups. - Jenn</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-09-02T03:52:47Z<p>Celiacroft: /* John Smith (1608) reading */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is a test.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
First, how cool is it that Powhatan's people had a Universal Translator centuries before "Star Trek's" Federation invented one? Who knew...all we needed to do was listen to the trees! But about the movie itself, as people have already said, we can't expect anything from Disney but Disneyland: cute animals and at least one dead parent. So it's interesting to see what accuracies the film actually has. First, John Smith described the 10-year-old he met as "but for wit and spirit the only Nonpareil of his [Powhatan's] Country." ("Nonpareil" means "without equal.") The screen Pocahontas certainly was all that. Also, we know that the Native Americans and the Europeans regarded each other as savages, but for different reasons, and the movie gives us a flavor of that, too. Disney even added thievery, but blamed it on the raccoon and not the Native Americans, as Smith does. The movie gives one rather bizarre nod to actual history: Smith's account mentions a compass, which is highly symbolic in the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In general, when it comes down to the details the movie really is not that historically accurate. However, I think Disney did do a good job of capturing the overall historical generalities of the story. The movie accurately gives the reasons for why the English originally came to colonize the New World, for the sole prospect of finding gold like the Spanish did in South America. The movie also shows that the colonists came to the New World with an idealized view of what they would find and what would happen when they arrived. They viewed the Native Americans as savages and assumed that they would immediately become rich upon arriving. -- Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin's point. The very beginning (the people getting on the VA Company ship) did a great job giving a glorified view of the VA Company; the way many of the colonists probably saw it. The settlers original ideas compared to what they actually found was also very well done - one of them mentions that they don't have any food, although this is the only real reference to starvation in the film (I guess Disney tends to shy away from topics like starvation). I think Disney also got the colonists' view of the Native Americans right - Thomas's line, "If any Indian tries to stop me, I'll blast them." epitomizes how the English saw their situation. Also, John Smith's line to Pocahontas, "We'll show your people how to use this land properly," really got the English mind-set across. He tells her that she only thinks that they don't need help from the English "because you don't know any better". The English thought that the Native Americans were doing everything all wrong. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
First of all, I do not believe that Kocoum was killed by Thomas Salvage, especially during the early settling years (1607 -1608). Furthermore, in the movie, Pocohantas was told that she must marry Kocoum, but as we learned on Tuesday, the entire tribe and the potential bride must consent to the marriage. As far as the terrain is concerned, the landscape of Jamestown portrayed in the movie looks more like the landscape of the Shenandoah Valley than the swampy beachy mess that they actually settled in. While we are on the subject of landscape, did anyone notice in the first scene that the Native Americans were farming in the English manner, with perfect rows of vegetables? I had learned in the past that Native American farming was and ingenuous mix of vegetables that worked in concert with each other, (ie the Tomato vine growing up the corn stalk).Throughout his account, John Smith was constantly questioning the motives of the Native Americans and attempting to bargain with them. He did not strike me as the open minded hopeless romantic that Disney portrays him as. Lastly, the final scene of the movie implies the English settlers left the colony when in fact we know this to be false. – Caryn<br />
<br />
One thing the movie glosses over is how desperate the situation in Jamestown was. Yes, the Native Americans bring baskets of food towards the end, but it's not because the colonists are starving. In his account, Smith makes no secret of how much corn the colonists got from the Native Americans (both given and stolen), and it seems quite clear that even fewer would have survived in the colony without that supply of food. Not a single man dies of disease or starvation in the movie, which could be because it is a children's move after all. The movie certainly oversimplifies the relationship between the two groups; it was ultimately a much more complicated situation than that the colonists and Native Americans simply needed to talk about their differences. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I'm slightly confused and maybe someone can answer this for me. Was there not already a "settlement" by the time Pocohontas was 10-11? I don't mean a fully functioning settlement, but in the movie, they arrive to absolutely nothing and I just thought there was at least some establishment by the time John Smith and Pocohontas get involved. Other than that and aside from the nit-picky things we all know were inaccurate, I didnt think there was an all out war between the Native Americans and the colonist at this point. It certainly didn't seem that way from Smith's journal. And how come we never hear about the journal in the film? After all, it's what got this whole story started! - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
This has bothered me since I was a nerdy child. Pocahontas was not an adult when she met John Smith, and they were not romantically involved! I know it makes for a lovely Disney Princess sort of story, but even THAT concept is misleading, as she was not in any close succession for leadership. The next Anglicization of Native American culture in this movie would definitely be the fields: nice, neat rows, separated by crop. English? Yes. Easier to animate? Perhaps. Historically accurate? Nope. And finally, the day that someone finds that waterfall in Jamestown, I will personally kayak off of it. I do not need to worry about this, because I know the area, and it is completely, utterly flat. There are a myriad of other inaccuracies, but these seem to be the most glaring. - Cilla<br />
<br />
This was the first time that I had seen Pocahontas so after listening to the lecture, I was stunned during the film showing. From the landscape details to the set up of the camp, I did not find anything to be the same. John Smith was referred to once as a captain and there not any other references to other captains, despite the fact that there were seven in the original colony. In the movie, Pocahontas never married Kocoum, despite her father's best attempts. And, of course, the driving force throughout the movie was the relationship between John Smith and Pocahontas (so intense, in fact, that she was willing to sacrifice her life to save his). In the same scene, the English people had an immediate change of heart in regards to their relations with the Natives. - Kelly R.<br />
<br />
One of the first inaccuracies that I noticed was John Smith as a legendary captain. Everyone apparently knows him and his stories, and they're eager to work with him again. I don't think that the real John Smith was such a romantic hero - he served time in a Turkish prison. Disney shows him as a hopeless adventurer, but the truth of it is that he most likely just wanted to get rich quick like everyone else. This movie shows him as a famous hunter of "savages", even though he completely misses Pocahontas when she is about three feet away from him in a bush. Also, he had no real English accent to speak of (it came and went), which was distracting and annoying. Another blatant inaccuracy was the portrayal of Pocahontas as: a) Powhatan's only child; b) a grown woman, more or less (or an outrageously mature pre-teen); and c) next in line to become the leader of the tribe. Would it have been so difficult to give her some siblings, as a general nod to the fact that she had about 30? Also, Powhatan is shown as a widower, not a man that had dozens of wives. Obviously, polygamy cannot exist in a Disney universe. Pocahontas's friendship with Meeko and Flit came off as rather demeaning and childlike - Native Americans are magical and can talk to animals, and silly white men can't. - Celia<br />
<br />
I believe the movie got everything right, but I will take a stab at some possible miscalculations anyway. I found some things that Disney portrayed incorrectly and one interesting thing was that Percy, Ratcliffe’s dog in the movie was actually George Percy, who was a colonist who followed Smith. Percy actually wrote two books about his time in the new world, and Disney chose this name, quite cleverly for the dog. Another interesting thing I discovered was that in the movie, Smith was portrayed as somewhat as a hopeless romantic and an adventurer. However, in reality, when the ship actually landed, Smith was in chains and was not released until about a month after landing at Jamestown. After he was released he did plenty of exploring and mapped out the area extensively, but he did not jump right off the boat and start looking around. -afrisk<br />
<br />
== Movie as primary source ==<br />
<br />
Okay, okay, aside from tearing apart this movie because it makes me want to be my head against the wall from a historical standpoint, I think Pocahontas does something very important for the mid-1990s: it puts Native Americans on screen in a substantial, legitimate way. Yes, it's Disney, and it's a cartoon, but it's aimed at kids, so that makes sense. There are very few examples of Native Americans in lead roles of movies, animated or otherwise, and even fewer that show Native Americans as just as civilized and varied in their behavior as, in this case, the English. It's pretty fake, and it's pretty cheesy, but it's representation that is otherwise really hard to come by. Making the decision to broaden the ethnic focus of their human main characters says a lot about Disney's ideals at the time. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I think that Cilla put it perfectly in her last sentence. The fact that this film is (loosely) based on actual historic events shows that Disney was trying to tell a legitimate story. They decided to show this part of America's past to their extremely huge audience, and that says something about their integrity as storytellers. I'm sure that it got a whole generation of children interested - if only superficially or temporarily interested - in learning more about this story. If the film encouraged kids to learn more, it can't be completely without value. - Celia<br />
<br />
== General comments for Pocahontas == <br />
<br />
Disney's perception of history is slightly different than the actual facts but does tell a more entertaining story with characters such as Meeko, the raccoon who steals biscuits (hard tack?) and Grandmother Willow. I discovered watching the movie now presented itself in a more comical fashion rather than reality. As a resident of Williamsburg and working with tourists I have discovered the impact a movie can have on people's perception of history, especially when asked "Where are the waterfalls and cliffs?" To a child it is hard to say the waterfalls nor Grandmother Willow exist but to an adult I want to ask if they have taken a history class but prefer to keep my job. In some ways I feel Disney does tell the story well, they include the correct characters, time in history, the rivers, a correct depiction of how many trees and types of wildlife surround Jamestown, the gender roles of Native American men and women, the colonists disgust with work, and how tribes worked together to fight an unknown enemy. On the other hand, Pocahontas's age, her romance with John Smith, and the colonists singing about their work are not historical facts. It is clear Disney attempted to include facts but in true Disney fashion turned Pocahontas into a Disney princess that falls in love with the hero. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I still love this movie although I am aware it is not exactly historically correct. At least in this movie John Smith and Pocahontas do not end up together. That is historically accurate granted they were never romantically involved because she was ten and he was thrity five but hey Disney was not all wrong. I think Disney did depict the correct gender roles such as when Pocahontas was prevented from discussing war and she was out farming with her friend. Also I think Disney got it right when John Smith was talking to Pocahones about how her people were savages. That was true, the European view of Native Americans was decidedly negative which was depicted in the movie. I do not think Disney did a good job depicting what life was really like in Jamestowne but it is a movie for children and they did get a few things right. - LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
As much as it pains me to say it, some people actually believe what they see in the movies. As the movie began, I was telling my girlfriend about how Pocahontas first met John Smith she was only 12 and he was 35, she looked at me with a crinkled face and said "eww." That's when I realized that she was still under the impression that Pocahontas and Smith were involved on an intimate level. This is the main problem that Disney movies present to children, telling a story that seems like the truth when the actual truth is not even known. Kids are not aware of what really happened, so it is up to classes like this one and other history classes in grade school to dispel such lies. Basically, these lies or misrepresentations, and form what we learned in class on Tuesday, they got just about every detail wrong, could have been easily fixed while maintaining an enjoyable movie. Whenever a historical movie is made the directors should be obligated to consult an expert on the topic. It would be one thing for them to leave certain elements out, but to create an entirely different story is misleading and wrong. The viewers should be made aware before viewing the movie that certain portions of the film are fictional and should be offered a more factual option if they so desire to learn more about the subject. The one good thing that I noticed from this film was the emphasis placed on having an appreciation for our planet. This message can still be useful today and I am glad that it is being presented to children in such a way that will interest them. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The portrayal of Pocahontas from a historical perspective and Disney’s perspective leaves one to believe that Pocahontas must have been the name of two totally different Native Americans. One of the first differences is the obvious age of Pocahontas when she first meets John Smith. Historically data from John Smith himself gives Pocahontas’ age as around 10 years old, much, much younger than how Disney portrays her as an adult. But, we must remember that Disney’s world is one of fantasy where anything can happen and loves to tell stories to children.<br />
<br />
Another historical difference is that in the Disney movie, Pocahontas can be believed to be an only child, when in historical accuracy she had dozens of siblings running around. Yet, Disney may have gotten it right when in the movie, she is portrayed as having a special attachment to her father in that he may have been inclined to listen and consider some of her thoughts.--Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that we can all agree that for the most part, Disney's "Pocahontas" is pretty historically inaccurate. There were no talking trees or animals, Pocahontas was not a grown woman when she met John Smith, she was not immediately blessed with the ability to speak English, and the list goes on. That being said, most of these false elements were put in place to entertain the audience: children. As a student of the education program, we regularly discuss the importance of keeping children engaged in a plot by using such elements, so this is a smart move on Disney's part. However, I don't think we're giving Disney enough credit. How can we expect them to portray a perfectly accurate story of Pocahontaas and John Smith when we don't even know the true story ourselves? If you consider that during the execution scene Disney is roughly following what Smith penned in his last memoirs, then Disney is portraying this correctly. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Pocahontas" is definitely not an accurate portrayal of history. Anyone who has taken a Virginia history class should know that. However, Disney is not a historical documentary production company. So it is harsh to say that Disney is completely wrong to create a fictional account of history when its audience is children, usually age 10 and under. Young children would not understand all of the historical aspects of the story which is probably why Disney created its own version. Disney tales are notorious for the “happily ever after” endings. Children are innocent and are not yet able to comprehend the harsh realities of the adult world. "Pocahontas" gives a much softer account of the first arrival of the English. It does not show the starvation and diseases which plagued the English settlements. It shows that if both sides are willing to talk about their problems and compromise they will usually avoid bloody battles.<br />
This goes back to a point last week that was mentioned in class, that movies do not always have to be accurate. If they make a person want to learn more about a topic he or she saw in a movie, then the filmmakers have achieved their purpose to entertain and influence their audience. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Yes, Disney's Pocahontas is historically inaccurate-not to mention that basic laws of physics are also suspended (i.e. diving off an water and living ect.). Yet what I find more interesting is what Toplin talked about in his work, what historians can learn about the socitety that made the film. More specifically, what can we learn by looking at what was left in the film despite its inaccuracies. The first thing that struck me was Disney portrayal of the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+Noble+savage&aq=0&aqi=l1g1&aql=&oq=noble+savage+def&gs_rfai=C8p770n5-TLvOD5aCywSwhb1oAAAAqgQFT9CIA1w&pbx=1 noble savage] idea through out the film. In the work there is almost constant imagery suggesting that the Native Americans are more in-tune with god, nature, and each other simply because they lack what the colonists have, advanced technology. The question is then, what outstanding events might have made the filmmakers more likely to put this idea in the film (I'm not arguing its wrong or right I'm looking at this objectively). In 1995 the begins of the Free Tibet movement were starting possibly generating a cultural desire to oppose more militaristic forces. Also, the film spends a lot of time attempting to educate its viewers about the negative connotations with using the word "savage." This prompted one of the most interesting historical inaccuracies I noticed, which is the John Smith himself attempts to dissuade his fellow colonists form using the word "savage", while in his memoirs make free use of this word. So, I believe the correct approach to viewing this film is the one Toplin outlines, by treating it as a primary source on the times that created it. Disney films are notorious for slipping in subliminal messaging, or Hollywoodizing stroies. If we go into the film knowing this we can learn much about modern history, -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While as mentioned by everyone else that "Pocahontas" is not a historically accurate, I agree with Samantha that when you take into account the age group that the film is intended for, Disney really could not produce a film filled with death and adult themes. The movie does however, provide a good overview of several important historical themes, for example, through the character of Governor Radcliffe represents the Virginia Company. At one point in the movie he describes the colonists as, "witless peasants to dig up my gold". He goes on to describe the English expectation of finding gold just as the Spanish had in the New World. <br />
<br />
My favorite quote in the movie was when Wiggins, in response to Governor Radcliffe asking why the Indians would be upset with them said, "Because we invaded their land, cut down their trees, and dug up their earth." The movie did a good job of portraying the overarching themes, through simplification, as well as frequently taking liberty with history. For example when both the Indians and English sing the song describing each other as savages, it shows how the different cultures viewed one another. Another example of the difference in cultures was when John Smith started talking about gold, and Pocahontas pulled out an ear of corn. While that is not what he meant, corn was the equivalent of gold to the Indians, further showing the differences in their societies. While Pocahontas instantaneously learning English, picking up bearcubs and talking with a tree is probably far fetched, all things considered the movie does a good job of being entertaing to its target audience and including the parts of history that a 7 year old could watch and understand. ~ Michael G.<br />
<br />
The flag that the English used in the film was not made in 1607. It was first created in 1801,after Ireland became part of the United Kingdom. The flag they could have used, in 1607, was the Flag of England. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac in that Pocahontas is good as a primary source for understanding the mid-1990s. With the 90s we see the rise of environmentalism and I think this is emphasized in the film when Native Americans are shown living in "harmony" with nature. Other films that came out around this time like Fern Gully (1992) and tv networks like Nickelodeon doing marathons like Big Help (although I believe this started in the 80s).<br />
At the same time Pocahontas is a so-so secondary source on historical Pocahontas. I'll try not to repeat the same things other have but there is the whole lie about Powhatan "strongly suggesting" Pocahontas marry Kocoum and Pocahontas resisting that because he is too serious. As we all know this isn't true and as Professor McClurken pointed out rarely in Native American societies did they force women to marry against their will. I'll stop here before I go on a rant :-) Edit: Ok one more thing. I understand Disney is under no obligation to be historically accurate but why do they have to base it off a historical character? They could easily make a film full of lies about Native Americans without having to butcher the truth about Pocahontas. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 11:50, 1 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think that my comments will basically mirror the ones above, in that Disney's Pocahontas is not very historically accurate. But Disney did do a decent job of describing why many people came over to the New World in the first place, which was primarily to find gold and silver. I think they were also accurate in how the Native Americans and English viewed each other, with fear. While people, mostly those who know their history make fun of the movie, I think that the film tried to show how ignorance and hatred of something unknown could lead to violence and because it is a Disney movie there has to be a positive moral message at the end and considering the intended audience I think that it is a good message to send.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
<br />
After watching the movie, reading the online source for this week, and being in class for lecture on Tuesday I can conclude that Disney's version of Pocahontas ''may'' have exaggerated the relationship and tale of John Smith and Pocahontas. The most striking difference between the reality and truth is the intimate relationship the two had. I think this is really what trips people up because the general public or Disney fans want to believe that the two were together in a romantic way. What I tend to think about is the fact that Disney did in fact use one of the versions of the tale of John Smith and Pocahontas, just the least likely one. Of course, they had good reason to. The other versions that John Smith or his friends told were kind of boring and would not have made for a good movie. On a positive note, the movie did incorporate some truth such as utilizing names of actual historical people or places e.g. Pocahontas, John Smith, Ratcliff, Kocuom, Jamestown. The Native Americans' use of canoes and the importance of corn are also historically accurate. I think while it's important for people to know the historically accurate account of Pocahontas, I really don't think Disney was really looking for the movie to be exactly like the true tale. They wanted to produce a story for entertainment purposes. Hopefully, those who don't know the truth will someday take a history class or after getting awful looks from historians or history majors will soon become enlightened. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
I like how Amy V. phrased her comment; Disney wasn't completely historically inaccurate. Yes, the major plot points, for the most part, were completely wrong. But if you look at many of the details of the film that Amy mentioned, Disney didn't completely get ''everything'' wrong. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As other people have mentioned, Disney's "Pocahontas" is not historically accurate. First, in real life there is no evidence that they were romantically involved because there was about a twenty year age gap. In the movie, it seems that Pocahontas and John Smith are both the same age. Actually, Pocahontas was around eleven years old when she met John Smith. Another issue that they did not emphasize in the movie was the language barrier. They show the Native Americans speaking a different language at first, but then they change to English. At first Pocahontas could not understand John Smith, but then she changed a few minutes later to speaking English. I understand that this movie is for entertainment and for children, but some people believe that most movies are historically accurate. The entire theme of the movie, I think, is a very good theme. Basically they are showing kids that these two groups are about to fight because they are just different. This pertains to many real situations throughout the world. In the end, John Smith and Pocahontas shows that they should not fight, but they should talk first. Of course, it does not mention what happens later with more fighting between the English and the Native Americans. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
My comments have been pretty much summed up by all the previous posts. Not historically accurate, but gives people an idea of the early settlements and the challenges that many of them faced. I think it is also a tool for getting younger children interested in history. While it's not completely true, at least they are getting them interested in something that they can fully understand later. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Although Disney's movie was not historically accurate in the traditional sense, I still believe that it does have historical value. Disney's movie reflects the change that John Smith's original story underwent over time. It morphed from a memoir into popular fairytale and that change gives insight into the social history at the time. -- Erin L.<br />
<br />
As much as I loved Pocahontas as a kid, being a history major has made the movie less enjoyable now because I know the real story. After reading John Smith's account and watching the movie, I am not sure where to begin. Almost everyone knows that Pocahontas and John Smith did not have a relationship in reality. From what I read in John Smith's papers, their meeting was very brief and to the point... she was there to retrieve the Indian prisoners the English held. In that brief meeting, she did not fall in love with him. I am sure this has already been stated above, but Disney made this movie with the clear intent of entertaining, not informing of a historical event/historical people. Honestly, if you were to think if the movie was made with 100% historical accuracy, it would be a pretty boring movie! Disney did get it right in one aspect, that at the end, the Indians and English were friends, just as John Smith's papers described. Oh, and the movie also showed John Smith wielding a compass, just like Smith wrote about giving at compass to the Indians. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
==John Smith (1608) reading==<br />
I was sort of confused by the John Smith reading. I thought it was interesting to see how his views of Native Americans changed quickly, at one point they were going to kill him and the settlers then the next moment they were bringing him corn, and venison. But I'm inclined to think that relations were probably similar to that, they had good times and bad times. Smith also seemed really full of himself, especially in the way he describes Powahttan's feelings toward himself. The other thing I noticed was the way he would sometimes refer to Powahattan as "Emperor", which I just thought was interesting.<br />
<br />
I found John Smith’s account of his early time in Virginia very interesting. I think what struck me the most was how Smith conceptualized the Native American settlements and “classes”. All Smith knew were Kingdoms, hamlets, countries, etc. so the only way he understood the social structure was the English way. He continued to refer to each new area that he was taken to as a new country with its own King, which all seemed, in his mind, to be ruled by Powhatan the “emperor” of the area. He also referred to Powhatans and other kings “subject” as nobles. - Caryn<br />
<br />
While reading his words, I was easily able to sympathize with the conditions that these men underwent. Also, it is not hard to understand while the acts of these men were glorified since they faced some horrifying conditions. On the contrary, such terrible events make you wonder how Disney came to the conclusions that they did about the Virginia Colony. How they got singing and beautiful landscapes and beautiful people is beyond me. Knowing that movies are made to entertain, perhaps another story or aspect of the story could have been focused on more so that their interpretation would not be as far off from the truth as this depiction seamlessly is. -Mike E. <br />
<br />
I was curious about how much Smith claims to have discussed with the Native Americans. I know from experience that creative acting can help to overcome language barriers, but he almost makes it seem as though Pocahontas's magic ability to speak English in the film is possible. Smith writes that he listened to stories of "the roundness of the earth, the course of the sun, moon, stars and planets" with one of the Native American leaders, which seems to be a very abstract topic for two groups only relatively recently acquainted and speaking very different languages. How much is Smith inferring in order to make his story seem more exciting. I mean, "and then we sat around and awkwardly tried to get the other person to figure out what I was saying" doesn't sound nearly as impressive. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed about Smith's journal was the overflowing of what almost seemed like poetry at the beginning. It was a bit frilly and less to the point, at least at the beginning. I did notice that by the end, the recollections were more straight to the point. It was also interesting to see Smith use European terms for the Native American tribes he encountered, such as kings, countries, etc. I wonder, though, how much of his journal is factual and how much of it was added by Smith for the "readers sake". - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I, as well as everyone above me, found Smith's narrative to be very interesting and one of the things that captivated me the most was his recollection of all the trade between the English and the Native Americans. The Native Americans probably found all of the tools, copper, beads, little trinkets, etc. to be new and exciting but my question would be did the Native Americans truly understand everything they were given? According to Smith's account the two people easily understood one another, but was a piece of copper really worth sustaining the Englishmen, did the Native Americans know what they were in for? Trade was clearly a way of life and according to Smith something that kept the colonists and himself alive. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found John Smith's papers interesting, just as everyone else above has said. With that said, there were many things about his papers that I question. He portrays his relationship with the Indians as one that was friendly and cordial. Whether or not that is true, one might never know. But Smith made it seem as though the Indians and him were best friends and that the Indian chiefs loved him. Also, the way he describes the Indian villages. He said the "kings" (or chiefs) lived in large houses. If by houses, he meant tepees, then that is understandable as well. I was actually surprised with all the corn the colonists received. It was funny because in Pocahontas, the colonists did not have the slightest idea of what corn was, yet in John Smith's account, they were collecting it in abundance. Another thing that surprised me was how Smith stated at the end of his paper that all the colonists were in good health. The colonists were lucky because I am sure sickness was a frequent occurrence for them. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
John Smith's account strongly highlighted the lack of understanding of the various Native American tribes. Throughout the journal Smith and his men depended heavily on the Native Americans for their food supply, yet Smith would talk about the trades and in the next sentence refer to some of his men engaging in a battle with the Native Americans. It seemed as if the colonists did not recognize the differences in the tribes and, in doing so, made surviving much more difficult. The relationships they created were filled with distrust and Smith's misunderstanding of their culture and tribal divisions only added to the problems and level of conflict between the two groups. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
Throughout John Smith's journal, he portrays himself as the central figure in a dangerous adventure, where the native americans can never be trusted, even though they continually show him great kindness and bestow gifts of food on him and his settlement. Even as they are continuosly showering him with gifts, he writes that he was very suspicious of Powhatan and other's true intentions. He makes himself appear as if he is almost omniscient, and can read their minds. Disney is not alone in their exaggeration of how great John Smith was. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
An extension of Mary Ann's discussion of language: John Smith writes of his interactions with the Native Americans without the slightest hint of a language barrier. While I do agree that just stating that there was random and ineffective pointing does not make for a riveting journal, one must wonder exactly how these two groups managed to communicate. This question becomes particularly complicated in relation to the deep level of conversation. Case in point, explaining that the earth is round without knowing the word for earth is more than a little difficult. John Smith also manages to demand that the natives send a letter to his camp and also explain the nature of sailing, or even noting that he would be released in four days. I now that the counter will be that perhaps the king raised up four fingers, however don't be so assured that using your hands to count is in a universal fashion! Or even worse on page ten "I told him being in fight with Spaniards our enemy, being overpowered, near put to retreat, and by extreme weather put to this shore..."These are not trivial or easy subject matters. Say what you will, but language barriers and diplomacy go hand and hand.-Joe<br />
<br />
If nothing else, John Smith's account exemplifies the ambiguous state of relations between the colonists and the Native Americans. It was either tenuous peace or warfare, and Smith shows that by constantly going back and forth in the way he depicts them - one paragraph, the Native Americans are endlessly benevolent and helpful, and in the next there is a brutal fight between the natives and the colonists. It shows the colonists' lives in America as unsettling and volatile - a constantly changing state. - Celia</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-09-02T03:33:39Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Movie as primary source */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is a test.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
First, how cool is it that Powhatan's people had a Universal Translator centuries before "Star Trek's" Federation invented one? Who knew...all we needed to do was listen to the trees! But about the movie itself, as people have already said, we can't expect anything from Disney but Disneyland: cute animals and at least one dead parent. So it's interesting to see what accuracies the film actually has. First, John Smith described the 10-year-old he met as "but for wit and spirit the only Nonpareil of his [Powhatan's] Country." ("Nonpareil" means "without equal.") The screen Pocahontas certainly was all that. Also, we know that the Native Americans and the Europeans regarded each other as savages, but for different reasons, and the movie gives us a flavor of that, too. Disney even added thievery, but blamed it on the raccoon and not the Native Americans, as Smith does. The movie gives one rather bizarre nod to actual history: Smith's account mentions a compass, which is highly symbolic in the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In general, when it comes down to the details the movie really is not that historically accurate. However, I think Disney did do a good job of capturing the overall historical generalities of the story. The movie accurately gives the reasons for why the English originally came to colonize the New World, for the sole prospect of finding gold like the Spanish did in South America. The movie also shows that the colonists came to the New World with an idealized view of what they would find and what would happen when they arrived. They viewed the Native Americans as savages and assumed that they would immediately become rich upon arriving. -- Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin's point. The very beginning (the people getting on the VA Company ship) did a great job giving a glorified view of the VA Company; the way many of the colonists probably saw it. The settlers original ideas compared to what they actually found was also very well done - one of them mentions that they don't have any food, although this is the only real reference to starvation in the film (I guess Disney tends to shy away from topics like starvation). I think Disney also got the colonists' view of the Native Americans right - Thomas's line, "If any Indian tries to stop me, I'll blast them." epitomizes how the English saw their situation. Also, John Smith's line to Pocahontas, "We'll show your people how to use this land properly," really got the English mind-set across. He tells her that she only thinks that they don't need help from the English "because you don't know any better". The English thought that the Native Americans were doing everything all wrong. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
First of all, I do not believe that Kocoum was killed by Thomas Salvage, especially during the early settling years (1607 -1608). Furthermore, in the movie, Pocohantas was told that she must marry Kocoum, but as we learned on Tuesday, the entire tribe and the potential bride must consent to the marriage. As far as the terrain is concerned, the landscape of Jamestown portrayed in the movie looks more like the landscape of the Shenandoah Valley than the swampy beachy mess that they actually settled in. While we are on the subject of landscape, did anyone notice in the first scene that the Native Americans were farming in the English manner, with perfect rows of vegetables? I had learned in the past that Native American farming was and ingenuous mix of vegetables that worked in concert with each other, (ie the Tomato vine growing up the corn stalk).Throughout his account, John Smith was constantly questioning the motives of the Native Americans and attempting to bargain with them. He did not strike me as the open minded hopeless romantic that Disney portrays him as. Lastly, the final scene of the movie implies the English settlers left the colony when in fact we know this to be false. – Caryn<br />
<br />
One thing the movie glosses over is how desperate the situation in Jamestown was. Yes, the Native Americans bring baskets of food towards the end, but it's not because the colonists are starving. In his account, Smith makes no secret of how much corn the colonists got from the Native Americans (both given and stolen), and it seems quite clear that even fewer would have survived in the colony without that supply of food. Not a single man dies of disease or starvation in the movie, which could be because it is a children's move after all. The movie certainly oversimplifies the relationship between the two groups; it was ultimately a much more complicated situation than that the colonists and Native Americans simply needed to talk about their differences. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I'm slightly confused and maybe someone can answer this for me. Was there not already a "settlement" by the time Pocohontas was 10-11? I don't mean a fully functioning settlement, but in the movie, they arrive to absolutely nothing and I just thought there was at least some establishment by the time John Smith and Pocohontas get involved. Other than that and aside from the nit-picky things we all know were inaccurate, I didnt think there was an all out war between the Native Americans and the colonist at this point. It certainly didn't seem that way from Smith's journal. And how come we never hear about the journal in the film? After all, it's what got this whole story started! - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
This has bothered me since I was a nerdy child. Pocahontas was not an adult when she met John Smith, and they were not romantically involved! I know it makes for a lovely Disney Princess sort of story, but even THAT concept is misleading, as she was not in any close succession for leadership. The next Anglicization of Native American culture in this movie would definitely be the fields: nice, neat rows, separated by crop. English? Yes. Easier to animate? Perhaps. Historically accurate? Nope. And finally, the day that someone finds that waterfall in Jamestown, I will personally kayak off of it. I do not need to worry about this, because I know the area, and it is completely, utterly flat. There are a myriad of other inaccuracies, but these seem to be the most glaring. - Cilla<br />
<br />
This was the first time that I had seen Pocahontas so after listening to the lecture, I was stunned during the film showing. From the landscape details to the set up of the camp, I did not find anything to be the same. John Smith was referred to once as a captain and there not any other references to other captains, despite the fact that there were seven in the original colony. In the movie, Pocahontas never married Kocoum, despite her father's best attempts. And, of course, the driving force throughout the movie was the relationship between John Smith and Pocahontas (so intense, in fact, that she was willing to sacrifice her life to save his). In the same scene, the English people had an immediate change of heart in regards to their relations with the Natives. - Kelly R.<br />
<br />
One of the first inaccuracies that I noticed was John Smith as a legendary captain. Everyone apparently knows him and his stories, and they're eager to work with him again. I don't think that the real John Smith was such a romantic hero - he served time in a Turkish prison. Disney shows him as a hopeless adventurer, but the truth of it is that he most likely just wanted to get rich quick like everyone else. This movie shows him as a famous hunter of "savages", even though he completely misses Pocahontas when she is about three feet away from him in a bush. Also, he had no real English accent to speak of (it came and went), which was distracting and annoying. Another blatant inaccuracy was the portrayal of Pocahontas as: a) Powhatan's only child; b) a grown woman, more or less (or an outrageously mature pre-teen); and c) next in line to become the leader of the tribe. Would it have been so difficult to give her some siblings, as a general nod to the fact that she had about 30? Also, Powhatan is shown as a widower, not a man that had dozens of wives. Obviously, polygamy cannot exist in a Disney universe. Pocahontas's friendship with Meeko and Flit came off as rather demeaning and childlike - Native Americans are magical and can talk to animals, and silly white men can't. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Movie as primary source ==<br />
<br />
Okay, okay, aside from tearing apart this movie because it makes me want to be my head against the wall from a historical standpoint, I think Pocahontas does something very important for the mid-1990s: it puts Native Americans on screen in a substantial, legitimate way. Yes, it's Disney, and it's a cartoon, but it's aimed at kids, so that makes sense. There are very few examples of Native Americans in lead roles of movies, animated or otherwise, and even fewer that show Native Americans as just as civilized and varied in their behavior as, in this case, the English. It's pretty fake, and it's pretty cheesy, but it's representation that is otherwise really hard to come by. Making the decision to broaden the ethnic focus of their human main characters says a lot about Disney's ideals at the time. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I think that Cilla put it perfectly in her last sentence. The fact that this film is (loosely) based on actual historic events shows that Disney was trying to tell a legitimate story. They decided to show this part of America's past to their extremely huge audience, and that says something about their integrity as storytellers. I'm sure that it got a whole generation of children interested - if only superficially or temporarily interested - in learning more about this story. If the film encouraged kids to learn more, it can't be completely without value. - Celia<br />
<br />
== General comments for Pocahontas == <br />
<br />
Disney's perception of history is slightly different than the actual facts but does tell a more entertaining story with characters such as Meeko, the raccoon who steals biscuits (hard tack?) and Grandmother Willow. I discovered watching the movie now presented itself in a more comical fashion rather than reality. As a resident of Williamsburg and working with tourists I have discovered the impact a movie can have on people's perception of history, especially when asked "Where are the waterfalls and cliffs?" To a child it is hard to say the waterfalls nor Grandmother Willow exist but to an adult I want to ask if they have taken a history class but prefer to keep my job. In some ways I feel Disney does tell the story well, they include the correct characters, time in history, the rivers, a correct depiction of how many trees and types of wildlife surround Jamestown, the gender roles of Native American men and women, the colonists disgust with work, and how tribes worked together to fight an unknown enemy. On the other hand, Pocahontas's age, her romance with John Smith, and the colonists singing about their work are not historical facts. It is clear Disney attempted to include facts but in true Disney fashion turned Pocahontas into a Disney princess that falls in love with the hero. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I still love this movie although I am aware it is not exactly historically correct. At least in this movie John Smith and Pocahontas do not end up together. That is historically accurate granted they were never romantically involved because she was ten and he was thrity five but hey Disney was not all wrong. I think Disney did depict the correct gender roles such as when Pocahontas was prevented from discussing war and she was out farming with her friend. Also I think Disney got it right when John Smith was talking to Pocahones about how her people were savages. That was true, the European view of Native Americans was decidedly negative which was depicted in the movie. I do not think Disney did a good job depicting what life was really like in Jamestowne but it is a movie for children and they did get a few things right. - LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
As much as it pains me to say it, some people actually believe what they see in the movies. As the movie began, I was telling my girlfriend about how Pocahontas first met John Smith she was only 12 and he was 35, she looked at me with a crinkled face and said "eww." That's when I realized that she was still under the impression that Pocahontas and Smith were involved on an intimate level. This is the main problem that Disney movies present to children, telling a story that seems like the truth when the actual truth is not even known. Kids are not aware of what really happened, so it is up to classes like this one and other history classes in grade school to dispel such lies. Basically, these lies or misrepresentations, and form what we learned in class on Tuesday, they got just about every detail wrong, could have been easily fixed while maintaining an enjoyable movie. Whenever a historical movie is made the directors should be obligated to consult an expert on the topic. It would be one thing for them to leave certain elements out, but to create an entirely different story is misleading and wrong. The viewers should be made aware before viewing the movie that certain portions of the film are fictional and should be offered a more factual option if they so desire to learn more about the subject. The one good thing that I noticed from this film was the emphasis placed on having an appreciation for our planet. This message can still be useful today and I am glad that it is being presented to children in such a way that will interest them. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The portrayal of Pocahontas from a historical perspective and Disney’s perspective leaves one to believe that Pocahontas must have been the name of two totally different Native Americans. One of the first differences is the obvious age of Pocahontas when she first meets John Smith. Historically data from John Smith himself gives Pocahontas’ age as around 10 years old, much, much younger than how Disney portrays her as an adult. But, we must remember that Disney’s world is one of fantasy where anything can happen and loves to tell stories to children.<br />
<br />
Another historical difference is that in the Disney movie, Pocahontas can be believed to be an only child, when in historical accuracy she had dozens of siblings running around. Yet, Disney may have gotten it right when in the movie, she is portrayed as having a special attachment to her father in that he may have been inclined to listen and consider some of her thoughts.--Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that we can all agree that for the most part, Disney's "Pocahontas" is pretty historically inaccurate. There were no talking trees or animals, Pocahontas was not a grown woman when she met John Smith, she was not immediately blessed with the ability to speak English, and the list goes on. That being said, most of these false elements were put in place to entertain the audience: children. As a student of the education program, we regularly discuss the importance of keeping children engaged in a plot by using such elements, so this is a smart move on Disney's part. However, I don't think we're giving Disney enough credit. How can we expect them to portray a perfectly accurate story of Pocahontaas and John Smith when we don't even know the true story ourselves? If you consider that during the execution scene Disney is roughly following what Smith penned in his last memoirs, then Disney is portraying this correctly. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Pocahontas" is definitely not an accurate portrayal of history. Anyone who has taken a Virginia history class should know that. However, Disney is not a historical documentary production company. So it is harsh to say that Disney is completely wrong to create a fictional account of history when its audience is children, usually age 10 and under. Young children would not understand all of the historical aspects of the story which is probably why Disney created its own version. Disney tales are notorious for the “happily ever after” endings. Children are innocent and are not yet able to comprehend the harsh realities of the adult world. "Pocahontas" gives a much softer account of the first arrival of the English. It does not show the starvation and diseases which plagued the English settlements. It shows that if both sides are willing to talk about their problems and compromise they will usually avoid bloody battles.<br />
This goes back to a point last week that was mentioned in class, that movies do not always have to be accurate. If they make a person want to learn more about a topic he or she saw in a movie, then the filmmakers have achieved their purpose to entertain and influence their audience. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Yes, Disney's Pocahontas is historically inaccurate-not to mention that basic laws of physics are also suspended (i.e. diving off an water and living ect.). Yet what I find more interesting is what Toplin talked about in his work, what historians can learn about the socitety that made the film. More specifically, what can we learn by looking at what was left in the film despite its inaccuracies. The first thing that struck me was Disney portrayal of the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+Noble+savage&aq=0&aqi=l1g1&aql=&oq=noble+savage+def&gs_rfai=C8p770n5-TLvOD5aCywSwhb1oAAAAqgQFT9CIA1w&pbx=1 noble savage] idea through out the film. In the work there is almost constant imagery suggesting that the Native Americans are more in-tune with god, nature, and each other simply because they lack what the colonists have, advanced technology. The question is then, what outstanding events might have made the filmmakers more likely to put this idea in the film (I'm not arguing its wrong or right I'm looking at this objectively). In 1995 the begins of the Free Tibet movement were starting possibly generating a cultural desire to oppose more militaristic forces. Also, the film spends a lot of time attempting to educate its viewers about the negative connotations with using the word "savage." This prompted one of the most interesting historical inaccuracies I noticed, which is the John Smith himself attempts to dissuade his fellow colonists form using the word "savage", while in his memoirs make free use of this word. So, I believe the correct approach to viewing this film is the one Toplin outlines, by treating it as a primary source on the times that created it. Disney films are notorious for slipping in subliminal messaging, or Hollywoodizing stroies. If we go into the film knowing this we can learn much about modern history, -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While as mentioned by everyone else that "Pocahontas" is not a historically accurate, I agree with Samantha that when you take into account the age group that the film is intended for, Disney really could not produce a film filled with death and adult themes. The movie does however, provide a good overview of several important historical themes, for example, through the character of Governor Radcliffe represents the Virginia Company. At one point in the movie he describes the colonists as, "witless peasants to dig up my gold". He goes on to describe the English expectation of finding gold just as the Spanish had in the New World. <br />
<br />
My favorite quote in the movie was when Wiggins, in response to Governor Radcliffe asking why the Indians would be upset with them said, "Because we invaded their land, cut down their trees, and dug up their earth." The movie did a good job of portraying the overarching themes, through simplification, as well as frequently taking liberty with history. For example when both the Indians and English sing the song describing each other as savages, it shows how the different cultures viewed one another. Another example of the difference in cultures was when John Smith started talking about gold, and Pocahontas pulled out an ear of corn. While that is not what he meant, corn was the equivalent of gold to the Indians, further showing the differences in their societies. While Pocahontas instantaneously learning English, picking up bearcubs and talking with a tree is probably far fetched, all things considered the movie does a good job of being entertaing to its target audience and including the parts of history that a 7 year old could watch and understand. ~ Michael G.<br />
<br />
The flag that the English used in the film was not made in 1607. It was first created in 1801,after Ireland became part of the United Kingdom. The flag they could have used, in 1607, was the Flag of England. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac in that Pocahontas is good as a primary source for understanding the mid-1990s. With the 90s we see the rise of environmentalism and I think this is emphasized in the film when Native Americans are shown living in "harmony" with nature. Other films that came out around this time like Fern Gully (1992) and tv networks like Nickelodeon doing marathons like Big Help (although I believe this started in the 80s).<br />
At the same time Pocahontas is a so-so secondary source on historical Pocahontas. I'll try not to repeat the same things other have but there is the whole lie about Powhatan "strongly suggesting" Pocahontas marry Kocoum and Pocahontas resisting that because he is too serious. As we all know this isn't true and as Professor McClurken pointed out rarely in Native American societies did they force women to marry against their will. I'll stop here before I go on a rant :-) Edit: Ok one more thing. I understand Disney is under no obligation to be historically accurate but why do they have to base it off a historical character? They could easily make a film full of lies about Native Americans without having to butcher the truth about Pocahontas. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 11:50, 1 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think that my comments will basically mirror the ones above, in that Disney's Pocahontas is not very historically accurate. But Disney did do a decent job of describing why many people came over to the New World in the first place, which was primarily to find gold and silver. I think they were also accurate in how the Native Americans and English viewed each other, with fear. While people, mostly those who know their history make fun of the movie, I think that the film tried to show how ignorance and hatred of something unknown could lead to violence and because it is a Disney movie there has to be a positive moral message at the end and considering the intended audience I think that it is a good message to send.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
<br />
After watching the movie, reading the online source for this week, and being in class for lecture on Tuesday I can conclude that Disney's version of Pocahontas ''may'' have exaggerated the relationship and tale of John Smith and Pocahontas. The most striking difference between the reality and truth is the intimate relationship the two had. I think this is really what trips people up because the general public or Disney fans want to believe that the two were together in a romantic way. What I tend to think about is the fact that Disney did in fact use one of the versions of the tale of John Smith and Pocahontas, just the least likely one. Of course, they had good reason to. The other versions that John Smith or his friends told were kind of boring and would not have made for a good movie. On a positive note, the movie did incorporate some truth such as utilizing names of actual historical people or places e.g. Pocahontas, John Smith, Ratcliff, Kocuom, Jamestown. The Native Americans' use of canoes and the importance of corn are also historically accurate. I think while it's important for people to know the historically accurate account of Pocahontas, I really don't think Disney was really looking for the movie to be exactly like the true tale. They wanted to produce a story for entertainment purposes. Hopefully, those who don't know the truth will someday take a history class or after getting awful looks from historians or history majors will soon become enlightened. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
I like how Amy V. phrased her comment; Disney wasn't completely historically inaccurate. Yes, the major plot points, for the most part, were completely wrong. But if you look at many of the details of the film that Amy mentioned, Disney didn't completely get ''everything'' wrong. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As other people have mentioned, Disney's "Pocahontas" is not historically accurate. First, in real life there is no evidence that they were romantically involved because there was about a twenty year age gap. In the movie, it seems that Pocahontas and John Smith are both the same age. Actually, Pocahontas was around eleven years old when she met John Smith. Another issue that they did not emphasize in the movie was the language barrier. They show the Native Americans speaking a different language at first, but then they change to English. At first Pocahontas could not understand John Smith, but then she changed a few minutes later to speaking English. I understand that this movie is for entertainment and for children, but some people believe that most movies are historically accurate. The entire theme of the movie, I think, is a very good theme. Basically they are showing kids that these two groups are about to fight because they are just different. This pertains to many real situations throughout the world. In the end, John Smith and Pocahontas shows that they should not fight, but they should talk first. Of course, it does not mention what happens later with more fighting between the English and the Native Americans. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
My comments have been pretty much summed up by all the previous posts. Not historically accurate, but gives people an idea of the early settlements and the challenges that many of them faced. I think it is also a tool for getting younger children interested in history. While it's not completely true, at least they are getting them interested in something that they can fully understand later. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Although Disney's movie was not historically accurate in the traditional sense, I still believe that it does have historical value. Disney's movie reflects the change that John Smith's original story underwent over time. It morphed from a memoir into popular fairytale and that change gives insight into the social history at the time. -- Erin L.<br />
<br />
As much as I loved Pocahontas as a kid, being a history major has made the movie less enjoyable now because I know the real story. After reading John Smith's account and watching the movie, I am not sure where to begin. Almost everyone knows that Pocahontas and John Smith did not have a relationship in reality. From what I read in John Smith's papers, their meeting was very brief and to the point... she was there to retrieve the Indian prisoners the English held. In that brief meeting, she did not fall in love with him. I am sure this has already been stated above, but Disney made this movie with the clear intent of entertaining, not informing of a historical event/historical people. Honestly, if you were to think if the movie was made with 100% historical accuracy, it would be a pretty boring movie! Disney did get it right in one aspect, that at the end, the Indians and English were friends, just as John Smith's papers described. Oh, and the movie also showed John Smith wielding a compass, just like Smith wrote about giving at compass to the Indians. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
==John Smith (1608) reading==<br />
I was sort of confused by the John Smith reading. I thought it was interesting to see how his views of Native Americans changed quickly, at one point they were going to kill him and the settlers then the next moment they were bringing him corn, and venison. But I'm inclined to think that relations were probably similar to that, they had good times and bad times. Smith also seemed really full of himself, especially in the way he describes Powahttan's feelings toward himself. The other thing I noticed was the way he would sometimes refer to Powahattan as "Emperor", which I just thought was interesting.<br />
<br />
I found John Smith’s account of his early time in Virginia very interesting. I think what struck me the most was how Smith conceptualized the Native American settlements and “classes”. All Smith knew were Kingdoms, hamlets, countries, etc. so the only way he understood the social structure was the English way. He continued to refer to each new area that he was taken to as a new country with its own King, which all seemed, in his mind, to be ruled by Powhatan the “emperor” of the area. He also referred to Powhatans and other kings “subject” as nobles. - Caryn<br />
<br />
While reading his words, I was easily able to sympathize with the conditions that these men underwent. Also, it is not hard to understand while the acts of these men were glorified since they faced some horrifying conditions. On the contrary, such terrible events make you wonder how Disney came to the conclusions that they did about the Virginia Colony. How they got singing and beautiful landscapes and beautiful people is beyond me. Knowing that movies are made to entertain, perhaps another story or aspect of the story could have been focused on more so that their interpretation would not be as far off from the truth as this depiction seamlessly is. -Mike E. <br />
<br />
I was curious about how much Smith claims to have discussed with the Native Americans. I know from experience that creative acting can help to overcome language barriers, but he almost makes it seem as though Pocahontas's magic ability to speak English in the film is possible. Smith writes that he listened to stories of "the roundness of the earth, the course of the sun, moon, stars and planets" with one of the Native American leaders, which seems to be a very abstract topic for two groups only relatively recently acquainted and speaking very different languages. How much is Smith inferring in order to make his story seem more exciting. I mean, "and then we sat around and awkwardly tried to get the other person to figure out what I was saying" doesn't sound nearly as impressive. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed about Smith's journal was the overflowing of what almost seemed like poetry at the beginning. It was a bit frilly and less to the point, at least at the beginning. I did notice that by the end, the recollections were more straight to the point. It was also interesting to see Smith use European terms for the Native American tribes he encountered, such as kings, countries, etc. I wonder, though, how much of his journal is factual and how much of it was added by Smith for the "readers sake". - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I, as well as everyone above me, found Smith's narrative to be very interesting and one of the things that captivated me the most was his recollection of all the trade between the English and the Native Americans. The Native Americans probably found all of the tools, copper, beads, little trinkets, etc. to be new and exciting but my question would be did the Native Americans truly understand everything they were given? According to Smith's account the two people easily understood one another, but was a piece of copper really worth sustaining the Englishmen, did the Native Americans know what they were in for? Trade was clearly a way of life and according to Smith something that kept the colonists and himself alive. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found John Smith's papers interesting, just as everyone else above has said. With that said, there were many things about his papers that I question. He portrays his relationship with the Indians as one that was friendly and cordial. Whether or not that is true, one might never know. But Smith made it seem as though the Indians and him were best friends and that the Indian chiefs loved him. Also, the way he describes the Indian villages. He said the "kings" (or chiefs) lived in large houses. If by houses, he meant tepees, then that is understandable as well. I was actually surprised with all the corn the colonists received. It was funny because in Pocahontas, the colonists did not have the slightest idea of what corn was, yet in John Smith's account, they were collecting it in abundance. Another thing that surprised me was how Smith stated at the end of his paper that all the colonists were in good health. The colonists were lucky because I am sure sickness was a frequent occurrence for them. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
John Smith's account strongly highlighted the lack of understanding of the various Native American tribes. Throughout the journal Smith and his men depended heavily on the Native Americans for their food supply, yet Smith would talk about the trades and in the next sentence refer to some of his men engaging in a battle with the Native Americans. It seemed as if the colonists did not recognize the differences in the tribes and, in doing so, made surviving much more difficult. The relationships they created were filled with distrust and Smith's misunderstanding of their culture and tribal divisions only added to the problems and level of conflict between the two groups. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
Throughout John Smith's journal, he portrays himself as the central figure in a dangerous adventure, where the native americans can never be trusted, even though they continually show him great kindness and bestow gifts of food on him and his settlement. Even as they are continuosly showering him with gifts, he writes that he was very suspicious of Powhatan and other's true intentions. He makes himself appear as if he is almost omniscient, and can read their minds. Disney is not alone in their exaggeration of how great John Smith was. - Michael G.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-09-02T03:28:40Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is a test.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
First, how cool is it that Powhatan's people had a Universal Translator centuries before "Star Trek's" Federation invented one? Who knew...all we needed to do was listen to the trees! But about the movie itself, as people have already said, we can't expect anything from Disney but Disneyland: cute animals and at least one dead parent. So it's interesting to see what accuracies the film actually has. First, John Smith described the 10-year-old he met as "but for wit and spirit the only Nonpareil of his [Powhatan's] Country." ("Nonpareil" means "without equal.") The screen Pocahontas certainly was all that. Also, we know that the Native Americans and the Europeans regarded each other as savages, but for different reasons, and the movie gives us a flavor of that, too. Disney even added thievery, but blamed it on the raccoon and not the Native Americans, as Smith does. The movie gives one rather bizarre nod to actual history: Smith's account mentions a compass, which is highly symbolic in the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In general, when it comes down to the details the movie really is not that historically accurate. However, I think Disney did do a good job of capturing the overall historical generalities of the story. The movie accurately gives the reasons for why the English originally came to colonize the New World, for the sole prospect of finding gold like the Spanish did in South America. The movie also shows that the colonists came to the New World with an idealized view of what they would find and what would happen when they arrived. They viewed the Native Americans as savages and assumed that they would immediately become rich upon arriving. -- Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin's point. The very beginning (the people getting on the VA Company ship) did a great job giving a glorified view of the VA Company; the way many of the colonists probably saw it. The settlers original ideas compared to what they actually found was also very well done - one of them mentions that they don't have any food, although this is the only real reference to starvation in the film (I guess Disney tends to shy away from topics like starvation). I think Disney also got the colonists' view of the Native Americans right - Thomas's line, "If any Indian tries to stop me, I'll blast them." epitomizes how the English saw their situation. Also, John Smith's line to Pocahontas, "We'll show your people how to use this land properly," really got the English mind-set across. He tells her that she only thinks that they don't need help from the English "because you don't know any better". The English thought that the Native Americans were doing everything all wrong. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
First of all, I do not believe that Kocoum was killed by Thomas Salvage, especially during the early settling years (1607 -1608). Furthermore, in the movie, Pocohantas was told that she must marry Kocoum, but as we learned on Tuesday, the entire tribe and the potential bride must consent to the marriage. As far as the terrain is concerned, the landscape of Jamestown portrayed in the movie looks more like the landscape of the Shenandoah Valley than the swampy beachy mess that they actually settled in. While we are on the subject of landscape, did anyone notice in the first scene that the Native Americans were farming in the English manner, with perfect rows of vegetables? I had learned in the past that Native American farming was and ingenuous mix of vegetables that worked in concert with each other, (ie the Tomato vine growing up the corn stalk).Throughout his account, John Smith was constantly questioning the motives of the Native Americans and attempting to bargain with them. He did not strike me as the open minded hopeless romantic that Disney portrays him as. Lastly, the final scene of the movie implies the English settlers left the colony when in fact we know this to be false. – Caryn<br />
<br />
One thing the movie glosses over is how desperate the situation in Jamestown was. Yes, the Native Americans bring baskets of food towards the end, but it's not because the colonists are starving. In his account, Smith makes no secret of how much corn the colonists got from the Native Americans (both given and stolen), and it seems quite clear that even fewer would have survived in the colony without that supply of food. Not a single man dies of disease or starvation in the movie, which could be because it is a children's move after all. The movie certainly oversimplifies the relationship between the two groups; it was ultimately a much more complicated situation than that the colonists and Native Americans simply needed to talk about their differences. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I'm slightly confused and maybe someone can answer this for me. Was there not already a "settlement" by the time Pocohontas was 10-11? I don't mean a fully functioning settlement, but in the movie, they arrive to absolutely nothing and I just thought there was at least some establishment by the time John Smith and Pocohontas get involved. Other than that and aside from the nit-picky things we all know were inaccurate, I didnt think there was an all out war between the Native Americans and the colonist at this point. It certainly didn't seem that way from Smith's journal. And how come we never hear about the journal in the film? After all, it's what got this whole story started! - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
This has bothered me since I was a nerdy child. Pocahontas was not an adult when she met John Smith, and they were not romantically involved! I know it makes for a lovely Disney Princess sort of story, but even THAT concept is misleading, as she was not in any close succession for leadership. The next Anglicization of Native American culture in this movie would definitely be the fields: nice, neat rows, separated by crop. English? Yes. Easier to animate? Perhaps. Historically accurate? Nope. And finally, the day that someone finds that waterfall in Jamestown, I will personally kayak off of it. I do not need to worry about this, because I know the area, and it is completely, utterly flat. There are a myriad of other inaccuracies, but these seem to be the most glaring. - Cilla<br />
<br />
This was the first time that I had seen Pocahontas so after listening to the lecture, I was stunned during the film showing. From the landscape details to the set up of the camp, I did not find anything to be the same. John Smith was referred to once as a captain and there not any other references to other captains, despite the fact that there were seven in the original colony. In the movie, Pocahontas never married Kocoum, despite her father's best attempts. And, of course, the driving force throughout the movie was the relationship between John Smith and Pocahontas (so intense, in fact, that she was willing to sacrifice her life to save his). In the same scene, the English people had an immediate change of heart in regards to their relations with the Natives. - Kelly R.<br />
<br />
One of the first inaccuracies that I noticed was John Smith as a legendary captain. Everyone apparently knows him and his stories, and they're eager to work with him again. I don't think that the real John Smith was such a romantic hero - he served time in a Turkish prison. Disney shows him as a hopeless adventurer, but the truth of it is that he most likely just wanted to get rich quick like everyone else. This movie shows him as a famous hunter of "savages", even though he completely misses Pocahontas when she is about three feet away from him in a bush. Also, he had no real English accent to speak of (it came and went), which was distracting and annoying. Another blatant inaccuracy was the portrayal of Pocahontas as: a) Powhatan's only child; b) a grown woman, more or less (or an outrageously mature pre-teen); and c) next in line to become the leader of the tribe. Would it have been so difficult to give her some siblings, as a general nod to the fact that she had about 30? Also, Powhatan is shown as a widower, not a man that had dozens of wives. Obviously, polygamy cannot exist in a Disney universe. Pocahontas's friendship with Meeko and Flit came off as rather demeaning and childlike - Native Americans are magical and can talk to animals, and silly white men can't. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Movie as primary source ==<br />
<br />
Okay, okay, aside from tearing apart this movie because it makes me want to be my head against the wall from a historical standpoint, I think Pocahontas does something very important for the mid-1990s: it puts Native Americans on screen in a substantial, legitimate way. Yes, it's Disney, and it's a cartoon, but it's aimed at kids, so that makes sense. There are very few examples of Native Americans in lead roles of movies, animated or otherwise, and even fewer that show Native Americans as just as civilized and varied in their behavior as, in this case, the English. It's pretty fake, and it's pretty cheesy, but it's representation that is otherwise really hard to come by. Making the decision to broaden the ethnic focus of their human main characters says a lot about Disney's ideals at the time. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== General comments for Pocahontas == <br />
<br />
Disney's perception of history is slightly different than the actual facts but does tell a more entertaining story with characters such as Meeko, the raccoon who steals biscuits (hard tack?) and Grandmother Willow. I discovered watching the movie now presented itself in a more comical fashion rather than reality. As a resident of Williamsburg and working with tourists I have discovered the impact a movie can have on people's perception of history, especially when asked "Where are the waterfalls and cliffs?" To a child it is hard to say the waterfalls nor Grandmother Willow exist but to an adult I want to ask if they have taken a history class but prefer to keep my job. In some ways I feel Disney does tell the story well, they include the correct characters, time in history, the rivers, a correct depiction of how many trees and types of wildlife surround Jamestown, the gender roles of Native American men and women, the colonists disgust with work, and how tribes worked together to fight an unknown enemy. On the other hand, Pocahontas's age, her romance with John Smith, and the colonists singing about their work are not historical facts. It is clear Disney attempted to include facts but in true Disney fashion turned Pocahontas into a Disney princess that falls in love with the hero. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I still love this movie although I am aware it is not exactly historically correct. At least in this movie John Smith and Pocahontas do not end up together. That is historically accurate granted they were never romantically involved because she was ten and he was thrity five but hey Disney was not all wrong. I think Disney did depict the correct gender roles such as when Pocahontas was prevented from discussing war and she was out farming with her friend. Also I think Disney got it right when John Smith was talking to Pocahones about how her people were savages. That was true, the European view of Native Americans was decidedly negative which was depicted in the movie. I do not think Disney did a good job depicting what life was really like in Jamestowne but it is a movie for children and they did get a few things right. - LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
As much as it pains me to say it, some people actually believe what they see in the movies. As the movie began, I was telling my girlfriend about how Pocahontas first met John Smith she was only 12 and he was 35, she looked at me with a crinkled face and said "eww." That's when I realized that she was still under the impression that Pocahontas and Smith were involved on an intimate level. This is the main problem that Disney movies present to children, telling a story that seems like the truth when the actual truth is not even known. Kids are not aware of what really happened, so it is up to classes like this one and other history classes in grade school to dispel such lies. Basically, these lies or misrepresentations, and form what we learned in class on Tuesday, they got just about every detail wrong, could have been easily fixed while maintaining an enjoyable movie. Whenever a historical movie is made the directors should be obligated to consult an expert on the topic. It would be one thing for them to leave certain elements out, but to create an entirely different story is misleading and wrong. The viewers should be made aware before viewing the movie that certain portions of the film are fictional and should be offered a more factual option if they so desire to learn more about the subject. The one good thing that I noticed from this film was the emphasis placed on having an appreciation for our planet. This message can still be useful today and I am glad that it is being presented to children in such a way that will interest them. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The portrayal of Pocahontas from a historical perspective and Disney’s perspective leaves one to believe that Pocahontas must have been the name of two totally different Native Americans. One of the first differences is the obvious age of Pocahontas when she first meets John Smith. Historically data from John Smith himself gives Pocahontas’ age as around 10 years old, much, much younger than how Disney portrays her as an adult. But, we must remember that Disney’s world is one of fantasy where anything can happen and loves to tell stories to children.<br />
<br />
Another historical difference is that in the Disney movie, Pocahontas can be believed to be an only child, when in historical accuracy she had dozens of siblings running around. Yet, Disney may have gotten it right when in the movie, she is portrayed as having a special attachment to her father in that he may have been inclined to listen and consider some of her thoughts.--Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that we can all agree that for the most part, Disney's "Pocahontas" is pretty historically inaccurate. There were no talking trees or animals, Pocahontas was not a grown woman when she met John Smith, she was not immediately blessed with the ability to speak English, and the list goes on. That being said, most of these false elements were put in place to entertain the audience: children. As a student of the education program, we regularly discuss the importance of keeping children engaged in a plot by using such elements, so this is a smart move on Disney's part. However, I don't think we're giving Disney enough credit. How can we expect them to portray a perfectly accurate story of Pocahontaas and John Smith when we don't even know the true story ourselves? If you consider that during the execution scene Disney is roughly following what Smith penned in his last memoirs, then Disney is portraying this correctly. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Pocahontas" is definitely not an accurate portrayal of history. Anyone who has taken a Virginia history class should know that. However, Disney is not a historical documentary production company. So it is harsh to say that Disney is completely wrong to create a fictional account of history when its audience is children, usually age 10 and under. Young children would not understand all of the historical aspects of the story which is probably why Disney created its own version. Disney tales are notorious for the “happily ever after” endings. Children are innocent and are not yet able to comprehend the harsh realities of the adult world. "Pocahontas" gives a much softer account of the first arrival of the English. It does not show the starvation and diseases which plagued the English settlements. It shows that if both sides are willing to talk about their problems and compromise they will usually avoid bloody battles.<br />
This goes back to a point last week that was mentioned in class, that movies do not always have to be accurate. If they make a person want to learn more about a topic he or she saw in a movie, then the filmmakers have achieved their purpose to entertain and influence their audience. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Yes, Disney's Pocahontas is historically inaccurate-not to mention that basic laws of physics are also suspended (i.e. diving off an water and living ect.). Yet what I find more interesting is what Toplin talked about in his work, what historians can learn about the socitety that made the film. More specifically, what can we learn by looking at what was left in the film despite its inaccuracies. The first thing that struck me was Disney portrayal of the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+Noble+savage&aq=0&aqi=l1g1&aql=&oq=noble+savage+def&gs_rfai=C8p770n5-TLvOD5aCywSwhb1oAAAAqgQFT9CIA1w&pbx=1 noble savage] idea through out the film. In the work there is almost constant imagery suggesting that the Native Americans are more in-tune with god, nature, and each other simply because they lack what the colonists have, advanced technology. The question is then, what outstanding events might have made the filmmakers more likely to put this idea in the film (I'm not arguing its wrong or right I'm looking at this objectively). In 1995 the begins of the Free Tibet movement were starting possibly generating a cultural desire to oppose more militaristic forces. Also, the film spends a lot of time attempting to educate its viewers about the negative connotations with using the word "savage." This prompted one of the most interesting historical inaccuracies I noticed, which is the John Smith himself attempts to dissuade his fellow colonists form using the word "savage", while in his memoirs make free use of this word. So, I believe the correct approach to viewing this film is the one Toplin outlines, by treating it as a primary source on the times that created it. Disney films are notorious for slipping in subliminal messaging, or Hollywoodizing stroies. If we go into the film knowing this we can learn much about modern history, -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While as mentioned by everyone else that "Pocahontas" is not a historically accurate, I agree with Samantha that when you take into account the age group that the film is intended for, Disney really could not produce a film filled with death and adult themes. The movie does however, provide a good overview of several important historical themes, for example, through the character of Governor Radcliffe represents the Virginia Company. At one point in the movie he describes the colonists as, "witless peasants to dig up my gold". He goes on to describe the English expectation of finding gold just as the Spanish had in the New World. <br />
<br />
My favorite quote in the movie was when Wiggins, in response to Governor Radcliffe asking why the Indians would be upset with them said, "Because we invaded their land, cut down their trees, and dug up their earth." The movie did a good job of portraying the overarching themes, through simplification, as well as frequently taking liberty with history. For example when both the Indians and English sing the song describing each other as savages, it shows how the different cultures viewed one another. Another example of the difference in cultures was when John Smith started talking about gold, and Pocahontas pulled out an ear of corn. While that is not what he meant, corn was the equivalent of gold to the Indians, further showing the differences in their societies. While Pocahontas instantaneously learning English, picking up bearcubs and talking with a tree is probably far fetched, all things considered the movie does a good job of being entertaing to its target audience and including the parts of history that a 7 year old could watch and understand. ~ Michael G.<br />
<br />
The flag that the English used in the film was not made in 1607. It was first created in 1801,after Ireland became part of the United Kingdom. The flag they could have used, in 1607, was the Flag of England. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac in that Pocahontas is good as a primary source for understanding the mid-1990s. With the 90s we see the rise of environmentalism and I think this is emphasized in the film when Native Americans are shown living in "harmony" with nature. Other films that came out around this time like Fern Gully (1992) and tv networks like Nickelodeon doing marathons like Big Help (although I believe this started in the 80s).<br />
At the same time Pocahontas is a so-so secondary source on historical Pocahontas. I'll try not to repeat the same things other have but there is the whole lie about Powhatan "strongly suggesting" Pocahontas marry Kocoum and Pocahontas resisting that because he is too serious. As we all know this isn't true and as Professor McClurken pointed out rarely in Native American societies did they force women to marry against their will. I'll stop here before I go on a rant :-) Edit: Ok one more thing. I understand Disney is under no obligation to be historically accurate but why do they have to base it off a historical character? They could easily make a film full of lies about Native Americans without having to butcher the truth about Pocahontas. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 11:50, 1 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think that my comments will basically mirror the ones above, in that Disney's Pocahontas is not very historically accurate. But Disney did do a decent job of describing why many people came over to the New World in the first place, which was primarily to find gold and silver. I think they were also accurate in how the Native Americans and English viewed each other, with fear. While people, mostly those who know their history make fun of the movie, I think that the film tried to show how ignorance and hatred of something unknown could lead to violence and because it is a Disney movie there has to be a positive moral message at the end and considering the intended audience I think that it is a good message to send.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
<br />
After watching the movie, reading the online source for this week, and being in class for lecture on Tuesday I can conclude that Disney's version of Pocahontas ''may'' have exaggerated the relationship and tale of John Smith and Pocahontas. The most striking difference between the reality and truth is the intimate relationship the two had. I think this is really what trips people up because the general public or Disney fans want to believe that the two were together in a romantic way. What I tend to think about is the fact that Disney did in fact use one of the versions of the tale of John Smith and Pocahontas, just the least likely one. Of course, they had good reason to. The other versions that John Smith or his friends told were kind of boring and would not have made for a good movie. On a positive note, the movie did incorporate some truth such as utilizing names of actual historical people or places e.g. Pocahontas, John Smith, Ratcliff, Kocuom, Jamestown. The Native Americans' use of canoes and the importance of corn are also historically accurate. I think while it's important for people to know the historically accurate account of Pocahontas, I really don't think Disney was really looking for the movie to be exactly like the true tale. They wanted to produce a story for entertainment purposes. Hopefully, those who don't know the truth will someday take a history class or after getting awful looks from historians or history majors will soon become enlightened. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
I like how Amy V. phrased her comment; Disney wasn't completely historically inaccurate. Yes, the major plot points, for the most part, were completely wrong. But if you look at many of the details of the film that Amy mentioned, Disney didn't completely get ''everything'' wrong. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As other people have mentioned, Disney's "Pocahontas" is not historically accurate. First, in real life there is no evidence that they were romantically involved because there was about a twenty year age gap. In the movie, it seems that Pocahontas and John Smith are both the same age. Actually, Pocahontas was around eleven years old when she met John Smith. Another issue that they did not emphasize in the movie was the language barrier. They show the Native Americans speaking a different language at first, but then they change to English. At first Pocahontas could not understand John Smith, but then she changed a few minutes later to speaking English. I understand that this movie is for entertainment and for children, but some people believe that most movies are historically accurate. The entire theme of the movie, I think, is a very good theme. Basically they are showing kids that these two groups are about to fight because they are just different. This pertains to many real situations throughout the world. In the end, John Smith and Pocahontas shows that they should not fight, but they should talk first. Of course, it does not mention what happens later with more fighting between the English and the Native Americans. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
My comments have been pretty much summed up by all the previous posts. Not historically accurate, but gives people an idea of the early settlements and the challenges that many of them faced. I think it is also a tool for getting younger children interested in history. While it's not completely true, at least they are getting them interested in something that they can fully understand later. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Although Disney's movie was not historically accurate in the traditional sense, I still believe that it does have historical value. Disney's movie reflects the change that John Smith's original story underwent over time. It morphed from a memoir into popular fairytale and that change gives insight into the social history at the time. -- Erin L.<br />
<br />
As much as I loved Pocahontas as a kid, being a history major has made the movie less enjoyable now because I know the real story. After reading John Smith's account and watching the movie, I am not sure where to begin. Almost everyone knows that Pocahontas and John Smith did not have a relationship in reality. From what I read in John Smith's papers, their meeting was very brief and to the point... she was there to retrieve the Indian prisoners the English held. In that brief meeting, she did not fall in love with him. I am sure this has already been stated above, but Disney made this movie with the clear intent of entertaining, not informing of a historical event/historical people. Honestly, if you were to think if the movie was made with 100% historical accuracy, it would be a pretty boring movie! Disney did get it right in one aspect, that at the end, the Indians and English were friends, just as John Smith's papers described. Oh, and the movie also showed John Smith wielding a compass, just like Smith wrote about giving at compass to the Indians. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
==John Smith (1608) reading==<br />
I was sort of confused by the John Smith reading. I thought it was interesting to see how his views of Native Americans changed quickly, at one point they were going to kill him and the settlers then the next moment they were bringing him corn, and venison. But I'm inclined to think that relations were probably similar to that, they had good times and bad times. Smith also seemed really full of himself, especially in the way he describes Powahttan's feelings toward himself. The other thing I noticed was the way he would sometimes refer to Powahattan as "Emperor", which I just thought was interesting.<br />
<br />
I found John Smith’s account of his early time in Virginia very interesting. I think what struck me the most was how Smith conceptualized the Native American settlements and “classes”. All Smith knew were Kingdoms, hamlets, countries, etc. so the only way he understood the social structure was the English way. He continued to refer to each new area that he was taken to as a new country with its own King, which all seemed, in his mind, to be ruled by Powhatan the “emperor” of the area. He also referred to Powhatans and other kings “subject” as nobles. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I was curious about how much Smith claims to have discussed with the Native Americans. I know from experience that creative acting can help to overcome language barriers, but he almost makes it seem as though Pocahontas's magic ability to speak English in the film is possible. Smith writes that he listened to stories of "the roundness of the earth, the course of the sun, moon, stars and planets" with one of the Native American leaders, which seems to be a very abstract topic for two groups only relatively recently acquainted and speaking very different languages. How much is Smith inferring in order to make his story seem more exciting. I mean, "and then we sat around and awkwardly tried to get the other person to figure out what I was saying" doesn't sound nearly as impressive. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed about Smith's journal was the overflowing of what almost seemed like poetry at the beginning. It was a bit frilly and less to the point, at least at the beginning. I did notice that by the end, the recollections were more straight to the point. It was also interesting to see Smith use European terms for the Native American tribes he encountered, such as kings, countries, etc. I wonder, though, how much of his journal is factual and how much of it was added by Smith for the "readers sake". - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I, as well as everyone above me, found Smith's narrative to be very interesting and one of the things that captivated me the most was his recollection of all the trade between the English and the Native Americans. The Native Americans probably found all of the tools, copper, beads, little trinkets, etc. to be new and exciting but my question would be did the Native Americans truly understand everything they were given? According to Smith's account the two people easily understood one another, but was a piece of copper really worth sustaining the Englishmen, did the Native Americans know what they were in for? Trade was clearly a way of life and according to Smith something that kept the colonists and himself alive. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found John Smith's papers interesting, just as everyone else above has said. With that said, there were many things about his papers that I question. He portrays his relationship with the Indians as one that was friendly and cordial. Whether or not that is true, one might never know. But Smith made it seem as though the Indians and him were best friends and that the Indian chiefs loved him. Also, the way he describes the Indian villages. He said the "kings" (or chiefs) lived in large houses. If by houses, he meant tepees, then that is understandable as well. I was actually surprised with all the corn the colonists received. It was funny because in Pocahontas, the colonists did not have the slightest idea of what corn was, yet in John Smith's account, they were collecting it in abundance. Another thing that surprised me was how Smith stated at the end of his paper that all the colonists were in good health. The colonists were lucky because I am sure sickness was a frequent occurrence for them. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
John Smith's account strongly highlighted the lack of understanding of the various Native American tribes. Throughout the journal Smith and his men depended heavily on the Native Americans for their food supply, yet Smith would talk about the trades and in the next sentence refer to some of his men engaging in a battle with the Native Americans. It seemed as if the colonists did not recognize the differences in the tribes and, in doing so, made surviving much more difficult. The relationships they created were filled with distrust and Smith's misunderstanding of their culture and tribal divisions only added to the problems and level of conflict between the two groups. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
Throughout John Smith's journal, he portrays himself as the central figure in a dangerous adventure, where the native americans can never be trusted, even though they continually show him great kindness and bestow gifts of food on him and his settlement. Even as they are continuosly showering him with gifts, he writes that he was very suspicious of Powhatan and other's true intentions. He makes himself appear as if he is almost omniscient, and can read their minds. Disney is not alone in their exaggeration of how great John Smith was. - Michael G.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-09-02T03:26:00Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is a test.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
First, how cool is it that Powhatan's people had a Universal Translator centuries before "Star Trek's" Federation invented one? Who knew...all we needed to do was listen to the trees! But about the movie itself, as people have already said, we can't expect anything from Disney but Disneyland: cute animals and at least one dead parent. So it's interesting to see what accuracies the film actually has. First, John Smith described the 10-year-old he met as "but for wit and spirit the only Nonpareil of his [Powhatan's] Country." ("Nonpareil" means "without equal.") The screen Pocahontas certainly was all that. Also, we know that the Native Americans and the Europeans regarded each other as savages, but for different reasons, and the movie gives us a flavor of that, too. Disney even added thievery, but blamed it on the raccoon and not the Native Americans, as Smith does. The movie gives one rather bizarre nod to actual history: Smith's account mentions a compass, which is highly symbolic in the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In general, when it comes down to the details the movie really is not that historically accurate. However, I think Disney did do a good job of capturing the overall historical generalities of the story. The movie accurately gives the reasons for why the English originally came to colonize the New World, for the sole prospect of finding gold like the Spanish did in South America. The movie also shows that the colonists came to the New World with an idealized view of what they would find and what would happen when they arrived. They viewed the Native Americans as savages and assumed that they would immediately become rich upon arriving. -- Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin's point. The very beginning (the people getting on the VA Company ship) did a great job giving a glorified view of the VA Company; the way many of the colonists probably saw it. The settlers original ideas compared to what they actually found was also very well done - one of them mentions that they don't have any food, although this is the only real reference to starvation in the film (I guess Disney tends to shy away from topics like starvation). I think Disney also got the colonists' view of the Native Americans right - Thomas's line, "If any Indian tries to stop me, I'll blast them." epitomizes how the English saw their situation. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
First of all, I do not believe that Kocoum was killed by Thomas Salvage, especially during the early settling years (1607 -1608). Furthermore, in the movie, Pocohantas was told that she must marry Kocoum, but as we learned on Tuesday, the entire tribe and the potential bride must consent to the marriage. As far as the terrain is concerned, the landscape of Jamestown portrayed in the movie looks more like the landscape of the Shenandoah Valley than the swampy beachy mess that they actually settled in. While we are on the subject of landscape, did anyone notice in the first scene that the Native Americans were farming in the English manner, with perfect rows of vegetables? I had learned in the past that Native American farming was and ingenuous mix of vegetables that worked in concert with each other, (ie the Tomato vine growing up the corn stalk).Throughout his account, John Smith was constantly questioning the motives of the Native Americans and attempting to bargain with them. He did not strike me as the open minded hopeless romantic that Disney portrays him as. Lastly, the final scene of the movie implies the English settlers left the colony when in fact we know this to be false. – Caryn<br />
<br />
One thing the movie glosses over is how desperate the situation in Jamestown was. Yes, the Native Americans bring baskets of food towards the end, but it's not because the colonists are starving. In his account, Smith makes no secret of how much corn the colonists got from the Native Americans (both given and stolen), and it seems quite clear that even fewer would have survived in the colony without that supply of food. Not a single man dies of disease or starvation in the movie, which could be because it is a children's move after all. The movie certainly oversimplifies the relationship between the two groups; it was ultimately a much more complicated situation than that the colonists and Native Americans simply needed to talk about their differences. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I'm slightly confused and maybe someone can answer this for me. Was there not already a "settlement" by the time Pocohontas was 10-11? I don't mean a fully functioning settlement, but in the movie, they arrive to absolutely nothing and I just thought there was at least some establishment by the time John Smith and Pocohontas get involved. Other than that and aside from the nit-picky things we all know were inaccurate, I didnt think there was an all out war between the Native Americans and the colonist at this point. It certainly didn't seem that way from Smith's journal. And how come we never hear about the journal in the film? After all, it's what got this whole story started! - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
This has bothered me since I was a nerdy child. Pocahontas was not an adult when she met John Smith, and they were not romantically involved! I know it makes for a lovely Disney Princess sort of story, but even THAT concept is misleading, as she was not in any close succession for leadership. The next Anglicization of Native American culture in this movie would definitely be the fields: nice, neat rows, separated by crop. English? Yes. Easier to animate? Perhaps. Historically accurate? Nope. And finally, the day that someone finds that waterfall in Jamestown, I will personally kayak off of it. I do not need to worry about this, because I know the area, and it is completely, utterly flat. There are a myriad of other inaccuracies, but these seem to be the most glaring. - Cilla<br />
<br />
This was the first time that I had seen Pocahontas so after listening to the lecture, I was stunned during the film showing. From the landscape details to the set up of the camp, I did not find anything to be the same. John Smith was referred to once as a captain and there not any other references to other captains, despite the fact that there were seven in the original colony. In the movie, Pocahontas never married Kocoum, despite her father's best attempts. And, of course, the driving force throughout the movie was the relationship between John Smith and Pocahontas (so intense, in fact, that she was willing to sacrifice her life to save his). In the same scene, the English people had an immediate change of heart in regards to their relations with the Natives. - Kelly R.<br />
<br />
One of the first inaccuracies that I noticed was John Smith as a legendary captain. Everyone apparently knows him and his stories, and they're eager to work with him again. I don't think that the real John Smith was such a romantic hero - he served time in a Turkish prison. Disney shows him as a hopeless adventurer, but the truth of it is that he most likely just wanted to get rich quick like everyone else. This movie shows him as a famous hunter of "savages", even though he completely misses Pocahontas when she is about three feet away from him in a bush. Also, he had no real English accent to speak of (it came and went), which was distracting and annoying. Another blatant inaccuracy was the portrayal of Pocahontas as: a) Powhatan's only child; b) a grown woman, more or less (or an outrageously mature pre-teen); and c) next in line to become the leader of the tribe. Would it have been so difficult to give her some siblings, as a general nod to the fact that she had about 30? Also, Powhatan is shown as a widower, not a man that had dozens of wives. Obviously, polygamy cannot exist in a Disney universe. Pocahontas's friendship with Meeko and Flit came off as rather demeaning and childlike - Native Americans are magical and can talk to animals, and silly white men can't. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Movie as primary source ==<br />
<br />
Okay, okay, aside from tearing apart this movie because it makes me want to be my head against the wall from a historical standpoint, I think Pocahontas does something very important for the mid-1990s: it puts Native Americans on screen in a substantial, legitimate way. Yes, it's Disney, and it's a cartoon, but it's aimed at kids, so that makes sense. There are very few examples of Native Americans in lead roles of movies, animated or otherwise, and even fewer that show Native Americans as just as civilized and varied in their behavior as, in this case, the English. It's pretty fake, and it's pretty cheesy, but it's representation that is otherwise really hard to come by. Making the decision to broaden the ethnic focus of their human main characters says a lot about Disney's ideals at the time. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== General comments for Pocahontas == <br />
<br />
Disney's perception of history is slightly different than the actual facts but does tell a more entertaining story with characters such as Meeko, the raccoon who steals biscuits (hard tack?) and Grandmother Willow. I discovered watching the movie now presented itself in a more comical fashion rather than reality. As a resident of Williamsburg and working with tourists I have discovered the impact a movie can have on people's perception of history, especially when asked "Where are the waterfalls and cliffs?" To a child it is hard to say the waterfalls nor Grandmother Willow exist but to an adult I want to ask if they have taken a history class but prefer to keep my job. In some ways I feel Disney does tell the story well, they include the correct characters, time in history, the rivers, a correct depiction of how many trees and types of wildlife surround Jamestown, the gender roles of Native American men and women, the colonists disgust with work, and how tribes worked together to fight an unknown enemy. On the other hand, Pocahontas's age, her romance with John Smith, and the colonists singing about their work are not historical facts. It is clear Disney attempted to include facts but in true Disney fashion turned Pocahontas into a Disney princess that falls in love with the hero. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I still love this movie although I am aware it is not exactly historically correct. At least in this movie John Smith and Pocahontas do not end up together. That is historically accurate granted they were never romantically involved because she was ten and he was thrity five but hey Disney was not all wrong. I think Disney did depict the correct gender roles such as when Pocahontas was prevented from discussing war and she was out farming with her friend. Also I think Disney got it right when John Smith was talking to Pocahones about how her people were savages. That was true, the European view of Native Americans was decidedly negative which was depicted in the movie. I do not think Disney did a good job depicting what life was really like in Jamestowne but it is a movie for children and they did get a few things right. - LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
As much as it pains me to say it, some people actually believe what they see in the movies. As the movie began, I was telling my girlfriend about how Pocahontas first met John Smith she was only 12 and he was 35, she looked at me with a crinkled face and said "eww." That's when I realized that she was still under the impression that Pocahontas and Smith were involved on an intimate level. This is the main problem that Disney movies present to children, telling a story that seems like the truth when the actual truth is not even known. Kids are not aware of what really happened, so it is up to classes like this one and other history classes in grade school to dispel such lies. Basically, these lies or misrepresentations, and form what we learned in class on Tuesday, they got just about every detail wrong, could have been easily fixed while maintaining an enjoyable movie. Whenever a historical movie is made the directors should be obligated to consult an expert on the topic. It would be one thing for them to leave certain elements out, but to create an entirely different story is misleading and wrong. The viewers should be made aware before viewing the movie that certain portions of the film are fictional and should be offered a more factual option if they so desire to learn more about the subject. The one good thing that I noticed from this film was the emphasis placed on having an appreciation for our planet. This message can still be useful today and I am glad that it is being presented to children in such a way that will interest them. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The portrayal of Pocahontas from a historical perspective and Disney’s perspective leaves one to believe that Pocahontas must have been the name of two totally different Native Americans. One of the first differences is the obvious age of Pocahontas when she first meets John Smith. Historically data from John Smith himself gives Pocahontas’ age as around 10 years old, much, much younger than how Disney portrays her as an adult. But, we must remember that Disney’s world is one of fantasy where anything can happen and loves to tell stories to children.<br />
<br />
Another historical difference is that in the Disney movie, Pocahontas can be believed to be an only child, when in historical accuracy she had dozens of siblings running around. Yet, Disney may have gotten it right when in the movie, she is portrayed as having a special attachment to her father in that he may have been inclined to listen and consider some of her thoughts.--Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that we can all agree that for the most part, Disney's "Pocahontas" is pretty historically inaccurate. There were no talking trees or animals, Pocahontas was not a grown woman when she met John Smith, she was not immediately blessed with the ability to speak English, and the list goes on. That being said, most of these false elements were put in place to entertain the audience: children. As a student of the education program, we regularly discuss the importance of keeping children engaged in a plot by using such elements, so this is a smart move on Disney's part. However, I don't think we're giving Disney enough credit. How can we expect them to portray a perfectly accurate story of Pocahontaas and John Smith when we don't even know the true story ourselves? If you consider that during the execution scene Disney is roughly following what Smith penned in his last memoirs, then Disney is portraying this correctly. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Pocahontas" is definitely not an accurate portrayal of history. Anyone who has taken a Virginia history class should know that. However, Disney is not a historical documentary production company. So it is harsh to say that Disney is completely wrong to create a fictional account of history when its audience is children, usually age 10 and under. Young children would not understand all of the historical aspects of the story which is probably why Disney created its own version. Disney tales are notorious for the “happily ever after” endings. Children are innocent and are not yet able to comprehend the harsh realities of the adult world. "Pocahontas" gives a much softer account of the first arrival of the English. It does not show the starvation and diseases which plagued the English settlements. It shows that if both sides are willing to talk about their problems and compromise they will usually avoid bloody battles.<br />
This goes back to a point last week that was mentioned in class, that movies do not always have to be accurate. If they make a person want to learn more about a topic he or she saw in a movie, then the filmmakers have achieved their purpose to entertain and influence their audience. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Yes, Disney's Pocahontas is historically inaccurate-not to mention that basic laws of physics are also suspended (i.e. diving off an water and living ect.). Yet what I find more interesting is what Toplin talked about in his work, what historians can learn about the socitety that made the film. More specifically, what can we learn by looking at what was left in the film despite its inaccuracies. The first thing that struck me was Disney portrayal of the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+Noble+savage&aq=0&aqi=l1g1&aql=&oq=noble+savage+def&gs_rfai=C8p770n5-TLvOD5aCywSwhb1oAAAAqgQFT9CIA1w&pbx=1 noble savage] idea through out the film. In the work there is almost constant imagery suggesting that the Native Americans are more in-tune with god, nature, and each other simply because they lack what the colonists have, advanced technology. The question is then, what outstanding events might have made the filmmakers more likely to put this idea in the film (I'm not arguing its wrong or right I'm looking at this objectively). In 1995 the begins of the Free Tibet movement were starting possibly generating a cultural desire to oppose more militaristic forces. Also, the film spends a lot of time attempting to educate its viewers about the negative connotations with using the word "savage." This prompted one of the most interesting historical inaccuracies I noticed, which is the John Smith himself attempts to dissuade his fellow colonists form using the word "savage", while in his memoirs make free use of this word. So, I believe the correct approach to viewing this film is the one Toplin outlines, by treating it as a primary source on the times that created it. Disney films are notorious for slipping in subliminal messaging, or Hollywoodizing stroies. If we go into the film knowing this we can learn much about modern history, -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While as mentioned by everyone else that "Pocahontas" is not a historically accurate, I agree with Samantha that when you take into account the age group that the film is intended for, Disney really could not produce a film filled with death and adult themes. The movie does however, provide a good overview of several important historical themes, for example, through the character of Governor Radcliffe represents the Virginia Company. At one point in the movie he describes the colonists as, "witless peasants to dig up my gold". He goes on to describe the English expectation of finding gold just as the Spanish had in the New World. <br />
<br />
My favorite quote in the movie was when Wiggins, in response to Governor Radcliffe asking why the Indians would be upset with them said, "Because we invaded their land, cut down their trees, and dug up their earth." The movie did a good job of portraying the overarching themes, through simplification, as well as frequently taking liberty with history. For example when both the Indians and English sing the song describing each other as savages, it shows how the different cultures viewed one another. Another example of the difference in cultures was when John Smith started talking about gold, and Pocahontas pulled out an ear of corn. While that is not what he meant, corn was the equivalent of gold to the Indians, further showing the differences in their societies. While Pocahontas instantaneously learning English, picking up bearcubs and talking with a tree is probably far fetched, all things considered the movie does a good job of being entertaing to its target audience and including the parts of history that a 7 year old could watch and understand. ~ Michael G.<br />
<br />
The flag that the English used in the film was not made in 1607. It was first created in 1801,after Ireland became part of the United Kingdom. The flag they could have used, in 1607, was the Flag of England. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac in that Pocahontas is good as a primary source for understanding the mid-1990s. With the 90s we see the rise of environmentalism and I think this is emphasized in the film when Native Americans are shown living in "harmony" with nature. Other films that came out around this time like Fern Gully (1992) and tv networks like Nickelodeon doing marathons like Big Help (although I believe this started in the 80s).<br />
At the same time Pocahontas is a so-so secondary source on historical Pocahontas. I'll try not to repeat the same things other have but there is the whole lie about Powhatan "strongly suggesting" Pocahontas marry Kocoum and Pocahontas resisting that because he is too serious. As we all know this isn't true and as Professor McClurken pointed out rarely in Native American societies did they force women to marry against their will. I'll stop here before I go on a rant :-) Edit: Ok one more thing. I understand Disney is under no obligation to be historically accurate but why do they have to base it off a historical character? They could easily make a film full of lies about Native Americans without having to butcher the truth about Pocahontas. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 11:50, 1 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think that my comments will basically mirror the ones above, in that Disney's Pocahontas is not very historically accurate. But Disney did do a decent job of describing why many people came over to the New World in the first place, which was primarily to find gold and silver. I think they were also accurate in how the Native Americans and English viewed each other, with fear. While people, mostly those who know their history make fun of the movie, I think that the film tried to show how ignorance and hatred of something unknown could lead to violence and because it is a Disney movie there has to be a positive moral message at the end and considering the intended audience I think that it is a good message to send.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
<br />
After watching the movie, reading the online source for this week, and being in class for lecture on Tuesday I can conclude that Disney's version of Pocahontas ''may'' have exaggerated the relationship and tale of John Smith and Pocahontas. The most striking difference between the reality and truth is the intimate relationship the two had. I think this is really what trips people up because the general public or Disney fans want to believe that the two were together in a romantic way. What I tend to think about is the fact that Disney did in fact use one of the versions of the tale of John Smith and Pocahontas, just the least likely one. Of course, they had good reason to. The other versions that John Smith or his friends told were kind of boring and would not have made for a good movie. On a positive note, the movie did incorporate some truth such as utilizing names of actual historical people or places e.g. Pocahontas, John Smith, Ratcliff, Kocuom, Jamestown. The Native Americans' use of canoes and the importance of corn are also historically accurate. I think while it's important for people to know the historically accurate account of Pocahontas, I really don't think Disney was really looking for the movie to be exactly like the true tale. They wanted to produce a story for entertainment purposes. Hopefully, those who don't know the truth will someday take a history class or after getting awful looks from historians or history majors will soon become enlightened. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
I like how Amy V. phrased her comment; Disney wasn't completely historically inaccurate. Yes, the major plot points, for the most part, were completely wrong. But if you look at many of the details of the film that Amy mentioned, Disney didn't completely get ''everything'' wrong. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As other people have mentioned, Disney's "Pocahontas" is not historically accurate. First, in real life there is no evidence that they were romantically involved because there was about a twenty year age gap. In the movie, it seems that Pocahontas and John Smith are both the same age. Actually, Pocahontas was around eleven years old when she met John Smith. Another issue that they did not emphasize in the movie was the language barrier. They show the Native Americans speaking a different language at first, but then they change to English. At first Pocahontas could not understand John Smith, but then she changed a few minutes later to speaking English. I understand that this movie is for entertainment and for children, but some people believe that most movies are historically accurate. The entire theme of the movie, I think, is a very good theme. Basically they are showing kids that these two groups are about to fight because they are just different. This pertains to many real situations throughout the world. In the end, John Smith and Pocahontas shows that they should not fight, but they should talk first. Of course, it does not mention what happens later with more fighting between the English and the Native Americans. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
My comments have been pretty much summed up by all the previous posts. Not historically accurate, but gives people an idea of the early settlements and the challenges that many of them faced. I think it is also a tool for getting younger children interested in history. While it's not completely true, at least they are getting them interested in something that they can fully understand later. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Although Disney's movie was not historically accurate in the traditional sense, I still believe that it does have historical value. Disney's movie reflects the change that John Smith's original story underwent over time. It morphed from a memoir into popular fairytale and that change gives insight into the social history at the time. -- Erin L.<br />
<br />
As much as I loved Pocahontas as a kid, being a history major has made the movie less enjoyable now because I know the real story. After reading John Smith's account and watching the movie, I am not sure where to begin. Almost everyone knows that Pocahontas and John Smith did not have a relationship in reality. From what I read in John Smith's papers, their meeting was very brief and to the point... she was there to retrieve the Indian prisoners the English held. In that brief meeting, she did not fall in love with him. I am sure this has already been stated above, but Disney made this movie with the clear intent of entertaining, not informing of a historical event/historical people. Honestly, if you were to think if the movie was made with 100% historical accuracy, it would be a pretty boring movie! Disney did get it right in one aspect, that at the end, the Indians and English were friends, just as John Smith's papers described. Oh, and the movie also showed John Smith wielding a compass, just like Smith wrote about giving at compass to the Indians. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
==John Smith (1608) reading==<br />
I was sort of confused by the John Smith reading. I thought it was interesting to see how his views of Native Americans changed quickly, at one point they were going to kill him and the settlers then the next moment they were bringing him corn, and venison. But I'm inclined to think that relations were probably similar to that, they had good times and bad times. Smith also seemed really full of himself, especially in the way he describes Powahttan's feelings toward himself. The other thing I noticed was the way he would sometimes refer to Powahattan as "Emperor", which I just thought was interesting.<br />
<br />
I found John Smith’s account of his early time in Virginia very interesting. I think what struck me the most was how Smith conceptualized the Native American settlements and “classes”. All Smith knew were Kingdoms, hamlets, countries, etc. so the only way he understood the social structure was the English way. He continued to refer to each new area that he was taken to as a new country with its own King, which all seemed, in his mind, to be ruled by Powhatan the “emperor” of the area. He also referred to Powhatans and other kings “subject” as nobles. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I was curious about how much Smith claims to have discussed with the Native Americans. I know from experience that creative acting can help to overcome language barriers, but he almost makes it seem as though Pocahontas's magic ability to speak English in the film is possible. Smith writes that he listened to stories of "the roundness of the earth, the course of the sun, moon, stars and planets" with one of the Native American leaders, which seems to be a very abstract topic for two groups only relatively recently acquainted and speaking very different languages. How much is Smith inferring in order to make his story seem more exciting. I mean, "and then we sat around and awkwardly tried to get the other person to figure out what I was saying" doesn't sound nearly as impressive. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed about Smith's journal was the overflowing of what almost seemed like poetry at the beginning. It was a bit frilly and less to the point, at least at the beginning. I did notice that by the end, the recollections were more straight to the point. It was also interesting to see Smith use European terms for the Native American tribes he encountered, such as kings, countries, etc. I wonder, though, how much of his journal is factual and how much of it was added by Smith for the "readers sake". - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I, as well as everyone above me, found Smith's narrative to be very interesting and one of the things that captivated me the most was his recollection of all the trade between the English and the Native Americans. The Native Americans probably found all of the tools, copper, beads, little trinkets, etc. to be new and exciting but my question would be did the Native Americans truly understand everything they were given? According to Smith's account the two people easily understood one another, but was a piece of copper really worth sustaining the Englishmen, did the Native Americans know what they were in for? Trade was clearly a way of life and according to Smith something that kept the colonists and himself alive. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found John Smith's papers interesting, just as everyone else above has said. With that said, there were many things about his papers that I question. He portrays his relationship with the Indians as one that was friendly and cordial. Whether or not that is true, one might never know. But Smith made it seem as though the Indians and him were best friends and that the Indian chiefs loved him. Also, the way he describes the Indian villages. He said the "kings" (or chiefs) lived in large houses. If by houses, he meant tepees, then that is understandable as well. I was actually surprised with all the corn the colonists received. It was funny because in Pocahontas, the colonists did not have the slightest idea of what corn was, yet in John Smith's account, they were collecting it in abundance. Another thing that surprised me was how Smith stated at the end of his paper that all the colonists were in good health. The colonists were lucky because I am sure sickness was a frequent occurrence for them. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
John Smith's account strongly highlighted the lack of understanding of the various Native American tribes. Throughout the journal Smith and his men depended heavily on the Native Americans for their food supply, yet Smith would talk about the trades and in the next sentence refer to some of his men engaging in a battle with the Native Americans. It seemed as if the colonists did not recognize the differences in the tribes and, in doing so, made surviving much more difficult. The relationships they created were filled with distrust and Smith's misunderstanding of their culture and tribal divisions only added to the problems and level of conflict between the two groups. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
Throughout John Smith's journal, he portrays himself as the central figure in a dangerous adventure, where the native americans can never be trusted, even though they continually show him great kindness and bestow gifts of food on him and his settlement. Even as they are continuosly showering him with gifts, he writes that he was very suspicious of Powhatan and other's true intentions. He makes himself appear as if he is almost omniscient, and can read their minds. Disney is not alone in their exaggeration of how great John Smith was. - Michael G.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-09-02T03:08:50Z<p>Celiacroft: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>This is a test.<br />
<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
First, how cool is it that Powhatan's people had a Universal Translator centuries before "Star Trek's" Federation invented one? Who knew...all we needed to do was listen to the trees! But about the movie itself, as people have already said, we can't expect anything from Disney but Disneyland: cute animals and at least one dead parent. So it's interesting to see what accuracies the film actually has. First, John Smith described the 10-year-old he met as "but for wit and spirit the only Nonpareil of his [Powhatan's] Country." ("Nonpareil" means "without equal.") The screen Pocahontas certainly was all that. Also, we know that the Native Americans and the Europeans regarded each other as savages, but for different reasons, and the movie gives us a flavor of that, too. Disney even added thievery, but blamed it on the raccoon and not the Native Americans, as Smith does. The movie gives one rather bizarre nod to actual history: Smith's account mentions a compass, which is highly symbolic in the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In general, when it comes down to the details the movie really is not that historically accurate. However, I think Disney did do a good job of capturing the overall historical generalities of the story. The movie accurately gives the reasons for why the English originally came to colonize the New World, for the sole prospect of finding gold like the Spanish did in South America. The movie also shows that the colonists came to the New World with an idealized view of what they would find and what would happen when they arrived. They viewed the Native Americans as savages and assumed that they would immediately become rich upon arriving. -- Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin's point. The very beginning (the people getting on the VA Company ship) did a great job giving a glorified view of the VA Company; the way many of the colonists probably saw it. The settlers original ideas compared to what they actually found was also very well done - one of them mentions that they don't have any food, although this is the only real reference to starvation in the film (I guess Disney tends to shy away from topics like starvation). I think Disney also got the colonists' view of the Native Americans right - Thomas's line, "If any Indian tries to stop me, I'll blast them." epitomizes how the English saw their situation. - Celia<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
First of all, I do not believe that Kocoum was killed by Thomas Salvage, especially during the early settling years (1607 -1608). Furthermore, in the movie, Pocohantas was told that she must marry Kocoum, but as we learned on Tuesday, the entire tribe and the potential bride must consent to the marriage. As far as the terrain is concerned, the landscape of Jamestown portrayed in the movie looks more like the landscape of the Shenandoah Valley than the swampy beachy mess that they actually settled in. While we are on the subject of landscape, did anyone notice in the first scene that the Native Americans were farming in the English manner, with perfect rows of vegetables? I had learned in the past that Native American farming was and ingenuous mix of vegetables that worked in concert with each other, (ie the Tomato vine growing up the corn stalk).Throughout his account, John Smith was constantly questioning the motives of the Native Americans and attempting to bargain with them. He did not strike me as the open minded hopeless romantic that Disney portrays him as. Lastly, the final scene of the movie implies the English settlers left the colony when in fact we know this to be false. – Caryn<br />
<br />
One thing the movie glosses over is how desperate the situation in Jamestown was. Yes, the Native Americans bring baskets of food towards the end, but it's not because the colonists are starving. In his account, Smith makes no secret of how much corn the colonists got from the Native Americans (both given and stolen), and it seems quite clear that even fewer would have survived in the colony without that supply of food. Not a single man dies of disease or starvation in the movie, which could be because it is a children's move after all. The movie certainly oversimplifies the relationship between the two groups; it was ultimately a much more complicated situation than that the colonists and Native Americans simply needed to talk about their differences. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I'm slightly confused and maybe someone can answer this for me. Was there not already a "settlement" by the time Pocohontas was 10-11? I don't mean a fully functioning settlement, but in the movie, they arrive to absolutely nothing and I just thought there was at least some establishment by the time John Smith and Pocohontas get involved. Other than that and aside from the nit-picky things we all know were inaccurate, I didnt think there was an all out war between the Native Americans and the colonist at this point. It certainly didn't seem that way from Smith's journal. And how come we never hear about the journal in the film? After all, it's what got this whole story started! - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
This has bothered me since I was a nerdy child. Pocahontas was not an adult when she met John Smith, and they were not romantically involved! I know it makes for a lovely Disney Princess sort of story, but even THAT concept is misleading, as she was not in any close succession for leadership. The next Anglicization of Native American culture in this movie would definitely be the fields: nice, neat rows, separated by crop. English? Yes. Easier to animate? Perhaps. Historically accurate? Nope. And finally, the day that someone finds that waterfall in Jamestown, I will personally kayak off of it. I do not need to worry about this, because I know the area, and it is completely, utterly flat. There are a myriad of other inaccuracies, but these seem to be the most glaring. - Cilla<br />
<br />
This was the first time that I had seen Pocahontas so after listening to the lecture, I was stunned during the film showing. From the landscape details to the set up of the camp, I did not find anything to be the same. John Smith was referred to once as a captain and there not any other references to other captains, despite the fact that there were seven in the original colony. In the movie, Pocahontas never married Kocoum, despite her father's best attempts. And, of course, the driving force throughout the movie was the relationship between John Smith and Pocahontas (so intense, in fact, that she was willing to sacrifice her life to save his). In the same scene, the English people had an immediate change of heart in regards to their relations with the Natives. - Kelly R.<br />
== Movie as primary source ==<br />
<br />
Okay, okay, aside from tearing apart this movie because it makes me want to be my head against the wall from a historical standpoint, I think Pocahontas does something very important for the mid-1990s: it puts Native Americans on screen in a substantial, legitimate way. Yes, it's Disney, and it's a cartoon, but it's aimed at kids, so that makes sense. There are very few examples of Native Americans in lead roles of movies, animated or otherwise, and even fewer that show Native Americans as just as civilized and varied in their behavior as, in this case, the English. It's pretty fake, and it's pretty cheesy, but it's representation that is otherwise really hard to come by. Making the decision to broaden the ethnic focus of their human main characters says a lot about Disney's ideals at the time. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== General comments for Pocahontas == <br />
<br />
Disney's perception of history is slightly different than the actual facts but does tell a more entertaining story with characters such as Meeko, the raccoon who steals biscuits (hard tack?) and Grandmother Willow. I discovered watching the movie now presented itself in a more comical fashion rather than reality. As a resident of Williamsburg and working with tourists I have discovered the impact a movie can have on people's perception of history, especially when asked "Where are the waterfalls and cliffs?" To a child it is hard to say the waterfalls nor Grandmother Willow exist but to an adult I want to ask if they have taken a history class but prefer to keep my job. In some ways I feel Disney does tell the story well, they include the correct characters, time in history, the rivers, a correct depiction of how many trees and types of wildlife surround Jamestown, the gender roles of Native American men and women, the colonists disgust with work, and how tribes worked together to fight an unknown enemy. On the other hand, Pocahontas's age, her romance with John Smith, and the colonists singing about their work are not historical facts. It is clear Disney attempted to include facts but in true Disney fashion turned Pocahontas into a Disney princess that falls in love with the hero. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I still love this movie although I am aware it is not exactly historically correct. At least in this movie John Smith and Pocahontas do not end up together. That is historically accurate granted they were never romantically involved because she was ten and he was thrity five but hey Disney was not all wrong. I think Disney did depict the correct gender roles such as when Pocahontas was prevented from discussing war and she was out farming with her friend. Also I think Disney got it right when John Smith was talking to Pocahones about how her people were savages. That was true, the European view of Native Americans was decidedly negative which was depicted in the movie. I do not think Disney did a good job depicting what life was really like in Jamestowne but it is a movie for children and they did get a few things right. - LeAnn T.<br />
<br />
As much as it pains me to say it, some people actually believe what they see in the movies. As the movie began, I was telling my girlfriend about how Pocahontas first met John Smith she was only 12 and he was 35, she looked at me with a crinkled face and said "eww." That's when I realized that she was still under the impression that Pocahontas and Smith were involved on an intimate level. This is the main problem that Disney movies present to children, telling a story that seems like the truth when the actual truth is not even known. Kids are not aware of what really happened, so it is up to classes like this one and other history classes in grade school to dispel such lies. Basically, these lies or misrepresentations, and form what we learned in class on Tuesday, they got just about every detail wrong, could have been easily fixed while maintaining an enjoyable movie. Whenever a historical movie is made the directors should be obligated to consult an expert on the topic. It would be one thing for them to leave certain elements out, but to create an entirely different story is misleading and wrong. The viewers should be made aware before viewing the movie that certain portions of the film are fictional and should be offered a more factual option if they so desire to learn more about the subject. The one good thing that I noticed from this film was the emphasis placed on having an appreciation for our planet. This message can still be useful today and I am glad that it is being presented to children in such a way that will interest them. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
The portrayal of Pocahontas from a historical perspective and Disney’s perspective leaves one to believe that Pocahontas must have been the name of two totally different Native Americans. One of the first differences is the obvious age of Pocahontas when she first meets John Smith. Historically data from John Smith himself gives Pocahontas’ age as around 10 years old, much, much younger than how Disney portrays her as an adult. But, we must remember that Disney’s world is one of fantasy where anything can happen and loves to tell stories to children.<br />
<br />
Another historical difference is that in the Disney movie, Pocahontas can be believed to be an only child, when in historical accuracy she had dozens of siblings running around. Yet, Disney may have gotten it right when in the movie, she is portrayed as having a special attachment to her father in that he may have been inclined to listen and consider some of her thoughts.--Debbie M.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think that we can all agree that for the most part, Disney's "Pocahontas" is pretty historically inaccurate. There were no talking trees or animals, Pocahontas was not a grown woman when she met John Smith, she was not immediately blessed with the ability to speak English, and the list goes on. That being said, most of these false elements were put in place to entertain the audience: children. As a student of the education program, we regularly discuss the importance of keeping children engaged in a plot by using such elements, so this is a smart move on Disney's part. However, I don't think we're giving Disney enough credit. How can we expect them to portray a perfectly accurate story of Pocahontaas and John Smith when we don't even know the true story ourselves? If you consider that during the execution scene Disney is roughly following what Smith penned in his last memoirs, then Disney is portraying this correctly. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Pocahontas" is definitely not an accurate portrayal of history. Anyone who has taken a Virginia history class should know that. However, Disney is not a historical documentary production company. So it is harsh to say that Disney is completely wrong to create a fictional account of history when its audience is children, usually age 10 and under. Young children would not understand all of the historical aspects of the story which is probably why Disney created its own version. Disney tales are notorious for the “happily ever after” endings. Children are innocent and are not yet able to comprehend the harsh realities of the adult world. "Pocahontas" gives a much softer account of the first arrival of the English. It does not show the starvation and diseases which plagued the English settlements. It shows that if both sides are willing to talk about their problems and compromise they will usually avoid bloody battles.<br />
This goes back to a point last week that was mentioned in class, that movies do not always have to be accurate. If they make a person want to learn more about a topic he or she saw in a movie, then the filmmakers have achieved their purpose to entertain and influence their audience. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Yes, Disney's Pocahontas is historically inaccurate-not to mention that basic laws of physics are also suspended (i.e. diving off an water and living ect.). Yet what I find more interesting is what Toplin talked about in his work, what historians can learn about the socitety that made the film. More specifically, what can we learn by looking at what was left in the film despite its inaccuracies. The first thing that struck me was Disney portrayal of the [http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&q=define%3A+Noble+savage&aq=0&aqi=l1g1&aql=&oq=noble+savage+def&gs_rfai=C8p770n5-TLvOD5aCywSwhb1oAAAAqgQFT9CIA1w&pbx=1 noble savage] idea through out the film. In the work there is almost constant imagery suggesting that the Native Americans are more in-tune with god, nature, and each other simply because they lack what the colonists have, advanced technology. The question is then, what outstanding events might have made the filmmakers more likely to put this idea in the film (I'm not arguing its wrong or right I'm looking at this objectively). In 1995 the begins of the Free Tibet movement were starting possibly generating a cultural desire to oppose more militaristic forces. Also, the film spends a lot of time attempting to educate its viewers about the negative connotations with using the word "savage." This prompted one of the most interesting historical inaccuracies I noticed, which is the John Smith himself attempts to dissuade his fellow colonists form using the word "savage", while in his memoirs make free use of this word. So, I believe the correct approach to viewing this film is the one Toplin outlines, by treating it as a primary source on the times that created it. Disney films are notorious for slipping in subliminal messaging, or Hollywoodizing stroies. If we go into the film knowing this we can learn much about modern history, -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
While as mentioned by everyone else that "Pocahontas" is not a historically accurate, I agree with Samantha that when you take into account the age group that the film is intended for, Disney really could not produce a film filled with death and adult themes. The movie does however, provide a good overview of several important historical themes, for example, through the character of Governor Radcliffe represents the Virginia Company. At one point in the movie he describes the colonists as, "witless peasants to dig up my gold". He goes on to describe the English expectation of finding gold just as the Spanish had in the New World. <br />
<br />
My favorite quote in the movie was when Wiggins, in response to Governor Radcliffe asking why the Indians would be upset with them said, "Because we invaded their land, cut down their trees, and dug up their earth." The movie did a good job of portraying the overarching themes, through simplification, as well as frequently taking liberty with history. For example when both the Indians and English sing the song describing each other as savages, it shows how the different cultures viewed one another. Another example of the difference in cultures was when John Smith started talking about gold, and Pocahontas pulled out an ear of corn. While that is not what he meant, corn was the equivalent of gold to the Indians, further showing the differences in their societies. While Pocahontas instantaneously learning English, picking up bearcubs and talking with a tree is probably far fetched, all things considered the movie does a good job of being entertaing to its target audience and including the parts of history that a 7 year old could watch and understand. ~ Michael G.<br />
<br />
The flag that the English used in the film was not made in 1607. It was first created in 1801,after Ireland became part of the United Kingdom. The flag they could have used, in 1607, was the Flag of England. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac in that Pocahontas is good as a primary source for understanding the mid-1990s. With the 90s we see the rise of environmentalism and I think this is emphasized in the film when Native Americans are shown living in "harmony" with nature. Other films that came out around this time like Fern Gully (1992) and tv networks like Nickelodeon doing marathons like Big Help (although I believe this started in the 80s).<br />
At the same time Pocahontas is a so-so secondary source on historical Pocahontas. I'll try not to repeat the same things other have but there is the whole lie about Powhatan "strongly suggesting" Pocahontas marry Kocoum and Pocahontas resisting that because he is too serious. As we all know this isn't true and as Professor McClurken pointed out rarely in Native American societies did they force women to marry against their will. I'll stop here before I go on a rant :-) Edit: Ok one more thing. I understand Disney is under no obligation to be historically accurate but why do they have to base it off a historical character? They could easily make a film full of lies about Native Americans without having to butcher the truth about Pocahontas. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 11:50, 1 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think that my comments will basically mirror the ones above, in that Disney's Pocahontas is not very historically accurate. But Disney did do a decent job of describing why many people came over to the New World in the first place, which was primarily to find gold and silver. I think they were also accurate in how the Native Americans and English viewed each other, with fear. While people, mostly those who know their history make fun of the movie, I think that the film tried to show how ignorance and hatred of something unknown could lead to violence and because it is a Disney movie there has to be a positive moral message at the end and considering the intended audience I think that it is a good message to send.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
<br />
After watching the movie, reading the online source for this week, and being in class for lecture on Tuesday I can conclude that Disney's version of Pocahontas ''may'' have exaggerated the relationship and tale of John Smith and Pocahontas. The most striking difference between the reality and truth is the intimate relationship the two had. I think this is really what trips people up because the general public or Disney fans want to believe that the two were together in a romantic way. What I tend to think about is the fact that Disney did in fact use one of the versions of the tale of John Smith and Pocahontas, just the least likely one. Of course, they had good reason to. The other versions that John Smith or his friends told were kind of boring and would not have made for a good movie. On a positive note, the movie did incorporate some truth such as utilizing names of actual historical people or places e.g. Pocahontas, John Smith, Ratcliff, Kocuom, Jamestown. The Native Americans' use of canoes and the importance of corn are also historically accurate. I think while it's important for people to know the historically accurate account of Pocahontas, I really don't think Disney was really looking for the movie to be exactly like the true tale. They wanted to produce a story for entertainment purposes. Hopefully, those who don't know the truth will someday take a history class or after getting awful looks from historians or history majors will soon become enlightened. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
<br />
I like how Amy V. phrased her comment; Disney wasn't completely historically inaccurate. Yes, the major plot points, for the most part, were completely wrong. But if you look at many of the details of the film that Amy mentioned, Disney didn't completely get ''everything'' wrong. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As other people have mentioned, Disney's "Pocahontas" is not historically accurate. First, in real life there is no evidence that they were romantically involved because there was about a twenty year age gap. In the movie, it seems that Pocahontas and John Smith are both the same age. Actually, Pocahontas was around eleven years old when she met John Smith. Another issue that they did not emphasize in the movie was the language barrier. They show the Native Americans speaking a different language at first, but then they change to English. At first Pocahontas could not understand John Smith, but then she changed a few minutes later to speaking English. I understand that this movie is for entertainment and for children, but some people believe that most movies are historically accurate. The entire theme of the movie, I think, is a very good theme. Basically they are showing kids that these two groups are about to fight because they are just different. This pertains to many real situations throughout the world. In the end, John Smith and Pocahontas shows that they should not fight, but they should talk first. Of course, it does not mention what happens later with more fighting between the English and the Native Americans. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
My comments have been pretty much summed up by all the previous posts. Not historically accurate, but gives people an idea of the early settlements and the challenges that many of them faced. I think it is also a tool for getting younger children interested in history. While it's not completely true, at least they are getting them interested in something that they can fully understand later. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Although Disney's movie was not historically accurate in the traditional sense, I still believe that it does have historical value. Disney's movie reflects the change that John Smith's original story underwent over time. It morphed from a memoir into popular fairytale and that change gives insight into the social history at the time. -- Erin L.<br />
<br />
As much as I loved Pocahontas as a kid, being a history major has made the movie less enjoyable now because I know the real story. After reading John Smith's account and watching the movie, I am not sure where to begin. Almost everyone knows that Pocahontas and John Smith did not have a relationship in reality. From what I read in John Smith's papers, their meeting was very brief and to the point... she was there to retrieve the Indian prisoners the English held. In that brief meeting, she did not fall in love with him. I am sure this has already been stated above, but Disney made this movie with the clear intent of entertaining, not informing of a historical event/historical people. Honestly, if you were to think if the movie was made with 100% historical accuracy, it would be a pretty boring movie! Disney did get it right in one aspect, that at the end, the Indians and English were friends, just as John Smith's papers described. Oh, and the movie also showed John Smith wielding a compass, just like Smith wrote about giving at compass to the Indians. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
==John Smith (1608) reading==<br />
I was sort of confused by the John Smith reading. I thought it was interesting to see how his views of Native Americans changed quickly, at one point they were going to kill him and the settlers then the next moment they were bringing him corn, and venison. But I'm inclined to think that relations were probably similar to that, they had good times and bad times. Smith also seemed really full of himself, especially in the way he describes Powahttan's feelings toward himself. The other thing I noticed was the way he would sometimes refer to Powahattan as "Emperor", which I just thought was interesting.<br />
<br />
I found John Smith’s account of his early time in Virginia very interesting. I think what struck me the most was how Smith conceptualized the Native American settlements and “classes”. All Smith knew were Kingdoms, hamlets, countries, etc. so the only way he understood the social structure was the English way. He continued to refer to each new area that he was taken to as a new country with its own King, which all seemed, in his mind, to be ruled by Powhatan the “emperor” of the area. He also referred to Powhatans and other kings “subject” as nobles. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I was curious about how much Smith claims to have discussed with the Native Americans. I know from experience that creative acting can help to overcome language barriers, but he almost makes it seem as though Pocahontas's magic ability to speak English in the film is possible. Smith writes that he listened to stories of "the roundness of the earth, the course of the sun, moon, stars and planets" with one of the Native American leaders, which seems to be a very abstract topic for two groups only relatively recently acquainted and speaking very different languages. How much is Smith inferring in order to make his story seem more exciting. I mean, "and then we sat around and awkwardly tried to get the other person to figure out what I was saying" doesn't sound nearly as impressive. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The first thing I noticed about Smith's journal was the overflowing of what almost seemed like poetry at the beginning. It was a bit frilly and less to the point, at least at the beginning. I did notice that by the end, the recollections were more straight to the point. It was also interesting to see Smith use European terms for the Native American tribes he encountered, such as kings, countries, etc. I wonder, though, how much of his journal is factual and how much of it was added by Smith for the "readers sake". - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I, as well as everyone above me, found Smith's narrative to be very interesting and one of the things that captivated me the most was his recollection of all the trade between the English and the Native Americans. The Native Americans probably found all of the tools, copper, beads, little trinkets, etc. to be new and exciting but my question would be did the Native Americans truly understand everything they were given? According to Smith's account the two people easily understood one another, but was a piece of copper really worth sustaining the Englishmen, did the Native Americans know what they were in for? Trade was clearly a way of life and according to Smith something that kept the colonists and himself alive. -Megan W.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-08-26T02:44:42Z<p>Celiacroft: </p>
<hr />
<div>Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's reading here.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
==Reel History, Introduction==<br />
<br />
I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, " Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind." (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that both ''Reel History'' and "Slaves on Screen" commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?- Rachael <br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the author made a really good point about historians getting annoyed with films for not presenting the full or true story by pointing out that teachers and scholars are also very selective with how they present information. I think that historical films are important for exactly the same reasons that the author pointed out - they may not always tell the entire truth, but they make the viewer ask questions and want to learn more. This has happened to me dozens of times, and I think it is a valid point. If a historical film provokes a viewer into learning more, I think it can be called a successful representation of whatever it attempted to interpret. I also agree with Rachael's question about the rules that are applied to filmmakers but not historians. "Slaves on Screen" pointed out that historians should have an obligation to point out whether or not something is their own speculation: "If [historians] are interpreting beyond what their evidence strictly offers, they should say so" (11). I feel as if many historians would be more than willing to point out inaccuracies in films, but would be far less willing to admit that their opinions may be similarly based on speculation. - Celia<br />
<br />
I enjoyed Toplin's introduction to his ideas in "Reel History", especially his suggestion that films do have significant historical value, and not only as works of fiction. I thought it was very interesting at the end of the chapter that he wrote that "cinematic history is too important to shove aside as simply fiction, entertainment, symbolism, or commentary about current events." I agree with Toplin that films should be examined more closely in terms of historical accuracy and new interpretations. They can raise valid questions about events and decisions that were made in the past. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
<br />
Toplin argues for "a balanced approach in assessing cinema's treatments of the past" (2), and I am looking forward to understanding the differing viewpoints of historians, film critics, screenwriters and directors. Talking about film in general is important because watching movies is such a visceral experience, and discussing reel history is even more important because of the sheer numbers of people who see historical films and draw conclusions from them. Toplin says, "Cinematic history excites inordinate public interest and critical attention," and I think that's healthy and exciting. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I also greatly enjoyed this introduction. The point I found most interesting is when Toplin states that historians can use an imagined event to make a point when writing a text, as long as they admit to doing so (page 7). Why are filmmakers not held to this same standard? Historians seem to attack filmmakers for doing the same. -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Toplin that movies cannot replace printed history because the time constraints limit the amount of background information and context of a story. However, movies do provide a new look into history to many who do not enjoy reading historical literature. It is unfortunate, but a majority of people do not enjoy reading history, attending lectures, etc. However, they do enjoy watching movies and television shows that depict historical events and people. Movies help historians force people to become curious about history after watching the movies. Movies provide a different look at historical events that aid in studying printed history. For example, if a class is studying the dropping of the atomic bombs, of course they would understand how destructive and powerful the bombs were and read about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki casualties. However, if the same class watched a movie portraying the dropping of the bombs and images of the destruction, the students would have a much more powerful understanding of the event because they can actually see what happened instead of using pure imagination.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I felt myself nodding in agreement quite frequently while reading this introduction. Two major points stood out for me. First was the idea that film and literature could complement each other, as each is good for a different aspect of conveying history. Reading academic literature or attending a formal lecture is good for the factual side of history: the dates, the names, the places. Watching a movie, however, is good for the abstract side of history: the emotions, the questions, the moral quandaries. I personally think it takes a bit of both the factual and the abstract to get the most complete story. Second was the double standard for historical fiction. As Anna mentioned, as long as historical fiction is in print, people do not seem to complain, but the second that it becomes a movie, everyone is analyzing its accuracy. That seems unfair. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I too agreed with Toplin and his statements about the analysis of cinematic history. One thought that struck me as I read it was that an attentive audience can learn not only about the ideals of past history from what is there, but also learn about the ideals of modern history from what is not there. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I think the most interesting contradiction in this piece is between prose and poetry as well as Historical prose and a Historical movie. Regarding these four things, prose is analogous to Historical prose and poetry is analogous to a Historical movie. These distinctions are incredibly interesting in that prose and Historical prose are very basic and often used to simply tell the facts, whereas with a poem or a movie you have more freedom. There may still be facts involved, but they are just presented differently and both poetry and movies have more freedom to fictionalize things. Although there are contrasts, poetry depends on prose, just like a Historical movie depends on Historical facts. -afrisk<br />
<br />
==Slaves on Screen==<br />
<br />
The idea that stuck out most in this reading was the concept of historians being able to maintain an "open mind" about the depiction of what history is. They should be able to look at history without previous "notions" about what they want history to be lurking in the fore front (10). "Keeping one's mind Open," allows historians the ability to take a look at history from a different angle (10). Without this ability they might just miss out on all the unexpected happenings that may have occurred throughout history. The weird and the wonderful are what keep history from manifesting into mirror images of the present in one's own personal rear view. - Michael E. <br />
<br />
The beginning pages of "Slaves on Screen" seemed to ask the questions: can you accurately portray historical events with the constraints associated with film making? I would ago a step further and ask, can you reach an audience in an accessible way, one in which interests and engages them without adding a personal narrative to a historical film? Though I am a huge fan of the documentary, I would rather find a way to relate to my feature film experience. What I mean is essentially this, historical feature film directors, screen writers and actors take a bit of liberty with the feelings, dialog and character development, among other things. If they did not do this, how would we relate to the story. This ties in with the "Why Movies Matter" article in the statement “What audiences see is partly reflective of what they are and what they are is influenced by what they see” (1). - Caryn L. <br />
<br />
I also liked the Sergie Einstein’s concept of making the battleship itself a character in the movie. That makes sense in a way because the ensemble of a cast may have to interact and orient themselves with and around this battleship, making it in turn an intricate part of the cast. - Caryn L.<br />
<br />
<br />
Davis says that historical films "speculate" about the past, and calls the films "thought experiments." This is an interesting approach to studying cinematic history, because speculation and experimentation require the very things that movies do really well. Movies have raided the toolboxes of all other visual and aural media---for instance, like medieval iconography movies convey complex ideas through simple imagery. Davis calls these tools "modes of narration" and they make movies incredibly powerful. My question about the power of historical film is, can one be called "honest" when certain details are manipulated for the sake of a tighter, more engaging storyline? What if the film's omissions or imagined additions capture the spirit of the historical event or person? Can such changes (some would say, falsehoods) actually help communicate truth? - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Like Debbi, I found the discussion of the "modes of narration" in films interesting because music, lighting, sounds, costumes, etc., are indeed all of the things that make viewing historical films so much different from reading historical fiction or a scholarly historical work. Through manipulating all of the modes of narration, films can convey something about the spirit or mood of a time and place in vastly different ways than printed works, even if every featured character and event is fictional. For me, it is often that overall texture of the historical era portrayed that resonates most strongly after the film ends. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think the author raises an interesting point about how long film as a medium has had to develop, as opposed to historical research. As film has only really come into being in the last hundred years, it’s methods of portraying history have not been perfected. We, however, have grown up with easy access to films and tend to forget that compared to historical research, it has not had the time to mature in their representations of historical events. - Melissa E.<br />
<br />
==Introduction: Why Movies Matter==<br />
<br />
In this reading, the ways movies communicate are compared to the written word, namely newspapers. Newspapers, for a long time, had been the source of knowledge about current events and other happenings. The claim is made that, "we read the newspaper only in parts, the movie picture we see complete" (4). Meaning, any information that people wanted the masses to know could be better received in the motion picture form than in a newspaper. This may have been for many reasons. For one, movies do not require much knowledge to watch them and get the gist of what is going on. For this reason, areas such as politics where made available to people that may not have understood it just by reading the newspaper. Movies allowed politicians to break through previous class, race, and gender barriers and to reach them with their agenda in a way that was simple enough for everyone to understand and in result take part in. -Michael E <br />
<br />
I found the quote at the top of page 8 from Hoover's agents as striking and a comparison to all of the other readings when the agent describes the movie industry "as one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, influence upon the minds and cultures, not only of the people of the United States, but the entire world." Movies then and today have a significant impact on how the general public views any action/reaction to a plot line and as LeAnn wrote earlier you have to be careful with what is shown. At the time when Hoover's agents were watching the film industry they had to be wary of all propaganda shown at the cinema, because people would be pulled one way or another even if it was based off of wrong information. The same goes for historical films if the film shows a set that the director found appealing but is not accurate an audience will walk away with an interpretation based off of incorrect facts. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
To me, the most interesting part of the article was the differentiation between ideology, which depicts the worldview of one film in particular, and discourse, which covers "a large group of films that express a similar worldview" (9). I thought that this was an extremely important distinction, as films with similar ideologies can be from very different genres; this varies the way that audiences react to films. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
What I found most interesting about this article was the quote "What audiences see is partly a reflection of what they are". This could be interpreted in several different ways; are movies influencing people in a way that makes the audience into ideal, blank-slate viewers? Does Hollywood have an agenda to mold America into a nation of mindless robots, who believe all of the stereotypes and ideas that are suggested on the silver screen? Or does this quote propose that audiences merely see a reflection of their being in movie characters? Do the viewers question the plot, the dialogue, the message? Do they synthesize and apply the movie to their life, thereby injecting a spark of their personality into the movie itself? Both of these interpretations bring together a central theme that ran through all of our readings for this week. Are audiences blank slates or questioners? -Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this article because it did not tip toe around the fact that movies intend tell us what to think, how to dress, how to act, etc. Movies teach us how to think about class, race and gender which is why Goebbels propaganda machine was so effective and movies like the Birth of a Nation was so striking. To go further than that, today's movies literally use advertising or product placement to get us to buy things that we probably do not need. -Caryn L.<br />
<br />
<br />
Ross emphasizes the power movies have to shape society by shaping individual viewpoints. I think he's right on target, and proves it in the anecdotes about Hoover, and the Disney president's claim that movies influenced the Chinese uprising. The debate over whether movie violence begats real violence is moot if you accept this core argument about the authority movies wield over political, social and religious thought and behavior. Anna Holman, above, asked some great questions about whether spectators are passive receptacles, blank slates waiting for movies to inscribe values and opinions. I don't think we are blank slates, because we have lives outside of movies that also create our unique selves. But if the mind is a computer, I do think movies are writing a big chunk of our operating system. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought an interesting quote was “Movies matter the most about the things we know the least.” Do other people agree with this? I definitely agree. For example, if people are not in a diverse community, then all they know about people different from them is what they see on the screen. Some people put too much trust in Hollywood and they believe that a lot of things are true on screen. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I absolutely agree with Justine. Some of the most popular movies of the past decades delve into subjects that are utterly foreign to an audience. Whether it's a completely different world, such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, or a mind-bending concept like The Matrix or Inception, people crave original, fresh stories - and to be original these days, you most likely have to come up with something that has never been seen or done before. I think this also applies to the escapist notion of films - that you watch a movie to escape your daily issues. You want to put yourself in another world of which you know nothing - where there aren't any cell phones or annoying fire drills or textbooks. Historical films strike an escapist chord usually because they tell of a so-called "simpler" time, or at least a more slowly-paced time. We don't know what it would be like to live in these worlds, and I think that is why films that depict those worlds tend to be popular. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the interesting parts about this article is the discussion of the early film industry. It was a small-scale and decentralized place and so the possibility for almost anyone to make a film was a reality. The promise of the early film industry was that film would be a way of sending out information and act as a revolutionizing force because it leveled the playing field (see Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" (1936) for a contemporary view on film). By the 1940s this idea is taken over by commercial ventures and we end up with large-scale and centralized film production that we have today. While films very much shape and reflect our culture I think it is interesting to point out this shift in the film industry itself. What does that say about American culture? --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:17, 25 August 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
I found the most interesting quote of this article to be this: "whether a particular cinematic discourse is true or false is less important than its ability to create a dominant sense of reality" (10). In other words, reality is far less important than what people believe to be the truth. I think this is very true of everyday life, especially when taken in conjunction with Justine's discussion above about movies as a source of information on subjects to which some people are otherwise not exposed. -Cilla<br />
<br />
One of the things that has always intrigued me the most about movies is how different dynamics of people react to a movie. Everybody reacts differently depending on the color of their skin, their background social status, where they live and many more. The section on how people react differently to each movie was incredibly interesting and it demonstrated just how drastically people can be affected by what they are seeing on screen. A very interesting question it poses is, “Did anyone pay attention?” I think this is not simply a yes or no answer because some people had to pay more attention than others. For example, FBI director Hoover payed extra attention to movies with a certain theme whereas ordinary citizens would simply analyze say how entertaining it was to watch. In my mind, the dynamic between the movie and moviegoer is one of the most interesting things about movies. -afrisk<br />
<br />
==Hollywood's America==<br />
<br />
As is seen in "Why Movies Matter," there was an increase in mass communication in America which was undoubtedly strengthened by the rise of the motion picture. Early tabloids like "New York World" and the "New York Journal" employed techniques that were picked up by movies, mainly simplification of ideas. In order to make it easier for people on the go to get their news fix these early tabloids used cartoons and short articles about local news that consisted of crime and scandal to keep their patrons interested (4). These publishing also used large pictures and ads that took up the majority of space. They also used large, racy headlines to grab the readers attention. These headlines often consisted of simple words that could have been easily understood by those that where not fluent in English (4). As we transition to the tabloids and movies of today the same tactics are employed and this has become a cause for concern. Michael Medved describes the antics of today's movies as going so far as to manipulate the minds of the masses by "glamorizing violence" and by "mocking authority." Whether anyone knows it or not, these tactics can be seen in the very same early tabloids that brought local news of "violence" and "scandal" to the everyday person on their way to work. -Michael E. <br />
<br />
This article brought up something that I think is important when discussing movies, and that is "how influential are movies?" So I guess I just want to put it to the group and see what your opinions are.<br />
My opinion is that movies certainly can influence people to a certain point but i do not think that it is reasonable to blame violent films for various acts of violence that take place.- Rachael<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting in this article that from the early years of film, it seems that the attitude of the masses affected the subjects of films, rather than the films radically changing the views of those who were watching them. While it is clear that many films, especially silent ones, tackled sensitive subjects such as female sexuality and politics, many films later became more conservative when the audience began to change to families. But then, how do we explain films from the most recent decades, which can be both highly provocative and marketed to young people? - Meagan P.<br />
<br />
At the end of this article, author and tv-host Michael Medved calls Hollywood a “poison factory” and complains that modern motion pictures are destroying the morality of society. It is true that many movies, especially those in the PG-13 grade or above, send the message to audiences that Americans are consumed by money, sex, and violence. Others like Medved worry that these images negatively affect the young members of the audiences. Is it possible for Hollywood to create blockbusters without glorifying characteristics that are deemed “immoral”? <br />
In the past few years, it would seem that Hollywood is remaking older movies instead of creating new ones. Is is possible as well, that in an attempt to keep the movie atmosphere less immoral, the originality of movies is declining?<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Although the film industry has improved greatly since it first began, there is still one thing that has not changed much through American history in the film industry. Samuel Goldwyn said it best by commenting, "The public is never wrong...The public pays money. It wants to be entertained. That's all I know." (11) This philosophy still holds true today. The people with the money have the control. And as new technology is used in creating better quality films, the directors are continuously pushing the envelop on how to improve the movie-watching experience for their audience. This is difficult because movie-makers are dealing with a wide range of people, different classes, different languages, gender and censorship committees. All these categories have to be considered during the film making progress. According to Mintz and Roberts, this has been quite a dilemna since the making of the first moving pictures. Maybe it is the one thing that will stay a constant through our future. -- Dmckenn2<br />
<br />
<br />
Samantha W. asked if originality is declining in Hollywood, and I think part of the answer is, Hollywood has never been terribly original. Simple formulas keep being repeated, and old movies are dusted off and given the modern treatment. This history of Hollywood's America shows this, and it also shows something more important. I think the article demonstrates one way we as human beings assimilate strange and new things. We can't absorb all the complexities of a different culture or belief system all at once; we have to start with the basics, which are often crude or stereotypical. As we learn more, we gradually develop a more balanced perspective. The movies do the same thing. For example, the authors trace how movie portrayals of Vietnam vets evolved over time. First start with the simple, then move to the complex. The originality can be found anywhere in that arc. - Debbi S.<br />
<br />
What I found interesting in these readings is that the creation of film and movies as a whole is parallel with the growth and expansion of America itself. Mintz and Roberts state that the first successful moving pictures came out of the lives of booming railroad tycoons. Then came the inventors who improved the craft, and finally the businessmen who made it and industry (8-11). The success of the West, itself is almost tied up with films. Even nowadays other countries associate the movie making industry with America. The question that I wonder is not just "how influential are movies?" in general but "how influential are movies to the history of America?" If we take away the American film industry, do we loose parts of our own history? -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
In response to the question, "How influential are movies?" I would say that they are very influential at a young age. Children sometimes do not understand that what is on screen is not real. They also imitate characters in movies. There is a reason that movie ratings exist. If a child watches a very violent movie at a young age, he or she will remember that for a long time. On a different subject, I always thought of movies as an escape from reality. Shirley Temple movies were very popular because they were happy and it made people escape from the reality of the Great Depression. I thought one quote from this article was different from what I have heard before, "The movies have often made me dissatisfied with my neighborhood because when I see a movie, the beautiful castle, palace,...and beautiful house, I wish my home was something like these." I know that many people are jealous of life in movies, but I never heard someone say that it changes their impression of where they live. I never heard of someone who has become sad after watching a movie with wealthy characters living a wealthy life. -- Justine R.</div>Celiacrofthttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-08-25T21:53:12Z<p>Celiacroft: </p>
<hr />
<div>Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's reading here.<br />
<br />
Yay discussion!<br />
<br />
Cannot wait to watch Pocahontas with the nieces!<br />
<br />
==Reel History, Introduction==<br />
<br />
I think Toplin makes some excellent points regarding how historians and the general public view films in regards to the past. I think the second to last sentence of his introduction got me prepared for what was to come not only from his book but the class itself, " Cinematic history has assumed a prominent place in the public mind." (7). No matter who you are speaking to most people have viewed a historic film, even if the depictions are not completely accurate, i.e. Pocahontas and tourists who actually do believe there are waterfalls/mountains at Jamestown- comes from personal experience having to explain to a family that Mother Willow is not really at Jamestown, it opens up a new way to interpret history and shows how we have evolved through technology and through our learning of historical events. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I found the story about the man on the plane interesting. I would have assumed that a professional historian would say that Hollywood does a terrible job depicting history. I knew that some historical movies have some element of truth but that it was mostly a fictional work. I think it is interesting that he says movies can teach the general public but I would say you have to be careful with that, as most people would believe everything they say in the movies. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that both ''Reel History'' and "Slaves on Screen" commented on the idea of film becoming a new media form for history. I think that this claim has some credibility considering more people see films then read historical books. The biggest challenge is, according to Davis, is that historians have all these rules and regulations when writing a paper or book, whereas film makers are constrained by rules. And I guess my question would be should film makers be constrained to the same rules as historians?- Rachael <br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the author made a really good point about historians getting annoyed with films for not presenting the full or true story by pointing out that teachers and scholars are also very selective with how they present information. I think that historical films are important for exactly the same reasons that the author pointed out - they may not always tell the entire truth, but they make the viewer ask questions and want to learn more. This has happened to me dozens of times, and I think it is a valid point. If a historical film provokes a viewer into learning more, I think it can be called a successful representation of whatever it attempted to depict. - Celia C.<br />
<br />
==Introduction: Why Movies Matter==<br />
<br />
I found the quote at the top of page 8 from Hoover's agents as striking and a comparison to all of the other readings when the agent describes the movie industry "as one of the greatest, if not the very greatest, influence upon the minds and cultures, not only of the people of the United States, but the entire world." Movies then and today have a significant impact on how the general public views any action/reaction to a plot line and as LeAnn wrote earlier you have to be careful with what is shown. At the time when Hoover's agents were watching the film industry they had to be wary of all propaganda shown at the cinema, because people would be pulled one way or another even if it was based off of wrong information. The same goes for historical films if the film shows a set that the director found appealing but is not accurate an audience will walk away with an interpretation based off of incorrect facts. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
==Hollywood's America==<br />
<br />
This article brought up something that I think is important when discussing movies, and that is "how influential are movies?" So I guess I just want to put it to the group and see what your opinions are.<br />
My opinion is that movies certainly can influence people to a certain point but i do not think that it is reasonable to blame violent films for various acts of violence that take place.- Rachael<br />
<br />
I found it very interesting in this article that from the early years of film, it seems that the attitude of the masses affected the subjects of films, rather than the films radically changing the views of those who were watching them. While it is clear that many films, especially silent ones, tackled sensitive subjects such as female sexuality and politics, many films later became more conservative when the audience began to change to families. But then, how do we explain films from the most recent decades, which can be both highly provocative and marketed to young people? - Meagan P.</div>Celiacroft Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($response_code) of type int is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 38