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::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($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=ElombardMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T23:06:37ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_15_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 15 Questions/Comments2010-12-02T05:31:07Z<p>Elombard: /* Questions asked in class */</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 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>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-11-18T01:44:48Z<p>Elombard: /* Things the movie got wrong */</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 />
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 />
== 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>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-11-18T01:15:08Z<p>Elombard: /* Things the movie got wrong */</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 />
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 />
== 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. --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>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-11-10T05:57:03Z<p>Elombard: /* 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 />
== 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 />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<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 />
== 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.</div>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_--_Extra_Online_Questions329-2010--Week 11 -- Extra Online Questions2010-11-06T21:47:17Z<p>Elombard: </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 />
If it was made in the 1950s, the movie would not have been as concerned with the economy. In 1946, many people thought the United States could go into another great depression. And I agree, it would have been more happy and exciting that the soldiers returned home. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I agree with the above comments about how the economic situation would not have looked so grim if the film was made in the 1950s. I also feel that the talks about Nuclear war and the Soviets would have been more prevalent because the 1950s was all about stopping Communism and in 1949 the USSR tested their first Nuclear Weapon and the fears that the test caused, I feel, would have been hinted at more.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I agree with all the comments above that if the movie was made in the 1950's there would have been a sense that prosperity would happen. They might have showed some of the troubles, but the uncertainty wouldn't be there. There would be an expectation that times are sure to get better. I also agree with Isaac where the filmmakers most likely wouldn't have included anyone who doubted America's involvement in WWII. Especially after the Truman Doctrine, where it was said that it was America's job to fight Communist, or contain it rather. There would have been more Patriotism and support for America. - Jenn<br />
<br />
To go along with the previous comments, I think the film could have gone one of two ways. Like the movies before and during the war, the movie would have been very pro-American. During the 1950s, the U.S. was a world superpower, experiencing an economic boom, as well as changing ideals that perpetuated the image of the American dream. The movie would have looked more positively on war and family life. OR, the movie could taken a more critical look at the effects of war. During the 1950s, the U.S. was in the midst of the Cold War and on the brink of enter into another war in Korea. --Erin L. <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 />
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 />
The title has many different meanings to the audience and the characters within the movie. When I told most people that I was going to watch a movie called "The Best Years of Our Lives" they thought I was talking about a really happy movie. The three veterans thought that the best years of their lives were after the war, but then they realized that it was hard to readjust into civilian life. I think the only person who says "The Best Years of Our Lives" is Marie (Fred's wife).I am a little unsure what she meant, but I think the best years for her were when Frank was gone away at war. It seemed like she was happy bragging to her friends that she has a husband fighting in the war, but she did not want to face realities of him being a civilian when he came home. At some points of the movie, I think that maybe the best years were before the war. Maybe they did not understand how much war would change them forever, and they wished it never happened. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The title "The Best Years of our lives" is definitely an ironic movie title. The three men come home and they talk about their best years either being during the war or before the war when everything sseemed to be easier. Each character is dreading the return to civilization in their own way and each has different circumstances to react to when they come back. They struggle throughout the movie to block out memories of the war, and in Homer's case, he has to physically deal with the war every day. The title would be straightforward if it was "The Worst Years of our Lives," but it instead represents the irony of returning from war in not always pleasant circumstances. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I took the title to mean that they had given up the best years of their lives during the war, especially for Al and Homer. Al missed 4 years of Peggy and his son's childhood, that he will never be able to get back. He returns home and no longer recognizes his children. He also has a hard time readjusting to his wife, but they are able to fall in love all over again. Homer loses both of his hands during the war and almost misses out a girl who truly loves him. If he had not gone to war he would have had four years with her, minus the physical and psychological scars. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
The movie title is ironic because, although those years should have been the best, in fact they were some of the hardest ever faced by these veterans and their families. The veterans had just been thrown into battle, forced to adjust to the harsh realities of war and just as suddenly they were thrown out of battle back into civilian life. Forever changed by their experiences in war, they were expected to go back to their old lives. Their families suffered just as equally, having to adjust to not only losing a family member, but also to the changes that the war had on the homefront. --Erin L.<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 />
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 />
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 />
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 />
I agree that Peggy and Al's wife were strong characters. I think if this was made in the 1950s, their characters would not have been as strong because of the shift of working roles. Maybe in 1946 most women still had their jobs that they had during the war. But it probably gradually shifted to the men taking back their jobs. Peggy and Al's wife are my favorite characters. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I believe that the women in the movie gave the main characters a basis with which to show how hard it was for them to adjust back to civilian life. The women represented the veterans' former lives and they served as a comparison to show how much the main characters had been changed by their experiences in war. --Erin L.<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 perseverance 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 />
I think that the ending of the film leaves the viewer with a mostly optimistic view of a post-WWII world. The marriage of Homer and Wilma really signified that for me, it showed that people were beginning to overcome the hardships that the war had caused, with Wilma telling Homer that no matter what she still loved him. The same with Peggy and Fred, it seemed that they were going to try and take the next steps in a relationship. And with Al and Milly being able to rekindle their romance and support of each other. All three of the relationships symbolized getting past the war and trying to live normal lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I think the movie has both elements of pessimism and optimism represented. For most of the movie, pessimism is prevalent in each character's lives. Homer has to deal with having no arms and a family that struggles to deal with this concept, Al seems to have the perfect life at home but it is this perfection he struggles with, and Fred struggles to find a proper family. Everyone deals with pessimism but in the end, I think the movie is overall optimistic. Homer gets married, Fred gets a divorce from his superficial wife and finds Al's daughter and Al realizes what he had in his family. I think the movie shows that no matter how the atrocities of war may affect a soldier, they can adapt again in society with a good family and positive influences around them. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I also have to agree that the movie shows elements of both optimism and pessimism. It shows that although war has a strong impact upon the lives of people, with time, people do adjust and can heal. However, at the same time the movie looks critically at war by questioning the motivations behind the use of the atomic bomb. --Erin L.<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<br />
<br />
I think each of the veterans would find a way to make their own mark in life, to find what makes them happy. I feel like Homer's marriage might be complicated, but since they love each other they will most likely pull through. As for Al and his wife, like Anna, I also had the sense that Al was becoming an alcoholic towards the end. I was wondering if it was related to all the stress he had between his job and Peggy's sort-of affair with Fred. As for Fred, he will have a difficult time in life. I can see it that if he and Peggy do end up together she will have a job to help support him, starting a non-traditional family for that time period. Over all though I think that there will be struggles for everyone of them. Because the future is uncertain, they don't know that the Era of Prosperity is just around the corner. - Jenn</div>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-11-04T06:06:35Z<p>Elombard: /* The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it */</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 />
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 />
== 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 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 />
== 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 />
== 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>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-11-04T05:54:57Z<p>Elombard: /* 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 />
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 />
== 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 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 />
== 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 />
== 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>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Project_List329-2010--Project List2010-11-02T12:47:14Z<p>Elombard: /* 329--Project List */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 329--Project List ==<br />
<br />
'''Place your name and the link to the start of your project below.'''<br />
<br />
NOTE: Don't do this until you're finished with your project.<br />
<br />
Erin Lombard -- Apocalypse Now[http://apocalypsenow.umwblogs.org/home/]</div>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-28T12:22:06Z<p>Elombard: /* Things the movie got wrong */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
<br />
COMPANY TOWN<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. - 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.''' -- Celia<br />
<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 />
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.''' --[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<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 />
<br />
BALDWIN-FELTS<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. -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byDN8aoR4TI [1:35 in to the clip] ***whoever added this is the best!<br />
<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 />
'''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 />
However '''what struck me 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 />
<br />
<br />
HISTORICAL FIGURES<br />
<br />
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 />
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 />
DISCUSSION OF HISTORICAL FIGURES/ACTORS GONE HORRIBLY WRONG....<br />
<br />
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 />
<br />
<br />
RACIAL/ETHNIC DIVISIONS<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 />
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. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
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 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 />
<br />
CLASS ISSUES<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. –Samantha W.<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 />
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 />
UNIONS<br />
<br />
'''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 />
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 />
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 />
'''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 />
SETTING<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 />
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. - Celia<br />
<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 />
OVERALL EVALUATION OF MOVIE ACCURACY<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 />
<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 />
I agree with most of the people above that '''this movie is one of the more accurate it ones.''' --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
BATTLE<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. [http://www.wvculture.org/history/labor/matewan04.html]'''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.''' [http://www.matewan.com/History/battle.htm]--Erin L.<br />
<br />
JOE<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 />
'''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 />
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 />
<br />
FEW CLOTHES JOHNSON--BEST NAME IN A HISTORICAL FILM EVER?<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 />
DANNY<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.''' --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
HEALTHY MINERS<br />
<br />
'''''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. --[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<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 />
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 />
<br />
BIBLICAL ERRORS?<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 />
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 />
LANGUAGE ISSUES<br />
<br />
I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk<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 />
Just another film about the underdog magically showing up and making wrong into right and bad into good. The idea of the American fight for rights always seems to be headed by a mild natured, good mannered gentleman. Another example, I think, of why people were unsettled with the portrayal of Shaw in Glory because he just didn't fit our standard American hero. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
LAST LETTERS & FAITH<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 />
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 />
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 />
The film did a good job in reflecting the personal relationships the miners and the community had with religion. Like Jenn stated, many of the letters both openly talk about religion as well as just reference to it in subtle ways. '''In the film, the enthusiasm the community has at the church (even if it's not that believeable) expressed the importance of it in their lives.''' - Victoria Y.<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 />
<br />
CHILDREN<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 />
<br />
<br />
<br />
TYRANNY OF COMPANY STORE<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 />
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 />
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 />
OTHER <br />
<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 />
The film briefly showed the violence that black miners faced. '''In "Platform Adopted by the National Negro Committee," members of the National Negro Committee were concerned about the attempt by whites of both North and South to use violence in denying blacks of their working rights.''' As a result, the Committee wanted to end that type of racial violence. - A. Brudno<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>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-28T12:16:02Z<p>Elombard: /* Things the movie got right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
<br />
COMPANY TOWN<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. - 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.''' -- Celia<br />
<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 />
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.''' --[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<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 />
<br />
BALDWIN-FELTS<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. -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byDN8aoR4TI [1:35 in to the clip] ***whoever added this is the best!<br />
<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 />
'''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 />
However '''what struck me 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 />
<br />
<br />
HISTORICAL FIGURES<br />
<br />
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 />
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 />
DISCUSSION OF HISTORICAL FIGURES/ACTORS GONE HORRIBLY WRONG....<br />
<br />
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 />
<br />
<br />
RACIAL/ETHNIC DIVISIONS<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 />
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. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
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 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 />
<br />
CLASS ISSUES<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. –Samantha W.<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 />
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 />
UNIONS<br />
<br />
'''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 />
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 />
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 />
'''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 />
SETTING<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 />
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. - Celia<br />
<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 />
OVERALL EVALUATION OF MOVIE ACCURACY<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 />
<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 />
I agree with most of the people above that '''this movie is one of the more accurate it ones.''' --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
BATTLE<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 />
JOE<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 />
'''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 />
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 />
<br />
FEW CLOTHES JOHNSON--BEST NAME IN A HISTORICAL FILM EVER?<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 />
DANNY<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.''' --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
HEALTHY MINERS<br />
<br />
'''''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. --[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<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 />
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 />
<br />
BIBLICAL ERRORS?<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 />
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 />
LANGUAGE ISSUES<br />
<br />
I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk<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 />
Just another film about the underdog magically showing up and making wrong into right and bad into good. The idea of the American fight for rights always seems to be headed by a mild natured, good mannered gentleman. Another example, I think, of why people were unsettled with the portrayal of Shaw in Glory because he just didn't fit our standard American hero. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
LAST LETTERS & FAITH<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 />
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 />
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 />
The film did a good job in reflecting the personal relationships the miners and the community had with religion. Like Jenn stated, many of the letters both openly talk about religion as well as just reference to it in subtle ways. '''In the film, the enthusiasm the community has at the church (even if it's not that believeable) expressed the importance of it in their lives.''' - Victoria Y.<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 />
<br />
CHILDREN<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 />
<br />
<br />
<br />
TYRANNY OF COMPANY STORE<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 />
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 />
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 />
OTHER <br />
<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 />
The film briefly showed the violence that black miners faced. '''In "Platform Adopted by the National Negro Committee," members of the National Negro Committee were concerned about the attempt by whites of both North and South to use violence in denying blacks of their working rights.''' As a result, the Committee wanted to end that type of racial violence. - A. Brudno<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>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-26T01:18:16Z<p>Elombard: /* 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 />
== 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 />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-26T00:58:19Z<p>Elombard: /* 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 />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-25T20:14:05Z<p>Elombard: /* 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. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! --Erin L.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-21T04:15:40Z<p>Elombard: /* 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 Earp 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 />
To go along with Meagan's comment, at the beginning of the movie the barber also gives examples of a variety of jobs that were typically held by people in the west, such as mining and prospecting. --Erin L.<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 introduction of the Earp brothers in the beginning of the movie was highly historically inaccurate. The brothers' arrival in Tombstone did not occur because they were driving cattle to California. Wyatt actually had hoped to start a stage line. Also, as a side note, Wyatt was actually younger than James in real life. --Erin L.<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>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-21T04:11:11Z<p>Elombard: /* 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 introduction of the Earp brothers in the beginning of the movie was highly historically inaccurate. The brothers' arrival in Tombstone did not occur because they were driving cattle to California. Wyatt actually had hoped to start a stage line. Also, as a side note, Wyatt was actually younger than James in real life. --Erin L.<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>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments2010-10-06T01:28:17Z<p>Elombard: /* 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 />
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 />
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 />
== 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 />
<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 />
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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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)</div>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments2010-10-06T01:27:49Z<p>Elombard: /* 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 />
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 />
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 there 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 />
== 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 />
<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 />
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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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)</div>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments2010-10-06T01:13:20Z<p>Elombard: /* 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 />
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 />
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 want 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 there 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 />
== 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 />
<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 />
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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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)</div>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-28T23:13:18Z<p>Elombard: </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 />
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 />
== 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 />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<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 />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_5_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 5 Questions/Comments2010-09-22T17:25:32Z<p>Elombard: /* 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 />
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 />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<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 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 />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<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 />
<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 />
== 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.</div>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_4_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 4 Questions/Comments2010-09-16T04:32:18Z<p>Elombard: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
There are a few things I believe ''The Patriot'' got right. The main one that stood out to me was in beginning at the town meeting, the loyalists did use the quote that was also stated in class, "I would rather have 1 tyrant than 3,000" showing the distinction between loyalist and patriot thought. The movie also depicted, through Mel Gibson's character, the change from a neutral colonist into a patriot and what a colonist did to prove themselves to be worthy of the patriots. I wonder did the colonists shift roles how Mel Gibson's character did, because of death in their family? Or destruction to their community? I also found the relationship between the African Americans and the families they lived with to be an important role and I appreciated how the children cared for the African Americans and treated them as someone they loved (equals) rather than judge based on skin color. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In the courtroom scene Benjamin Martin warns the legislature that the fighting will be around their homes, which is actually how it was. A powerful moment is when the Martin children look out over their fields in the foggy evening, and see and hear gunfire. That little moment conveys a sense of the wrongness of things in a subtle way that has a big impact. It prepares you for the terrible scenes that follow, when the brother is killed, Gabriel taken to be hanged, and the free blacks impressed into British service. First the pop-pop of gunfire in peaceful fields where it doesn't belong, and next, nothing is where it belongs---the movie handles that well. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie also shows how effective guerilla warfare was, as well as the importance of the militia, which Dr. McClurken taught us in today's lecture. I know that in order to do this dramatically, the movie had to use one person to represent many, so that's why Benjamin Martin seemed to win the war single-handed. But I swear, as the movie went on it reminded me of an episode in the old "Wonderful World of Disney" TV series, the live-action adventures that sometimes carried over in several episodes. "Uh, oh, the fearless patriots are surrounded by redcoats! How will the Swamp Fox save the militia this time? And will his brave son Gabriel's teeth ever turn white again? Tune in next week for another exciting episode of 'The Hatchet Chucker!' " Of course it wasn't a Disney movie---kids died, not parents---but there were many rousing Disney touches, like the Great Danes (non-verbal). The best Rousing Moment was running pell-Mel with the flag to rally the troops. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There were two things that I really noticed when it came to things "The Patriot" got right. One was the town meeting and how it was clear that there were Loyalists and Patriots. There were towns people who thought that going to war was treason against the crown, but others just thought that the fight was in Massachusetts and Virginia so the movie did a good job at showing the different reasons why people opposed the war. The other thing I noticed (probably because I have seen this movie a lot) was Tavington (Lucius Malfoy) mentioned that one of the soldiers Mel Gibson attacked was brought to the British camp by one of the Native American scouts and in a wide shot you can see some Native Americans at the British Camp.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing that The Patriot showed well was the style of the battles at the time. As in The Last of the Mohicans the British still marched in a line towards the enemy and fired when ordered. Despite fighting the natives’ guerrilla style in the French and Indian War they still stuck with this form. Probably because the gun technology of the day still wasn’t accurate enough to use as a sniping weapon. The British needed the wall of bullets to head in the general direction of the colonials in hopes that one of the many bullets would hit some target. The movie also shows that since the soon-to-be United States was a colony of the British they inherited the fighting style of them which Mel Gibson’s character points out to Heath Ledger’s character in the scene where they overlook the battle in the abandoned house. The superior numbers of the British could mow down the colonial forces if they continued to fight in this way. So Mel Gibson eventually leads his little troop in the guerrilla tactics. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
A lot of information is given at the meeting in the beginning of the movie. They talk about how some people do not want to be involved because it would involve everyone including families. Someone(it might have been Mel Gibson) said that the battles were in Massachusetts and Virginia and the battles shouldn't be brought to the South. They also mention Bunker Hill and how the British advanced three times even after a lot of their soldiers were killed. That battle and advancements were mentioned in one of the readings for this week. I also noticed that one of the men (the man who eventually burned the church)switched sides and became a Loyalist. I was wondering if he really did change his mind during the course of the war or if he was a spy from the beginning? -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the assembly meeting when the men are arguing about defending “the Cause” some of their dialogue exemplifies what Dr. McClurken taught in class about the split attitudes concerning independence. Examples: “What nation is that?” “An American nation.” “To speak of such a thing is treason.” The colonies really were not unified at this point in history. In regards to instances when the soldiers would continue to shoot without reloading each time, I believe that The Patriot made it more realistic than the Last of the Mohicans. <br />
The killing of the militia’s family is similar to the murders of the frontier families in Last of the Mohicans.<br />
I really liked the French leader Jean Villeneuve’s line right before the final battle after Martin gives him a puzzled look, “If I’m going to die, I’m going to die well dressed.” Oh, the French. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie did some to show that men who joined the fighting left behind families with no guarantee that their wives and children would be safe. There were probably many women like Aunt Charlotte, alone with five children. And like we learned in class, civilians feared the soldiers; they could be brutal to even women and children. The men walked a line between fighting for "The Cause," and by extension what they saw as the future good of their families, and providing for the very immediate security of those they loved still at home. It's difficult to imagine how many little kids watched their homes burn or had family killed right in front of them. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The things the movie got right was the brutality of war. Horrible things happen in war and I think the movie displayed that. I think they also did a good job showing how easily the British managed to piss off people into joining the other side. In the movie the "bad guy" basically tells the slaves that they can be free when he rides in on his horse. What a great way to piss off all the Southern elites. Another thing I thought was pretty good is when a colonial loyalist comes into talk to the British officers and says any neighbor of his that went to the Rebels was no longer his neighbor and should be hanged or something to that affect. Neighbors did hate each other and fought with each other. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn's point about the brutality in the film. The director didn't seem to shy away from the horrors of war, and I respect him for that. I think that the Revolutionary War is too often depicted in popular culture as simply a noble fight for independence against the evil, tyrannical Brits. While it may seem like the filmmakers are boiling down the entire Revolutionary War into one man's cause, I appreciate the focus on the home-front. The grisly image of bodies hanging from a tree and the frightening scene when the Redcoats burn down the church are two moments in particular that most likely would not have been shown in a typical historical fiction film fifty years ago. - Celia<br />
<br />
While a bit overdramatic, I felt like the opening meeting scene quickly established the complicated tension among colonists. Beyond the simple Loyalist/Patriot split, there were further divisions about how to handle the conflict, which I think adds a further dimension of realism to the situation. The movie also does little to disguise the brutality of war. As others have said here, people sometimes forget that the American Revolution was, in fact, a war. ''The Patriot'' leaves in all the blood, guts, and tragedy, both in the field and at home. - Cilla<br />
<br />
Another thing the movie got right was the fear of giving slaves guns. When the French guy gives Occam the musket saying “Here. A Proper Musket for you.” The character Dan Scott says, “I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't like the idea of giving muskets to slaves.” –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I thought that The Patriot's portrayal of the actual fighting was done relatively well. The soldiers did have to reload muskets and pistols, which clearly took time during the battle, and I thought that the way that it was portrayed was fairly accurate. The formation of the British troops, as well as their fighting style, was also done very well. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Celia and LeAnn's point about brutality in the movie, especially when it came to guerrilla warfare. But nevertheless, I thought it was well-done. It showed the importance, and effectiveness, of that tactic in the war. (He even convinced his littlest boys to do it and they were super successful, now weren't they?!) -- Kelly<br />
<br />
I think the movie definitely described the aspect of the slaves correctly. In the movie, it was said that any slaves who served with the Continental Army or the militia for 12 months would receive payment and their freedom. I originally thought this was false. But in the reading, on page 14, it talked about how South Carolina legislatures wanted to pass this as law. Another aspect the movie got correct was the British offering freedom to slaves who fought with them. Although in the movie, it seemed as though it was less of a choice and more of an order. Also, as I'm sure other people have stated, the brutality of the British officers was probably fairly accurate, especially with the idea of them pillaging houses and going after civilians. I'm sure the British army was intense in that respect. What struck me as odd was how some of the British lieutenants were reluctant when ordered to burn houses, or kill people. They seemed sympathetic and as if they realized what they were doing was so very wrong. I wonder if there were officers like that in the British army who felt sympathy and remorse for their actions? --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I am also going to comment on how well the movie shows the differences between the tactics of the standing armies and the militia. The act of war, and participating in battle itself, numerous times throughout the movie, was described as being "civilized." In a sense, for the Continental and British Armies, war was portrayed as a gentleman's sport, with specific rules and an etiquette to be followed. In contrast, the guerrilla warfare tactics of the militia completely goes against everything that the standing armies do. Numerous times throughout the movie the British officers make remarks on how uncivilized and dirty the fighting style of Mel Gibson's character's militia was because he would purposely kill the officers. Watching this movie, it definitely makes you think geez the Continental and British Armies look stupid fighting. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Would a young girl in colonial times have been allowed to speak publicly, as Gabriel's girlfriend did in church? She spoke very disrespectfully of her elders, and (good heavens!) about men. I know it was a plot device to show her high-spirited patriotism, but I do believe her parents would have shut her down right quickly. --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Here are a couple of items the movie did not necessarily get wrong, but flat out did not include them in the movie. This first has to do with the reasoning for going to war, the forced quartering of British soldiers. This element was not talked about, nor was a soldier seen amongst civilians prior to the war beginning. The second has to deal with the interior conflicts between the Loyalists and the Patriots. There were some different feelings about whether to stay loyal to the crown or not, but this was played out by a single character, not by the civil war in the South that raged between them. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I completely with Deborah's point. I was astonished as to how forceful she was. It seemed as though, speaking in those times, that she completely forgot her place in society and her role as a woman. On a separate note, perhaps a bit nit-picky, the kitchen that Charlotte and the children escaped to actually would've been outside in a different building rather than underneath the house. --Kelly<br />
<br />
In the same vein as what Deborah said, women also wouldn't have worn their hair down the way Charlotte and Anne both do throughout the movie, and even the little girls probably would have worn theirs up as well. Covering your hair was hugely important for women. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
In one of the opening scenes Mel Gibson's character is seen working in the fields with his slaves and is doing most of the hard labor, strike one. Then we find out that it was not such an unbelievable act due to the fact that Mr. Martin had working for him the only free slaves in the colonies, strike two. Finally, in the scene at the tavern a man wants to go fight with the Patriots because the "Redcoats" hung his brother, but he is too old to go so he sends his slave in his behalf. Gibson, being the humanitarian that he is, accepts the slave not when his master signs him over, but when the slave makes his own mark, strike three. -Mike E.<br />
<br />
In class, it was mentioned that most Anglican ministers were loyalist supporters. The movie doesn't explicitly say the denomination of the church that Anne and her family attend, but the Church of England was still the dominant religion in South Carolina until 1778, so I think it's fair to assume that was the denomination of this particular church (Wikipedia). That being said, it would have been extremely unlikely for the minister to join the militia, or openly endorse his parishioners to do the same. The second contention I had with this movie was what Mike E mentioned: the only free slaves in South Carolina work for Mel Gibson. I understand the theatrical need for this, so the audience will know Mel Gibson was one of the "good guys"...but really? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna's point about the minister. That definitely bothered me, too, especially his line about a shepherd needing to tend his flock. It felt like it was written to make the minister seem like a bad-ass. While I liked his character (he was a bit of a bad-ass), I just didn't buy it. I also had to roll my eyes at Anne's impassioned speech in the church. If it had been a bit shorter, or maybe not accompanied by such epic music, it wouldn't have bothered me so much, but it just seemed so over-the-top. I think Anne's belief in the cause could have been expressed more realistically and just as effectively. - Celia<br />
<br />
<br />
I was also going to mention the fact about the minister joining in to fight with the Patriots. Like Dr. McClurken said in class, ministers were more likely to join the side of the Loyalists. I was wondering if it was common for them to join a militia as opposed to the regular army. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The biggest problem I had with the film, was its portrayal of slavery, or lack there of. The fact that all of the African Americans that worked on Mel Gibson's farm were free, is incredibly unlikely in South Carolina. Also, going along with what Anna said about Mel Gibson being one of the "good guys," whenever he or one of his family members asks one of there freed blacks to do something, they always say please, thank you, and your welcome, which again is hard for me to swallow. He also insists at the tavern that the slave sign his mark, so that Gibson can take solace in the knowledge that the slave is joining of his own free will. The battle scene where "The Ghost" and his two young sons, kill 20 some British soldiers by themselves, was ridiculous. First of all, Mel Gibson, on several occasions did not reload, fired while running, and needless to say shot every man in the head or the heart. Also, his two sons, turn out to be the second and third best marksmen in South Carolina, if not the world, firing with incredible precision, rivaled only by Gibson himself. -Michael G<br />
<br />
I agree with Michael about the lack of portrayal of slavery. I think because Ben Martin is portrayed as an honorable and righteous man, character development would not have flowed as well if he had been a slave owner. The fact that those African Americans worked his fields and in his house of their own free will shows that they respected Ben and wanted to help him, especially since his wife died. It was apparent that they were not slaves when they are shown dressed nicely and sitting on the porch with the family. However I do find it interesting that the audience does not find out that they are freedmen until the British show up at the Martin farm.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I think the biggest thing that stood out to me which is totally wrong is when Gabriel and the black slave were talking and Gabriel reassured him that in the New World Slaves would be free. I do not know but I am pretty sure no South Carolina man would have said that to anyone because thats not how they thought about slavery. I also found the part where the English soldiers were taking the slaves away that they were not slaves they just worked the land. Once again I doubt they were getting paid so in affect were slaves. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
Over the course of five years, the younger children basically never aged. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Let's just say that I don't believe a single bit of the lovely treatment of the incredible number of free blacks in South Carolina during the Revolution in this movie. I'll move onto the next obvious dramatic license: "The Ghost's" ambush. How exactly did Mel Gibson and his young sons manage to shoot every British soldier either in the heart or directly between the eyes while standing quite a distance away and hiding behind trees? Oh yeah, movie magic, that's how! I know it's impressive, but I feel like it loses some of its impact when it's just that unrealistic. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I think some people touched on this in their comments but I just can’t get over the fact that really the only African-Americans that are present in the film are Mel Gibson’s farm hands (freemen) and Occam who joined Mel Gibson’s militia in the stead of his master. I realize it is the South and as it was mentioned on Tuesday fewer African-Americans joined the ranks in the South than in the North but slaves and freed blacks made up a fair percentage of the population in the South and the number of African Americans in this movie just doesn’t work for me. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Maybe one important aspect was when member of the militia got his head knocked off by a cannonball? An actual thing I noticed that did not seem to be historically accurate was the role of the Continental Militia. In the movie, they are almost portrayed as immense heroes of the revolutionary war and in reality; I do not think this was true. They are portrayed as very important, especially in the final battle scene of the movie, where it appears that they saved the continental army from defeat by the British. Although there role is not as important as the movie leads us to believe, it is essential to the movie, because without it the character development would have been completely different. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I didn't get this out of my own watching of the film, but according to numerous news articles the burning of the church scene, while completely inaccurate, essentially maps a WWII atrocity on to the revolutionary war. While the scene is very dramatic and sets the stage for more pissed off running, gun totting and Gibson Fury, you basically have the film makers consciously deciding to depict the British as Nazis. That specific scene "closely resembles one of the most notorious Nazi war crimes of World War II -- the massacre of 642 people (including 205 children) in the French village of Oradour sur Glane on June 10, 1944." I wasn't aware of the connection myself, but I thought it worth putting up here for discussion. Connecting the British to the Nazis is a really big leap as the Nazi, through 40s propaganda and numerous video games, is America's most despicable foe (or so says my little nephew who has a thing for call for duty...). Mind you dropping Nazis or Hitler into any debate about something being evil is completely cheating.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:08, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Some other aspects of the movie that bothered me were how every single person who died in the movie, died as a result of violence. No one died from disease. This is a common theme in most war movies, no matter what the time period. Rarely do directors show that thousands of soldiers, if not hundreds of thousands of soldiers died from malaria, dysentery, cholera, and other diseases. Clearly the reason they left it out was not out of fear that the audience would be too squeamish, as they were not too concerned about gore. As we talked about in class, many civilians fled from approaching armies out of fear of catching deadly diseases. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
@Michael G. re: diseases. A possible explanation might be that showing diseases in a war film just is not as compelling as having people beat down with a tomahawk. Although it would have been an easy addition, hell just give one of the Martin children dysentery, right? But in all seriousness, I believe illnesses just get passed over as a small, trivial matter compared to the war itself, regardless of what war it is. A war film is about blood and gore, not malaria. Disease in film tends to be "too boring" for most viewers...or maybe even less than satisfying and anti-climatic? --[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the issues that I had with the film was the lack of minorities that were shown. Supposedly, there were Native Americans fighting with the British, but they were nowhere to be seen in "The Patriot". I also wondered what happened to all of the Hessian mercenaries; they seemed rather conspicuously absent. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Although Professor McClurken did mention the existence of free black colonies that existed across the coastal areas of the south, I seriously doubt that rich, landowning whites would be able to successfully hide and be accepted into the colony. Charlotte and the rest of Benjamin's children remain there for an extended period of time and there is no racial tension shown at all. The servant who originally took care of the children in the beginning, and was captured by the British after Thomas was killed, was in the free black colony as well. If she had really been captured she would have been pressed into service for the British to support their efforts, rather than released to live as a free person. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
According to the Web site Infoplease, several movies released in 2000 were, like "The Patriot," about the little guy standing up to forces larger than himself. For instance, also in theaters that year were "Gladiator," "Erin Brokovich," and "The Perfect Storm." "The Patriot" fit into that mold, in addition to also showing a strong, unified America. That was an important point to make in that presidential election year when Gore beat Bush beat Gore beat Bush... It's also significant that we had all just emerged from Y2K paranoia. "IN A WORLD" where the might of technology seemed to have us all on the run, Americans needed to watch a bunch of yokels put a mighty nation on the run. (It was apparently Mel Gibson's year to support revolutions. Remember "Chicken Run?" Here again, Mel is the indispensible individual who saves the day...dare I say he was the cock of the walk?) ---- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
To me this film seemed to define for its audience what it means to be a "true American" as well as suggest the revival of the American dream. When we first meet the protagonist his life is good and prosperous. He has a fully functional farm while only using about seven "slaves", children, and respect in the community. Yet when trouble arises, he slinks back from it due to past experiences with violence. Still when the chips are down he pushes through, and fights for what the film says is the true American spirit even though he has lost two sons and turned the last two into mild-sociopaths (evident when one says, "I'm glad I killed [those men]."). After some thought I began to see Mel Gibson's character as an analogy of America itself: mostly profitable, scared from past experiences, and lacking in overall national spirit. What this film says about early 2000 America then is that the American dream-the idea of getting more via sacrifice and hard-work-needed a wake up call. This view went over fairly well with public at the time, however in my own experience with the film interests spiked after the attacks of 9/11. As Deborah said in her post the American movie audiences of 2000 obviously were enjoying rooting for the little man, and <em>The Patriot</em> gave them just that and then some. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Frankly, the film demonstrates what it takes to get Americans into the box office for a revolutionary film: Mel Gibson. A number of film critics and hollywood "experts"in a New York Times [http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/02/movies/film-the-revolutionary-war-is-lost-on-hollywood.html?scp=7&sq=&pagewanted=1 piece] mention that a movie about the Revolutionary War is destined to suck at the box office, but if you slap Mel Gibson on to the film, it seems as if you have a shot at making a film people will go to see. You say Patriot...people say Mel Gibson. Come on look at the movie cover: [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/The_Patriot.jpg The Patriot Cover] and [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/68/Patriot_promo_poster.jpg here] Mel Gibson's name is maybe a little bit smaller than the actual title of the film. I am a little hard pressed to think of how this film fits into the context of early 2000s, but to me it is (for at least that screenwriter) just another series of American war movies to get that ole patriotic heart beatin'.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:52, 15 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I agree with Isaac that this movie was to build an attempt to build "patriotism" and to define the meaning of a "true american," I believe it was no accident it was released so close to the 4th of July. I am wondering if there was also some worries about 2000 being the end of the world, and Hollywood believed that America needed a movie to bring America together. It might have been another propaganda tool to remind America that the people built America, and America is supported by the people. So really it was just a grand scheme to get fellow Americans to vote in the upcoming election. Also in 2000, I believe there was a War in Kosovo, so that would be another reason to gain American support. -Jenn<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
A common theme I noticed in the readings and the movie was the brutality of this war. Granted, the readings expressed brutality in the Southern "Civil War" and the movie was mostly British/Colonial brutality, but this seemed to be a common tactic in the revolution overall, no matter what side you happened to be fighting for. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The thing I noticed about the movie and the reading was the horrors and brutal nature of war. The "Rise of Partisan Warfare" reading specifically references dragoons attacking Capt. Stokes. And in the movie the main antagonist is a dragoon that doesn't exactly act the gentleman he is supposed to be during war. -Rachael A.<br />
<br />
After watching some of the cruel endings that came to the Patriots while captives of the British, it is hard to believe that men who had groomed themselves for gentlemen like battle could commit such heinous war crimes against prisoners of war. After reading "The Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," it is evident that these acts against captured men was not such a stretch of the imagination. In fact, if the account are true, then scenes of killing the wounded and captives by the British in the movie were spot on. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The letter from the British prisoner proved that colonial soldiers were just as capable of being cruel in their treatment as British soldiers were, and the "description is not equal to their barbarity." While the movie wanted the Patriots to come across as "the good guys" it also emphasized their eagerness to seek revenge. I don't know what the specific letter writer or his fellow soldiers did when not engaged in direct combat, but it's not hard to imagine that the exceptional brutality of their captors may have stemmed from atrocities committed against families at home. Violence just fed more violence. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Additionally, the movie also references the stealing of the property from British officers after their defeat. True, it primarily has a comic effect in the movie, but we know from the reading as well as the movie that it seriously messed with British morale as well. - Cilla<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed in the reading that was never presented in the movie was the role of the British loyalists. According to “The Age of Revolution,” the British “had decided to concentrate its military efforts in the South because it believed it could count on significant support from southern loyalists. The British military however, failed to provide loyalists with effective protection.” This was very interesting to me because although the movie does focus on the war in the south, we can tell whether the loyalists are fighting for the British or not. Also, we never see the guerilla forces attack the loyalists which as this reading points happened often. In my opinion, this history of the war could have been left out because it would have weakened the focus on the Americans and their ultimate goal of winning the war as well as Mel Gibson and his ultimate goal of killing Colonel Tavington in order to avenge his son. -afrisk<br />
<br />
In the reading I found it was very valuable to read George Washington's letters from Valley Forge. He described the need for basic necessities and it was in the interest of the colonies (New Hampshire?) to supply their soldiers so they could continue the fight for indepedence. I know the movie focused on the southern portion of the colonies but would of thought it would have been a good twist to show how the leaders of the Continental Army, in the North and South, asked for the support of the colonies-they personally reached out to the colonists for help, showing it does not take one person to win a war but rather a whole community. * On a side note my brother attends Valley Forge and in the bookstore they have the picture of George Washington kneeling at Valley Forge, it is a highly valued item at the college and is given to those cadets who exemplify the values and traditions set forth by Washington and is currently hanging in our living room. But the portrait proves history lives on and is still teaching our future military leaders. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
What struck me especially about the second reading, in comparison to the movie, was the sheer brutality of it. In the first of the Brownfield, letters he goes through and vividly describes certain injuries which he saw or heard about. Now I am sure there was some embellishment added to this account but reading about Pearson being, "inhumanly mangled on on the face." And then going into a vivid account of how he was injured was almost to much. While reading I was once again confronted with the grotesque images of the movie. And even though I had seen the movie, and Dr. McClurken warned us about it being violent, I was still unprepared for it to be that brutal. It is really no wonder that soldiers today come back from war changed, even in the movie, Benjamin was changed from his experience in the French and Indian war. - Jenn<br />
<br />
Maybe it was just me, but I do not remember ever noticing loyalist vs patriot skirmishes in the movie. After reading "Rise of Partisan Warfare in the South," I was surprised at all the casualties that occurred in these "skirmishes." I wonder what percent of the total dead/wounded in the Revolution came from those small skirmishes in the back country South. Also, I wonder how important these "skirmishes" were in relation to the larger picture of the Revolution. Did they really matter in the end? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class we were asked to watch how civilians and/or prisoners were treated in the Patriot. I thought it was grotesque how the British treated civilians-locking a group of people in a church, asking for information and in exchange offering a reward for anyone who came forward, and then broke the compromise by telling them they will be answering to God shortly after ordering the burning of the building. I felt that one of the British soldiers felt some sort of compasion but feared for his own life and did as he was told instead of trying to save the colonists. The movie depicted the British as people who disregarded humanity except for those who served the crown. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Go along with the civilian-soldier relationship, although the villain is depicted as being somewhat worse than the other British, he shoots Benjamin Martin's son and sort of laughs it off as a stupid civilian that got it coming to him. While the war was brutal, why shoot a civilian child? This is not exactly how the British (from my understanding) would interact with civilians, particularly those who are more or less loyalists. You would think that the director would have the British do something, still villainous, yet less drastic like maim him. What you really see in this film is the director playing with the soldiers to make them worse than they ought to be and raise Gibson as the brave hearted soldier who will strike down the senseless (and rather vague mind you!) evil of the British.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 19:58, 15 September 2010 (MDT)</div>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_3_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 3 Questions/Comments2010-09-09T05:22:30Z<p>Elombard: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The film shows how by the 1750s Native Americans had adapted British technology. This is shown by Native American use of the muskets in fighting and also the Mohicans wearing of colonial like clothing. Although the Hurons are depicted as still wearing more traditional(?) clothing I wonder if this is a way of showing them as more "savage" or maybe they still wore traditional clothing because they were from areas up north with less contact with settlers unlike a group like the Mohicans.--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 12:56, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie did manage to get the Hawkeye's adoption correct. As mentioned in the reading "A Captivity Narrative" it said the natives would adopt their captives into their tribes and become pretty much family members. Hawkeye lost his parents and was raised by the Mohicans and saw them as his family and thought the native's life as a better life than the colonists' lives. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
<br />
The respect shown to Nathaniel by both whites and Indians seemed like a plot device to me, until I read "In a World of Warfare" that Phineas Stevens enjoyed the same kind of cross-cultural respect (pp. 126-127). --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Another aspect of the times that I think the movie captured is that neither European nor Indian, as individuals or as nations, were all good or all bad. The characters were complex---even the uber-villain Magua had reasons for his implacable hatred. An overall theme of the movie was the common brutality of man. The ruin that wars bring is epitomized by the "death of the innocents" Uncas and Alice. --Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I agree with Deborah's point. Chingachgook and Uncas more or less played the part of the "noble savage" while Magua was more just...savage. But they took the pains to make him a more developed character by giving him a sad history. I did feel bad for Magua for one scene...and by the end, I really needed to see him get his. I think the scene with the Huron chief made it clear - that yes, Magua has a sad story, but what he does isn't okay. I also really enjoyed the fact that Chingachgook was the one to kill Magua. I was definitely expecting another slow-motion shot of Nathaniel running and attacking Magua in an epic battle, and I was really pleased to see Chingachgook avenge the death of his son. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with both Deborah's and Celia's points. Magua did have distinct reasons and motivations for the way he acted. I think that his extremeness was a bit overwhelming at times, but I suppose that was the point. That sense of deep hatred and anger was portrayed by all the characters involved, especially the British. And it was developed in such a way that you could physically see the consequences (a la Alice jumping off the cliff). -- Kelly<br />
<br />
This film showed correctly (generally) the difference of fighting and war tactics between the Native Americans and the British. It seemed like the British were not that smart by walking along a road because the Native Americans could and did attack them from both sides. The Native Americans used the trees to help them hide so they can have a surprise attack on the British. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The deaths of the Cameron family and the destruction of their cabin got across some of the terror that accompanied life on the frontier that Susanna Johnson describe in her description of the days leading up to her capture. Frontier families lived one day to the next not knowing if they would be suddenly victims of one conflict or another between any number of different actors. The sense of fear conveyed in the film's depiction of Indian attackers as often invisible in the woods until the moment they strike is a strong one, and one that I think matches well Susanna's account of near constant, almost paralyzing fear. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann. Susanna's account shows ambiguous fear - of never feeling totally safe or sure of what was going to happen next. The scenes of Native Americans rushing out and attacking from the woods are terrifying. The director does a good job of capturing the sense of chaos in those scenes. It's clear that the English were not used to that way of fighting. - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Justine's comment on the portrayal of the different fighting tactics. Especially when the Munroe sister's are attacked in the beginning. The Native Americans were all hiding in the woods and the British soldiers were standing around waiting to be told to fire, which was insane. I wonder why it took so long for people to change their fighting and war tactics?-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
My favorite part about this movie is that no matter how much I disliked or liked a character, there was good and bad in each of them, making them realistic. No one is perfect, in one direction or another. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I also agree with Justines comment because the movie depicted the English tactics and Native Americans tactics in a pretty accurate way. The Native Americans were doing the "skulking way of war" when they were stalking the English after the surrender of the fort. I think it was interesting though that the Hurans did not have as many guns and many were using Tomahawks against guns. I also think they did a good job depicting the French tactics of trying to take the fort down and if you looked you did not see many Indians in that scene but you saw them after when the Marquis was in his tent. It also depicted the generousity of the French and the anger of the Native Americans over the way it was done. The difference there was that Magua wanted to kill Monro and the actual story is they wanted loot. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
There's a scene in the fort that I really appreciated. It shows Native American children singing in Latin (I'm fairly sure they're singing some setting of the Catholic mass), so they've obviously been converted. I just thought that was a great little touch on the director's part. - Celia<br />
<br />
To add to Megan mc's paragraph on Hawkeye's adoption: The film also captured the major cultural differences that Hawkeye experienced after being adopted. The director speaks specifically to the issue of language. Cora asks Hawkeye how he knows English, and of course that's when Eleazar Wheelocks' school comes into play. That moment is at least a nod to a small detail which lends a dash more historical credibility to the film. Mind you that it seems films and television shows tend to not make much out of language barriers, everyone is assumed to speak English. Like Susana's son, Hawkeye, having been separated off from "civilized" culture for so long and at such an early age, can speak a Native language (also probably a bit of French considering the fur traders), but he must learn English with his brother.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:41, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think that the movie represented what we had spoken about in class on Tuesday regarding the warfare, specifically the English vs the Native Americans. While the English are fighting in lines the Native Americans are wielding their fire power through Guerrilla type warfare behind the trees and through the forest. I bet it was very easy to anticipate what the English would do in a battle and act accordingly. -Caryn<br />
<br />
Another aspect the movie got right was when Magua and Nathaniel came to the Huron to offer gifts. In the readings and class we learned that exchanging gifts was an important part of the Indian culture. Magua offered the gifts of people and Nathanial offered some kind of wampum I think. From this week's readings, however, most Indian captives were not offered as gifts to be killed but most became adopted into families and treated fairly decently. Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got more facts right than Disney's Pocahontas! One thing the movie did well on was showing the Indian's dependence on European settlers. It was very easy to tell that the Huron Indians depended greatly on the French in 2 ways... a) Where else would the Indians have found weapons such as guns to fight with? b) The relationship between the Indians and the French. Both sides knew they could use the other to get what they want. The Hurons, especially Magua, wanted revenge on the English for killing their children and families through settlement. On the other hand, the French saw the Indians as excess manpower to fight off the English at Ft. William Henry. In both cases, the French got what they wanted as did the Hurons. Just as in the actual French & Indian War, the Indians and Europeans gambled/sided with one another in order to achieve their own agendas. I think the movie did a good job portraying the Indian/European relationship. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I think the movie did a good job portraying the relationship between the Colonists/British and Native Americans, like Alex said. I also think that the movie did a good job portraying how the British felt about the Native Americans who chose to help them by scouting for the British, they had very little respect and there was a lot of mistrust. - Jenn<br />
<br />
The movie definitely touched on the growing discord between the British (the officers in particular) and the colonists. The abuse of power on the part of the British officers was evident when Maj. Duncan Heyward and Col. Edmund Munro clearly broke the promise made to the colonists that they would be allowed to leave if their homes were being threatened. Col. Munro also states that the fate of the colonists is of no great interest to the crown, which shows that their motivations for fighting in this war were completely political and that they were solely focused on defeating the French. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One continually occurring theme throughout the movie was Hawkeye's amazing marksmanship and ability to shoot muskets from the hip, like a wild west gunslinger. Another major inaccuracy in the film was Magua cutting Colonel Monro's heart out. In fact Colonel Monro and other English officers were kept behind in the French Camp, and later safely escorted to Fort Edward by the French. (Starbuck, David R. ''Massacre at Fort William Henry''. Hanover, N. H.: University Press of New England, 2002, 25-35.) Michael G.<br />
<br />
The French did not actually occupy Fort William Henry. They deliberately demolished the already-damaged, wooden fort. Neither the British nor the Americans rebuilt it. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_William_Henry) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One thing that is often inaccurate in movies like these is the reloading of the rifles and muskets. Most of the guns at the time, to my knowledge, were single shot meaning they'd need to reload after each shot and after an adventure to wikipedia it stated that the Long Rifle/Pennsylvania Rifle that Hawkeye used took a full minute to reload. Though if they showed him reloading every single shot it would make the already long movie even longer. In the movie's defense they did show him reloading it at least one time (while running) and then snatching the unused guns from the French that he killed. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
As said above, some of the types of guns do not exist at that time and they way they shoot them are not possible. It is hard to find more things the movie got wrong because this movie is not claiming to be historically accurate. I am not sure how similar this movie is to the book, because I did not read Cooper's book. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To me it seemed that the movie made at least <em>some</em> attempt at being accurate, but sacrificed a lot at the price of being dramatic. The thing that stuck out the most to me was that it seemed to imply that there are no more Mahicans left. Which I don't think is true[http://www.native-languages.org/mohican.htm].-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Overall, there are many elements of this movie that are correct such as make-up, hair styles and clothing. Even though, many elements were historically accurate I was able to find an interesting critique of the script that doesn’t just point out historical inaccuracies, but also things that could of made the movie better. One historical inaccuracy was the Bearskin miter caps worn by the Grenadiers. These were in fact not issued until 1768, and during the time period of the movie, the Grenadiers were in fact still wearing hard caps. Another historical miss-step which I found quite interesting was how Hawkeye handled his gun. He casually flipped it around to point it at Heyward’s chest. In reality, this would have been almost impossible because a British musket weighs about 11 pounds and has about a 42 inch barrel. Though incredibly small things, I thought they were very interesting. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think that one of the most important things that the movie got wrong was the role of the "bloodthirsty" natives like Magua. While there was certainly both violence and resentment present on both sides (white and Native American), we can see in the speeches given by the chiefs that more than anything, the Native Americans did want to continue to trade with the colonists, and be treated as equals. I don't really think that this came through in the film- we saw either the scalping, heart-eating savage like Magua, or the "noble" savage, like Nathaniel's adopted father and brother. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I don't care how historically inaccurate it is, dual wielding long rifles and shooting from the hips always score points in my book. To hell with it being unlikely! To respond to Isaac Whalen, I do recall even with the original book many of the surviving Mohicans being rather annoyed that a book would claim that there were essentially no Mohicans left. Not very nice Mr Cooper.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 20:51, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I think one thing that the movie either got wrong or exaggerated was the relationship between the colonists and the Native Americans. In the very beginning of the movie, Native Americans and colonist comfortable intermixed with either other socially. This doesn't quite go along with the historical record which states that there was a lot of prejudice and conflict between the two parties. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
This is a hard one because I didn't find any commentary about why they felt the need to do ''The Last of the Mohicans'' again but I can say that during 90s they did do a couple of remakes of older movies (see [http://childrenofthenineties.blogspot.com/2009/09/90s-movie-remakes.html this site] for some examples). Not sure if this was an emergent phenomenon during the time or something Hollywood has always done but, it is something I noticed.<br />
The only other connection I can make with is the fact that the Gulf War occurred in '90/'91 and this film version came out in '92. Perhaps Americans had a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war in general, so it would be advantageous to create a film that portrayed war. In addition, it would probably be a smart move to use a story that so many people familiar with (and holds such an important place in U.S. popular literature) to draw in a crowd (which goes back to my point about remakinges of older films). --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 13:28, 8 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Responding to the comment by Shauser, the only option I can think of for a renewed interest in U.S. military history or war would be Operation Desert Storm, which occurred in 1990-1991. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
There may have also been a renewed interest in Native American history as well. Congress established the National Museum of the American Indian in 1989, and as we talked about with Pocahontas, the 90s saw a growing awareness of the importance of diversity and the contributions of different ethnic groups. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with the previous comments which state that due to Desert Storm Americans were becoming more interested in their own military exploits, but I do think that it goes farther than this. When I watched the film I got a sense that there was a <em>very</em> pro-America sense coming through the film. Multiple times the film depicted how the colonialists were different from the British, and how they longed for freedom. Also, there was mentioning of the manifest destiny[http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h337.html], that is the believed desire of all American to push west and discover new things. Treating these themes as a commentary on the '90s, they suggest that in the United States at this time there was a growing cultural notion that the American dream/desire to discover is noble. <br />
Also, the character of Hawkeye (sp) seemed to me to come across as more of a colonial with Native American tendencies, rather than an adopted colonial. This shift in character could either be due to something lost in the numerous adaptations, or be a result of '90s culture. One that promotes the conglomeration of differences, rather than finding pride in being separate.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
As far as the movie being a primary source, I was specifically intrigued by the final statement about the "Last of the Mohicans" I have not read the book so I do not know if this is verbatim or not (if I am wrong, I apologize). "Chingachgook: The frontier moves with the sun and pushes the Red Man of these wilderness forests in front of it until one day there will be nowhere left. Then our race will be no more, or be not us.<br />
Hawkeye: That is my father's sadness talking.<br />
Chingachgook: No, it is true. The frontier place is for people like my white son and his woman and their children. And one day there will be no more frontier. And men like you will go too, like the Mohicans. And new people will come, work, struggle. Some will make their life. But once, we were here." http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104691/quotes These final lines could also reflect the expanding frontier through clear cutting in both America and South America that was such a hot topic in 1992 the year the film was made. - Caryn<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
In the readings, speeches by the various chiefs plainly state truths, such as their unequal role in the fighting, and unfair trade practices. The movie doesn't go into this aspect, choosing instead to show the growing tension between Britain and the colonists. European arrogance plays a role in both situations, though. The Europeans could not hear the truth in the Indians' speeches for two reasons: first, because it came from the mouths of people the Europeans still regarded as inferior savages; and second, because the Europeans wouldn't let anything stand in the way of acquiring land. The Abenaki speaker Atiwaneto got it right when he said, "...your mouth is of sugar but your heart of gall" (''In a World of Warfare'', p. 127). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
There’s a line from the Calloway reading pg. 170 that says, “Indians mourning relatives might vent their grief by demanding that a captive be tortured to death.” According to the reading this did not always happen, sometimes Indians took their captives in and incorporated them into native society. The movie did a good job of portraying the hatred some Indians felt toward the British.<br />
Magua desires vengeance against General Munro because he destroyed Magua’s family. Magua viciously kills Munro, rips his heart out, and then captures his daughters. The chief of his Huron tribe orders that Alice Munro marry Magua and that Cora Munro be burned to death. Cora was to be burned as retribution for her father’s actions against Magua. (However Duncan saves her; one of the few things he does right in the movie.) -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
In Calloway's, "First Peoples," there is talk about the some captives being adopted by the natives. Those not adopted, the elderly and crying infants, were often killed. Those who were seen fit as joining the tribe were painted to traditionally match others in the tribe. Soon, this person would grow to love the tribe as his/her own and if given the chance would not leave the tribe. This is what Calloway refers to as "Indianization" (p 170). This simulation into the native culture was evident in Nathaniel's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
One of the ways in which the readings ran parallel to the movie was the way in which some settlers adopted and retained the native characteristic of living on the frontier. Nathaniel is a great example in the way his character keeps his hair long, wears clothing such as natives wore, spoke the native language as well as lived among the natives who adopted him. In Calloway's writing, when Sylvanus Johnson was taken and adopted into his tribe, he also accepted and retained a number of native characteristics he was taught, even after rejoining the settlers. Another aspect that was similar was in the way Magua, from his first appearance, was totally cognizant of the way in which he knew he was being used and attempted to get the most out of the situation. Although he was influenced by the French more, it was obvious in the movie, the only people he trusted were his own, not the outsiders who killed his family. Within the character of Magua, viewers are able to understand just how upset the natives who wrote the "Onandogas and Cayugas" portion of the readings felt. The way in which the movie portrayed the Mohicans, I saw them as much tolerant and less angry as Magua's people, even though they were both losing their future to the settlers.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I saw a lot of parallels between the movie and the readings, particularly in the "In a World of Warfare" speeches. In the Delaware Indians' "Response to the Moravian ambassador" they say that war is clearly between the English and French, and ask, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" This is paralleled in the film by Nathaniel's early refusal to fight with the militia; he, like many natives, wishes to remain neutral in a fight which he does not feel belongs to him or his adopted family. -Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I like Meagan saw many parallels between the movie and the readings, especially through the "Speech to Alexander Henry." Chief Minavavana states, "[i]t is our custom to retaliate until such time as the spirits of the slain are satisfied." (136). I thought this directly paralleled how Magua felt towards General Munro and I do think he was satisfied with his brutal killing in the movie. I also thought the question raised in "Response to the Moravian Ambassador" was striking, "Why do you come to fight on our land?" (133). It is a direct question to the English and one I think all of the Native American nations wanted answered but were not given enough respect from either the French or English. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
While I did see many similarities between the movie and the readings, there were one or two things I noticed in the readings that didn't show up in the movie. In "A World Turned Upside Down," on page 144, an Indian's account states "I am now to tell you the cause of all disorder and quarreling between us and our white men. It is Rum." (144) The movie did not have any Indians dealing with other drunken Indians or Europeans, but I do remember hearing it mentioned in the film. It makes me wonder, how much of a problem was alcohol for the Indians and Europeans in the larger scheme of things? Another difference I saw when comparing the movie to the readings was Indian treatment of captives. From Susanna Johnson's account, she said the Indians were very kind and compassionate to her. But the Abenakis were attempting to replace lost family members. In the movie, the Hurons were looking to get revenge on the "white people" for the loss of their loved ones. Maybe compassion and kindness from Indians varied from tribe to tribe. ---Alex M.<br />
<br />
== 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>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-09-02T02:57:18Z<p>Elombard: </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 />
== 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 />
<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 />
==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>Elombardhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-08-26T11:05:48Z<p>Elombard: </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 would agree with the claims made so far in this book, but their is one thing that I do not understand. '''Do people really think that they are gonna get a history lesson from a movie?''' I certainly hope not. Movies can be used as a tool to get people interested in a historical topic. For instance, when I first saw the trailer for the movie "300" I automatically wanted to know more about the people involved and the daily lives that they lead, but I didn't wait for the movie to come out to learn that information. I went on the research and destroy path to find out all that I could about these men. Then, while watching the movie, I was still able to enjoy it even though I knew what events where real and which had been manifested by the director. The point here is that movies should held to a certain standard of portraying what really happened, especially movies about history, but it is also the job of the view to understand that movies, good movies moreover, are aimed at entertaining the audience not teaching them. If you want to learn while watching a movie, take the remote and turn the dial to the History channel for one of their famous in-depth, expert filled programs to get your fix of "true" facts and events. -Michael E.<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 />
I agree with LeAnn that the story about the man on the plane was interesting. While I am not completely against historical movies, because they are rather good, I agree that you do have to remember it is a piece of historical fiction. While it might be based off of events or people that actually existed the actual context of the movie should be taken with a grain of salt. However, as others have pointed out, '''the goal of a movie is usually to convey certain ideas and emotions, not describing an an event.''' - Jenn A.<br />
<br />
I think the thing that struck me the most regarding this reading was in the 4 principle attributes that he considers. The 4 principles that he describes are all good points to define, but I found it interesting that he does not consider whether or not the historical event was portrayed as it factually happened. Rather, he looks at the "Interpretation of an important historical situation". You would think a historian would consider this an important aspect of the film, but it does not seem to be at the top of Toplins concerns. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I, too, thought it was interesting in the introduction to this book how Toplin commented about how we can actually learn historical information from the movies. I guess I should have known from the title: ''In defense of Hollywood...'' I think it is definitely true that most people would assume that historians would most definitely attack movies that claim to portray past events and historical events because they can be exaggerated but as I think we will gather from this book, there is a lot we can learn and take away from these "history-oriented movies". -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Toplin's introduction to his book critiques the notion of academics hating Hollywood productions. The intro provides a decent thumbnail sketch of the rest of his work, yet he lays out a few good nuggets of thought that will (or at least should)be the driving force behind his work, seeing cinematic history as a study worth pursuing (Toplin, 4). A simple sketch of his thoughts would include the idea of '''moving past a stigma against film as a non-academic view of history and take it as another medium through which to make assessments of history.''' The author notes that academics turn away from the film as a medium to communicate, in a very powerful way, historical events and characters. '''What does one get from the title and introduction of Toplin's book?''' A call for academics to step outside of the ivory tower and look at how non-academics are viewing history, a step past footnotes and long bibliographies. They need to perhaps even consider the implications of how a movie is crafting and framing a historical narrative rather than not view the product at all because it was published by the University Press. -Joe<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 />
I found this article quite interesting because it brought up a couple ideas in relation to historical research and film. The one that struck me the most was when Davis brought up a crucial difference between creating a historical film vs writing historical fiction. '''With a film many people are involved in different areas of the research process (designers, directors, musicians and so on...)'''. However, when someone writes a book it is usually the author and maybe the editor involved. Because of these differences many different interpretations appear in the creation of a film, making it not so "accurate." - Jenn A.<br />
<br />
Like Mary Ann and Debbi, the discussion of modes of narration really resonated with me. For instance, the scene at the very end of To Kill a Mockingbird, when Boo Radley steps out from the shadows, would not have worked nearly as well if the movie had been made in color rather than black and white (in my opinion, of course). The author has such a good point: those decisions can really make or break a film. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I think Davis brought up an important point regarding the "newness" of film. Like Toplin, I believe Davis was trying to say that there is no way that a film is going to be better than a book and she emphasises this by pointing out the young age of film. Like she said, film is just beginning to find it's medium in history and I think it is going to become another tool for historians (or those who want to be historians) just like text books or newspapers are now. We just need to take those films for what they are...films. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I liked the point that the author brought up about the differences between the research in movies and the books that historians write. In movies you have so many people doing the research for their specific part. The costume designer looks up what people wore in the time period, while the set designer, actor, and script writer all have their own areas of research that they need to do. After all this the director does their thing and and the movie is made. You would think that with all these people doing research inaccuracies would be caught, but I suppose it's because they're all doing their research within their field of expertise. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
The author described two contrasting ways of depicting history in film at the end of the article. First, there was the film by Darryl Zanuck, that depicted the characters in the film as complete opposites of what they were in history. Then, there was the other producer, Francesco Rosi, who claimed that he did not need to "fabricate" history, only "interpret" it. '''While Hollywood films may be more entertaining with less historical facts, I think it's only right to make those films as accurate as possible.''' If a historically based film has little historical accuracy to it, what is the point of creating the movie? Even if only for entertainment purposes, the event the movie is portraying has lost all meaning. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I was interested in the correlation between history and poetry as a means to tell a story. But, I thought it was intriguing that according to Aristotle, poets must make the story completely "unified" (3) whereas historians are required to tell it all in that time period, regardless of whether or not it fits. The same can be said for movies. Directors are less focused on telling the whole story because oftentimes, that causes it to lose its entertainment value. So instead, the take the poetic approach to the film. But meanwhile, the true history becomes muddled or sometimes even lost in the process. - Kelly R.<br />
<br />
'''"As long as we bear in mind the differences between film and professional prose, we can take film seriously as a source of valuable and even innovative historical vision."''' (Davis, 15) This sentence we one of the final thoughts from Natalie Zemon Davis on how one can view cinematic history. Her work can serve as a guide to how to evaluate cinematic history (Toplin's term). We find that the difference between historical analysis and the historical film are not unlike the divide between Homer's poetics and the Aristotelian concept of history. She goes further to accurately and briefly define what historians should do during research. She lays out the criterion for good history with the question of how much is truly applicable to the film. Can one honestly expect the director of a film to sit with the audience and explain the sources for his ideas, frankly no. However, Davis's point is not to rag on films, rather she is trying to shift the general opinion to accepting films for what they are, a not as rigorous method to understand a particular person or event in history. She also notes that there are overlaps in methodology. Although one will readily critique the film for being limited in scope, yet every piece of historical writing must have some sort of narrowed scope and somewhat arbitrary cut off times. The film is under even tighter constrains with only a limited amount of time to explain a story. Long story short, I give Davis props for giving the filmmakers some credit in their work.--Joe<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. T'''he 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. H'''istorical 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 />
The way in which movies influence the publics perception of events is heavily highlighted in the “Why Movies Matter.” In particular, the focus on the control of the film industry, whether through governmental restrictions or interest groups, revealed the extent to which film can effect a society. Although the consensus today is that filmgoers are not simply a “blank slate,” it is clear that movies have a certain power over the way people learn about the society they live in. '''The role of censorship in filmmaking, therefore, plays a major role in shaping the attitudes and beliefs that pervade in American society.''' To what degree censorship can influence the society becomes the central question. If the average person learns social norms from the films they watch, yet their personal biases and beliefs also play a role, how do you determine the power of a film? - Melissa E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Caryn. This article acknowledges the influence (sometimes negative or incorrect) that the film industry has on a mass population, but it also acknowledges the benefits of that influence. It seems to me that Ross is stating that the film industry isn't necessarily good for historians, but it is a good starting base for people who may not have a whole lot of background information. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
I thought it was very interesting when this article started mentioning the types of films that were popular in the past ("renewed prosperity in the 1920s led... to films about promises and consumption" along with rich boy/girl falls in love with poor boy/girl, while in the 1930s there were many about sexual liaisons crossing social and racial lines.) It got me to thinking about when the 1940s and WWII come around, they turn into propaganda films trying to stressing unity and patriotism. There were so many of those films John Wayne and Claudette Colbert appeared in several of them. The producers churned out a great number of them during the war period (check out this wikipedia page of WWII Films made during the war [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_World_War_II_films] to see a list). While today, I can only think of two films, off the top of my head, that deal with conflicts currently going on, Jar Head and Hurt Locker. (This might not have anything to do with the discussion but '''the differences between the two time periods and the films being made struck me as huge and showed how the movie business has changed immensely'''.) -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I found this article interesting for many reasons. On page 2-3, the article discusses how movies affected the public. Movie producers used films to reach out to people, to inform them of what was going on in the world, and aimed to inform the public and create a public opinion. '''While I am sure sometimes the film makers opinion could have been askew, they aimed to create more awareness about various things in American society. When compared to movies presently, I believe that movies today are not aimed at that particular goal. Movies nowadays are more for entertainment purposes rather than informational. I wonder if it is possible to get back to that, where movies were entertaining yet you left the movies feeling as though you were enlightened, if just a little, by what you watched?''' The article also stated that the movie industry was not always centered around money and fame. I am curious to know what happened and what caused the change in the ideology of Hollywood? --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Ross describes how for the first several decades of film, the medium was open to a fairly large percentage of the population. Over time movie production came under the control of several large corporations. This stunted the flow of new and innovative ideas to the big screen. The internet, through such sites as facebook, twitter, youtube and blogs, has allowed the average American to again express their views, this time to millions of voracious internet users. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Just as a sidebar, '''I actually did not know nickelodeon was an actually term outside of a silly set of shows I watch as a child (just saying).''' Meagan P. towards the top of this article points out the distinction Ross makes at the very end of his his introduction concerning the difference between ideology and discourse. Although this is only one smaller piece to Ross's work, I can't help but be a little thankful that tucked away in his introduction is a point of view on how film can be studied. While the previous readings focus on film's ability to demonstrate good -or painfully awful- history. Yet what Ross introduces is a record for the effects of film throughout American history as a trend setter. I would hazard to say that Ross in a discussion of film would focus on film as a primary source which indicates how people at that specific point of time thought about a certain happening. '''In essence what Ross lays out through talking about ideology and discourse is the sort of questions one would ask himself while performing a wide spread review on a whole range of films. Why are movies important? Mind control. What do you do about it? Dissect the film beyond "I like it" or "I hate it" lines of thought.'''--Joe<br />
<br />
Before reading this excerpt, I never realized how influential movies really were in shaping the minds and thoughts of Americans and now I can most certainly agree. When thinking of the big social changes that have occurred throughout America's history, I have always attributed them to certain individuals. While these individuals may have started social change, I would have to say that filmmakers played a major role in the continuation of that change by having the ability to reach a huge diverse audience and address present social issues. Humans are visual creatures and we are influenced most by how others think and do. --Erin L.<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.<br />
<br />
A lot of the readings deal with how modern Americans interpret history as it is presented in films, but '''this article mentions that films can shape how contemporaries see their own times as well. As the author points out, many in 1955 saw "Blackboard Jungle" and "Rebel Without a Cause" as proof that adults could expect nothing but juvenile delinquency from their teenagers and so went about railing against the terrible influences of the culture of the day and the downfall of society.''' Yet, as we all know, in reality, most young people in the 1950s behaved in ways that hardly resembled those depicted in the movies. The explosive reaction to those films makes Isaac's point a very relevant one- how much do movies shape our history as well as record it? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I find it almost amusing that censorship of movies is nearly as old as movies themselves. Something about new forms of mass media seems to scare people. It isn't even just some guy giving a mild warning against a particular film or two, but groups of individuals devoting their time to "protecting the innocent public" from such vile corruption, and it has been going on for as long as movies have been around. I wonder what it is that makes films so powerful that they can frighten people so easily. - Cilla<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed reading this section about the evolution of Hollywood and motion pictures. It's interesting to read about society's reactions to them during the different decades of the twentieth century when they first appeared. The movie industry was always affected by some event that was happening in the world or the United States including the depression, World War II, communism, and Vietnam war. At the time of World War II, President Roosevelt wanted the movies to try to help win the war and to ban the codes that were being put on the movies to explain and describe the war and all that was involved with it. So even if some think historical films do not always depict events in the most realistic or accurate ways, they always have a role to play in American Society -Amy V.<br />
<br />
It was very interesting to see the progression of the film industry at it's earliest stages until what we know of today. I think understanding the beginning of it can help understand why and how it is now. The connections are more evident when you think of how newspapers and radios were the main form of mass communication 100 years ago. I guess when you think of the growth of the United States, films begin to make a whole lot of sense! - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
To answer Rachel's question, "How influential are movies?," I think the answer is very influential. However, I don't think society sees it at quite the same level that in did in the past. The article talked about how in 1907 and 1908 the mayor of NYC was peer pressured in to shutting down nickelodeons and movie theaters and a presidential committee even found movies to support "illicit lovemaking" (13). I certainly don't see anything like that happening today. However, I do believe that movies still have power even today. As Dr. McClurken mentioned on Tuesday, most Americans get their history (and I think other perceptions of the way life is) from film. - Kelly R.<br />
<br />
Perhaps I just read this article far too late, but it did not hold my attention as well as the above articles. All that said i at least understand what Mintz and Roberts are driving at in terms of movies being a type of window into the social and cultural aspects of America. If we go by the concept that Hollywood wants to produce pieces that will be readily consumed by the populace, it is fair to say that films can reflect the climate or a culture at any given point of time. Films, like literature, are not created in a vacuum but rather are in response to an external stimulus. WWII it's time to make propaganda, in the 60's and mid 70's Hollywood produces fluff films for purely entertainment. However we can see as the tastes of the public change, those producing adapt to the interests of the public.<br />
<br />
The article comments on how movies have had a significant decline in quality over the years, but I would have to slightly disagree with that. The big blockbusters and action movies are not the ones that win Oscars, the movies that win are still the ones that challenge people's perception of things and undertake difficult social issues. --Erin L.</div>Elombard 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