Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: 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=HobnailMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:57:45ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_15_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 15 Questions/Comments2010-12-01T19:14:35Z<p>Hobnail: /* Comments on the readings and the semester of US History in Film */</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 />
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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_15_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 15 Questions/Comments2010-12-01T07:35:23Z<p>Hobnail: /* Things the movie got wrong */</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 />
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 />
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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-11-18T07:13:09Z<p>Hobnail: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately depicted the way wounded veterans' hospital conditions were deplorable. The country was spending vast amounts of money and attention to rid the world of communism that it turned a blind eye and expended no money to the medical care of the wounded vets. It took many years and lots of people to complain for veterans to get better medical care when they returned home. Although conditions are better, many VA hospitals could use more funding to aid the recovery of wounded vets. Another issue with what vets faced in returning home was the way in which they had to find a place to fit in to their home that no longer was home. Because of the experiences the went through with just trying to survive, the person they were after coming come was no longer the person who left to fight in the war. The became a very difficult situation for both the vet and the family. They both needed to learn how to live with each other again. The movie portrayed the difficulty Ron had trying to fit into his family again, and the person he had the hardest time with was his mother. I think the problem came from his mother refusing to communicate about how the war changed her son and they never shared their feelings or experiences. This was a shame. Things could have been much easier if they were used to communicating.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Debbie M. In a film filled with violence and gore, the scenes that shocked me the most were those in the veterans' hospital. The fact that these men went through the horrors of battle, getting seriously wounded or paralyzed, and had to "recuperate" in those conditions is enraging. Those scenes were just as traumatizing for me as the battle scenes. The way that some of the nurses treated them was so frustrating - non-chalance bordering on apathy. I wanted to smack the nurse that told Ron to stick Vietnam up his ass - WHO SAYS THAT TO A PARALYZED VETERAN? I think Stone did a great job showing the frustration of veterans dealing with anti-war sentiment - people taking out their anger about the war on the soldiers themselves had no idea what those men had been through. I also really liked the idealism that Stone infused into Ron's pre-war life. Everything was so idyllic and optimistic - fireworks, parades, baseball! I think it really captured the post-WWII golden days. Every now and then there would be a sad moment that stuck out, like the wounded veterans in the parade wincing at the noise of the firecrackers. Ron also said during the scene at the diner with his friends, "Our dads got to have WWII", which shows the eager mindset that a lot of young men probably had at that time. They saw Vietnam as their chance to fight for a noble cause. Ron also said, "I wanna go to Vietnam. And I'll die if I have to." That just bummed me out so much, because I'm sure so many guys thought the same thing, and probably did die. - Celia<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken said there was less cohesiveness as a unit among soldiers in Vietnam than among soldiers in World War II. This is illustrated in the movie when Ron tells Wilson's parents that no one talked to new guys much. That isn't to say there wasn't camaraderie, but many men would rather see a "stranger" than a friend be suddenly killed (like Lavender in "The Things They Carried"). --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken talked in class about how many veterans of the Vietnam war suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder. The veterans suffered from nightmares, depression, flashbacks, and "survivor guilt." The cause of most of these reactions to combat stem from the soldiers seeing so many people, especially civilians-men, women, and children, killed and dying. In the movie, Ron Kovic suffers from this disorder. He definitely has survivor guilt because he continued to think about the man he killed long after he was released from war. He only felt better about the situation when he told the family of the man he killed that he had been the one to kill him. He also relived the scene where the soldiers shot into a hut full of civilians in which most of them were killed. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The movie was very moving and at moments you wanted to turn away but also wanted an understanding of how Vietnam was portrayed in American culture. One of the most accurate parts for me was when Tom Cruise's character goes to his chain of command and tries to admit how he killed Wilson, but the idea is instantly rejected. The military did not want it to be leaked that deaths could be caused by their own troops and as noted in class the government even attempted to hide information regarding Vietnam from the American public. Also the acknowledgment of Kent State and protests was very real, the events were all tragic and a big part of American history in showing how divided society was throughout the conflict. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think the movie accuratly portreyed the veterens and how they reacted to each other when they came home. It does not matter if they served in the same place or where they had gone they did terrible things and they are comforable with each other more then they are comfortable with their own family. They share something deeper by having gone to war and killing people. It depicts accuratly how the famliy reacts to a disturbed soldier who is bitter about what happened to him. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film depicts how common different addictions were among the soldiers and returning vets. Ron and the other men, especially while in Mexico, are constantly drinking and smoking. And men in the VA hospital towards the beginning of the film are hiding in the closet to shoot up drugs. The addictions added another level of problems to the challenges the vets had in returning home, but they also served as a means to numb their problems. Fighting them would mean having to confront how much their world is changed. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with what Megan said. The movie was intense and well made, but there were a lot of parts that were just too hard to watch. I think the soldiers' return home was accurately portrayed. At the beginning of the movie, Kovic is a boy watching the World War II veterans in a 4th of July parade and it seemed that he wanted to be one of those soldiers marching in the parade and wanted to be appreciated like that some day. When he becomes a veteran himself, when he first returned home, he was met by his neighbors who were happy to see him. And later, he rode in the parade and had flashbacks of his childhood when he would admire the WWII veterans. Except his experience was different: people were throwing things at the car, flipping him off, etc. It definitely wasn't the homecoming he expected. A lot of soldiers probably faced that, being appreciated by the people closest to them but the general public felt they had nothing to congratulate the soldiers for. One aspect we didn't talk in detail about in class was the Veterans Hospitals. I was so disgusted in the movie by how dirty and just horrific the conditions were in the hospital. The veterans were treated like animals, like in the scene where they were getting hosed off and one man said it was like they were "at a car wash." The nurses and doctors also seemed indifferent to the healing veterans. From what we learned in class, the VA did not give/have a lot of money for the hospitals, but still; to treat veterans like that in places as disgusting at that seemed so wrong and probably didn't help the veterans' assimilation back to civilian life any easier. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the chaos of the era. Ron Kovic leaves the hell that was Vietnam only to return to a nation that was hardly less stable. Ron tries to find his place amidst the protesting college students, misplaced veterans, and cookie-cutter suburban life. Ron discovers that he no longer fits in with his "normal" family and that most of his friends died in Vietnam; he no longer has a proper place in his society. Another part of the movie I felt was accurate was when the African American soldier remarked that he was fighting for rights in Vietnam that he did not have at home. He felt it was a rich man's war. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movies brings out the little things that people may not have noticed at first glance. First, one of Ron's friends claim that he wants to "do something with his life," meaning that he wants to go to college and get a degree. This shows that not all men ducked out of the draft by fleeing the country and that some actually found legal and more honorable ways of getting around the draft. Then there is the false reality that these young men have about going to war. They claim they want their shot at to become a hero like their fathers had done in WWII. Finally, there is the depiction of the war on television. By showing actual scenes from the war and some of the aftermath, people back home are allowed to get a first an up close view about what the war may have entailed. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I think that the film portrayed the effects the war had on the veterans were accurate. Even in the beginning with the WWII vets and the man who flinches every time there is a loud noise, and the same goes for Ron later. It also should the various effects like, physical disability, alcoholism, drug abuse, PTSD through various characters especially in the hospital scenes. The film also should the different ways people at home reacted to the war. Some people were happy they were home, some thought they were killers, others felt sorry but no one knew exactly how to act.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
We mentioned briefly in class the lack of care that the veterans received after the war. Nixon constantly vetoed bills that would increase the amount of veteran’s benefits. I thought the movie did a good job of portraying the time Kovic spent in the hospital and the negligence of the doctors and nurses and lack of proper care. For example, when Kovic needed the pump for his extra leg the hospital did not even have an extra one and the doctor even mentioned that the funding for the veterans is very slim. The movie did not directly discuss the care for Veterans too much except in the hospital scenes but throughout the movie it is clearly apparent the almost contempt that many member of society had for these returning heroes. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Goodness, well I definitely agree with everything everyone else has already said. I think the movie does do a really great job of showing the cultural changes during the Vietnam era and the overall mood of the country. At that point in time, America was almost cocky when it came to the military record, for the country had not yet lost a war. However, as we've seen throughout the semester, the director does not considerable artistic license and dramatizes some scenes, albeit, it was all effective and did not actually detract from the historical accuracy. -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
The film showed how many returning soldiers did not have a jobs to return because many of them were so young they didn't have jobs before they left and the economy in decline meant there weren't a lot of jobs anyway. Tom Cruise's character was offered a lowly cashier job by his friend, with the promise that he could work his way up. Also just the amount of veterans that seemed not to have jobs, like the ones in Mexico (whether by choice, medical reasons, or the economy it is unclear).--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 14:48, 17 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
I think the film showed very well how many Americans viewed the situation in Vietnam prior to the "war." When Ron and his friends are siting around in the diner when they are in high school, they 1) hardly know where Vietnam is or how to pronounce the name and 2) talk about how they need to hurry up and enlist or they will miss the war. In many interviews Stone cites the second reason-as well as many others Ron voices-as the reason he himself volunteered. Also the film also did a good job in showing how someone could go from Ron's original stance of supporting the war to his last stance of actively speaking out against it. -Isaac Whalen<br />
p.s. in regards to the comments about the lack of black soldiers. While there were few shown during the fighting there were quite a few shown in veteran's garb at the rallies and what not. The one dude who threw his medals off was a black soldier. This might have been done to show the presence of African Americans pushing for equality at home in conjunction with the peace rallies.<br />
<br />
I thought that while the film was very intense, it accurately portrayed the chaos that many of the soldiers witnessed during the war. The noise and the choppy camera shots really contribute to that sense. It was also emphasized when Tom Cruise thought that he had killed Wilson, and he kept repeating that it was so confusing. The sharp contrast between the high school prom and the brutality of war definitely demonstrate accurately the differences that the soldiers witnessed, with very short transition periods. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
This movie showed the difference between WWII veterans and Vietnam War veterans. WWII veterans were respected and honored more than Vietnam veterans. This is shown in the parades - the one in the beginning when Ron was little and the one that Ron was in as a veteran. When the WWII vets walked in the parade everyone respected them and cheered. But when the Vietnam vets were in the parade, some people cursed and said disrespectful things to them. It also showed how Ron and many people saw the WWII vets as heroes before he went to Vietnam. This was shown in pop culture during that time. When Ron was in the grocery store talking to Donna, "Soldier Boy" by the Shirelles was playing in the background. It also showed the similarities between the WWII and Vietnam vets in regards to PTSD. In the beginning, one of the WWII vets was alarmed when firecrackers went off. Halfway through the movie when Ron was in the parade, he was startled too by the firecrackers because it reminded him of war. There are so many things I could say about this movie. I think it did a good job with showing many different aspects to the Vietnam War. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The thing that struck me most from the entire movie was the scene in the VA hospital in which he's screaming, "I WANT TO BE TREATED LIKE A HUMAN BEING. DECENT. THAT'S ALL." For me, that really sums up how a lot of returning Vietnam vets felt after the war. The public reaction to Vietnam was so different to that to WWII, and veterans were not prepared for the responses they got at all. There are a lot of accurate parts of this movie, but for me, that scene really sums everything up. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
I think the film did a very good job at portraying the symptoms of PTSD. From the moment Ron was told to basically forget about the death of a fellow soldier, it was obviously going to bother him for the rest of his life. The stress, flashbacks, alcoholism, survivor guilt, and depression were all evident throughout the film, although some developed earlier than others. It was accurate to see Ron's character feel a disconnection from the rest of his family and neighborhood when he returned because noone really understood what he had gone throught. Separation and isolation seem to plague Ron from the moment she leaves Vietnam after his injury. It was really expressed well to the viewers for this loss of identity and meaning. On the same note of when Ron arrives back in the United States, he faces another issue that I believe the film does a good job of representing. The complex feelings of the United States as a whole was accurately portrayed. Many welcomed Ron back, and told him he did a good boy, even though there personal feelings differed. Then there were those that actively lashed out against him for fighting. Even Ron himself is torn between what he feels in the beginning and how he feels in the end. Passionate for his country, he defends it always. But by the end, and what seems to pull him out of his misery, is this vigor for his opposition to the war. I think the film does a very good job of noting the disconnection in the U.S. during this time between soldiers, civilians, and government officals. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
As many people have mentioned, I was shocked by the conditions in the VA Hospital. As terrible as the treatment from the staff at the hospital was, what really surprised me, was that no one ever had any family visit them. Ron's brother makes a lame excuse about it when Ron returns home, but his parents never even try. Long Island is not that far away from Brooklyn. Did the military only allow prostitutes and drug dealers to visit soldiers in hospital? Born on the Fourth of July also provided clear insight into the mind of the American military before and during the early stages of the Vietnam War. When the Marines are talking to the high schoolers, they talk about how the United States has never lost a war and never will. Later, when Ron is watching the news with his father, a news reporter asks an American officer how they are going to fight the Viet Cong and NVA. He responds with disdain, "I think that anything that lives in a cave can be weeded out." These scenes show the superiority and invincibility that many Americans felt. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I also wanted to comment on the state if the veteran hospitals. I was completely shocked by this and wonder how accurate it is. Unfortunately, I'm assuming it's fairly accurate considering all the budget cuts we discussed in class on Tuesday and how few hopsitals there were compared to the actual need. I totally agree with Appel, that was the most striking thing about the film, for me personally. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Oliver Stone effectively portrayed the negative reception that veterans received when they returned to society. Even Ron’s family turned against him. He was treated poorly in the hospital, and did not assimilate back into society very well. There were strong anti-war sentiments. Many civilians said that the soldiers in Vietnam did not know what was going on at home and that they thought they were fighting for a good cause against Communism. The home front was more informed than the soldiers. I liked how Stone actually used the real speeches of Kennedy and Nixon. Stone seemed to ignore racial conflicts and focus more on class and generational conflicts. Also the disabled veterans formed protests against the war, even though some, like Ron, had originally been against protests. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
One word. Confusion. If there is anything the movie got right about the portrayal of war it is this. War is confusing, probably even more so for Vietnam Soldiers. Because as the war progressed the soldiers forgot why they were fighting, or rather they because more confused as to the reason they were fighting. - Jenn<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 />
This movie did not focus a lot on the draft. Just because they did not focus on it does not mean that the movie got this part wrong. But in my opinion I think they could have added a little more about this. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Although the film very accurately portrayed Kovic's own personal experience, I felt it only showed the war in a certain light. While Kovic's experiences with the VVAW and his ultimate opposition, it fails to show those that did not suffer to the extent that Kovic did. Particularly in the representation of the protesters at the Republican convention, none of the peace protesters are not violent or unruly and stereotypes the Republican leaders. -Melissa<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna and Megan. Although the issue of African American civil rights was brought up briefly, I though as a whole it was underplayed. While many of the scenes neglected to have any blacks in them (which would have been accurate), the issue itself isn't brought up in many of the conversations or situations that Ron finds himself in with other African American soldiers. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Now this might be me just being nitpicky but after Tom Cruise was shot he was sent to the hospital. And in the scene they were using a defibrillator, which is fine because those existed then. However what bothered me was that they used this device over the top of the guys shirt (no!) while he was still drenched in his own blood (double no!). One of the things that was ingrained into my head during CPR training was that you never, never, never use any sort of AED device on a person who is wet. For some reason I think this would have also applied during Vietnam, even if it was the first war where soldiers were [http://www.cprawareness.org/history.html trained in CPR ]. - Jenn<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 />
The movie was made in 1989 so there were many primary sources available via veterans. This shows how deeply embedded the Vietnam War was in the American mind. The M*A*S*H television series had just gone off the air in 1983. The music was overdone, but it showed the culture expectations of what a big movie should be. The public was still expecting orchestral scores with big sweeping music to affect the emotions of the audience. Also, the use of slow-motion was overdone. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Like Shauser stated, it's interesting to note the time lapse between the publishing of the book and the production of the film. By this point, 16 years had passed and new insights into Vietnam could be sought out. I think the gap of time was a good thing for the film to portray Vietnam accurately. If it had been produced immediately after the war (...or conflict), I think many of the mixed feelings the people of the U.S. were feeling may have painted the film in a different light. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
<br />
While I'm sure everyone in the class found the film to be disturbing and highly despressing, some critics found it to be too hopeful. One film critic imparticular, Jonathan Rosenbaum said"...the movie's conventional showbiz finale, brimming with false uplift, implies that the traumas of other mutilated and disillusioned Vietnam veterans can easily be overcome if they write books and turn themselves into celebrities." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_on_the_Fourth_of_July_(film) I would scared to watch a movie produced by Mr. Rosenbaum. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Philip Caputo mentions how like aliens he and other Vietnam vets felt when they returned to "the world." He said "...within a year I was growing nostalgic for the war." We saw that in the movie when Ron and Timmy were reunited (after Ron's parade). They were esctatic to see one another, and afterward they sat outside talking and talking about the war. No one understood them like they understood each other. We saw this same phenomenon in "Best Years of Our Lives," when the men wanted each others' company more than they wanted to be with their families. Their notion of family had changed, in a way. Ron is certainly aliented from his family. His brother is anit-war, and none of the others even '''asked''' him about his experiences. He had no one to talk to. His mother had her own ideology which seemed fixed no matter what the facts were--she is shown turning the channel from news casts to watch "Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In." --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In the reading ''Rumor of War'',the author says that men went overseas "full of illusions." He said that war was attractive to young men who knew nothing about it. Kennedy also supposedly seduced the men through his speech "Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country." The way in which the author describes the mentality of the young men who volunteered to fight in the Vietnam conflict was shown through the character Ron Kovic in ''Born on the Fourth of July''. When the Marines came to Ron's school, he immediately knew he wanted to fight; he felt like he had a duty to fight in the war for his country. I think he also romanticized the idea about being in the military and being a veteran for the war when he compared his future experience to his and his friends' fathers' experiences in World War II. He believed he was going to be a part of a fight against communism, they were going to win the war, and be treated like royalty upon their return home. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
<br />
In "Rumors of War," Caputo talks about how even when he had returned home, he still felt a connection with Vietnam, as though it was a part of him permanently. Dr. McClurken mentioned a statement in class, "they [veterans] returned to the US with dirt from Vietnam still under their fingertips." In the prologue, Caputo also mentioned how when he heard thunder, he remembered artillery and how he "could not listen to rain without recalling those drenched nights on the line" or even how he couldn't walk through the woods without being watchful of an ambush. Kovic had similar reactions as these. When he was on stage at the rally after he returned home, he couldn't finish giving his speech because he heard a baby crying and his mind flashed back to when him and his men accidentally killed all those people in the village and he left the crying baby behind. Even at the 4th of July Parade, he heard gunshots and he flinched, just as the WWII veteran had at the beginning of the movie when Kovic was a boy watching the parade. All of these reactions are how Vietnam stuck with these veterans. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
In the first reading, Caputo describes life from a Marines point of view, which also means as Dr. McClurken pointed out he had an extra month of service, but he engages in many of the ideas brought up in the movie and in class. I agree with Alex and also felt that the returning veterans could not let go of Vietnam it had become part of their life and it could not be pushed aside. One of the interesting points in the reading was when he quoted the sergeant from his platoon and how the sergeant went from being a pleasant man to one who thought survival was more important than innocent Vietnamese lives.(xix) This idea is also portrayed in the movie when Tom Cruise's character is attempting to save the wounded, especially the baby but is forced out by his commanding officer. Caputo admits war is ugly but as a veteran he was able to side with those who served because of the common bond soldiers shared. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Caputo discusses the belief that the American soldiers would simply march into Vietnam and the war would be easily won and then they would return home. He claimed “America seemed omnipotent then: the country could still claim it had never lost a war….the Viet Cong would be quickly beaten and that we were doing something altogether noble and good.” I think the movie expressed this sentiment pretty well especially when Ron and his friends were sitting around at the table eating and they were convinced that it would be a quick victory. They were so excited to go to war, but the excitement faded just as quickly as it was built and “the convictions, [were] lost.” -afrisk<br />
<br />
In, ''A Rumor of War, '' there is a claim that war is very attractive to young men. It then claims that some of these men were very moved by the speech President Kennedy gave about "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." From the movie, there is one idea about young men joining the war cause that is left out. That is, when their fathers came home they were seen as heroes. More importantly, they would not have ever heard their fathers talk about the terrible things they were forced to do while over seas. Thus, not only were these young men disillusioned about what the war entailed, but they were also not aware of what a war could do to the human mind. This sort of suppression of memories on their father's behalf severely hinder their own ability to grasp all the hardships that come with war and its aftermath. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie, Born on the Fourth of July, showed the horrors that those who fought in Vietnam faced abroad and what they had to deal with when they returned from fighting the unpopular war. The readings were graphic and provided much detail but the movie, because we could see it on the screen brought the horror to life. This is comparable to the people on the home front reading about WWII in the newspapers and watching Vietnam unfold on the news programs on their television. In O’Brien’s piece he listed the items that the soldiers carried and what some of them meant to the soldiers but in the movie you could see what it might’ve been like for the soldiers to carry their heavy packs through the heat of the jungles in Vietnam. (One thing I was confused about in O’Brien’s piece was when he said, “and all the things a medic must carry, including M&M’s for especially bad wounds” Is he talking about the candy M&M’s and what would they help with in medical situations.) –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
In "They Things They Carried," Jimmy Cross's relationship with Martha reminded me of Ron's love for Donna in the movie. Both men tried to hold onto this idea that if they could only get through the horrible war then these women would be at home, unchanged, waiting for them. Nevermind that the women might not know that they were supposed to be waiting or how strongly the men felt, the soldiers needed something to cling to. Yet, when Ron does return home, he's changed, and Donna has grown and changed at school, and all of that romantic dream he held on to crumbles, one more blow to deal with in his post-war world. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I definitely saw a connection between the film and Caputo's reading, mostly on how the war simply never left so many men. Ron has flashbacks a few times to the baby crying, he winces at loud noises in the parades - the smallest things sent him reeling back into the horrors he faced. It was so hard to some veterans simply to exist as civilians, and they couldn't just shake off what they had been a part of. - Celia<br />
<br />
I think that "Rumors of War" was very similar to the things we saw in the film. These illusions and the desire to go and fight for the United States is what motivated many of the men to volunteer initially, but it became more than just a war to be won, or in this case loss, when the men returned home and found themselves lost without the war. Ron doesn't know what to do with himself when he returns home and ends up getting into some serious issues with alcoholism. This feeling of confusion or being lost is evident in both the reading and the film. I think they correspond well. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
Whereas "The Things They Carried" is a work of fiction, it really gives a feeling that the reader is in Vietnam with the soldiers. Also, like Ron who was remorseful for Wilson's death from accidentally shooting Wilson, Lieutenant Jimmy Cross grieved for Ted Lavender after Lavender was shot dead while Cross was daydreaming. Both Ron and Cross had feelings for the deaths of other soldiers that really made them human. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_13_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 13 Questions/Comments2010-11-17T07:45:54Z<p>Hobnail: /* 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 />
== 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 />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<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 />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-11-11T08:05:06Z<p>Hobnail: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the inferior status of African Americans in the South. It showed how some whites, like during Christmas dinner, talked one way in front of blacks and another when they were not in the room and how others were not concerned with who heard their outspokenness dripping with racial prejudice. The movie also showed how the boycott was most difficult for black women, especially those who were domestic servants. This was true not only because of the long distances they lived from their places of employment, but also because, even if they were the last ones home, they were still expected to uphold their motherly duties of keeping house and taking care of the children. How they were able to sustain the boycott for over a year, I have no clue. But their determination goes to show how dedicated they were to winning this battle.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The one thing I believed the movie portrayed really well was to show how churches were used to spread the ideals of activism to the people. In the movie they mention that those with cars should use them to help with car pooling others around. Using personal cars for driving others was brought up at the church. Once these plans were laid forth in the church, they were met with cops trying to impede them by giving them tickets. Plus, once they were met by opposition, they refused to use any kind of force, even when they were being beaten. Also, most of the people showed boycotting the buses were black women. As is true with what really happened, men helped by planning the boycotts and raising money to keep it going. Another thing that was portrayed well was the increase of membership for the KKK. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie was extremely accurate in the movie's portrayal of the determination of the African American community to uphold the boycott. Despite the long distances and the harassment that they faced, they still diligently walked or found another mode of transportation to work, such as taxis. The movie also shows that they organized car-pools to help those that could not walk. Due to the boycott, the movie also shows the methods that the white community tried to use to break the boycott, such as harassing those that were driving in the car pools. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The film accurately portrays the racism of the whites in the South and the intense feelings they have for segregation. In the film blacks were not allowed in the “white” park. The bus obviously had segregated sections. In the movie the black women would pay the bus fare then get off the bus and board on the back so they would not walk through the white section. The bus boycott began after the arrest of Rosa Parks (and it’s led by Martin Luther King, Jr.). Women’s roles are also accurately portrayed. They either had a job, or they worked in the home. If the family had money, it had a maid and the wife did not have to do as much of the housework. Wives also were expected to follow their husband’s ideals. This is shown when Mrs. Thompson tells Odessa she cannot drive her anymore because her husband thinks ‘it is not right to make her suffer.’ However I must say that I loved the speech Mrs. Thompson gives her husband when she tells him that she will do what she wants in order to do her job to run the household, and that he should leave her alone unless he wants her to go to his job and tell him how to do it.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Samantha in regards to how the movie portrayed the city buses as being heavily segregated, and I think it would be pretty accurate to say regardless of gender all African Americans suffered if they made a white person angry. I do wonder did many African Americans ride the bus throughout the boycott and if they did was the reaction the same as Whoopi Goldberg's character portrayed? I also think it was correct when her brother came with the taxi and the driver said "he needed to leave before he was lynched," the terror of white society in Montgomery was everywhere, as shown by Mr. Thompson and his "citizens council" and all African Amerians knew it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I liked how the movie placed the lives of the Thompson's and the Cotters as totally seperate. Mr. Cotter said that we will only know her as a maid and she will only know us as her employers. This distant relationship between white families and there black maids seemed very accurate. Even though it seemed like the Thompsons were less racist at first there was no sense of compassion or equality for Odessa and she was purely another servent. I like how the movie portrayed this very gradual ideological change and how acceptance was very difficult. -afrisk<br />
<br />
First of all, I really liked this movie because it managed to make me incredibly angry about what was happening, even though I knew that the outcome was positive. I wish we had been able to see every hateful person in the film get what's coming to them. That being said, I respect the filmmakers immensely because they chose not to do that - it's much more realistic that way. I was so angry and frustrated with what I saw in the film, and I think that's what the filmmakers were going for. Anyway, I agree with Andrew about the stark contrasts between the Thompson and Cotter homes. This was especially clear on Christmas - the Thompson had lots of presents under their tree, everyone was together and happy; in the Cotter house, Odessa was up before everyone else to leave for work, she left one small gift in everyone's stockings, and spent the rest of the day working. I also agree with Mike E. about how it showed the power that the churches held in encouraging the boycott. I thought it was interesting that Odessa's daughter, Selma, was not as gung-ho about the boycott as everyone else. I'm sure there were people that shared her point of view - it was a serious inconvenience, and not everyone was bound to be as noble and perservering as Odessa. I thought the film also did a good job showing all different perspectives - the aggressively ignorant and hateful Tucker is sort of the worst of the worst; Norman starts off more or less neutral and starts to turn to the dark side; Miriam isn't against the boycott at the beginning but she slowly becomes more active in the cause; the bus driver that "doesn't want any trouble" and kicks off the horrible boys after they harrass Selma; and Selma's juvenile annoyance at the boycott. It was refreshing to see such a varied group of characters, rather than simply good versus evil. - Celia<br />
<br />
I think that the movie accurately portrayed how much women in particular, were affected by the bus boycotts. Since so many women, including Odessa Cotter mainly worked in service positions, especially domestic service, they were more likely to have to travel into the suburbs far from their homes. The determination of these women seems even more powerful that they had to travel so very far. It also depicts the effect that the boycott had on white women in the South in the 1950s. Miriam Thomson seemed to epitomize the 1950s educated housewife who was expected to maintain the home for her family. Her initial motivation for helping Odessa was simply for her own families comfort, but, it became more of a moral crusade later on. I think that Miriam’s clash with her husband illustrates the struggle of the 1950s ideals of domesticity and how women were expected to remain the more submissive sex. Though the film does not overtly mention it, I think there is an underlying tension of the need to dominate the African-American women who are empowering themselves and consequently subverting the white southern male authority in Montgomery...or maybe I am reading too much into it…-Caryn<br />
<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Caryn about the role of women. It was interesting that some of what was said in the reading we had about Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr. When the mayor of Montgomery said that women were a lot of why the boycott was continuing because they were driving their maids, the women were furious and said, "if Tacky Gayle wants to come out here and do my washing, ironing, and cleaning and cooking and looking after my children, he can do it, but unless he does, I'm going to continue driving." That was the reason Miriam used when she finally stood up to her husband saying she was going to continue driving Odessa because she needed the help in the house. It seemed that Miriam had an underlying reason for driving Odessa, that being she secretly supported the boycott and the African American cause. During the real boycotts, I wonder how many white women who drove their maids secretly supported the boycott? -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this movie and I think it was very accurate. It showed the complex relationships between African Americans and whites. The scene where the family had guests over at dinner was especially tense because some people supported segregation while others quietly disagreed. Also, they were saying racist things in front of Odessa! It showed how not everyone agreed -- not all whites wanted segregation. It also showed the complex relationship between Mrs. Thompson and Odessa. It was difficult for them to be friends because of the certain roles they are stuck in. Also it showed the relationship between the husband and wife. The husband thought he had the final say in what the wife does, but she showed him that she can do things on her own and she doesn't need his approval. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
<br />
After the discussion in class on Tuesday, I learned that the movie accurately represented the African Americans' experiences during the boycott and the sentiment surrounding the reasons as to why black people participated in it. When I watched the movie, I didn't understand the first scene where the black women were getting on the bus, paying, exiting, and then re-entering in the rear of the bus. After class, I learned that African American's, in most cases, had to do exactly that and re-enter the bus in the rear instead of just sitting down in a seat as soon as they boarded. Dr. McClurken also mentioned about how many African Americans,female African Americans specifically, believed that they were participating in the boycott for their children and and grandchildren. They believed that they were walking for the future generations of African Americans, so that they would be able to have more rights than the black people did at the time. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie very clearly portrayed the disparities between white and black society. Both Odessa and her husband had to work full time jobs so they could make ends meet. Odessa even had to give up Christmas with her family to work. Despite the constant struggle to earn living wages, Odessa and her family only lived in relative comfort and could not afford much. On the other hand, in the Thomson family, only Norman worked while his wife Mariam was able to stay at their lavish home and hire a maid to do the housework for her. During the Christmas scene, there were innumerable amounts of presents for Mary Katherine and her sister. This portrayal helps the audience to understand that the bus boycott was about more than being able to choose any seat on the bus; it was for a better standard of living and true equality. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I think that the film did a good job at showing the racial inequalities of the South in 1955. Like we talked about in class many of the people shown boycotting the bus were women, and as we talked about in class African-American women made up a large number of people who rode the buses to work. I also thought that the film did a good job at showing how even though walking to work everyday was difficult but they would rather do that then sit at the back of the bus.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One scene that really got across how ingrained racism was, was when Tunker hears that Miriam made the police officer apologize to Odessa. He says, "That's plain old wrong." Miriam responds, "I know what is right and what is wrong." She goes on to tell him that she will not tolerate anyone, including Tunker, tell her what is right, and what is wrong. This scene is one of the first examples of Miriam's conviction and strong moral base, that will enable her to stand up to her own husband, and the rest of the racist socialites that surround her. When her husband orders her to stop giving rides to Odessa, he describes how ridiculous his wife's notion that she is close with their maid, "It's like a dog knowing a cat." She initially wilts under pressure, but comes back with a vengeance, not only driving Odessa, but participating in the ridesharing as well. As we have seen throughout history, and in many films this year, when people are ordered to do something against their will, they frequently redouble their efforts to resist and oppose the oppressor. Also, the most satisfying words spoken in the movie, were when Miriam says to Tunker, "You ignorant son of a bitch." Also, Tucnker getting punched in the face was a close second. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I wish Sissy had spit in Tucker's face, but I agree with Mike G. I also liked the bus driver telling the white boys: "Don't bring your trashy ass back on my bus." Classic. - Celia<br />
<br />
This movie really shows the differences in status in Montgomery based on race. Comparing Christmases in particular shows the economic differences well: the Thompson's had a huge tree with lots of presents and new clothes, while the Cotter's had a Charlie Brown tree and, well, more of a focus on family. Socially, the Thompson family could go anywhere and do whatever they needed to do without harassment, provided they stayed within their segment of society. The Cotter family couldn't do that at all, however, as proven in the first few minutes of the movie when Odessa gets kicked out of the park with the kids. The movie also depicts the gender politics of the era, especially in the tension between Mr. and Mrs. Thompson. Every time she tries to speak up, he tells her to stop telling him what to do. It's interesting to watch them try to work out what kind of dynamic they're going to develop. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
I thought that the film did a really excellent job contrasting the gender roles between white and black families. In the white family, Norman expects that Miriam will stay at home and present the picture of a society wife without questioning his judgement. He is completely shocked when she has her own opinions about Odessa and the boycotts, which leads to what is implied as the dissolution of their marriage. On the other hand, Odessa had a job which she worked full time to help her husband support their family. She was clearly consulted about family decisions, and her husband and children respected her ideas. I thought it was particularly interesting that Miriam pointed out to her husband that she had a college education, and could support herself if she had to. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Right from the beginning, they accurately portrayed how blacks got on the bus: they had to go in through the front to pay their dime and then get off and go to the back to actually on. I thought they were going to pull away right after Whoopi payed her dime. Also, they showed how many white seats were available when the black were standing room only. Also, they showed how there was so many people at the church when MLK was speaking; even after walking all day long, Whoopi had no problem standing outside, where she couldn't even see anything, to be inspired by MLK's words. Also, I thought it was a little strange how her son, who was super excited to go to the rally, had no emotional response, or even physical (i.e. facial expression changes) during the speech. -- Kelly<br />
<br />
One thing I thought was very interesting was that the movie showed how <em>some</em> whites were 1)oblivious to the seriousness of race issues 2) racists because they simply didn't know or 3) were followers to others thinking. Miriam's husband is a prime example of this. At first he doesn't really know/seem to care about the boycott. However as time goes on he becomes a follower to trends and popular thought. Also Miriam her self starts off as a racist by culture. She grew up in a racist environment and so didn't know, yet as times changed she began to form her own opinions (unlike her wimpy husband, man that guy was a wuss). -Isaac<br />
<br />
I think the movie did a very good job a showing how racism wasn't over after the 1900's rolled around. Many of the people in the South maintained the view that blacks were not as good as white and in some fashion, they were less capable as whites. I think people have a tendency to think that racism hasn't been an issue for a long time, because many of us grew up that way, but racism was still rampant in the South less that 60 years ago. I think that film does a good job in showing that the fight for freedom wasn't over after the Civil War. I also liked how they didn't use a lot of hollywood drama, the basic story was enough to keep us all interested. And I also thought it was interesting how Goldberg's character barely had any lines even though she was essentially the main character. I thought that really helped portray the silence they all had to keep. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
The scene where the Thompson's are eating Christmas dinner and discussing the boycott was extremely accurate. The line that stood out to me, however, was when they talked about how the boycott showed that there was a connection with the communists. The idea of the black community working with the communists was something that only heightened the fears of the southern whites like we talked about in class. Also, the Theo's reaction to the white boys beating him up when he tries to help and refuses to fight back embodies MLK's teachings. Earlier in the film he is extremely excited to go to the rally and his actions while he is being beaten shows that he truly listened and believed what MLK taught. -Melissa<br />
<br />
There was a comment in the film that struck and that was when Odessa mentioned people from the nearby base (Maxwell) helping the the car pool. I had never heard of this and tried to find more information about it and this is what I found. "it became clear to me, that the success of this transportation system was made possible by the Korean War GI's, who used their experience in the army's "motor pools" specifically and the army generally, to perform the maintenance of the automobiles and become the hard core of the drivers that sustained this transportation system for a year." [http://www.holtlaborlibrary.org/BusBoycott.htm Roland Sheppard] That was it. My question is, if this was the case why isn't more talked about this? This makes thing more complicated. Also, the movie was accurate in having Miriam drive Odessa to work. From the Virginia Durr readings she pointed out this was the case for many women. However, many of them stopped because of outside pressures. -Jenn<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong == <br />
<br />
White psychologists believed that when black women began to make more money than their male counterparts and were able to achieve a higher degree of education, there would be some conflicts within the household. This was not an issue in the movie for the Cotter family. In contrast, it had become a problem for the Thompson family when Miriam decided to stage her own boycott against her husband Norman when he demanded that she stop driving Odessa to work. Miriam claimed that she had a college degree and would be able to make a sufficient amount of money and she would do with it as she pleased. Along the same lines, there was no mention of black women that went to college and had professional jobs. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
<br />
In class, we spent some time going over the negative treatment of the bus drivers towards African Americans who would ride their buses. Many drivers carried guns, mistreated the black people, and one even dragged a blind African American man several blocks. The movie does not really portray the bus drivers as necessarily aggressive or hateful towards the African Americans. When Odessa's daughter is about to board the bus, the only words the bus driver says to her is to tell her that he doesn't want any trouble on the bus. Later in that scene, the same bus driver stops the bus to tell the three white boys to stop harassing Odessa's daughter and eventually kicks them off for being ignorant. The movie does not focus a large amount of time on the bus drivers, but the time it does creates the idea that the bus drivers may not have been as racist or hateful towards African American bus riders like we talked about in class. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
Maybe I just don't remember it, but did the movie mention that it was the Women's Political Council that first organized the boycott? It did a good job of showing how the boycott influenced women's lives, but I'm not sure it gave black women organizers like Jo Ann Robinson enough credit for the work they did behind the scenes in making so much of the movement happen. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann. I definitely would have liked to have seen the women who helped to organize the boycott. Also, I think that showing more about how complex and organized the carpools were would have been really interesting. They did touch on that a little bit when Miriam asks if it is more complicated than just showing up, but I think that showing how tight knit the community was in providing help and rides to those in the boycott would have been very powerful. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
No body casually smokes except for the "bad guy." I mean come on...it was the '60s. Even the Flintstones smoked [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Tg1kEBUO9A]. -Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
The film was released during the time when formal negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa were starting. Racial minorities in South Africa faced discrimination that were similar to the black Americans but much worse at that time. Not only were South Africa's racial minorities segregated and disenfranchised, but they were also deprived of their citizenship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
<br />
In 1990, the World Summit for Children was held at the UN in New York. I bring this up because Odessa mentions that she is determined to give her child a better life. The Summits mission was to give every child a better future "there can be no task nobler than giving every child a better future" http://www.unicef.org/specialsession/about/world-summit.htm. It seemed that both Odessa and Miriam wanted the same thing, for their children to grow up in a world that did not have these types or racial divides. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to compare "Long Walk Home" with "To Kill a Mockingbird" and to wonder if the earlier movie influenced the later one. Both movies are narrated by a female adult looking back at her childhood; both are set in the South; both involve an important episode in Southern race relations; and both show a parent struggling with moral choices that conflict with the attitudes of their community and era. "Mockingbird" ended badly for the black man accused of raping a white woman, but "Long Walk Home" ended on a victorious note. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this is really a primary source comment but I liked that they didn't shy way from the racial prejudice, especially with the racial slurs and violence toward African-Americans. Considering one of the biggest problems we have had with historical movies we have watched so far is the way they ignored or lied about racial issues. I think that the focus on ending the apartheid in South Africa, may have made people more aware of the United States' turbulent past with race relations.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
One thing this film certainly address is the role of women in the Civil Rights movement. Odessa and Miriam had two of the most active roles in the film, and were directly depicted not only as the films protagonists but also as driving forces (no pun intended) behind the success of the Civil Rights movement in the South. Yet how does this comment on the culutre of 1990s America? Well according to *mumble* Wikipedia *mumble* there was a rise in feminism in the '90s. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990s] This film certainly shows women in a strong light, especially depicting Miriam standing up to her husband at the end. Odessa is shown also as an equal head of her household as well as the one who keeps everything together. Another striking image is the final one of the maids all standing up and singing to the Citzen's Council, and Miriam husband's inability to save his own wife. In the end the women stood up for themselves and succeeded. Therefore this film comments on the role of women in cultural change and politicals showing their track record of success and help. On a side note, every time Odessa's husband talked all I could hear was Marcel Wallace talking.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I agree with Rachel, I thought it was interesting to see how the writers and directors didn't shy away from the racial slurs. It definitely added to the harshness of the film and was an important choice on the makers of this film. Perhaps people were becoming more aware of the racism that many blacks still suffered during the time and they felt it was important to express the fullness of this. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
One review that I found particulary interesting, was from Roger Ebert, who said that if the movie had been made 10 or 20 years earlier, most of the movie would have focused on the white family and Odessa, and ignored the black family. (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19910322/REVIEWS/103220301/1023) He also takes an interesting tack concerning the daughter. He says her only role is, "apparently to reassure white audiences the movie is "really" intended for them." The narrator was an unecessary touch, but the daughter, in my opinion, provided an innocent view of the conflict around her and her raw emotion contributed to the film. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The movie and the readings corroborate the way African Americans found themselves victims of Southern state and local laws that are in direct contrast to federal laws. Mr. Thomas' comments relate the way in which Southern law enforcement refused to even acknowledge that federal laws were in place which provide protection for African American rights. These law enforcement officials truly believed that the laws they lived by were supreme and there was no need to look any further than their own decisions. They saw the federal laws as laws for outsiders and had no jurisdiction in their areas. It also showed how African Americans did not have federal protection just because they (the federal government) said they had rights. As long as there was no enforcement of the federal laws, black Americans were forced to live within the demands of local laws. -Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The Rosa Parks reading mentions the bus boycott and how blacks formed carpools. Also white women would drive black women to and from work because they could not take the bus. This was a major part of the film. The reading also mentions how the police would ticket people involved in the boycott. At one point in the film Odessa says, “I learned one thing in my life and that is when your hand’s in the lion’s mouth, it’s just better to pat it on the head.” In the reading it is a woman named Mary.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
“They couldn’t afford to say, ‘I’m supporting the boycott.’ So the white women lied and the black women lied. And the maids kept coming and the white women kept driving them back and forth to work.” This quote from “Civil Rights Activists” exemplifies the relationship between Odessa and Mrs. Thompson that drives the racial tension as the movie goes along. Mrs. Thompson kept secret from her husband that she was giving Odessa rides and when he found out, he flipped out and she was forbid to drive her. She eventually gave her rides and went behind her husband’s back and was lying to him. Odessa also could not admit that she was part of the boycott or she would get heckled and possibly arrested. This quote is very basic in describing the dynamics of the boycott system but there are many more emotions involved outside of simply carpooling. -afrisk<br />
<br />
Alice Brantley's testimony, besides being a clear and logical argument in favor of desegregated travel, also highlights the leadership roles many women played in the Civil Rights movement. The importance of women in the movement was also shown in one of the movie's key scenes. When the Citizens' Council raids the car-pool lot, it is the women who defuse the situation by singing and then linking hands. This was a powerful moment that symbolized several important themes: MLK's non-violent philosophy; the supreme courage required to face an enemy, and to fight for a cause; the different approaches men and women use in similar situations; and solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
In the Thomas Williams' reading, Williams testified about how he was treated when riding a bus in the South. Throughout the testimony, he claimed he knew his rights,knew about the Supreme Court Decisions, and that he did not have to move when asked. The bus driver claimed that Williams was "in the South now."Williams stated later, "[The bus driver] ignored my statement...as if the Supreme Court decisions had no effect in the South." This idea of the Supreme Court Decisions not being taken into account in the South was definitely reflected in the movie. You could tell simply from looking at the People's Council, with the men walking around with their white superiority and in their fancy, (but not so fancy) suits. In the movie, they believed that matters needed to be taken into their own hands rather than the government. They, along with others in the South, definitely acted as if the Supreme Court never existed. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
Miriam Thomson was reminiscent of Virginia Durr. Though Durr was a liberal southerner who had the clear support of her husband, Mariam shared the courageousness it took to offer rides to African Americans. Both women clearly defied southern society to fight for a just cause. The movie also portrayed how the bus boycott affected relation between white women and their black domestics; some women were truly upset about the boycott, but were not willing to give up their domestics. Others, like Miriam, became involved in the protest. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In the readings, two of the people punished for sitting in the wrong part of the bus were members of the US military, a position their fellow passengers ignored. But I imagine that being members of the military, and possibly WWII veterans, prompted the black man and woman to stand up for their rights even more than maybe they otherwise would have. They wanted full rights in a country that they were willing to fight for. The movie didn't really show how military service and other opportunities increasingly afforded to African Americans shaped their drive to push for full rights. It only focused on how broadening views of the world shaped white perceptions, with Miriam's story about the swimming pool in Portland and her comment about her husband's travels in the WWII military. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
In Alice Brantley's statement, Sarah Keys was arrested for her refusal to move to the rear of the bus. This event was very similar to what Rosa Parks faced more than a year later. These two events proved that black women had an important involvement in the Civil Rights Movement. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class Dr. McClurken asked us to look at the successes and/or failures of the movie and I think the movie overall was a success in accurately explaining the struggles of African Americans in the 1950s. The movie shows through Whoopi Goldberg's character the success of women in playing leading roles in the bus boycott movement (the last scene being the most powerful with the women singing in the parking lot) and against the Southern Whites Citizens Council. I also think it is a success to show the power of Mrs. Thompson, white civil rights leaders were important in showing the plight of African Americans and were able to access white media easier. Mrs. Thompson was linked with the African Americans in town but was able to stand up to the men in her life and in a sense was making a better life for herself and her daughter. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this was a success or a failure but I found the absence of Martin Luther King on screen intriguing. His voice was heard (recordings of his speeches I assume) but no actor played him. Perhaps this was because no actor could live up to the great Martin Luther King Jr. Since he was never shown on screen he was made a simply a figure of the Civil Rights Movement.-Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I think this was a very successful portrayal of the views and behavior of people in the 1950s, not only toward race but also toward gender roles, family relationships and social responsibility. Because the narrator is a white woman (the adult Mary Catherine), it would be easy to dismiss the whole movie as just one more white filter on US history. But the screenwriter is, if anything, harder on whites than he is on blacks. The white Thompson family is imploding, but Odessa's family grows closer. Also, the black community is tight-knit, through church and neighbors, while the whites seem to have no bond with one another beyond the racist Citizens' Council and the catty women's circles. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
When the young white kids came on the bus and were harassing Odessa's daughter would a white bus driver stop the bus and kick the white's off? -afrisk<br />
<br />
I liked how they did not have an actor for Martin Luther King Jr. His speeches are powerful enough without anything visual. It was a good choice. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
To touch on the MLK question, I think not having him in here focuses the story on smaller, lesser known people who supported the movement. They easily could have had him in the film, but perhaps that would shift the film away from the struggle of everyday people to Martin Luther King Jr. Not necessarily a bad move, but it would definitely make for an entirely different film. This movie doesn't only bring the struggle of the black community to the forefront; it also emphasizes the powerful role of women in the boycott.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:18, 10 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
Wasn't quite sure where to put this because it was a question I had but it goes with overall success of the film. How often were middle/upper-class white women involved in civil rights actions like Sissy Spacek's character? While I'm sure there were women who supported the Civil Rights I have to wonder how many of them actually put themselves out there (especially in Montgomery) in places like the carpool. While I enjoyed the film a lot and thought it accurately portrayed many things now that I am thinking about it Spacek's character seems to be more of a trope than was perhaps reality of the situation (but I could be wrong).--[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:26, 10 November 2010 (MST)<br />
<br />
To go along with the MLK question, I actually didn't mind that he wasn't shown. His role in this story was relatively minor. He was there for the people when they went to the meetings and gave them motivation to continue the boycott. I think the story itself was more focused on other aspects of the boycott, how it affected the people of Montgomery. I think it was successful in doing that through Odessa and Miriam (sp?). The movie shows the struggles both women had during this period, whether it be physical or social. If the film focused to much on MLK it would have taken away from this dynamic. - Jenn</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_12_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 12 Questions/Comments2010-11-10T19:45:09Z<p>Hobnail: /* The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
The movie accurately portrayed the inferior status of African Americans in the South. It showed how some whites, like during Christmas dinner, talked one way in front of blacks and another when they were not in the room and how others were not concerned with who heard their outspokenness dripping with racial prejudice. The movie also showed how the boycott was most difficult for black women, especially those who were domestic servants. This was true not only because of the long distances they lived from their places of employment, but also because, even if they were the last ones home, they were still expected to uphold their motherly duties of keeping house and taking care of the children. How they were able to sustain the boycott for over a year, I have no clue. But their determination goes to show how dedicated they were to winning this battle.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The one thing I believed the movie portrayed really well was to show how churches were used to spread the ideals of activism to the people. In the movie they mention that those with cars should use them to help with car pooling others around. Using personal cars for driving others was brought up at the church. Once these plans were laid forth in the church, they were met with cops trying to impede them by giving them tickets. Plus, once they were met by opposition, they refused to use any kind of force, even when they were being beaten. Also, most of the people showed boycotting the buses were black women. As is true with what really happened, men helped by planning the boycotts and raising money to keep it going. Another thing that was portrayed well was the increase of membership for the KKK. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The movie was extremely accurate in the movie's portrayal of the determination of the African American community to uphold the boycott. Despite the long distances and the harassment that they faced, they still diligently walked or found another mode of transportation to work, such as taxis. The movie also shows that they organized car-pools to help those that could not walk. Due to the boycott, the movie also shows the methods that the white community tried to use to break the boycott, such as harassing those that were driving in the car pools. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The film accurately portrays the racism of the whites in the South and the intense feelings they have for segregation. In the film blacks were not allowed in the “white” park. The bus obviously had segregated sections. In the movie the black women would pay the bus fare then get off the bus and board on the back so they would not walk through the white section. The bus boycott began after the arrest of Rosa Parks (and it’s led by Martin Luther King, Jr.). Women’s roles are also accurately portrayed. They either had a job, or they worked in the home. If the family had money, it had a maid and the wife did not have to do as much of the housework. Wives also were expected to follow their husband’s ideals. This is shown when Mrs. Thompson tells Odessa she cannot drive her anymore because her husband thinks ‘it is not right to make her suffer.’ However I must say that I loved the speech Mrs. Thompson gives her husband when she tells him that she will do what she wants in order to do her job to run the household, and that he should leave her alone unless he wants her to go to his job and tell him how to do it.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Samantha in regards to how the movie portrayed the city buses as being heavily segregated, and I think it would be pretty accurate to say regardless of gender all African Americans suffered if they made a white person angry. I do wonder did many African Americans ride the bus throughout the boycott and if they did was the reaction the same as Whoopi Goldberg's character portrayed? I also think it was correct when her brother came with the taxi and the driver said "he needed to leave before he was lynched," the terror of white society in Montgomery was everywhere, as shown by Mr. Thompson and his "citizens council" and all African Amerians knew it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I liked how the movie placed the lives of the Thompson's and the Cotters as totally seperate. Mr. Cotter said that we will only know her as a maid and she will only know us as her employers. This distant relationship between white families and there black maids seemed very accurate. Even though it seemed like the Thompsons were less racist at first there was no sense of compassion or equality for Odessa and she was purely another servent. I like how the movie portrayed this very gradual ideological change and how acceptance was very difficult. -afrisk<br />
<br />
== 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 />
The film was released during the time when formal negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa were starting. Racial minorities in South Africa faced discrimination that were similar to the black Americans but much worse at that time. Not only were South Africa's racial minorities segregated and disenfranchised, but they were also deprived of their citizenship. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_under_apartheid) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
The movie and the readings corroborate the way African Americans found themselves victims of Southern state and local laws that are in direct contrast to federal laws. Mr. Thomas' comments relate the way in which Southern law enforcement refused to even acknowledge that federal laws were in place which provide protection for African American rights. These law enforcement officials truly believed that the laws they lived by were supreme and there was no need to look any further than their own decisions. They saw the federal laws as laws for outsiders and had no jurisdiction in their areas. It also showed how African Americans did not have federal protection just because they (the federal government) said they had rights. As long as there was no enforcement of the federal laws, black Americans were forced to live within the demands of local laws. -Debbie M.<br />
<br />
The Rosa Parks reading mentions the bus boycott and how blacks formed carpools. Also white women would drive black women to and from work because they could not take the bus. This was a major part of the film. The reading also mentions how the police would ticket people involved in the boycott. At one point in the film Odessa says, “I learned one thing in my life and that is when your hand’s in the lion’s mouth, it’s just better to pat it on the head.” In the reading it is a woman named Mary.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
“They couldn’t afford to say, ‘I’m supporting the boycott.’ So the white women lied and the black women lied. And the maids kept coming and the white women kept driving them back and forth to work.” This quote from “Civil Rights Activists” exemplifies the relationship between Odessa and Mrs. Thompson that drives the racial tension as the movie goes along. Mrs. Thompson kept secret from her husband that she was giving Odessa rides and when he found out, he flipped out and she was forbid to drive her. She eventually gave her rides and went behind her husband’s back and was lying to him. Odessa also could not admit that she was part of the boycott or she would get heckled and possibly arrested. This quote is very basic in describing the dynamics of the boycott system but there are many more emotions involved outside of simply carpooling. -afrisk<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
In class Dr. McClurken asked us to look at the successes and/or failures of the movie and I think the movie overall was a success in accurately explaining the struggles of African Americans in the 1950s. The movie shows through Whoopi Goldberg's character the success of women in playing leading roles in the bus boycott movement (the last scene being the most powerful with the women singing in the parking lot) and against the Southern Whites Citizens Council. I also think it is a success to show the power of Mrs. Thompson, white civil rights leaders were important in showing the plight of African Americans and were able to access white media easier. Mrs. Thompson was linked with the African Americans in town but was able to stand up to the men in her life and in a sense was making a better life for herself and her daughter. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I don't know if this was a success or a failure but I found the absence of Martin Luther King on screen intriguing. His voice was heard (recordings of his speeches I assume) but no actor played him. Perhaps this was because no actor could live up to the great Martin Luther King Jr. Since he was never shown on screen he was made a simply a figure of the Civil Rights Movement.-Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I think this was a very successful portrayal of the views and behavior of people in the 1950s, not only toward race but also toward gender roles, family relationships and social responsibility. The narrator is a white woman (the grownup Mary Catherine), and it would be easy to dismiss the whole movie as just one more white filter on US history. But John Cork, the screenwriter, didn't allow that to happen. Neither white nor black are romanticized or demonized. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
When the young white kids came on the bus and were harassing Odessa's daughter would a white bus driver stop the bus and kick the white's off? -afrisk</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_--_Extra_Online_Questions329-2010--Week 11 -- Extra Online Questions2010-11-05T19:12:10Z<p>Hobnail: /* Is this movie pessimistic or optimistic about the US future? */</p>
<hr />
<div>Pick 2 questions to answer (and respond to others' questions as appropriate).<br />
<br />
<br />
== How would the movie have been different if made in 1950? ==<br />
If the movie had had been made in 1950, it would have made the veteran's homecoming a much more joyous occasion. Rather than showing job troubles, marriage troubles, and public suspicion about returning service men the film would show how glad everyone was they were home and that America was number one in all aspects. Because the film was made during/right after the war was over the makers had no idea the economy would take an upswing in the '50s, and rather expected that everything would keep going down and return to Great Depression levels. Also, I think two other things would be different: 1) the filmmakers would never have included the notion that some of the American people doubted WWII involvement and 2) I could be wrong here but I don't think they would have included a main character that didn't have hands. He would probably either have a limp or "shell shock", I think a double amputee would have been deemed to much for audiences (but I could be wrong).-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Isaac. When this film was made in 1946, the filmmakers were grappling with their fears of the future. They didn't know that the Depression would not return after the economic boom fizzled out. If the movie had been made in the 1950s, I believe it would have had a more optimistic outlook and less uncertainty. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The film would have reflected the economic boom that took place in the 1950’s with a more optimistic view of the future of the economy, though Fred does get a job it does still seems precarious. Also, there would have been many young children around from the soldiers and wives who got busy when they came home from war. I also think that there would have been actual signs of PTSD which would have manifested itself by this time. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It may not have portrayed the US economy as looking so grim, but not everything was entirely rosy in 1950 either. The Cold War was gearing up, with the Berlin Airlift in the late 1940s and the war in Korea starting in 1950, the US was once again involved in international issues that maybe didn't influence the lives of Americans to the extent that WWII had but that still provoked a degree of uncertainty and fear. Instead of challenging Fred on why the US fought WWII at all, the man in the drug store probably would have asked why the US had let the Soviets take so much ground/control in the end. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== How is the movie title subtly ironic? ==<br />
Best Years of Our Lives is ironic because you would think without knowing anything about the movie that it is going to be a completely happy movie where people frolic about and are having a good time. Then you see the movie and you think just kidding. The movie starts out completely depressing. No one wants to see their family because they do not know how their family will react to them. When Al Frank and Homer get home they have major obstacles to overcome. Homer has to deal with the fact that his family pit him because he lost his hands. Frank cannot find a job while and while he was gone his wife had had a job and was getting more money then he ever did which threatens his masculinity. Al is awkward with his children and has a drinking problem. It is clearly not the best years of their lives. After the war, is is probably the worst years of their life. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Thinking about the movie's title took me in two different directions. First, it reflects what a lot of people believed in 1946, that with the war finally over, the best years of their lives were ahead in a shiny new world. In that way, the title is ironic because the movie clearly shows life is not easy, and the new world has a lot of the same problems plus a crop of new ones. It also occured to me that the movie's title means different things to different characters. People are either nostalgic or bitter when they use the phrase, "the best years of my life." The character who actually says the line is Fred's glamour-puss wife Marie, who says bitterly that she spent the best years of her life waiting for him. For her, that's probably true. Everything she cares about is tied to youth and beauty, and those are fading fast. Al Stephenson also feels bitter. He sourly compares an old photo of himself with the aged, damaged face in the mirror. Al believes the best years of his life were before the war, when he was a prosperous banker raising his family. In contrast, there is Homer, who is nostalgic but not yet bitter. He, too, looks at old photos of himself---playing basketball and football in high school, with two hands. But he gets up the courage to fully expose his physical limitations to Wilma, and when she still loves him, he moves forward with his life, clearly believing his best years are still ahead. For Peggy, the phrase is neither ironic, bitter, nor nostalgic, but true. Her childhood was clouded by war, but now the war is over, and the man she loves, loves her. No matter how much she and Fred will have to struggle, I believe these will be the best years of her life. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The title is subtly ironic because the veterans did not know whether the best years of their lives were past, present, or future. Were they the happiest before the war, when everything was idyllic? Were they happiest during the war, when the homefront was a distant dream where everything was just as they had left it? Or was the post war period the best, where they were reunited with their family and friends and attempted to return to normalcy? I also found it ironic that Fred's wife said that the best years of her life were gone; they had passed when she held a job. She accused Frank of forcing her to give up these years, when in actuality she had only known him for a very short time. Though she might have been an unlikable character at best, she showed her strength by commenting the best years had been when she was an independent working woman. It was also interesting that this was the only time when the movie title was mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Best Years of Our Lives…when the veterans first returned home, I don’t think those would be the words they would have used to describe their current situations. They all have to endure continuous hardships in order to return to a semi-normal life in addition to living with the horrible memories of war for the rest of their lives. Their best years could come later when they were finally adjusted back into society…or could it be nostalgia for the pre-war years? But as Fred says, you can't go back to the ways things were. Things are totally different when the war ends and people are different too. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I think the title is referring to the years that someone personally believes are the "best years of their life". Fred's wife says at one point that the years he was away at war were the best years of her life. Of course they were, she got to brag about having a husband who was away at war, she had a job and spent time in nightclubs and probably with other men. Those were what she decided were the best years of her life. I think some of the Veterans who returned home may have thought that also, especially when they first arrived home, they felt like they didn't fit into society anymore after being away for so long and it was hard finding a job etc. Others, who were maybe more optimistic, maybe thought the future were going to bring the best years of their lives. Men like Homer who married Elma and Fred and Peggy who probably got married also most likely believed marriage and love would enable them to have the best years of their lives. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Discuss the roles of the female characters in the movie. ==<br />
<br />
I loved the roles that Peggy and Al's wife played in the movie. They were strong women. Peggy had gone to work during the war and was pretty confident in herself. She symbolizes the women who had worked while the men went off to war. Franks wife was the evil woman who married Frank for his money and when he came home and could not get a job right away she divorced him. She represents the women who got a divorce because their husbands had changes since the war. Both Peggy and Al's wife were very domestic which I think was true for the times. Al got breakfast in bed and Peggy made breakfast for Frank after he had spent the night. Al's wife was a little stereotypical in that she acted as the completely moral character who played a mother very well but she was really smart which I really liked. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn on the roles that Peggy and Al's wife played-they represented progressive women and also the "Leave it to Beaver" stereotype of the middle class, domestic. Their quick wit and strong attitudes made the movie for me. Peggy did show how women took control of life on the homefront by driving and working outside the home, yet she also was able to take care of the men in her life. Peggy represented the new woman with her goal to get Fred and she was successful. Her mom as LeAnn stated was stereptypical but also showed through her relationship with Peggy the bond women have amongst one another. Women focused on group-centered leadership and when they stuck together were more powerful. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Megan has a good point about the bond women developed with one another. I loved that about this movie. Having a mother and daughter also be very good friends, who had come to depend on one another, was such a smart way to show how women turned to one another for help and strength while their men were away. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I think that the roles that the women in this movie played were quite interesting. Peggy represents the independent women who has struck out on her own (mostly) and became a professional working woman. Milli represents the wife who has been holding her family together during a tumultuous time. In the beginning of the film she mentions that she had to lay off the maid and she has to remind her friend on the phone who her husband is, I think these two occurrences exemplify both the economic struggles that women faced and the independence that they had while their men were away. As far as Fred’s wife, her character seems odd to me because I feel that she would not have been nearly a shallow as portrayed but I think her purpose in the film was to represent the conflict in many marriages when men returned home. Fred’s wife had been happily living her life in her own apartment, making her own money in a night club and now she was expected to return to her domestic responsibly and her “wifely” duties. - Caryn<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Debbi about the mother-daughter bond. Peggy and her mother remind me of me and my mom. They definitely represent the strong women who were able to make it work and keep things together while the men were away. When Al firsts returns home, he feels like he does not fit into their routine. Peggy and her mother represent the strong female part of the homefront that became independent of the men. Peggy still maintains a job at the hospital even after the war ends. Fred’s wife was just plain annoying! She did not seem to understand how to maintain a mature relationship. She is all about parties, money, and appearances. She would not even let Fred go out with her in his civilian clothes! And then when they go out with Peggy and Woody, Marie spends the entire night flirting with Woody and ignoring her husband. Peggy and her mother definitely show the progression in women’s roles while Marie depicts how some women could not let go of the past. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the things I liked about the movie was how real it felt. Sometimes I think movies, especially those made in the early 20th Century, utilize such cliche or characters with one-sided personalities and they can become somewhat boring. I felt like all the women in the movie were so dynamic and interesting. Peggy was a strong, independent woman who was intelligent and compassionate(such as when she gave up her bed to Fred, soothed him when he had a nightmare and then did not even mention it the next morning). Even though she did portray that "sweet" and "innocent" girl she surprised me in a good way when she was having that conversation with her parents and blatantly said she was going to break up Fred's marriage. I don't know if she actually would have tried during the 1940s but it showed she was a woman who knew what she wanted. I also liked her mother. She was a very strong woman also. She always seemed to know what was going on with her family whether it was who her daughter was in love with or how to respond and behave around her husband. She took care of her family but was not a pushover. She was a wise woman, one of my favorite scenes with her in it was when she was describing how hard it is to work at marriage and love and how it's not always easy. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The women are the stable ones in this movie. Millie has raised her children and kept her life together while her husband was gone and is now gearing up for the long task of helping him transition and deal with a potential alcohol problem. Peggie is financially supporting herself, and she and Wilma both have a clear read of their own emotions concerning the men in their lives. Even Fred's wife knows what she wants out of life, even if it is just superficial entertainment, and she had a job that could help her support her fun. It is the men who are questioning their relationships, their jobs, and their futures. This is disconcerting to the men accustomed to being heads of households and patriarchal figures. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Most of the female characters in the movie were very supportive of their men. Wilma still loves Homer and is willing to help him out with his physical disability. More importantly, she is patient and is willing to wait for Homer to ask for assistance. As for Milly and Peggy, they are very caring for the men they love. Milly is a good sport and a quick sense of humor. While Peggy may be younger than her mother, she is a serious woman as well as being a good sport. Unfortunately, the only female character not to be supportive is Marie. She only focuses on her own interests. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Is this movie pessimistic or optimistic about the US future? ==<br />
I believe it is optimistic about the US future. Fred does get a job; moreover, it's a job tied to building construction, which we know from the lecture is going to be one of the businesses that strengthens the US economy. Director William Wyler tones down the optimism with sobering camera work---I'm thinking particularly of the wide shot of all the scrapped planes, a visual counterpart to all the returned vets that have to be recycled. More personally, there is Al's drinking problem, which may have a devastating impact on his job and family if its underlying causes aren't dealt with. And we know that Fred and Peggy have a tough road ahead (but I bet they get that house sooner rather than later, if he'll let her keep her job). Yet for all the problems, the movie does end with a wedding. That's a potent symbol, of uniting, of commitment, and of faith. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I would say the film is doubtfully optimistic. It certainly does not say things will be easy and great for society, yet it just as well does not say things are doomed. As the movie says, America is really "gambling on the future of this country" by bringing its service men home so quickly. No one knows how things will be, and are therefore doubtful about out-right success. Really, it seems like the movie is trying to get everyone prepared for a return to a Depression era life. Yes, there will be jobs, but they will be scarce, yes there will be room for success but is going to take luck and hard work. So the film acknowledges that the future could be bright, but constantly reminds the audience there is a chance for failure. Like Homer says, "this is when I am at my weakest...unless I call for help."(I don't know if I quoted perfectly,but you get the idea)-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I, too, believe the movie has an optimistic. The movie shows the triumph over the very difficult ability to overcome the odds. It shows the perserverence the military instills in its members. Never once in my husband's 19 years in the Corps have I ever heard any Marine tell another to give up on a task and just deal with their lot. I'm sure the other services are similar. What they do instead is have a brotherly competition to show to each other and themselves just what they can achieve. Life may be very difficult in the beginning or at other times, but they will do everything in their power to ensure victory. The movie portrays how this mentality is passed within the service member throughout the transition to the civilian world in which he finds himself the underdog. America will survive because the military made these men and won't let them down. They may have to look and it may not be all moonlight and roses, but he will be successful.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
This film really provides an optimistic perspective on the future. Despite the problems, people can overcome many barriers, either physical or mental. The marriage between Homer and Wilma symbolized the unity of the United States. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== What are the long-term odds for these three veterans (and their marriages), as seen by the director/author? ==<br />
<br />
The long-term odds for each of the men would be different but in the end I believe all three would be content and end up at Butch's for a drink. For Homer, he would be married to his sweetheart, with Wilma taking care of the home and him and they would be alright economically because of Homer's disability pay. For Fred, even though he confessed his love for Peggy the couple would need to gain the approval of Al and his wife. They would live a life without material goods but would have eachother and both would work outside the home if necessary. Al and his wife would continue with their lives how they were, Al would retire from the bank and they would live quite comfortably. Each of the veterans would continue on with their post-war status, I think in time Fred's PTSD would calm down and no one would think twice when they met Homer. The war forever changed veterans but also changed the women in their lives and for better. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think that the director left a level of uncertainty in each of the relationships. Of course the audience wants the marriages to work, but the veterans and their wives all have various issues to deal with in their personal lives. Homer is insecure about his disability and how his wife will handle it, Al is becoming an alcoholic, and Frank is newly divorced and without steady work. Largely like the post-war time period, the future of the men and their families appears to be bright, but their is always a definite sense of uncertainty lingering to create doubt about the future. The filmmakers did not know if their lives and their nation would be prosperous, so they left that element of the movie open to the audience as well. --Anna Holman</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_--_Extra_Online_Questions329-2010--Week 11 -- Extra Online Questions2010-11-05T19:00:58Z<p>Hobnail: /* Discuss the roles of the female characters in the movie. */</p>
<hr />
<div>Pick 2 questions to answer (and respond to others' questions as appropriate).<br />
<br />
<br />
== How would the movie have been different if made in 1950? ==<br />
If the movie had had been made in 1950, it would have made the veteran's homecoming a much more joyous occasion. Rather than showing job troubles, marriage troubles, and public suspicion about returning service men the film would show how glad everyone was they were home and that America was number one in all aspects. Because the film was made during/right after the war was over the makers had no idea the economy would take an upswing in the '50s, and rather expected that everything would keep going down and return to Great Depression levels. Also, I think two other things would be different: 1) the filmmakers would never have included the notion that some of the American people doubted WWII involvement and 2) I could be wrong here but I don't think they would have included a main character that didn't have hands. He would probably either have a limp or "shell shock", I think a double amputee would have been deemed to much for audiences (but I could be wrong).-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Isaac. When this film was made in 1946, the filmmakers were grappling with their fears of the future. They didn't know that the Depression would not return after the economic boom fizzled out. If the movie had been made in the 1950s, I believe it would have had a more optimistic outlook and less uncertainty. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The film would have reflected the economic boom that took place in the 1950’s with a more optimistic view of the future of the economy, though Fred does get a job it does still seems precarious. Also, there would have been many young children around from the soldiers and wives who got busy when they came home from war. I also think that there would have been actual signs of PTSD which would have manifested itself by this time. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It may not have portrayed the US economy as looking so grim, but not everything was entirely rosy in 1950 either. The Cold War was gearing up, with the Berlin Airlift in the late 1940s and the war in Korea starting in 1950, the US was once again involved in international issues that maybe didn't influence the lives of Americans to the extent that WWII had but that still provoked a degree of uncertainty and fear. Instead of challenging Fred on why the US fought WWII at all, the man in the drug store probably would have asked why the US had let the Soviets take so much ground/control in the end. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
== How is the movie title subtly ironic? ==<br />
Best Years of Our Lives is ironic because you would think without knowing anything about the movie that it is going to be a completely happy movie where people frolic about and are having a good time. Then you see the movie and you think just kidding. The movie starts out completely depressing. No one wants to see their family because they do not know how their family will react to them. When Al Frank and Homer get home they have major obstacles to overcome. Homer has to deal with the fact that his family pit him because he lost his hands. Frank cannot find a job while and while he was gone his wife had had a job and was getting more money then he ever did which threatens his masculinity. Al is awkward with his children and has a drinking problem. It is clearly not the best years of their lives. After the war, is is probably the worst years of their life. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Thinking about the movie's title took me in two different directions. First, it reflects what a lot of people believed in 1946, that with the war finally over, the best years of their lives were ahead in a shiny new world. In that way, the title is ironic because the movie clearly shows life is not easy, and the new world has a lot of the same problems plus a crop of new ones. It also occured to me that the movie's title means different things to different characters. People are either nostalgic or bitter when they use the phrase, "the best years of my life." The character who actually says the line is Fred's glamour-puss wife Marie, who says bitterly that she spent the best years of her life waiting for him. For her, that's probably true. Everything she cares about is tied to youth and beauty, and those are fading fast. Al Stephenson also feels bitter. He sourly compares an old photo of himself with the aged, damaged face in the mirror. Al believes the best years of his life were before the war, when he was a prosperous banker raising his family. In contrast, there is Homer, who is nostalgic but not yet bitter. He, too, looks at old photos of himself---playing basketball and football in high school, with two hands. But he gets up the courage to fully expose his physical limitations to Wilma, and when she still loves him, he moves forward with his life, clearly believing his best years are still ahead. For Peggy, the phrase is neither ironic, bitter, nor nostalgic, but true. Her childhood was clouded by war, but now the war is over, and the man she loves, loves her. No matter how much she and Fred will have to struggle, I believe these will be the best years of her life. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
The title is subtly ironic because the veterans did not know whether the best years of their lives were past, present, or future. Were they the happiest before the war, when everything was idyllic? Were they happiest during the war, when the homefront was a distant dream where everything was just as they had left it? Or was the post war period the best, where they were reunited with their family and friends and attempted to return to normalcy? I also found it ironic that Fred's wife said that the best years of her life were gone; they had passed when she held a job. She accused Frank of forcing her to give up these years, when in actuality she had only known him for a very short time. Though she might have been an unlikable character at best, she showed her strength by commenting the best years had been when she was an independent working woman. It was also interesting that this was the only time when the movie title was mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
Best Years of Our Lives…when the veterans first returned home, I don’t think those would be the words they would have used to describe their current situations. They all have to endure continuous hardships in order to return to a semi-normal life in addition to living with the horrible memories of war for the rest of their lives. Their best years could come later when they were finally adjusted back into society…or could it be nostalgia for the pre-war years? But as Fred says, you can't go back to the ways things were. Things are totally different when the war ends and people are different too. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
I think the title is referring to the years that someone personally believes are the "best years of their life". Fred's wife says at one point that the years he was away at war were the best years of her life. Of course they were, she got to brag about having a husband who was away at war, she had a job and spent time in nightclubs and probably with other men. Those were what she decided were the best years of her life. I think some of the Veterans who returned home may have thought that also, especially when they first arrived home, they felt like they didn't fit into society anymore after being away for so long and it was hard finding a job etc. Others, who were maybe more optimistic, maybe thought the future were going to bring the best years of their lives. Men like Homer who married Elma and Fred and Peggy who probably got married also most likely believed marriage and love would enable them to have the best years of their lives. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== Discuss the roles of the female characters in the movie. ==<br />
<br />
I loved the roles that Peggy and Al's wife played in the movie. They were strong women. Peggy had gone to work during the war and was pretty confident in herself. She symbolizes the women who had worked while the men went off to war. Franks wife was the evil woman who married Frank for his money and when he came home and could not get a job right away she divorced him. She represents the women who got a divorce because their husbands had changes since the war. Both Peggy and Al's wife were very domestic which I think was true for the times. Al got breakfast in bed and Peggy made breakfast for Frank after he had spent the night. Al's wife was a little stereotypical in that she acted as the completely moral character who played a mother very well but she was really smart which I really liked. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
I agree with LeAnn on the roles that Peggy and Al's wife played-they represented progressive women and also the "Leave it to Beaver" stereotype of the middle class, domestic. Their quick wit and strong attitudes made the movie for me. Peggy did show how women took control of life on the homefront by driving and working outside the home, yet she also was able to take care of the men in her life. Peggy represented the new woman with her goal to get Fred and she was successful. Her mom as LeAnn stated was stereptypical but also showed through her relationship with Peggy the bond women have amongst one another. Women focused on group-centered leadership and when they stuck together were more powerful. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Megan has a good point about the bond women developed with one another. I loved that about this movie. Having a mother and daughter also be very good friends, who had come to depend on one another, was such a smart way to show how women turned to one another for help and strength while their men were away. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I think that the roles that the women in this movie played were quite interesting. Peggy represents the independent women who has struck out on her own (mostly) and became a professional working woman. Milli represents the wife who has been holding her family together during a tumultuous time. In the beginning of the film she mentions that she had to lay off the maid and she has to remind her friend on the phone who her husband is, I think these two occurrences exemplify both the economic struggles that women faced and the independence that they had while their men were away. As far as Fred’s wife, her character seems odd to me because I feel that she would not have been nearly a shallow as portrayed but I think her purpose in the film was to represent the conflict in many marriages when men returned home. Fred’s wife had been happily living her life in her own apartment, making her own money in a night club and now she was expected to return to her domestic responsibly and her “wifely” duties. - Caryn<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Debbi about the mother-daughter bond. Peggy and her mother remind me of me and my mom. They definitely represent the strong women who were able to make it work and keep things together while the men were away. When Al firsts returns home, he feels like he does not fit into their routine. Peggy and her mother represent the strong female part of the homefront that became independent of the men. Peggy still maintains a job at the hospital even after the war ends. Fred’s wife was just plain annoying! She did not seem to understand how to maintain a mature relationship. She is all about parties, money, and appearances. She would not even let Fred go out with her in his civilian clothes! And then when they go out with Peggy and Woody, Marie spends the entire night flirting with Woody and ignoring her husband. Peggy and her mother definitely show the progression in women’s roles while Marie depicts how some women could not let go of the past. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
One of the things I liked about the movie was how real it felt. Sometimes I think movies, especially those made in the early 20th Century, utilize such cliche or characters with one-sided personalities and they can become somewhat boring. I felt like all the women in the movie were so dynamic and interesting. Peggy was a strong, independent woman who was intelligent and compassionate(such as when she gave up her bed to Fred, soothed him when he had a nightmare and then did not even mention it the next morning). Even though she did portray that "sweet" and "innocent" girl she surprised me in a good way when she was having that conversation with her parents and blatantly said she was going to break up Fred's marriage. I don't know if she actually would have tried during the 1940s but it showed she was a woman who knew what she wanted. I also liked her mother. She was a very strong woman also. She always seemed to know what was going on with her family whether it was who her daughter was in love with or how to respond and behave around her husband. She took care of her family but was not a pushover. She was a wise woman, one of my favorite scenes with her in it was when she was describing how hard it is to work at marriage and love and how it's not always easy. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
The women are the stable ones in this movie. Millie has raised her children and kept her life together while her husband was gone and is now gearing up for the long task of helping him transition and deal with a potential alcohol problem. Peggie is financially supporting herself, and she and Wilma both have a clear read of their own emotions concerning the men in their lives. Even Fred's wife knows what she wants out of life, even if it is just superficial entertainment, and she had a job that could help her support her fun. It is the men who are questioning their relationships, their jobs, and their futures. This is disconcerting to the men accustomed to being heads of households and patriarchal figures. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
Most of the female characters in the movie were very supportive of their men. Wilma still loves Homer and is willing to help him out with his physical disability. More importantly, she is patient and is willing to wait for Homer to ask for assistance. As for Milly and Peggy, they are very caring for the men they love. Milly is a good sport and a quick sense of humor. While Peggy may be younger than her mother, she is a serious woman as well as being a good sport. Unfortunately, the only female character not to be supportive is Marie. She only focuses on her own interests. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Is this movie pessimistic or optimistic about the US future? ==<br />
I believe it is optimistic about the US future. Fred does get a job; moreover, it's a job tied to building construction, which we know from the lecture is going to be one of the businesses that strengthens the US economy. Director William Wyler tones down the optimism with sobering camera work---I'm thinking particularly of the wide shot of all the scrapped planes, a visual counterpart to all the returned vets that have to be recycled. More personally, there is Al's drinking problem, which may have a devastating impact on his job and family if its underlying causes aren't dealt with. And we know that Fred and Peggy have a tough road ahead (but I bet they get that house sooner rather than later, if he'll let her keep her job). Yet for all the problems, the movie does end with a wedding. That's a potent symbol, of uniting, of commitment, and of faith. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I would say the film is doubtfully optimistic. It certainly does not say things will be easy and great for society, yet it just as well does not say things are doomed. As the movie says, America is really "gambling on the future of this country" by bringing its service men home so quickly. No one knows how things will be, and are therefore doubtful about out-right success. Really, it seems like the movie is trying to get everyone prepared for a return to a Depression era life. Yes, there will be jobs, but they will be scarce, yes there will be room for success but is going to take luck and hard work. So the film acknowledges that the future could be bright, but constantly reminds the audience there is a chance for failure. Like Homer says, "this is when I am at my weakest...unless I call for help."(I don't know if I quoted perfectly,but you get the idea)-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
I, too, believe the movie has an optimistic. The movie shows the triumph over the very difficult ability to overcome the odds. It shows the perserverence the military instills in its members. Never once in my husband's 19 years in the Corps have I ever heard any Marine tell another to give up on a task and just deal with their lot. I'm sure the other services are similar. What they do instead is have a brotherly competition to show to each other and themselves just what they can achieve. Life may be very difficult in the beginning or at other times, but they will do everything in their power to ensure victory. The movie portrays how this mentality is passed within the service member throughout the transition to the civilian world in which he finds himself the underdog. America will survive because the military made these men and won't let them down. They may have to look and it may not be all moonlight and roses, but he will be successful.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
== What are the long-term odds for these three veterans (and their marriages), as seen by the director/author? ==<br />
<br />
The long-term odds for each of the men would be different but in the end I believe all three would be content and end up at Butch's for a drink. For Homer, he would be married to his sweetheart, with Wilma taking care of the home and him and they would be alright economically because of Homer's disability pay. For Fred, even though he confessed his love for Peggy the couple would need to gain the approval of Al and his wife. They would live a life without material goods but would have eachother and both would work outside the home if necessary. Al and his wife would continue with their lives how they were, Al would retire from the bank and they would live quite comfortably. Each of the veterans would continue on with their post-war status, I think in time Fred's PTSD would calm down and no one would think twice when they met Homer. The war forever changed veterans but also changed the women in their lives and for better. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I think that the director left a level of uncertainty in each of the relationships. Of course the audience wants the marriages to work, but the veterans and their wives all have various issues to deal with in their personal lives. Homer is insecure about his disability and how his wife will handle it, Al is becoming an alcoholic, and Frank is newly divorced and without steady work. Largely like the post-war time period, the future of the men and their families appears to be bright, but their is always a definite sense of uncertainty lingering to create doubt about the future. The filmmakers did not know if their lives and their nation would be prosperous, so they left that element of the movie open to the audience as well. --Anna Holman</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-11-04T07:16:24Z<p>Hobnail: /* Comments on the reading versus the movie */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed many of the circumstances and situations men and families faced at the end of the war. The film's portrayal of men having to reinstate themselves in society is even commented on in the opening scenes of the film. The war had clearly changed: Homer, Fred, and Al and all three did not have the luxury of returning to previous jobs due to change in ownership (as in Fred's case with the drug store) or due to disabilities incurred by war injuries (as in the case of Homer). Each man handled civilian life differently but all faced one form of trauma; whether through alcoholism, divorce, PTSD, or judgement from loved ones. The film was both tragic and uplifting but shows when war ends no one is affected the same. Also, a side comment were all women as bold and witty as Peggy and her mother? I found them to be amazing characters and was glad when Peggy finally snagged Fred! -Megan W.<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrayed how divorce happened when men came home from World War II. It was awkward for all three of them when they came home and had to reacquaint themselves with their family and their wife. I think it accurately portrayed PTSD when Frank was having nightmares and then he was in the nose of the bomber. I really liked the part where Frank told his wife that they could never go back to the way they were when they first met. Clearly the war had changed him in many ways. He was no longer concerned with the some of the things he had once been concerned with. I also really loved the portrayal of Al's daughter and wife, Both of them were quick witted and funny. "I guess that ends my career as a home-wrecker" - Peggy. Great line. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
The film is full of the worry over jobs and the economy that was so prevalent at the time. All three vets worry over finding work and earning enough to support their families. But the image of all of those junked airplanes is so huge and so depressing that it is foreboding for the entire country, not just the three worried veterans. Because we know about the boom that did happen, it's hard to remember that they didn't necessarily expect it, and so much of what should have been a happy time was haunted by concerns about money. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
<br />
Like Mary Ann, I found that image of the junked airplanes very moving. I saw the planes as a metaphor for all the returned veterans, whose military skills (like Fred's) were useless in a civilian world. Fred got a job at the drugstore--working for the guy who'd been his assistant before the war--but the script was true to life when his boss told himi that he was under no legal obligation to give him his old job back, since the business had changed hands. The fear and resentment of workers was shown through the two drugstore employees: The female is convinced Fred will get a job because of all his medals, and the male says, "Nobody's job is safe with all these servicemen crowding in." --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
Like Debbi and Mary Ann, I took immediate notice to the airplanes that were to be tossed to the junk heap, but I saw them in a more literal sense. One of the men claimed that the plains were brand new from the factory and were headed to the junk pile. I took this as the contracts that had been lost after the war when the U.S. military decided that it would no longer need or be able to afford such contracts. Aside from that, the thing I felt the movie did very well to show how the men would interact with their families after not being around them for years. It was hard to watch each men as they went home and felt very nervous, even more nervous than if they were going into battle. All of them would have rather went to Butch's bar than go home and have to face their families. Plus, the men seem the most delighted when they were back with each other. They were able to come out of their shells when they were with their fellow veterans. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
The film accurately portrays the feelings of the returning servicemen. In the beginning of the movie, all three of them admit that they are just as nervous to return home as they were when they deployed years before. I liked that the movie followed all three men, Al, Fred, and Homer, around as they tried to readjust to their civilian lives. None of them have it easy, but Al seems to have to make the least amount of adjustments. He drinks all his problems away at first, but then begins to settle down. Fred realizes he is in a loveless marriage, married to a shallow and selfish party girl. He also has trouble finding a job because he lacks any sort of skill the jobs require. I believe that Fred suffers from PTSD among possible other psychological effects of war. His night terrors are a clear indication that he has been deeply affected by events in the war. (This is confirmed when his father reads one of his award citations that describes some of the things he endured.) Homer has to adjust to how his family treats him because of his disability. It’s different being handicapped among soldiers and being handicapped around your loved ones. The movie also portrays the fear of the civilians that the veterans would return and take over the workforce. When Al returns to the bank, a GI comes to him for a loan. Al says he would be a risk to the bank because he doesn’t have any collateral. The GI tells him that after his service in the war, it is his right to be able to make a living for himself at home. When I found out that William Wyler directed both The Best Years of Our Lives and Ben-Hur, I could not help but notice the similarities in music, even though Ben-Hur was made about 13 years later.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The film correctly showed how affected by the war many veterans were. Each one of the main veteran characters had a problem be it physical handicap, alcohol dependency, or emotional/mental problems. Had this film been made later these problems would either have been glossed over or minimalized. Rather in this movie they are directly addressed and are key plot points. Along this line, the movie actually showed people getting drunk, which was both comedic and realistic (I think we all can relate on some level with some scenes). Also, what was good was how the movie showed that WWII service men came from all different kinds of economic levels, and not everyone had a loyal girl, family, wife, proud parents back at home.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
The movie got many details correct, such as the technical aspects of the GI bill. The loans were not just a handout; there was risk involved for the banks. Also, the fear of the Depression returning was discussed. Americans did not know what the post-war economy would be like so naturally they feared the worst, which they had already experienced once. This really showed that once the war end, the prosperity and security of the 1950s was not immediately ushered in. The veterans and their families experienced uncertainties with jobs, money, family life, society, and almost every aspect of their lives. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
This movie showed how it was difficult for the veterans to adjust back to civilian life. The veterans were excited, but hesitant to go back home. Homer did not want to go back home right away because he did not know how his family would react to him. Also, Al did not even know his own children because he was away for a few years. It showed how life was not easy once they got back home. It was difficult to find a job. Also, they showed how it was difficult for others to keep their jobs because the veterans could take their jobs. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
Like Debbi, I noted the woman and the man talking about Fred getting a job. The women clearly thought that Fred deserved to get his job back for his service to the country. However, the man felt threatened by the influx of working men back into the United States. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Another thing I noticed was the wonderment the men had as they returned to their small town. There were so many changes that occurred while they were away in the war. This reminded me of one source that I'm reading for my 485 paper. A nurse POW wrote about how after their liberation she was confused with why the soldiers were called GIs and medical technology had advanced so much she was unable to hand the doctor the right instrument when he asked for it. The veterans (in the movie and in real life) lost years of their lives while away. Their children grew up without them there and many of their wives got by with them gone. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I really enjoyed this film. Something I think the film got right was the reactions people had toward Homer Parrish's hands. My grandfather served in WWII and he lost his leg, and the looks that Homer got by others are the same looks I have seen people give my grandpa whenever he went out without is prosthetic leg, so personally all of the scenes with Homer were very touching. I also liked how they tried to portray various people in different parts of their lives trying to re-adjust. There was the family man trying to figure out to fit into his old life after the war, the newly married man who has to get to know his wife, and the young man just starting out in life.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
<br />
Like most everyone else, I feel like the Veterans experiences were portrayed pretty accurately. For instance, right in the first scene when Fred is trying to go home to Boone City, he is having trouble finding transportation and is not treated as well as I would think a Veteran should be and basically has to move over so the man with the money can get on his plane. I thought it was neat how they reacted when they first arrived. The men viewed Boone City as if they had never visited it before. Even Al, who had been married to his wife for twenty years had to get to know her again along with his children who had aged quite a few years. This portrayal of their experiences of their arrival back was pretty accurate according to what we learned in class and in the reading. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
I also really enjoyed this film, and thought that many of the experiences that the men went through were very true to real life. While everyone welcomed the veterans home with open arms, there was definitely concern about how jobs and families would be impacted. One scene that I thought was particularly interesting was when Al was discussing the home loan with a fellow veteran, and saying how it would be a big risk to the bank. After he sees Homer, however, he decides to take the risk. He later gets chided by his manager for that decision. I think this shows how afraid people and banks were of another depression, especially with the flooded job market. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
One of the things that the movie accurately portrayed was the fact that the soldiers had trouble fitting in again upon their return. Especially when they saw their families had grown to function without them. I think this is especially shown in Al, because he is upset he hasn't been around to watch his children grow. And because the household has adopted a new lifestyle, especially when he commented on Peggy doing the dishes. He though that the family still had a maid. What I noticed that was also accurate, and this is more so from personal experience, is the fact that Al brought back gifts from his time overseas. With the samurai sword and Japanese flag. Whenever my dad came back from a deployment he always brought us something from where ever he was. And finally, the Stars and Stripes [http://www.stripes.com/] is a real newspaper for the military. They have a European and Pacific version and that is the primary source for keeping up with what is happening on the Home front.- Jenn<br />
<br />
Along with everyone else, I definitely think this movie accurately portrayed the soldiers having to acclimate to civilian life. It was interesting because the men were so excited to get home to Boone Creek, yet once they arrived, they found ways to avoid going to their homes and families, such as going to get a drink etc. It seemed that on the first night, the reason Fred and Al got really drunk was maybe a way to cope with the fact that they were back to civilian life and were no longer at war. It seemed like it was a way to ease the adjustment. Another interesting thing about the soldiers' readjusting was that whenever anyone brought up the war and its possible psychological effects on any of the soldiers, they either got defensive or just blew it off saying the feeling would pass. I think many soldiers did not want to come to remember their time fighting and when people assumed the soldiers' were suffering psychologically, the soldiers felt singled out from society and probably as civilians as well. Also, the movie accurately depicted the situation with soldiers jobs. When Fred went to visit his old workplace, he was told since the company had changed hands, he could not get his same job back. On the other hand, Al got his banking job back, but a different task was given to him. Then Homer was receiving his unemployment stipend from the government. ---Alex M. <br />
<br />
I agree that this movie does a great job showing the difficulties of readjusting to civilian life. As the guys mention on the plane ride home, sometimes returning home after that long is almost scarier than deploying in the first place. I think I was most impressed by the depiction of Homer's disability though. It was always so matter-of-fact, but showed how even once you think you've adjusted to something, there's always still more to be done. While some people were uncomfortable with Homer's prostheses, a lot of them, especially Wilma, just wanted to stay around him and get used to it. The film also showed the misunderstandings that can come from having a visible difference or disability, like when the little kids are actually watching Homer and Wilma because they want to spy on the grown ups who are in looooove, but Homer thinks they're staring because of his hands. All in all, it was a very interesting, deep portrayal. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job of trying to portray soldiers coming back from war from different walks of life. We had Al, the family man, Fred who was married, but with not much to come back to and an indifferent wife and then Homer, who came back to an un-certain situation at home. There was also the man who came into the bank and asked for a loan from Al. I’m sure many of the soldiers took advantage of this bill where the government would match half of what the bank provided. They all shared their different experiences of war, but not in great detail and I think the movie did a good job of capturing how many soldiers wanted to hide from their war experiences in public but in private they could not avoid them. Each character was emotionally fragile, but they dealt with it in different ways and ultimately I think each found peace with a woman (except maybe Al’s women was Jackie Daniels). –afrisk<br />
<br />
Harold Russell (the actor who played Homer Parrish) was really the real deal. His acting was really based on his own experiences. He does accurately portrayed a disabled veteran. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Holy Moses! What happened to the good old days where women took domestic science classes, were expected to get married right out of high school, and be housewives! Lol, anyways...I think this movie definitely captured how the lives of women began changing during and after the war. During the war, women had to step up to the plate and take charge. They began working outside the home and, as a result started becoming more independent. The movie shows the dynamic between this change. Fred's wife has clearly embraced her new found independence by getting her own job. Peggy also has a job working in the hospital. Although the movie shows how the roles of women were beginning to change, the old ways are still there. Peggy's mom is still the perfect housewife. Peggy is also groomed to become a housewife, which is evident in the class on domesticity that she took, and it is likely that she would give up her job as soon as she is married. Fred's wife reluctantly gives up her job at the night club once Fred comes back home. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A scene that really epitomized how the armed forces had prepared soldiers to return home, was when Homer greets his family and Wilma, after he gets out of the cab. Watching the scene unfold, Fred comments,"You gotta hand it to the Navy, they really taught him how to use those hands." Al replies, "They couldn't train him to put them around his girl and stroke her hair." This scene is very symptomatic of the issues that soldiers face when they try to return to civilian life. They have been trained to be a efficient and lethal weapons, to obey orders instantly and have experienced the death of many fellow servicemen. Trying to readjust to showing and receiving affection, could be very challenging. When Al returns to his family, he offers his wife a cigarette, forgetting that she doesn't smoke and he can't believe how much his family has changed in his absence. <br />
- Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
I really think they could have done without Franks wife being a gold-digger. She was awful and she is such a stereotypical character. She has no depth to her. I am not sure in the 1940's if it would have been acceptable for Peggy to go after Frank when she knew he was married. I am pretty sure that is not acceptable behavior at the time although I loved the whole part I do not think it is all that accurate. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
One of the major things that the movie missed out on was the representation of how veterans had to deal with post traumatic stress. Though we see the Fred had nightmares about his time in the war and Homer has trouble with people glancing at him awkwardly, there is not sense of the men going to the VA to get some help. There is no sense of the men being placed in hospitals to deal with severe emotional trauma. The nightmares and glances are humiliating, but they surely do not compare to the real emotional toll these men must have gone through after what they had seen and done over seas. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
Going along with Mike E's comment, it seems that Frank's PTSD set on too quickly. In class we discussed how it took months or years for the disorder to appear, but in the film Frank begins experiencing symptoms merely days after discharge. Also, I felt that the fight scene in the pharmacy perpetuated the stereotype of veteran's being overly violent. Sure, the man with the newspaper was being a royal pain, but the thrown punches seemed to only further this notion. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
It seems to me that an affair between the daughter of a friend or even superior and a married man may have been a bit salacious in the 1940’s. I found it quite disheartening that Fred’s wife was so shallow and obsessed with money. It is odd to me since she was most likely a teenager or a bit younger during the depression which would have imposed a different mindset about money and material objects. I also noticed that Peggy was wearing nylons in the beginning of the movie but rationing which certainly included nylons did not end until 1946. I know that this movie was made in ’46 but I gather that she would not have gotten her hands on nylons that quickly. - Caryn<br />
<br />
It was hard to figure out if the movie was portraying the Air Force as a separate military branch during 1946. Characters mentioned the “Air Force” a few times. There were planes used in warfare, however the Air Force itself did not become a separate branch until September 18, 1947 (“USAF Established” at http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=1845). -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The fact that College was never discussed seemed unrealistic to me. As we discussed in class 2 million veterans attended college after the war as part of the GI Bill. However Fred and Homer never discuss it. Fred does bring up the fact that he has been told to look into trade schools, but he doesn't mention that it would be free, or the other educational options available to him. -Michael G.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
Since the movie was made before the end of WWII, and was released the year after its end the filmmakers had no idea of the economic boom that happened around the '50s. To them things would go back to their Great Depression ways: jobs would be few, the rich would get richer and the poor poorer, and most of all veterans would have very hard times. These thoughts are clearly shown in the film, and it almost seems like the film suggests that the American Dream is busted. This particular idea manifests when Freddy talks about just wanting a house, family, and a good job; all of which he is denied in the film. Even when he gets with Patty (can't remember if that is her name) his financial future is in jeopardy. Also, the son (who just up and left never coming back during the movie) presents the filmmaker and audience's questions about the new atomic age, thoughts that are echoed by Buster when he talks about the next war killing everyone off at the very beginning via A-bomb.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
As Isaac said, the filmmakers were unsure about the future of the nation, just like the characters. This was portrayed well at the end of the film when Peggy and Frank have an uncertain future as a couple, Homer and Wilma are nervously wed, and Al's future with the bank, his daughter, and his alcoholism are largely unknown. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
In 1946 the returning vets and families of the vets seemed to feel as if the economy was precarious. Of course they would, poor Fred is now working for his former subordinate and was told by the new owner of the pharmacy that he was under no obligation to give him a job. I agree with Isaac, it was mildly clever to have the son ask all of the questions about the atomic age but it did seem somewhat contrived and overwhelming right at the start of the film. I think that the film deals quiet well with the emotional state of these three returning vets as representations of the time as a whole. Fred is hoping to move forward, Al is stuck in the past and drunkenly attempting to forget, and Homer is trying to live his life as a disabled vet. The film really seems to capture their experiences well. - Caryn<br />
<br />
This movie definitely shows how at that time, Americans were worried that there would be another Great Depression. They showed this when Frank had difficulty finding jobs. I agree with Isaac...in the movie, Fred was not very optimistic about the American Dream. Did most people in 1946 not believe in the American Dream? -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I saw the "atomic bomb" scene with Al's son a little differently than Caryn. It seemed natural to me that the son would want to discuss it, because he knew that Al had been at Hiroshima. I'm sure that the bomb was on the boy's mind because everyone followed the war closely, and it would have been discussed at school; many classrooms had big maps with the battles marked on it, and of course schoolchildren were recruited for scrap and rubber drives. I also liked this scene because it showed how estranged Al had become from his children. Also, for us, it foreshadows the Generation Gap of the 1960s, the seeds of which were sown in those years. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
I don't disagree with you on that Debbie, it just seemed clumsy the way it was addressed, in my opinion. I am sure that it was at the forefront of people's minds especially if it directly effected this family, I just think that it was hastily introduced. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought that the atomic bomb scenes were interesting because if the film were made today I think there would be extended discussion of the impacts to atomic weapons and those discussions were still in the film even though the Cold War atomic threat hadn't really sunk in yet. I also thought it was notable that Butch openly states that if there is another war the world would basically be destroyed but this was before the idea of MAD that would come to dominate the 1950s-1960s.<br />
<br />
Another view on the atomic bomb talk scene... I found it hard to watch the tension between father and son when Dad brought souvenirs home for his boy, like the samurai sword and the scarf. I think it was pretty brave for the movie to portray a young man who was obviously uncomfortable with the demonization of the Japanese. Similarly, the fact that the word "divorce" is even mentioned at all in this 1946 film is shocking. -- P.A. Appel<br />
<br />
Although I loved this movie, I have to say that this movie was definitely racy for its time! Along with how shocking it was that divorce was mentioned, there was cheating (I guess in a sense adultery), talk of being a home-wrecker, excessive drunkenness, etc... Just very surprising because there were a lot more stipulations on proper behavior and etiquette during that time, as well as a huge emphasis on the importance of having the perfect "American" family with the loyal stay-at-home mother, hardworking father, two kids, and a dog all in a house with a white picket fence. I believe censorship was also huge then to boot. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I was intrigued by Butch's prediction concerning the future with Homer. "Unless we have another war, because we will all be blown to bits in the first day." This was a view not uncommon to Americans and to people around the world at the time. Atomic weapons were new uncharted territory. Luckily his prediction has not come true, as mutually assured destruction, among a few other things, as prevented atomic/nuclear war. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
The reading tied in with how the three soldiers felt when they returned from the war. It seemed that all of the soldiers had a difficult time relating to their relatives and it was easier to explain and hangout with fellow veterans versus their civilian families and co-workers. I found the line on page 164 to be really intriguing, "I wrote home, 'The longer I stay here, the more irritated and frustrated I become. If I don't get out soon, I will be a mental case." The line tied in with how the men felt when they were waiting for flights home, in the film they all seemed truly upset with the military in how long it took to get home and actual soldiers felt the exact same. I felt sympathy for all of the soldiers but also understand from the civilian perspective how hard it is when a relative returns from war. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
In the reading there is a letter from a soldier home to his parents notifying them about his wounds and reassuring them that he is not in as serious condition as the official telegram implies. The soldier notes after that the letter was written to reassure his parents that he was not in serious condition, but that was a lie. This is illustrated in the movie when Homer mentions in the beginning that his parents knew he was wounded but they did not know the extent of it. Tobias Wolff also discusses how surviving soldiers feel when others die and they live. He says, ““All around you people are killed…but not you. They have been killed instead of you…They have been killed in place of you-in your place.” Fred probably faces thoughts like these when he has his nightmares and gets caught up thinking about the war when he sits in the nose of a plane at the end of the movie.-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The characters' experiences mirrored a few of Paul Fussell's experiences. Specifically, Fussell says he "became obsesssed with the imagined obligation to go it alone, absolutely ..." (176). Homer echoes this sentiment during his conversation with Wilma in the garage. She offers to help him adjust, but he says it's something he has to do by himself. I can't quote a source here, but from watching The History Channel I know that many WWII vets never, ever talked about their war experiences with their families. Again, we see this reticence in the movie and in the reading---Fussell writes cheerful lies about his wound, and in the movie Fred doesn't tell his father what he did in the war. Another parallel between the reading and the movie is anger. Fussell seems eaten up with it, and Al Stephenson (the infantry sergeant/banker) also operates on a very short fuse. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
In Paul Fussell's account, he talks about how aspects of the war stayed with him years after he got out of the service. He described how he continued to jump at loud noises, he would count while putting on his clothes, and find good places that machine guns would be able to hide. For the men in the movie ''The Best Years of Our Lives,''the situation is the same. Homer, Al and Fred continue to relive parts of the war such as when Fred gets in the airplane and feels as if he is flying in the air again. The reality for veterans is that their experiences stay with them forever. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
From Chapter six of the readings I found an interesting comparison when Paul Fussell was talking about education in a university after the war. He says, “What social institutions are the most dramatically opposite to the army? Colleges and universities.” That is one thing we hardly see in the movie, except for once I believe. He also mentions how he did not want to return to any conforming group. Both of these seemed opposite to what the characters in the movie did. None of them even gave a hint of going to a university and I think they all conformed. Fred started working at the same drug store he did before the war, Al was working at the bank and Homer, probably because of his handicap, had to stay at home. This just goes to show that everybody not only has different experiences during the war, but also after and how they choose to return to society. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I agree with Amy's point. Fussel's post war experiences were traumatizing to say the least. How hard it must have been for him to live with the nightmares and constant crying. In relation, Fred suffered from nightmares, or more like talking in his sleep. He would recount the same dream over and over, at the beginning of the movie and then it is brought up by his wife later. When the nightmares were brought up to Fred, it changed him and it was almost as if he didn't want to relive them again. Another interesting point was that Fussel talked about his change in attitude, from "my presiding emotion was annoyance, often intensifying to virtually disabling anger. Anger at my accepting invitations to make too many changes of identity too fast." (P. 211) I think this annoyance was exhibited in all 3 of the men, but especially Homer. When he broke the glass when he saw the kids watching him while he was doing shooting practice, his frustration had finally reached the threshold. I'm sure there was plenty for the soldiers to be annoyed at, or even angry at. In my opinion, they had a right to feel that way after returning from war. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Like Fred, Fussell also suffered post-traumatic stress disorder. While each veteran experienced it in different forms, the cause of their problems originated from their service during World War II. Somehow, the disorder was not a major problem until the Vietnam War.<br />
<br />
== 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>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_11_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 11 Questions/Comments2010-11-04T04:16:45Z<p>Hobnail: </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 />
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 />
== 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 />
== 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>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-28T06:37:19Z<p>Hobnail: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..." --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Some of what the movie portrayed well was the monopoly that the coal companies had on the entire town, including the houses in which the miners lived. Then, there was the depiction of the coal companies raising the prices at the company general store the very same day that the price of coal had decreased. There was also the representation of danger around every corner that existed within the coal mining industry. Then there was the portrayal of Police Chief Hatfield, who did not want to receive bribes and was opposed to the eviction of the miner's families from company houses. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike E. about the way the film potrayed just how strong of a hold the coal company had on the town. It seemed like every single aspect of the people's lives was controlled by the company. The scene with the creepy preacher showed the general malevolence that a community could have towards a union. I also liked how there was very little romanticization of the miners' struggle. I think this had a lot to do with the very simple and authentic music. I think another point that the movie got across very well was the danger that men faced whether they joined the union or not - early in the film, one of the Italian miners said to Joe, "We join the union, they shoot us. We don't join the union, you shoot us." The filmmakers made it very clear that just because these men were in the union, it didn't necessarily mean that they were all noble, kind-hearted men. They were just as willing to use force as the company was. Kevin Tighe (aka John Locke's kidney-stealing father on "Lost") was unbelievably easy to hate as Hickey, the Baldwin-Felts man that Elma blew away with a shotgun. He captured the utter lack of sympathy that it seems those men had for the miners. I would have to disagree with Megan W. about trusting Bob Gunton as C.E. Lively at the beginning of the film - Bob Gunton is always evil. Never trust Bob Gunton. - Celia<br />
<br />
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie. The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians. Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food. Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern." And nobody sounded like a moron. As a West Virginian, I'm grateful. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers. Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting). They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect. Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town. I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is. (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.) Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film. Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA? The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
The movie accuratly depicted Few Clothes the huge black guy who became unionists. I did not understand that first seen when the white people were attacking the black people who were told to get out of the train. I makes a lot more sense when in class we were told they were strike breakers. They did a good job showing the evicting of people in company homes and the way the company owned the shops where they could ger supplies. The scene where Few Clothes asks what is to stop the company from jacking up the prices. It showed the monopoly the companies had over the towns. It also did a good job depicting how children were used in the mine despite the laws against it. The blond kind when asked if he was supposed to work in the mine said yeah and that there were lots of other kids younger then him who worked in them. - LeAnn<br />
<br />
Samantha, I think at one point Kenehan mentions that he was a member of the Wobblies. I don't know if UMWA was the other union he ended up joining. I think the movie accurately represented the ways in which the mining company "owned the town". In the movie, some of the people who represented the company, like the Hickey and Griggs, claimed that the company owned all the property in the town including the houses they were trying to evict the family from. In the beginning, a man was running down a list of things the company "provided" the new workers, however all the expenses for things like the train ride were deducted from their pay anyway. The workers and people who lived in the town were also expected to buy food and products from the company store yet they jacked up the prices so the people could barely afford to survive. Elma Radnor also mentions to Kenehan that fires in the mine caused by the coal dust could potentially be avoided if the company would pay to water down the walls, but she said the company wouldn't because it was too expensive. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
The movie correctly depicts the fear of unionization at the time. During the first church scene, the preacher condemns unions, communists, and socialism as the devil's work. Despite the socialism and anarchist movements during the early 20th century, many remained skeptical, and the sentiment turned to outright fear with the Bolshevik rebellion in Russia. Another event that made Americans fearful of unionization was the Haymarket Square bombing, which was also conveniently tied to anarchists. It seems that since the preacher had never worked in a coal mine, he would be unaware of the horrible conditions these men were facing and of their slavery to the company. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The movie definitely got the dependence of the miners on the company right throughout the film. Hickey mentions several times that the company owns all of the housing, which we know would have been true. Additionally, when the scab workers are first touring the town with and learning about how they will be working, Few Clothes Johnson brings up the point that since everyone who mines in the town is paid in company scrip, the company store can jack up the prices whenever they want. This is echoed in the union meeting, when the men describe the wage cuts and increased prices. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
A moment that really struck me as accurate, was when Kenehan was speaking to the leader of the Italian mine workers, and tells him that they need to join the union. He responds by saying, so either we get shot by the company, or we get shot by the other miners, and Kenehan agrees that he is basically right. James Earl Jones different reactions to being called a n***** and being called a scab was very enlightening. It showed how truly offensive the term scab was, he didn't seem to care if he was called a n*****, but that no one was allowed to call him a scab. In response to Megan W's comments about Bob Gunton's character, I have to say that I thought from the opening meeting that he was a spy. I couldn't stop thinking of his character in ''Shawshank Redemption'' everytime I saw him, he even had on exactly the same glasses. Sid Hatfield was BAMF throughout the whole movie. When everyone else in a position of power was caving to the coal companies he never backed down. He was the true hero of the film to me. He didn't have to stand up to the Baldwin-Felts men, but he knew what was right and would not budge. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Yes, Michael G. I would just like to say that in my notes from watching this movie, you will find "David Strathairn (actor who played Sid Hatfield) is a BAMF". I also have "Darth Vader is a BAMF" - his BAMFness was perfectly executed in the scene where he says "You shut your mouth, peckerwood." In addition, Chris Cooper (Joe Kenehan) is one of the most consistently fantastic actors working today. His understated magnetism makes any Average Joe into the most interesting character onscreen. I would honestly watch him in anything. He could make a Quiznos commercial poignant. - Celia<br />
<br />
I thought that this movie got a lot of things right. First were the racial and nativist tensions between the coal miners. When Sid Hatfield stands up to the Baldwin-Felts men and stops them from evicting the families from their homes. I also thought that the scene when the African-American miners show up and the Company man is telling them about the town and how the Company owns everything, they get paid in Company script etc. and it showed how the Company really did try and control the entire town.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Rachel, I found the introduction to the company scene to be almost frightening in how calculating the company workers could be. Every cost had to be deducted from next month's pay, and every expense (including train tickets to get there) must be accounted. And the discussions about the company store as pay is spot on. You definitely get the sense of hopelessness that the miners would feel having nothing but the company to rely on for food and clothing items, tough luck that they are crooked and not interested in the miners. However what struck me even harder was the portrayal of violence, or at least potential violence on the part of company representatives. Throughout the film, they are armed with a rifle and watching the mines. Even though Kenehan is a pacifist and always looking for peaceful ways to mediate problems, the company does not even pretend to hide its willingness to defend company territory.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 17:48, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got right was the fear of Socialism and Communism. The pastor preaches about it in his sermon and one of the men asked Joe if he was a “red,” meaning a communist. Although Eugene Debs was able to run for president it did not stop people from worrying about “the reds.” –Megan Mc<br />
<br />
Another thing I feel the movie did a good job with was the impatience at the national union. They had to wait to act in their strike until they received word from the union. As a local union they probably wanted to strike sooner and have more of a say in what and when they did stuff. Kenehan said the union was a democracy, like the United States, but it’s more like a Republic, once again like the United States, not everyone gets a vote there are just representatives. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I like the ending of the movie and I think the director did a good job of portraying the little headway that many of these mining unions actually made. The movie made me believe that some headway would be made against the mining company, but that is lost when we see Danny back in the mine at the end and this foreshadows the Unions inability to make new contracts with non-union mines later in the 1920’s. -afrisk<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the Wobblie mentality in that the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World) were hoping to create one big union but as it was said in the movie, the Matewan folks only knew from their own holler. It also demonstrates that the IWW accepted all workers into the union whether they were immigrants or Americans, white or black, which was somewhat unique to this particular union in a climate or natives and racism. Sayles also aptly demonstrates the hold that the company had on the entire town, from owning the homes, to the goods, and eventually evicting the strikers from the land that they had lived on their entire life. - Caryn<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a very good job of portraying the clear separation in wealth and class between the miners and the mining company. They made it very clear that there were no personal feelings towards them and I think it was Kenehan who said that these people do not care about you and you are simply workers to them and are easily replaceable. The movie captured the fear that the townspeople had of the mining industry and the men in the Baldwin-Felts’ agency and how it took so much to overcome this fear of unions and finally try to get something organized. I like how the two agents came in and did not care who stood in their way and the movie did a good job of portraying their almost distaste for the workers. –afrisk<br />
<br />
This movie seems to be pretty accurate. It shows how important the Coal Company is on their lives. Many of the people risked their lives to fight the Coal Company. It seemed like everyone wanted better situations, but not everyone agreed that forming a Union is the best thing to do. This movie showed well how the Coal Company affected everyone: the miners (old and young), mothers, people who lived in the town, and people who are not from the town. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with most of the people above that this movie is one of the more accurate it ones. It shows how the coal miners worked together to form a union and strike but also showed the other side, those that worked as "scabs." As I watched the movie, I saw a lot of intensity within the context of race relations. It all started when the Black coal miners were taken off the train so they would purposely be attacked by the whites. Did that really happen? Was the violence that intense towards African Americans? Also, while the miners on strike were meeting in secret and Few Clothes Johnson entered, it was clear he was not welcome. Did the coal miners hate African Americans because they were Black or because they were brought in to "replace" those miners who were on strike? Although the Blacks were brought in to replace the striking miners, their desire to join the Union showed that they had the same goals in mind as the white miners... they wanted a job that brought them money but was also one that treated them fairly and not just as expendable resources. --- Alex M. <br />
<br />
One of the things that the movie portrayed well was the contempt that the Company's people had for the miners. Well, contempt might be too strong of a word... more of "you are no more than dirt beneath my shoe" kind of feeling. (I can't think of the word right now) They really didn't care about the miner's family situations, or lifestyle in general. Because in their eyes they were just bodies to be replaced. This really emphasized the tensions that formed and had been forming for awhile. - Jenn<br />
<br />
The film did a good job with the distinction between the producers and non-producers. At the beginning when Kenehan is at his first meeting with the union, he expresses the difference between those who work and those who don't. Continuously throughout the film, there is the reiteration of the mountain people and the city people, from both the miners and the "deputies" from the coal companies. They also did a good job in expressing the power the company had over every aspect of life. When the black miners were coming to work, the man was rattling off all the expenses due to the company for using their equipment, and the scripts only being good in company stores, the eviction of a family due to joining a union, and many other examples of how the company ran the life of the miners. As a viewer of this film, even if I didn't know the complete history behind towns like these, I felt oppressed for the miners due to the constant limitation expressed on the screen. It makes a person think about the rights that we have now that would never allow for such things and where they came from. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
Few Clothes Johnson was hardly portrayed as the leader of the scabs who converted to unionism. He seemed more like a minor character than at the forefront of the strike. Also, the Baldwin-Felts men had already evicted several families and were leaving to catch a train when the Matwewan shootout began. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
I agree with Anna about Few Clothes Johnson. I was definitely expecting him to come more to the forefront of the movie but he never did, which was disappointing. James Earl Jones could have been used much better. - Celia<br />
<br />
Though Danny served as a representation of the children who worked in the mines, there should have been more children shown in the film. We saw in the readings how they often got injured and sick working the mining jobs that no one else wanted, for very low wages, but that was not depicted in the movie. Also, I was surprised that none of the miners seemed to have any health problems that related to the years that they spent in the mines. There was occasional coughing, but other than that, no depiction of the black lung that became so famous among miners, or even any real mining injuries. Showing these would have helped to represent the dangers of mining at the time, and the poor treatment of the men. I think that it would help the audience to understand why the miners wanted the union so much. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I agree with Meagan about the lack of mining injuries and illnesses. The cave in that killed Danny's father is highlighted, but the movie definitely plays up the economic aspect of the drive for unionization. My great grandfather worked in a Pennsylvania mine around this same time period and lost parts of three of his fingers. Seems like many of the men would have had similar injuries, even if they had attained them years earlier while working as breaker boys themselves. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am not really surprised the there wasn't much about mine injuries or related-diseases. Once the characters decided to unionize the mine completely fell out of the picture. The director has you put all your attention on the conflicts, twists and turns of the company vs. the miners. Also I think we go back to the whole problem of creating fictional characters for the purpose of what...easier to make films? Joe Kenehan is an interesting character, but is he honestly necessary? The movie shows a fictional character starting up the entire union at Matewan and therefore is just bad history. The real characters are almost put aside for characters that can say whatever the screen writer wants. It's harder to manipulate the real historical figures. I mean the sheriff and mayor show up in a handful of scenes and Few Clothes drops completely off of the movie at one point.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:00, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
The kid preacher totally, if I remember right,totally got the story of Joseph wrong. He did not die at the hands of Potiphar and his men, it was this false accusation of rape that got Joseph noticed by Pharaoh for Joe's ability to interpret dreams[http://www.essortment.com/all/genesisjoseph_rrwi.htm]. Now I know this isn't detrimental to the historical accuracy of the film, but it kind of hurts the plot. A church full of strong Christians would be more likely to get angry and correct him rather than be like "Oh my god! He's being meta!"-Isaac Whaeln<br />
<br />
<br />
I agree with Mary Ann, Sayles did narrow his focus on the socio-economy of the town but left out the impact that the injuries and dangers of the mines truly had on the town at this time. Though it is mentioned that Danny’s father died in the mines, but the men who worked in the mines in Sayles’ Matewan seemed to be in great health and perfectly intact. Isaac you are totally correct, Joseph was imprisoned after being falsely accused of rape and languished their somewhat forgotten until he began to interpret Pharaohs’ dreams. http://www.gcfweb.org/institute/genesis/week10.php – Caryn<br />
<br />
I did not realize that some of the women could understand Italian. -afrisk<br />
<br />
I think they should have had more scenes about the terrible conditions in the coal mine. They did show it in the beginning and at the end, but they should have shown it more. Also they should have shown more children working in the mine. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
It may be a minor detail, but I thought that when the union organizer Kenehan was making his speech and everyone came together that it was all a little too sudden and unrealistic. Especially when they broke out in the solidarity song and everyone knew exactly the right tune to play and words to sing. I also agree with everyone else discussing the lack of mining dangers and illnesses throughout the film which I though detracted from the film overall. -Melissa<br />
<br />
Overall, I agree with the fact that illness and mine injury were not thoroughly expressed in the film, but at the same time, I agree with the point that the mine itself kind of falls out of the picture once they go on strike. It's more of a background image than the key point of the film. And while the miners did speak of poverty and worried about feeding their families, I really didn't think that the severity of poverty some of the families faced was portrayed well enough. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
A 1987 New York Times article, “Film: John Sayles's 'Matewan'”, by Vincent Canby, http://www.nytimes.com/1987/08/28/movies/film-john-sayles-s-matewan.html states, “The characters are either good or evil. They're the idealized figures portrayed in the Government-sponsored murals that, during the Depression, were painted in post offices and other public buildings from one end of the country to the other.” Canby also describes the character of Kenehan as “a figure of mythic proportions, part Joe Hill, part Jesus Christ. His task: to give direction to the miners' negotiations and to prevent the kind of sabotage and violence that would give the company an excuse to bring in their goons. That he must fail is the film's distantly heard, mournful theme.” John Sayles wanted to portray the hardships the miners endured and give insight to the harsh realities faced by union members. So in this film, it is permissible to create a fictional character in order to convey the director’s message while attempting to stay as historically accurate as possible. –Samantha W.<br />
<br />
During the 1980s the US economy was experiencing all sorts of upheavals. The country was shifting away from the heavy industries like mining, and union membership was slipping. At the same time, while the US overall was getting wealthier, the gap between the rich and poor was widening all while more women and new groups of immigrants were seeking entry to the workforce. As good a time as any to make a movie about the challenges of American capitalism and US labor relations? -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I am going to throw out one and say that since the Cold War isn't quite over yet that Matewan is some pretty serious pro-Communist revolution. To me, it's rare for American films to depict communists as anything other than bad people. Even in the film Few Clothes Johnson jokes about Joe Kenehan being a communist and not having a gun. While I know historically non-capitalist ideas were not all the uncommon in the States, but for a film to be okay with the idea of a Red doing good, productive stuff for communities is big.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 18:06, 27 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
While the previous point does make a good statement that the movie has a pro-Communist revolution feel to it I must disagree that this is the main drive of the film. To me the film makes a plethora (always a good word) of statements about America and its labor force. Firstly, in regards to unions, this film seems to say that true American economy is based on unions; the only way to fight corrupt business is with unions. Also, while Kenehan's communist views are put in a positive light there are other periods were he himself says that unions are a democracy, further strengthening the connection between America and unions. So rather than this film being a pro-communism film I would say its more like a film that wants total equality for all, what some would call a "true democracy."-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
p.s. this film felt like a reworked Western. A single man comes into a corrupt town to save the people and inspire them to a better life. Did I just describe <em> My Darling Clementine </em> or <em> Matewan </em>?<br />
<br />
The joke by Few Clothes Johnson is clearly referring to the fact that all Communists fight with hammers and sickles, not guns. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
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 />
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out. It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one. Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
One of the readings, "The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
From the movie it is made clear that socialism and communism are not good. In fact, the scene before the young boy preaches to the church, the older reverend claims that socialism and communism are "Beelzebub." This assertion that these socialism and communism are the devil is also mentioned in the assorted readings. More specifically, the reading about Eugene v. Debs claimed that our soldiers in the Philippines were "civilizing and Christianizing" the natives that were living under a non-capitalistic rule (p. 6). Thus, they were living in the midst of evil, or maybe that's a stretch. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
The movie reminded me of "The Tyranny of the Company Store". The miners were all reliant on the jacked up prices and lack of variety the store provided. They also were essentially poor once they went on strike and their company scrip became worthless. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
The film really depicted the "Tyranny of the Company Store". I couldn't believe that Hickey and his men came to the camp to take back food and supplies from the miners that they had earned with scrip. It was disgusting. Also, as Debbi S. said, I think the film did a very good job showing how much religion was a part of the miners' lives. - Celia<br />
<br />
The letters from the men trapped in the mine, referencing future reunions in heaven, convey how important religion was to the miners and their families. The movie, while also using Danny's preaching as a plot device, definitely shows how much the community relied on a faith in God to keep them going in the face of such poverty and desperation. The Protestants and the Catholic Italians all found comfort in their faith. Faith was one of the few things the company couldn't take away from the mining towns. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job at portraying the overreaching and controlling Company that was described in "The Tyranny of the Company Store". They also talked about the dangers that mine workers faced, even if it wasn't directly shown on screen.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The readings and movie both depicted the hardships of being a miner but also how the Miner's Union played a pivotal role in their lives. I thought the interview/reading was really important in showing how the miners felt about union activities, Ratliff said "it was the greatest thing he had ever heard in his life," and was eager to share the joy of the union but in the movie not all the men were eager to share such "joy". I wonder if mixed feelings about the Union were felt all over or did some states/specific mines favor it? -Megan W.<br />
<br />
Just as Rachael mentioned, "The Tyranny of the Company Store" was accurately depicted in the movie. Many times, it was stated by some mine workers about how the "prices would go up the same week that the tonnage rate went down." It was clear that the company store controlled the lives, but in a broader sense, the mining company to a certain extent "enslaved" the coal miners. In the reading, it stated, "To enslave and starve a man, or to drive him to desperation by actions the most uncharitable and unjust." Coal miners had very little freedom as we learned on Tuesday. Even in the movie, Eleanor told Joe Kinehan that if you're not with the company, there was no work. The coal miners were forced to be dependent on the company, although many did not want to be. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
This movie showed the terrible conditions in the mine just like readings showed. Even though the movie did not focus on the conditions of the mine, it did begin and end with those scenes which made them important and remembered. The readings were very shocking and it was difficult to read some of them because the explained terrible conditions and they were sad - like the Tennessee Coal Miners' Last Words. - Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things that struck me about the movie was the influence of Religion. It was also brought up in the readings, with the letters from the miners that were stranded in a collapsed mine. All of the letters told their families to be good and to trust that they will meet again in heaven. I assume that because this was such a dangerous job the people had to have a strong faith to get them through the day. It is also interesting to note that in one of the final letters a father writes to his son's to not become miners. So even they recognize that there are better alternatives. - Jenn<br />
<br />
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 />
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>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_10_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 10 Questions/Comments2010-10-27T04:15:01Z<p>Hobnail: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The movie accurately portrays the eviction of the coal miners' families from company-owned houses by the Baldwin-Felts lackeys. The police chief, Sid Hatfield, also accurately defends these families and demands that the proper paperwork must be shown in order to evict a family out of their home. The movie also shows how these evicted families and the union men were forced to live in tents out in the woods. I also love that Mufasa/Darth Vader is in this movie!!! I kept hoping that he would say "Remember who you are..." --Erin L.<br />
<br />
I agree with Erin that the film accurately portrays the eviction from company-owned homes, especially the scene where the Baldwin-Felts crew is seen taking families furniture and belongings outside of a home. Another striking point the movie made, which we learned in class, was the role of spies and how the spies served as double agents such as C.E. Lively (played by Bob Gunton). In all honesty I thought he was a good person in the beginning of the film and once I saw his truecolors when he spoke with Bridey thought he was an asshole saving his own neck. The film did show how difficult life in a union was but how important a union could be in bringing together ALL workers for a common cause. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
<br />
The racial and ethnic prejudices that divided union men in real life were well-represented in this movie. The African-Americans asked if they had to work with the Italians, and the whites complained about the Africa-Americans and the Italians. Among the women, Hillard's mother accused the Italian lady of having "the evil eye" and was outraged when she "ruined corn meal" by making polenta, while the Italian lady was just as outraged about the West Virginia woman's "poison" food. Dr. McClurken told us that the corporate officials used these racial and ethnic conflicts to "divide and conquer" the workers, to undermine solidarity. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
They got the accents right. Nobody lapsed into "Southern." And nobody sounded like a moron. As a West Virginian, I'm grateful. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
There is definitely a gap between the wage earners and the employers. Baldwin-Felts’ men drive around town in a fancy car (which some of the townspeople say is disturbing the hunting). They dress in expensive suits and treat the people of Matewan with extreme haughtiness and disrespect. Griggs and Hickey were especially disrespectful to Elma Radnor who was their host in town. I really liked Joe Kenehan’s speech about unions when he said that there is no skilled or unskilled and race does not matter; that’s what a union is. (It reminded me of the meeting in the beginning of The Patriot, especially since Chris Cooper was in that film as well.) Though I did wonder what labor union Kenehan is a member of, I do not believe it is mentioned in the film. Is he supposed to be a member of the UMWA? The movie also accurately shows the use of company script for items at the company store and the housing that is provided by the company. One side note, the director, John Sayles, appears in the movie as well as a preacher.<br />
–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
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 />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
Although the "big" battle scene was the most exciting moment in the entire movie, it wasn't completely accurate. Hatfield, the mayor, Testerman, and the sheriff, Fred Burgraff (who was not in the movie) actually confronted the Felts' brothers, Al and Lee (who were also not in the movie) and their goons outside the Chambers Hardware Store, not the Post Office. The movie assumes that Hatfield was the one who fired the first shot, however that has never been definitively proven. Also, the deaths that occurred on the coal miners' side was also exaggerated; only two of them died. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
A union organizer with Joe Kenehan's pacifism would not be an effective leader in fighting the coal companies. Also, that type of union organizer would have difficulty in establishing a union of mine workers. Union leaders who were effective in opposing the coal companies usually defended themselves in order to survive. (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj66/newsinger.htm) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== 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, 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 />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
Talking about the mine collapse that killed her husband, Elma Radnor, the boarding house lady, told Joe Kenehan that there was blood on the walls from where men tried to dig themselves out. It reminded me of the last letters written by the Tennessee coal miners trapped by an explosion: "Oh, God, for one more breath," wrote one. Those letters were also filled with remarks about the miners' belief in God and heaven, an aspect of their lives that the movie portrayed well by setting so many key scenes in church. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
One of the readings, "The Bitter Cry of Children", talked about children who worked in the mines along with the horrible working conditions they had to endure. Employers liked to hire children because they were inexpensive to employ; sometimes they were paid 50 or 60 cents a day. Danny Radnor was one such boy who thought about working in the mines and by the end of the movie he did. He was barely 15 but he mentioned that boys even younger than him were working in the mines already. -Amy Van Ness<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-21T06:39:18Z<p>Hobnail: </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 />
I think the film accurately portrayed the general setting of the west during it's earliest settling period. A town in the middle of nowhere, full of people both looking for a new start (Doc) and others looking for a place to escape the law (all the outlaws of the town). The set up of the town and the activities going on in and around it all seemed fairly accurate. There's cattle ranching, mining, prospecting, and lots of other aspects of the growing west represented in the film. They even threw in the sterotypical idea of a drunken Native American running a muck in the town. - Victoria Y.<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 />
One of the big historical inaccuracies was that in the movie, the year was 1882. The shooting at the OK Corral actually happened in October of 1881. Also, James Earp was not killed by the Clantons, but rather lived a long time after the events in the film. Doc Holliday was not in fact killed in the shooting. He died of tuberculosis about six years after the shooting--with his TB being the reason he came out west in the first place. And finally, the Tombstone in the movie was said to be in the Northern Arizona/Utah area but in actuality, was in Southern Arizona. -- Kelly<br />
<br />
The feud between the Clantons and the Earps appears to be only a few days long in the film. While I know it's oftentimes necessary to compress the timeline in a film, the arguments between the two families were extended over a long period of time. They also completely disregarded the Republican and Democratic political factions that in reality caused much of the tension, instead substituting cattle ranching as the catalyst for the showdown. --Melissa<br />
<br />
Um where did Clementine come from? And How did she travel without some kind of escort all the way from Boston? And to continue on with what people have said before, Wyatt met Earp before Tombstone. However in respect to the town, I feel like I have seen it somewhere before. In an Amusement Park. In the "Wild West" theme section. The part where you can go on the Railroad ride. Yup... there are some definite stereotypes in work there... - Jenn<br />
<br />
While there are lots of aspects of the west brought up in this film, I'd say most of them are portrayed in the most sterotypical way. Rather than make things a bit more accurate, I believe they changed it for hollywood purposes, the most influencial purpose of course. - Victoria Y.<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 />
@afrisk, I was considering how the film seemed to give women a really weak role dependent on men. Not only did they not have any authority, but they lacked even the power to do anything on their own. The film only focuses on two women, even though we do see others, but both of them hardly look like women that can deal with hardships, which seems unlikely.-Bakhtinjali<br />
<br />
One of the documents, Helen Stuart, talks about a husband's death. The thing that struck me about this reading was that she kept mentioning the evidence for it was all circumstantial. This kind of ties in closely with the movie where Wyatt didn't really know who killed his brother, and he only tied it together through the necklace. I guess it shows that in the West there really was no order, and people barely had an idea what was going on. The rule of Gun was in fact the Law. - Jenn<br />
<br />
Whereas the people of Tombstone, AZ hired the Earps who had either little or no experience of proper law-enforcement training, in Edward Gould Buffum's account, the people in a mining town in California formed a vigilante group. In both the film and Buffum's account, many Western communities tried to find ways to maintain law and order without some central law enforcement agency. Whatever the method used, the rights of the defendant were sometimes not withheld. - A. Brudno<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>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_9_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 9 Questions/Comments2010-10-20T19:06:33Z<p>Hobnail: </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 />
<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 />
== 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 />
<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 />
<br />
It really bothers me that the film changed many aspects of history in order to provide the audience with noble protagonists. Wyatt Earp is not exactly the most virtuous man. He is a sporting man and befriends another violent gambler, Doc Holliday. He gambles in the film, but he is portrayed more as a letter of the law type marshal (except for the fact that he only took the job to avenge his brother’s death). I had to look online for historical inaccuracies, and found that James Earp did not die in 1882 as his tombstone shows in the film, he lives until 1926! Morgan Earp is the brother who is murdered during a game of billiards (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpJ.htm). The O.K. Corral fight actually took place on Oct. 26, 1881 (http://www.kansasheritage.org/gunfighters/okcorral.html). In the film it has to take place after 1881 since James is supposed to have been murdered in 1882. There also is no mention of Wyatt’s personal life (as it really happened). The film does not mention Mattie Blaylock or Josephine Marcus. Clementine appears to have been completely made up for dramatic purposes. Tom and Frank McLaury and Billy Claibourne are also absent from the film. Doc Holliday is not killed at the O.K. Corral fight, he dies of tuberculosis. One major inaccuracy: Virgil was marshal of Tombstone, not Wyatt (www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/WWearpM.htm).–Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Everything about the Earps was reconstructed for dramatic purposes, and it did make good drama. Samantha mentions James not really dying in 1882---well, the movie needed an innocent, good-looking kid to bite the dust or there would have been no conflict. And you knew right away that James was a goner, from the way Ford lit his scenes. The kid might just as well have been wearing a Red Shirt! --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie completely left out any reference to the political struggle between the Democrats and Republicans. Wyatt did not run for office against Behan and there was no tension shown between farmers and cattlemen. Very few Latinos were in the film and none of them had major roles. I also had a major problem with the portrayal of Native Americans in the film. The only native american who had a role was the drunk Indian who was firing wantonly around the town. He is knocked out and kicked out of town by Wyatt Earp. He disgustedly comments that no decent town would sell liquor to Indians. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
Others have mentioned specific inaccuracies related to the Wyatt Earp "legend." The movie credits say the screenplay is based on the Stuart Lake book Dr. McClurken mentioned, which is rife with falsehoods that attempt to mythologize Wyatt Earp. Given that, John Ford apparently felt he had free rein to reinvent the Earp myth for a modern audience. The same goes for the character of Doc Holliday, doomed, yet noble and charismatic. The logic of the movie absolutely required Holliday to die on the field of battle instead of choking to death on his own blood in a TB ward. So...the actual narrative of the movie was a tissue of lies from beginning to end---but the setting and period details were fairly accurate. You have the church being built by the law-abiding citizenry; the cattle rustling that we read about in Granville Stuart's diary; the racial mix in Tombstone; and the casual violence of the times. --- Debbi S.<br />
<br />
A major inaccuracy of the film was the Wyatt Earp knew Doc Holliday before he was in Tombstone. The two actually met and became friends in Dodge City. They were not enemies as the film portrays. Another falsehood was Wyatt being depicted as a moral man trying to make society safe and just. Wyatt Earp actually had a rough reputation and was not known as a law-abiding citizen. Finally, Wyatt never was the sheriff. He ran against John Beham in 1881 for the position but he lost the election, although he did win over Beham's mistress Josephine Marcus, who was never mentioned in the film. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
"Old Man" Clanton was not killed by the Earps. Instead, he was killed in an ambush called the "Guadalupe Canyon Massacre" in August of 1881. He, along with a few others, was most likely murdered by Mexican Rurales. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Man_Clanton) - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== 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 />
== 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 />
== 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>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments2010-10-07T06:27:10Z<p>Hobnail: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The different relationships that formed within Col. Shaw's unit were accurate. The tension between Col. Shaw and his Capt would have arose out of different views as to what was expected. Col. Shaw saw the importance of ensuring the enlisted's competence in the eventuality of battle, while the Capt. believed the men would never see battle, so was initially satisfied with their unskilled experience. Another issue that the movie got right about Col. Shaw was in the way he respected his men and endlessly worked to have their contributions to the Civil War be more than just one of menial work. These me, most being escaped slaves, desired to participate in the events which would make all blacks American citizens.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
This movie seems to get many small details correct. For instance, there is the presence of a non-commissioned office in the form of Morgan Freeman's character. Also, the 54th like other black regiments were used mostly for manual labor instead of getting their chance to fight. Then there is the appointment of Robert Gould Shaw to colonel of the regiment. He was appointed because of political reasons and who his family knew. He was not promoted because he was a great commanding officer. Moreover, Shaw seems to be somewhat incapable on the field of battle as depicted in the opening battle at Antietam. Thus, Ferris Bueller is the perfect candidate for this position. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie did a god job at portraying the tensions between the white and African-American troops and the discrimination they faced. They brought up the fact that the 54th were going to be paid less than the average soldiers and were not given proper supplies. They also showed the 54th working as labors instead of fighting and the white soldiers being racist toward the 54th soldiers.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I agree with Rachael about the tensions between the white and African-American troops, and I also think that the film did a good job showing tension between the African-American troops, as depicted in the relationship between Trip, a runaway slave, and Thomas, a free man. I thought there were several well-done moments in referencing actual events, such as the mention of "contraband". You could hear one soldier say the line about rather having hogs than black soldiers near the beginning of the film. I really enjoyed Matthew Broderick as Shaw, as well as his characterization (early on, you see him walking by some African-Americans, and he makes room for them to walk by him. Nice touch). When the movie started out with Shaw narrating, I can't lie - I almost expected him to talk about licking his palms a la Ferris Bueller. But I liked that Shaw wasn't shown as a bleeding-heart abolitionist, either. He is clearly sympathetic for his troops but he doesn't make a huge speech about how inspiring they are. I LOVED that Edward Zwick didn't find it necessary to add a ROMANCE to this movie. That was so refreshing. Shaw's dedication to his troops was touching without being sappy. Also, I just have to say this as a music major: James Horner's score is seriously awesome. One of the top ten film scores of the past 25 years. A little over-the-top at times? Yes. But if his music isn't making you cry during that last scene, you have no soul. - Celia<br />
<br />
One aspect the movie showed in the the opening scene was how much contact Col. Shaw had with his family, specifically his mother, back home through the letters he wrote. This scene definitely gives insight into what every other Union soldier was doing at that time, showing how they could have easily tell those at home how the war was going and influence their thoughts on the war. Also the first scene with Frederick Douglass (who is one SCARY looking dude!) shows him actively campaigning for the creation of an African American regiment in the Union army. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The movie got how nasty the Civil War hospitals really were. When Col Shaw was getting stitches there was a glimps of a doctor dipping his hand in a bloody bowl and moving onto the next patient. It was also pretty accurate to see doctors just cutting off the limbs of people. It was also really disturbing. I also think it was accurate when the 54th was doing manual labor and the Union soldiers were saying very racist things to the black soldiers. Also when the white soldier told Shaw to loot the town and called the black men children. This shows how some white soldiers still were extremely racist. I think the movie did a great job of showing the consequences of slavery. Silas Trip (Denzel) had the scars of a whipping on his back. It was not wonder why he wanted to escape. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the war was not yet one for abolition. The North was somewhat antislavery, but there were some obvious racist elements in parts of the Union Army. When they walk into camp for the first time they are ridiculed. Also the scene where a white regiment passes by the area in which they are doing manual labor in South Carolina shows that Union soldiers did not see African Americans as equals and did not think they should be allowed to wear the Union uniform. Even when a superior officer, Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins, commands the white soldiers to move along, they ignore him and a fight almost breaks out. They make a very racist comment about giving stripes to an African American. One powerful scene was when Colonel Shaw saw the feet of the soldiers. He knew he had to demand shoes and uniforms because the superior officers in the war department were not going to listen to soft requests. What is interesting to note is the real life Shaw was a very young colonel, so it makes sense to cast a young actor. However, I am not quite sure if Matthew Broderick is a very convincing colonel. He definitely had his strong and noble moments, but there were some points where he could have reacted with more emotion. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Samantha brings up Broderick's performance. I think Shaw's stoicism lies in the fact that, as Samantha pointed out, Shaw was a very young colonel. He had to command respect from men older than himself--not only among other officers, but among his own regiment--and to do that he had to present an authoritative front. I've seen this kind of behavior in young officers myself; they are desperate to hide the fact that they don't know what the heck they're doing. Broderick conveyed that very well. He communicated how difficult Shaw's job was, especially in the scenes where he had to discipline his boyhood friends. Shaw's development into a leader--which includes his attempts to understand his men--is one of the fascinating parts of this film.-- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie showed the problems that Black soldiers faced, especially in the realm of not being able to fight. The 54th regiment, in the movie, was seen many times doing manual labor, digging trenches, cutting down trees,etc. Colonel Shaw was always finding ways for his men to be able to fight, which was how these men thought they could prove themselves: by fighting which would bring honor to the army and their regiment. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
I thought that the movie was pretty accurate overall, but the scene that stood out to me the most was the final one with the charge on Fort Wagner. The movie shows that the 54th was the first regiment to storm the fort and that they did endure heavy casualities but pursued on. The men picked up the colors from their fallen comrades and charged on, even though they were not successful the 54th proved to be a powerful force and changed the Union Army. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
"Glory" is an outstanding movie. Its achievements in dramatic narrative, character development, and evocation of time/place far outweigh the few liberties taken with historical fact. I agree wholeheartedly with Robert Brent Toplin in "Reel History" when he said, "..."Glory's" manipulations are not employed cavalierly; ... Most of the films's distortions serve the purpose of commmunicating broader truths about the Civil War experiences of African Americans" (203). Yes, Denzel's tent was full of fictional characters, but they represented a historically accurate range of backgrounds, with all the interpersonal conflicts and cultural clashes that resulted: the free black and the former slaves, the educated man and the field hand, the young and the old, religious and non-believer. And although the real 54th was comprised mostly of free blacks, and the movie's soldiers were mostly slaves, that was representative of historical truth as well, since Dr. McClurken told us that 55% of blacks who carried arms had been slaves. -Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job of showing the evolution in attitude toward black soldiers. It's obvious in the beginning that many people are uncomfortable and unhappy with black men serving as soldiers, from Forbes saying Shaw would be crazy to take the colonel position to the military denying the men shoes and full pay. Then they are accepted as soldiers, but only in support capacities and as "monkeys" useful for looting parties. Finally, at the end the white men cheer on the 54th, showing that they'd come to respect the black men as soldiers, if maybe not as full equals. That's important because black troops, being as numerous as they were, played such a big part in shaping white northerners' perceptions of African Americans during and after the war. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The looting and burning of Darien, Georgia on June 11, 1863 did historically occur. As portrayed in the film, the colored troops under the command of James Montgomery did break ranks and freely loot. Like in the movie, Colonel Shaw did permit the 54th Massachusetts to commit this atrocity reluctantly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien,_Georgia) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got correct was referring to the runaway slaves as contraband. This was mentioned at the beginning of the film, at the party where Shaw accepts lead of the 54th. This ensured the blacks could continue to be in the Union forces instead of being sent back to the Confederacy, where they would be enslaved again. Another thing the filmmakers did a good job portraying was the racist attitudes of Union soldiers toward blacks. The South was not the only racist region of the country, and "Glory" does a nice job of conveying this. They bring forth the fear of giving arms to blacks, which many whites disapproved of at the time. The movie also depicts the 54th's willingness to fight. Since many blacks were fighting for there freedom or the freedom of their family members, they were eager to get involved in the war and battle for their rights as American citizens. Lastly, "Glory" shows African American culture accurately. When enslaved, African Americans would often sing, often about God, to bring comfort and foster a sense of community. This is shown the night before the 54th attacks Fort Wagner when the men soothe themselves by singing a religious song and praying together. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
First of all I really enjoyed this movie. It was well directed and, for the most part, well acted. I think that Glory accurately portrayed the African American experience as a Union solider. At first they were ill equipped, poor or even missing shoes, no weapons, uniforms, etc. but Colonel Shaw procured these for them. The use of the soldiers was quite accurate as well; they were used as manual labor rather than fighters. I also appreciated the portrayal of the tensions between the white officers and the African American soldiers. Morgan Freeman’s character receiving the rank he did was also accurate. I also noticed how the media (Harpers Bazaar) was used to spread the word about the 54th regiment. Just as an aside I found out that many of the extras in the movie were actually Civil War re-enactors, I gather that this was helpful to maintain an accurate account http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x1664778899/Our-Saviors-Lutheran-students-participate-in-Civil-War-re-enactment.- Caryn - Caryn<br />
<br />
As mentioned above, many northerners, including many union soldiers were initially opposed to blacks joining the military. Forbes expressed this when he was talking to Shaw about whether or not he should accept the commission. He said, "You know how popular that will be, handing out a thousand guns to coloreds". When the black soldiers march into the camp in Massachusetts, one white union soldier says the quote you mentioned in class, "I'd rather have a hog than a nigger, because at least you can eat the hog." - Michael G.<br />
<br />
This movie was leagues better than the previous war movies we have seen. (It might because of the absence of Mel Gibson)However, I think that the movie accurately depicted the trials that this regiment had to go through in order to fight for what they believed in. Which included the lack of supplies such as clothing and weapons, difference in pay, and the difference in overall treatment. The movie also showed that even though the regiment was better trained than the other regiments (which Dr. McClurken alluded to in class) they still weren't allowed to fight because of their color. Near the end before the final battle one Officer alluded to this by asking Shaw if his men were capable of leading the charge even though they hadn't slept for 2 days. There Shaw went into something that what the 54th had was more than strength, they had something to fight for. Which I think alludes to the theme of the movie. And in case anyone was wonder they did use the [http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/flags/fedflag.shtml right flag] when marching. Yes, I looked it up! - Jenn<br />
<br />
Another thing the movie seemed to get right was the uniform of the black troops in the regiment in the South under the Colonel that ordered them to pillage the town. The black soldiers were wearing red trousers which Susie King Taylor describes in her piece, “The first suits worn by the boys were red coats and pants, which they disliked very much, for, they said, "The rebels see us, miles away."” They weren’t complete red suits in the movie but they did have the pants which I feel like were alluding to these. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This movie showed how there were so many things people had to deal with throughout the Civil War which were not clear. First, it portrayed well how this was not originally a war to abolish slavery (as mentioned in class). Next, it showed well how white northerners treated African-Americans in many different ways. Some were really racist and others were not. It showed the tension between the other military leaders on how tough they should be on the African-American soldiers. It seemed like each person had a different opinion. Also, with the burning of the town in Georgia, Shaw was cornered and had to decide what to do. If he refused to order his solders to burn the town then they could go under command of the bad General (I don't know his title). But if he agreed, then they would have to burn buildings and homes of innocent people. There was no right or wrong decision, because both were bad. I think this movie was very accurate and portrayed a lot of things that other civil war movies leave out. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I think this movie did very well in telling the story of the 54th regiment. In class, we talked about how Black soldiers faced a lot of discrimination from the white Union soldiers. It was definitely clear that the white soldiers lacked respect for the Black soldiers, even though they were fighting for the same side (but that didn't necessarily mean they were fighting for the same cause). In the lecture, we were told a quote by a union soldier comparing African Americans to hogs, and in the movie, a white Union soldier used that line as the new Black enlistees entered the camp. The second occurrence of discrimination was when the newly appointed Black officer stepped in to deescalate a fight between one of his men (Denzel Washington) and a white Union soldier. The soldier made a comment about the Black officer which just showed the blatant disregard for the Black officer as a person, as well as a soldier. One thing that made me wonder was about how the white Union soldiers began cheering for the 54th regiment as they left for Ft. Wagner. It makes me wonder if at any point during the war, whtie Union soldiers got over their prejudices and began to see themselves as one with colored regiments like the 54th. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
One thing I thought the movie got right was the portrayal of many blacks inability to read or write. I think every soldier in the regiment was illiterate except for Thomas, who grew up a free black in the north. Since the other men were former slaves, they were unable to read, and I like how they were not just enabled to read all of the sudden. Also, at the end of the movie when the confederate soldiers were going through the bodies and discovered that of Colonel Shaw they picked him up and placed him with his troops. According to account by Susie King Taylor, Shaw was laid to rest next to his soldiers and I like how the movie implemented this because he had grown so close to his men. –afrisk<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the inaccuracies of the movie was in the way no camp prostitutes were shown in the movie. During the scenes the men experienced "liberty" from their duties, they are shown playing dice, singing, dancing, etc. (all that were accurate), but they left out the attendence of prostitutes and the roles of "respectable" women throughout camp. In an interview, Freeman mentions they filmed a scene where Col. Shaw escorted a prostitute into his tent for the night. He added, the scene was discarded because Col. Shaw was not the type of man (and there's no evidence) that he would have acted in such a way.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Debbie. Maybe I was wrong, but I thought it was kind of implied when Denzel (Trip) mentioned a women making biscutts and gravy for whoever wanted it. She might have been a prostitute but none of the men are shown going because it was supposed to be some sort of offence. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
This is kind of trivial, but in the movie, Sgt. Major John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) tells Denzel Washington's character that he should really appreciate the Union and the white soldiers for fighting in the war for him (him representing black people and slaves). He knew a lot had died because before he joined the regiment, Rawlins spent time digging the dead soldiers' graves. However, this time would have been before the middle of the war and before the reason to fight in the war for many soldiers changed from trying to save the Union to fighting for emancipation. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
There is one very important scene in the movie in which one of the black soldiers, Denzel Washington's character to be exact, is whipped for what the officers consider as trying to run away from camp. It would seem that whipping a black soldier would not have been allowed during the war. I can understand why the scene is used in the movie because it is very powerful and it helps in the development of Shaw's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
When the army is marching past the plantation house. One of the kids waving is wearing a digital watch. Bottom right of screen.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Oh Isaac that was just a young child time traveling for education on the Civil War. He is wearing the digital watch because it allows him to stay in the time period, otherwise he phases back to 20XX.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:19, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the other non-accidental things I noticed was that the film's 54th Regiment was comprised of what appeared to only be escaped slaves, and common free black men. To the best of my knowledge it didn't show Frederick Douglass' sons or the other well-to-do free black family of the North. Although I do suppose Thomas was meant to symbolize them, even though we was the "worst solider" and the Douglass boys were reportedly very distinguished. Also, its was very fortunate that all of the lead actors shared the same tent. -Isaac Whalen4<br />
<br />
I am not sure about this, but during the scene when the 54th is marching past the plantations, it shows white and black children playing together. Since the black children would have most likely been slaves, would this have been allowed? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
While it was very fortunate that all the lead actors shared the same tent, it is especially egregious, because the soldiers actually stayed in a barracks in Massachusetts, according to Corporal Gooding. A character that was particularly disturbing was the Colonel of the African American unit that Shaw meets upon his arrival in South Carolina. In class we discussed how the officers of black units were held to a higher standard of character and ability. However, he displays a complete lack of character and completely disrespects his soldiers. He repeatedly refers to them as monkeys that have to be kept under control, and shoots one of them for touching a white woman. He laughs at them as they burn and pillage, as if they are little kids misbehaving. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Debbie and LeAnn about the lack of prostitutes in the camp, but I was also bothered by the lack of any female presence throughout the movie. Who was doing laundry? Who was cooking? Who was reading to the wounded and helping them write letters home? While there may have been less women involved with the black regiments, these men clearly would have had wives, some of whom would have followed them into battle. Susie King Taylor, from our reading, is an excellent example of this. I think that there could have been a whole different dimension added to the emotional impact of the film if women had been working in the camps. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Once again, we reinforce the idea that only the South ever held slaves. When Shaw meets up with that Colonel in South Carolina, the other Colonel says that he can't imagine Boston with slaves. Come on, Hollywood, how many times do we have to go over this? - Cilla<br />
<br />
Yeah, I definitely noticed the line that Cilla mentions. I thought it was just weird and out of place, especially considering that it wasn't exactly true. - Celia<br />
<br />
It did not show Frederick Douglas's sons in the movie. I think it would of added something to the movie if both of them were shown. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The scene where the 54th is marching out of Boston with extreme patriotic fanfare is not something that I think was accurately portrayed. As we discussed in class, despite there being a minority of people who were in full support of black involvement in the war as soldiers, most in the North were still prejudiced about their capabilities. That being said, there wasn't a single person in the crowd that appeared offended or even not in full support of the 54th. None of that was shown in this scene, although the later scene with the Union soldier who insults Denzel's tries to portray that sentiment. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
As for the issue of women in the camp, there was the scene around Christmastime where they showed one woman mingling with the men. Then there was a mention of someone making biscuits and gravy, however that was it. Like the others above I feel like women definitely played a larger role in the life at camp. And the digital watch? That's where it went! I spent years looking for that! Now I just have to go back and get it, sigh... ;) -Jenn<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed that the movie did not address was the inferior care that the black soldiers received during the war. They received inferior guns as well as medical care even at the end of the war and in the movie there was no indication they had inferior guns and medical care. -afrisk<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
In the commentaries, Freeman mentions how the first battle in the movie, Antietam Creek, was known as the last battle in which the English version of "gentlemanly" fighting occurred. No longer would men on opposite sides meet in the middle of a cleared field, stand in a line, and fire upon each other until one side was left standing.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
When trying to assess the film as a primary source the first thing I always do is look at the year in which it was made and what was happening in the world. <em>Glory</em> was made in 1989, a year everyone associates with the breaking up of the Eastern Bloc and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whether it was intentional or rather a collectively sub-conscious thinking of the time <em>Glory</em> can be seen as an allegory between the beginning demise of the Soviet Union and the freedom of the slaves in the Civil War. Like the Union of the 1800s America had actively taken part in the liberation of a people under the control of an opposing power. Yet, I think that if most people make this connection they will only go so far as to say that the film is simply offering ideological support to this endeavor. To me <em>Glory</em> seems to suggest a deeper question: So we're free...now what? After the Union declares all of the slaves free, the newly freed slaves are happy to be free but also skeptical of how they will be accepted by society. Denzel Washington's character says that even if the North wins, it won't matter because the prejudices are still there, strife will continue. When we look back at what happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we can see these problems as well. Not very many people disagree with ending the U.S.S.R., but there is still conflicts about how to deal with some of these countries, i.e. Afghanistan, etc. Even in Russia there is still strife between Chechnya and Russia.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
1988 was the 125th anniversary of Gettysburg (according to IMDB there are shots of the reenactment in the opening scene of the movie), and I imagine there was quite a bit of Civil War hooplah going on surrounding that milestone. While Glory doesn't deal with Gettysburg directly, it would have benefited from any renewed interest in the battle or the Civil War in general. The filmmakers utilized that spotlight (and all of the star power in the movie) to direct attention to an aspect of the Civil War story that doesn't get talked about nearly often enough which is pretty cool. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that a lot of the tensions between Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, and Andre Braugher's characters regarding race are particularly pertinent to modern discussions from the past 20 years or so. Washington often belittles Braugher for talking or acting "white," while Braugher just considers himself educated. Of course, Morgan Freeman was being Morgan Freeman and sort of mediating things, but the conversations in the film were just like ones being had around 1990 in the media, and that are still happening now. If this movie were made in the 1950s, none of that discussion would have been included. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
Just like in the film, Susie King in her book and James Henry Gooding in his letter talked about how African American soldiers did not receive equal pay as their white soldier counterparts. Taylor mentioned that the first colored troops did not receive any pay at all until 1863 when they were allowed to receive half of the pay. The African American troops did not accept it, however, and would serve for free until they received full pay. Gooding actually wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking to receive the same amount of pay that other white soldiers were given. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the film they mentioned the fact that the African-American soldiers were going to paid less than the white soldiers. I don't know if the African-American soldiers rioted when they found out that they were going to be paid less but it was at least mentioned.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
In James Henry Gooding’s Letter to President Lincoln, he appeals to Lincoln directly. He asks two significant questions, “Are we Soldiers or are we Laborers?...We have done a Soldier’s duty, why can’t we have a Soldier’s pay?” These questions are asked almost word for word in the movie. Denzel Washington does a fantastic job as Private Trip. He is a very passionate and strong-willed soldier and stands up against discrimination by the Union soldiers. He protests the unfair pay rate. When he is being whipped he does not scream or make any noise. He finally just begins to weep, which was a very hard scene to watch. I believe the movie accurately portrays the attitudes of African American soldiers discussed in the reading. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Comparing the movie's portrayal of the attack on Ft. Wagner to the description of the battle in Gooding's letters, it seems the movie did a pretty good job of depicting what happened, even with the flag bearer getting shot down. And I had thought it might have been a bit of dramatic license when they showed Shaw being buried with his men in the mass grave, but turns out he actually was buried alongside of them. I'm not sure if the Confederates treated all high ranking Northern casualties this way, but if not that certainly shows their disdain for white men who would lead black troops. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann is right the final battle was depicted very well, except (and perhaps I am seeing this wrong) the film shows the 54th at least getting a foothold inside of the base. While they didn't get very far into the fort, they definitely did not get wiped right by the fort walls. When Shaw fell and the army continued, they started to make some real progress and in the drama of the moment I forgot that they were going to be unsuccessful...damn history refuting Hollywood *sigh*--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:17, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Rachael mentioned the pay issue. In Susie King Taylor's journal of life in camp she says that the white officers supported the soldiers' protest against unequal pay (Section III). She says Cpt. Heasley told his company, "Boys, stand up for your full pay! I am with you and so are all the officers." I don't know if that means that he and the officers, like Shaw in the movie, volunteered to go without pay themselves, but it does back up the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Gooding's account of the expedition to Darien confirms that the town was looted and burned. He does not mention any acts of violence against the town's women, nor whether Col. Montgomery (or any other officer) shot one of his own soldiers for laying hands on a white woman. However, Dr. McClurken told us that Shaw later expressed great concerns about how that incident was handled.--Deborah <br />
<br />
In the reading by Gooding he mentions that African Americans, no matter if they are former slaves, intellectuals, or free men, should all band together to fight for freedom of their race. This is seen in the portrayal of the 54th, as Thomas, Morgan Freeman's character, and Denzel Washington's character, who all come from different backgrounds all join the regiment and fight alongside each other.--Anna Holman <br />
<br />
I completely agree with Deborah's point regarding the pay of the colored regiments and how it was also portrayed in the movie, it appears completely accurate, but I do wonder if it had something to do with white officers who were asked to command the colored troops? Did men who were just assigned command over the troops give up their pay as well? Also, through the reading African Americans appeared to truly respect the Union soldiers, as was seen in the movie when the regiments marched through parts of the South. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
Something that I saw in the readings that was not in the film was the aspect of retaliation of the former slaves against their masters. There was one account in the reading that described the capture of a Confederate soldier, who was whipped first by a Union officer, then by women whom he had owned as slaves. This did not seem to be an issue in the film, as none of the men who had been slaves ever encountered white men whom they knew from their time in bondage. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I think the readings, especially Gooding's account, were reflected well in the movie. A difference between the movie and the readings was that Gooding talked about how the training camp had wooden barracks for them to live in, while in the movie they lived in tents. Also, Gooding talks about how there were some Black men in the North from Massachusetts who did not register to serve in the 54th; he was always calling to them to join the cause and said some men just sat around not wanting to join and fight. The movie definitely did not depict the draft this way. It made it seem as though every free Black in the North wanted to join up in the 54th and serve. One thing that was depicted accurately was when Gooding talked about how Col. Shaw was buried. He was very upset because Shaw was not given a proper funeral, especially since he was a Colonel. Gooding claimed he had just been thrown in the ditch with the others bodies and that the Confederate soldiers could have at least honored him with a proper burial just as Col. Shaw had done for one of their officers. The movie pretty much ends with Col. Shaw's body being rolled into a grave along with his men, which was definitely one of the more intense scenes especially as a way to end the movie. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Like the 54th Massachusetts in the film, in Susie King Taylor's ''Reminiscences of My Life in Camp'', the very first colored troops refused "half pay." As a result, the wives of the very first colored troops had to support themselves and their children by being laundresses and bakers. Only in 1864 that the government granted blacks equal pay with whites. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
When Robert Shaw is writing out his letters to his mother, are those actual letters he wrote or is that just wonderful hollywood soliloquy?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 16:51, 5 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Is it documented anywhere that Saw had symptoms of PTSD? (On a side-note is believed Broderick is related to Shaw [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/trivia?tr0693852], but thats form IMDB so I don't know how reliable it is.) - Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
IMDB is edited by the site users so I don't know how accurate that is, Isaac. However, if it is true, it is quite interesting. Also, I didn't know where to put this but what was with those American flags with the stars in the shape of a star during the parade of the 54th? -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I was wondering the same thing about the flags during the parade, I found that they used the right flag while marching into the battle. However I couldn't find any evidence of the star shaped flags. I know there were a lot of different flags during that time, but knowing where they came from would be nice. (If they existed at all) -Jenn<br />
<br />
Did they say who Frederick Douglass’s sons were? –afrisk</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments2010-10-07T06:26:35Z<p>Hobnail: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The different relationships that formed within Col. Shaw's unit were accurate. The tension between Col. Shaw and his Capt would have arose out of different views as to what was expected. Col. Shaw saw the importance of ensuring the enlisted's competence in the eventuality of battle, while the Capt. believed the men would never see battle, so was initially satisfied with their unskilled experience. Another issue that the movie got right about Col. Shaw was in the way he respected his men and endlessly worked to have their contributions to the Civil War be more than just one of menial work. These me, most being escaped slaves, desired to participate in the events which would make all blacks American citizens.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
This movie seems to get many small details correct. For instance, there is the presence of a non-commissioned office in the form of Morgan Freeman's character. Also, the 54th like other black regiments were used mostly for manual labor instead of getting their chance to fight. Then there is the appointment of Robert Gould Shaw to colonel of the regiment. He was appointed because of political reasons and who his family knew. He was not promoted because he was a great commanding officer. Moreover, Shaw seems to be somewhat incapable on the field of battle as depicted in the opening battle at Antietam. Thus, Ferris Bueller is the perfect candidate for this position. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie did a god job at portraying the tensions between the white and African-American troops and the discrimination they faced. They brought up the fact that the 54th were going to be paid less than the average soldiers and were not given proper supplies. They also showed the 54th working as labors instead of fighting and the white soldiers being racist toward the 54th soldiers.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I agree with Rachael about the tensions between the white and African-American troops, and I also think that the film did a good job showing tension between the African-American troops, as depicted in the relationship between Trip, a runaway slave, and Thomas, a free man. I thought there were several well-done moments in referencing actual events, such as the mention of "contraband". You could hear one soldier say the line about rather having hogs than black soldiers near the beginning of the film. I really enjoyed Matthew Broderick as Shaw, as well as his characterization (early on, you see him walking by some African-Americans, and he makes room for them to walk by him. Nice touch). When the movie started out with Shaw narrating, I can't lie - I almost expected him to talk about licking his palms a la Ferris Bueller. But I liked that Shaw wasn't shown as a bleeding-heart abolitionist, either. He is clearly sympathetic for his troops but he doesn't make a huge speech about how inspiring they are. I LOVED that Edward Zwick didn't find it necessary to add a ROMANCE to this movie. That was so refreshing. Shaw's dedication to his troops was touching without being sappy. Also, I just have to say this as a music major: James Horner's score is seriously awesome. One of the top ten film scores of the past 25 years. A little over-the-top at times? Yes. But if his music isn't making you cry during that last scene, you have no soul. - Celia<br />
<br />
One aspect the movie showed in the the opening scene was how much contact Col. Shaw had with his family, specifically his mother, back home through the letters he wrote. This scene definitely gives insight into what every other Union soldier was doing at that time, showing how they could have easily tell those at home how the war was going and influence their thoughts on the war. Also the first scene with Frederick Douglass (who is one SCARY looking dude!) shows him actively campaigning for the creation of an African American regiment in the Union army. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The movie got how nasty the Civil War hospitals really were. When Col Shaw was getting stitches there was a glimps of a doctor dipping his hand in a bloody bowl and moving onto the next patient. It was also pretty accurate to see doctors just cutting off the limbs of people. It was also really disturbing. I also think it was accurate when the 54th was doing manual labor and the Union soldiers were saying very racist things to the black soldiers. Also when the white soldier told Shaw to loot the town and called the black men children. This shows how some white soldiers still were extremely racist. I think the movie did a great job of showing the consequences of slavery. Silas Trip (Denzel) had the scars of a whipping on his back. It was not wonder why he wanted to escape. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the war was not yet one for abolition. The North was somewhat antislavery, but there were some obvious racist elements in parts of the Union Army. When they walk into camp for the first time they are ridiculed. Also the scene where a white regiment passes by the area in which they are doing manual labor in South Carolina shows that Union soldiers did not see African Americans as equals and did not think they should be allowed to wear the Union uniform. Even when a superior officer, Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins, commands the white soldiers to move along, they ignore him and a fight almost breaks out. They make a very racist comment about giving stripes to an African American. One powerful scene was when Colonel Shaw saw the feet of the soldiers. He knew he had to demand shoes and uniforms because the superior officers in the war department were not going to listen to soft requests. What is interesting to note is the real life Shaw was a very young colonel, so it makes sense to cast a young actor. However, I am not quite sure if Matthew Broderick is a very convincing colonel. He definitely had his strong and noble moments, but there were some points where he could have reacted with more emotion. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Samantha brings up Broderick's performance. I think Shaw's stoicism lies in the fact that, as Samantha pointed out, Shaw was a very young colonel. He had to command respect from men older than himself--not only among other officers, but among his own regiment--and to do that he had to present an authoritative front. I've seen this kind of behavior in young officers myself; they are desperate to hide the fact that they don't know what the heck they're doing. Broderick conveyed that very well. He communicated how difficult Shaw's job was, especially in the scenes where he had to discipline his boyhood friends. Shaw's development into a leader--which includes his attempts to understand his men--is one of the fascinating parts of this film.-- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie showed the problems that Black soldiers faced, especially in the realm of not being able to fight. The 54th regiment, in the movie, was seen many times doing manual labor, digging trenches, cutting down trees,etc. Colonel Shaw was always finding ways for his men to be able to fight, which was how these men thought they could prove themselves: by fighting which would bring honor to the army and their regiment. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
I thought that the movie was pretty accurate overall, but the scene that stood out to me the most was the final one with the charge on Fort Wagner. The movie shows that the 54th was the first regiment to storm the fort and that they did endure heavy casualities but pursued on. The men picked up the colors from their fallen comrades and charged on, even though they were not successful the 54th proved to be a powerful force and changed the Union Army. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
"Glory" is an outstanding movie. Its achievements in dramatic narrative, character development, and evocation of time/place far outweigh the few liberties taken with historical fact. I agree wholeheartedly with Robert Brent Toplin in "Reel History" when he said, "..."Glory's" manipulations are not employed cavalierly; ... Most of the films's distortions serve the purpose of commmunicating broader truths about the Civil War experiences of African Americans" (203). Yes, Denzel's tent was full of fictional characters, but they represented a historically accurate range of backgrounds, with all the interpersonal conflicts and cultural clashes that resulted: the free black and the former slaves, the educated man and the field hand, the young and the old, religious and non-believer. And although the real 54th was comprised mostly of free blacks, and the movie's soldiers were mostly slaves, that was representative of historical truth as well, since Dr. McClurken told us that 55% of blacks who carried arms had been slaves. -Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job of showing the evolution in attitude toward black soldiers. It's obvious in the beginning that many people are uncomfortable and unhappy with black men serving as soldiers, from Forbes saying Shaw would be crazy to take the colonel position to the military denying the men shoes and full pay. Then they are accepted as soldiers, but only in support capacities and as "monkeys" useful for looting parties. Finally, at the end the white men cheer on the 54th, showing that they'd come to respect the black men as soldiers, if maybe not as full equals. That's important because black troops, being as numerous as they were, played such a big part in shaping white northerners' perceptions of African Americans during and after the war. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The looting and burning of Darien, Georgia on June 11, 1863 did historically occur. As portrayed in the film, the colored troops under the command of James Montgomery did break ranks and freely loot. Like in the movie, Colonel Shaw did permit the 54th Massachusetts to commit this atrocity reluctantly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien,_Georgia) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got correct was referring to the runaway slaves as contraband. This was mentioned at the beginning of the film, at the party where Shaw accepts lead of the 54th. This ensured the blacks could continue to be in the Union forces instead of being sent back to the Confederacy, where they would be enslaved again. Another thing the filmmakers did a good job portraying was the racist attitudes of Union soldiers toward blacks. The South was not the only racist region of the country, and "Glory" does a nice job of conveying this. They bring forth the fear of giving arms to blacks, which many whites disapproved of at the time. The movie also depicts the 54th's willingness to fight. Since many blacks were fighting for there freedom or the freedom of their family members, they were eager to get involved in the war and battle for their rights as American citizens. Lastly, "Glory" shows African American culture accurately. When enslaved, African Americans would often sing, often about God, to bring comfort and foster a sense of community. This is shown the night before the 54th attacks Fort Wagner when the men soothe themselves by singing a religious song and praying together. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
First of all I really enjoyed this movie. It was well directed and, for the most part, well acted. I think that Glory accurately portrayed the African American experience as a Union solider. At first they were ill equipped, poor or even missing shoes, no weapons, uniforms, etc. but Colonel Shaw procured these for them. The use of the soldiers was quite accurate as well; they were used as manual labor rather than fighters. I also appreciated the portrayal of the tensions between the white officers and the African American soldiers. Morgan Freeman’s character receiving the rank he did was also accurate. I also noticed how the media (Harpers Bazaar) was used to spread the word about the 54th regiment. Just as an aside I found out that many of the extras in the movie were actually Civil War re-enactors, I gather that this was helpful to maintain an accurate account http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x1664778899/Our-Saviors-Lutheran-students-participate-in-Civil-War-re-enactment.- Caryn - Caryn<br />
<br />
As mentioned above, many northerners, including many union soldiers were initially opposed to blacks joining the military. Forbes expressed this when he was talking to Shaw about whether or not he should accept the commission. He said, "You know how popular that will be, handing out a thousand guns to coloreds". When the black soldiers march into the camp in Massachusetts, one white union soldier says the quote you mentioned in class, "I'd rather have a hog than a nigger, because at least you can eat the hog." - Michael G.<br />
<br />
This movie was leagues better than the previous war movies we have seen. (It might because of the absence of Mel Gibson)However, I think that the movie accurately depicted the trials that this regiment had to go through in order to fight for what they believed in. Which included the lack of supplies such as clothing and weapons, difference in pay, and the difference in overall treatment. The movie also showed that even though the regiment was better trained than the other regiments (which Dr. McClurken alluded to in class) they still weren't allowed to fight because of their color. Near the end before the final battle one Officer alluded to this by asking Shaw if his men were capable of leading the charge even though they hadn't slept for 2 days. There Shaw went into something that what the 54th had was more than strength, they had something to fight for. Which I think alludes to the theme of the movie. And in case anyone was wonder they did use the [http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/flags/fedflag.shtml right flag] when marching. Yes, I looked it up! - Jenn<br />
<br />
Another thing the movie seemed to get right was the uniform of the black troops in the regiment in the South under the Colonel that ordered them to pillage the town. The black soldiers were wearing red trousers which Susie King Taylor describes in her piece, “The first suits worn by the boys were red coats and pants, which they disliked very much, for, they said, "The rebels see us, miles away."” They weren’t complete red suits in the movie but they did have the pants which I feel like were alluding to these. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This movie showed how there were so many things people had to deal with throughout the Civil War which were not clear. First, it portrayed well how this was not originally a war to abolish slavery (as mentioned in class). Next, it showed well how white northerners treated African-Americans in many different ways. Some were really racist and others were not. It showed the tension between the other military leaders on how tough they should be on the African-American soldiers. It seemed like each person had a different opinion. Also, with the burning of the town in Georgia, Shaw was cornered and had to decide what to do. If he refused to order his solders to burn the town then they could go under command of the bad General (I don't know his title). But if he agreed, then they would have to burn buildings and homes of innocent people. There was no right or wrong decision, because both were bad. I think this movie was very accurate and portrayed a lot of things that other civil war movies leave out. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I think this movie did very well in telling the story of the 54th regiment. In class, we talked about how Black soldiers faced a lot of discrimination from the white Union soldiers. It was definitely clear that the white soldiers lacked respect for the Black soldiers, even though they were fighting for the same side (but that didn't necessarily mean they were fighting for the same cause). In the lecture, we were told a quote by a union soldier comparing African Americans to hogs, and in the movie, a white Union soldier used that line as the new Black enlistees entered the camp. The second occurrence of discrimination was when the newly appointed Black officer stepped in to deescalate a fight between one of his men (Denzel Washington) and a white Union soldier. The soldier made a comment about the Black officer which just showed the blatant disregard for the Black officer as a person, as well as a soldier. One thing that made me wonder was about how the white Union soldiers began cheering for the 54th regiment as they left for Ft. Wagner. It makes me wonder if at any point during the war, whtie Union soldiers got over their prejudices and began to see themselves as one with colored regiments like the 54th. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
One thing I thought the movie got right was the portrayal of many blacks inability to read or write. I think every soldier in the regiment was illiterate except for Thomas, who grew up a free black in the north. Since the other men were former slaves, they were unable to read, and I like how they were not just enabled to read all of the sudden. Also, at the end of the movie when the confederate soldiers were going through the bodies and discovered that of Colonel Shaw they picked him up and placed him with his troops. According to account by Susie King Taylor, Shaw was laid to rest next to his soldiers and I like how the movie implemented this because he had grown so close to his men. –afrisk<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the inaccuracies of the movie was in the way no camp prostitutes were shown in the movie. During the scenes the men experienced "liberty" from their duties, they are shown playing dice, singing, dancing, etc. (all that were accurate), but they left out the attendence of prostitutes and the roles of "respectable" women throughout camp. In an interview, Freeman mentions they filmed a scene where Col. Shaw escorted a prostitute into his tent for the night. He added, the scene was discarded because Col. Shaw was not the type of man (and there's no evidence) that he would have acted in such a way.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Debbie. Maybe I was wrong, but I thought it was kind of implied when Denzel (Trip) mentioned a women making biscutts and gravy for whoever wanted it. She might have been a prostitute but none of the men are shown going because it was supposed to be some sort of offence. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
This is kind of trivial, but in the movie, Sgt. Major John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) tells Denzel Washington's character that he should really appreciate the Union and the white soldiers for fighting in the war for him (him representing black people and slaves). He knew a lot had died because before he joined the regiment, Rawlins spent time digging the dead soldiers' graves. However, this time would have been before the middle of the war and before the reason to fight in the war for many soldiers changed from trying to save the Union to fighting for emancipation. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
There is one very important scene in the movie in which one of the black soldiers, Denzel Washington's character to be exact, is whipped for what the officers consider as trying to run away from camp. It would seem that whipping a black soldier would not have been allowed during the war. I can understand why the scene is used in the movie because it is very powerful and it helps in the development of Shaw's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
When the army is marching past the plantation house. One of the kids waving is wearing a digital watch. Bottom right of screen.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Oh Isaac that was just a young child time traveling for education on the Civil War. He is wearing the digital watch because it allows him to stay in the time period, otherwise he phases back to 20XX.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:19, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the other non-accidental things I noticed was that the film's 54th Regiment was comprised of what appeared to only be escaped slaves, and common free black men. To the best of my knowledge it didn't show Frederick Douglass' sons or the other well-to-do free black family of the North. Although I do suppose Thomas was meant to symbolize them, even though we was the "worst solider" and the Douglass boys were reportedly very distinguished. Also, its was very fortunate that all of the lead actors shared the same tent. -Isaac Whalen4<br />
<br />
I am not sure about this, but during the scene when the 54th is marching past the plantations, it shows white and black children playing together. Since the black children would have most likely been slaves, would this have been allowed? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
While it was very fortunate that all the lead actors shared the same tent, it is especially egregious, because the soldiers actually stayed in a barracks in Massachusetts, according to Corporal Gooding. A character that was particularly disturbing was the Colonel of the African American unit that Shaw meets upon his arrival in South Carolina. In class we discussed how the officers of black units were held to a higher standard of character and ability. However, he displays a complete lack of character and completely disrespects his soldiers. He repeatedly refers to them as monkeys that have to be kept under control, and shoots one of them for touching a white woman. He laughs at them as they burn and pillage, as if they are little kids misbehaving. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Debbie and LeAnn about the lack of prostitutes in the camp, but I was also bothered by the lack of any female presence throughout the movie. Who was doing laundry? Who was cooking? Who was reading to the wounded and helping them write letters home? While there may have been less women involved with the black regiments, these men clearly would have had wives, some of whom would have followed them into battle. Susie King Taylor, from our reading, is an excellent example of this. I think that there could have been a whole different dimension added to the emotional impact of the film if women had been working in the camps. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Once again, we reinforce the idea that only the South ever held slaves. When Shaw meets up with that Colonel in South Carolina, the other Colonel says that he can't imagine Boston with slaves. Come on, Hollywood, how many times do we have to go over this? - Cilla<br />
<br />
Yeah, I definitely noticed the line that Cilla mentions. I thought it was just weird and out of place, especially considering that it wasn't exactly true. - Celia<br />
<br />
It did not show Frederick Douglas's sons in the movie. I think it would of added something to the movie if both of them were shown. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The scene where the 54th is marching out of Boston with extreme patriotic fanfare is not something that I think was accurately portrayed. As we discussed in class, despite there being a minority of people who were in full support of black involvement in the war as soldiers, most in the North were still prejudiced about their capabilities. That being said, there wasn't a single person in the crowd that appeared offended or even not in full support of the 54th. None of that was shown in this scene, although the later scene with the Union soldier who insults Denzel's tries to portray that sentiment. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
As for the issue of women in the camp, there was the scene around Christmastime where they showed one woman mingling with the men. Then there was a mention of someone making biscuits and gravy, however that was it. Like the others above I feel like women definitely played a larger role in the life at camp. And the digital watch? That's where it went! I spent years looking for that! Now I just have to go back and get it, sigh... ;) -Jenn<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed that the movie did not address was the inferior care that the black soldiers received during the war. They received inferior guns as well as medical care even at the end of the war and in the movie there was no indication they had inferior guns and medical care. -afrisk<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
In the commentaries, Freeman mentions how the first battle in the movie, Antietam Creek, was known as the last battle in which the English version of "gentlemanly" fighting occurred. No longer would men on opposite sides meet in the middle of a cleared field, stand in a line, and fire upon each other until one side was left standing.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
When trying to assess the film as a primary source the first thing I always do is look at the year in which it was made and what was happening in the world. <em>Glory</em> was made in 1989, a year everyone associates with the breaking up of the Eastern Bloc and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whether it was intentional or rather a collectively sub-conscious thinking of the time <em>Glory</em> can be seen as an allegory between the beginning demise of the Soviet Union and the freedom of the slaves in the Civil War. Like the Union of the 1800s America had actively taken part in the liberation of a people under the control of an opposing power. Yet, I think that if most people make this connection they will only go so far as to say that the film is simply offering ideological support to this endeavor. To me <em>Glory</em> seems to suggest a deeper question: So we're free...now what? After the Union declares all of the slaves free, the newly freed slaves are happy to be free but also skeptical of how they will be accepted by society. Denzel Washington's character says that even if the North wins, it won't matter because the prejudices are still there, strife will continue. When we look back at what happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we can see these problems as well. Not very many people disagree with ending the U.S.S.R., but there is still conflicts about how to deal with some of these countries, i.e. Afghanistan, etc. Even in Russia there is still strife between Chechnya and Russia.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
1988 was the 125th anniversary of Gettysburg (according to IMDB there are shots of the reenactment in the opening scene of the movie), and I imagine there was quite a bit of Civil War hooplah going on surrounding that milestone. While Glory doesn't deal with Gettysburg directly, it would have benefited from any renewed interest in the battle or the Civil War in general. The filmmakers utilized that spotlight (and all of the star power in the movie) to direct attention to an aspect of the Civil War story that doesn't get talked about nearly often enough which is pretty cool. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that a lot of the tensions between Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, and Andre Braugher's characters regarding race are particularly pertinent to modern discussions from the past 20 years or so. Washington often belittles Braugher for talking or acting "white," while Braugher just considers himself educated. Of course, Morgan Freeman was being Morgan Freeman and sort of mediating things, but the conversations in the film were just like ones being had around 1990 in the media, and that are still happening now. If this movie were made in the 1950s, none of that discussion would have been included. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
Just like in the film, Susie King in her book and James Henry Gooding in his letter talked about how African American soldiers did not receive equal pay as their white soldier counterparts. Taylor mentioned that the first colored troops did not receive any pay at all until 1863 when they were allowed to receive half of the pay. The African American troops did not accept it, however, and would serve for free until they received full pay. Gooding actually wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking to receive the same amount of pay that other white soldiers were given. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the film they mentioned the fact that the African-American soldiers were going to paid less than the white soldiers. I don't know if the African-American soldiers rioted when they found out that they were going to be paid less but it was at least mentioned.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
In James Henry Gooding’s Letter to President Lincoln, he appeals to Lincoln directly. He asks two significant questions, “Are we Soldiers or are we Laborers?...We have done a Soldier’s duty, why can’t we have a Soldier’s pay?” These questions are asked almost word for word in the movie. Denzel Washington does a fantastic job as Private Trip. He is a very passionate and strong-willed soldier and stands up against discrimination by the Union soldiers. He protests the unfair pay rate. When he is being whipped he does not scream or make any noise. He finally just begins to weep, which was a very hard scene to watch. I believe the movie accurately portrays the attitudes of African American soldiers discussed in the reading. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Comparing the movie's portrayal of the attack on Ft. Wagner to the description of the battle in Gooding's letters, it seems the movie did a pretty good job of depicting what happened, even with the flag bearer getting shot down. And I had thought it might have been a bit of dramatic license when they showed Shaw being buried with his men in the mass grave, but turns out he actually was buried alongside of them. I'm not sure if the Confederates treated all high ranking Northern casualties this way, but if not that certainly shows their disdain for white men who would lead black troops. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann is right the final battle was depicted very well, except (and perhaps I am seeing this wrong) the film shows the 54th at least getting a foothold inside of the base. While they didn't get very far into the fort, they definitely did not get wiped right by the fort walls. When Shaw fell and the army continued, they started to make some real progress and in the drama of the moment I forgot that they were going to be unsuccessful...damn history refuting Hollywood *sigh*--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:17, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Rachael mentioned the pay issue. In Susie King Taylor's journal of life in camp she says that the white officers supported the soldiers' protest against unequal pay (Section III). She says Cpt. Heasley told his company, "Boys, stand up for your full pay! I am with you and so are all the officers." I don't know if that means that he and the officers, like Shaw in the movie, volunteered to go without pay themselves, but it does back up the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Gooding's account of the expedition to Darien confirms that the town was looted and burned. He does not mention any acts of violence against the town's women, nor whether Col. Montgomery (or any other officer) shot one of his own soldiers for laying hands on a white woman. However, Dr. McClurken told us that Shaw later expressed great concerns about how that incident was handled.--Deborah <br />
<br />
In the reading by Gooding he mentions that African Americans, no matter if they are former slaves, intellectuals, or free men, should all band together to fight for freedom of their race. This is seen in the portrayal of the 54th, as Thomas, Morgan Freeman's character, and Denzel Washington's character, who all come from different backgrounds all join the regiment and fight alongside each other.--Anna Holman <br />
<br />
I completely agree with Deborah's point regarding the pay of the colored regiments and how it was also portrayed in the movie, it appears completely accurate, but I do wonder if it had something to do with white officers who were asked to command the colored troops? Did men who were just assigned command over the troops give up their pay as well? Also, through the reading African Americans appeared to truly respect the Union soldiers, as was seen in the movie when the regiments marched through parts of the South. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
Something that I saw in the readings that was not in the film was the aspect of retaliation of the former slaves against their masters. There was one account in the reading that described the capture of a Confederate soldier, who was whipped first by a Union officer, then by women whom he had owned as slaves. This did not seem to be an issue in the film, as none of the men who had been slaves ever encountered white men whom they knew from their time in bondage. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I think the readings, especially Gooding's account, were reflected well in the movie. A difference between the movie and the readings was that Gooding talked about how the training camp had wooden barracks for them to live in, while in the movie they lived in tents. Also, Gooding talks about how there were some Black men in the North from Massachusetts who did not register to serve in the 54th; he was always calling to them to join the cause and said some men just sat around not wanting to join and fight. The movie definitely did not depict the draft this way. It made it seem as though every free Black in the North wanted to join up in the 54th and serve. One thing that was depicted accurately was when Gooding talked about how Col. Shaw was buried. He was very upset because Shaw was not given a proper funeral, especially since he was a Colonel. Gooding claimed he had just been thrown in the ditch with the others bodies and that the Confederate soldiers could have at least honored him with a proper burial just as Col. Shaw had done for one of their officers. The movie pretty much ends with Col. Shaw's body being rolled into a grave along with his men, which was definitely one of the more intense scenes especially as a way to end the movie. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Like the 54th Massachusetts in the film, in Susie King Taylor's ''Reminiscences of My Life in Camp'', the very first colored troops refused "half pay." As a result, the wives of the very first colored troops had to support themselves and their children as being laundresses and bakers. Only in 1864 that the government granted blacks equal pay with whites. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
When Robert Shaw is writing out his letters to his mother, are those actual letters he wrote or is that just wonderful hollywood soliloquy?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 16:51, 5 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Is it documented anywhere that Saw had symptoms of PTSD? (On a side-note is believed Broderick is related to Shaw [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/trivia?tr0693852], but thats form IMDB so I don't know how reliable it is.) - Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
IMDB is edited by the site users so I don't know how accurate that is, Isaac. However, if it is true, it is quite interesting. Also, I didn't know where to put this but what was with those American flags with the stars in the shape of a star during the parade of the 54th? -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I was wondering the same thing about the flags during the parade, I found that they used the right flag while marching into the battle. However I couldn't find any evidence of the star shaped flags. I know there were a lot of different flags during that time, but knowing where they came from would be nice. (If they existed at all) -Jenn<br />
<br />
Did they say who Frederick Douglass’s sons were? –afrisk</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments2010-10-07T06:25:59Z<p>Hobnail: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
The different relationships that formed within Col. Shaw's unit were accurate. The tension between Col. Shaw and his Capt would have arose out of different views as to what was expected. Col. Shaw saw the importance of ensuring the enlisted's competence in the eventuality of battle, while the Capt. believed the men would never see battle, so was initially satisfied with their unskilled experience. Another issue that the movie got right about Col. Shaw was in the way he respected his men and endlessly worked to have their contributions to the Civil War be more than just one of menial work. These me, most being escaped slaves, desired to participate in the events which would make all blacks American citizens.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
This movie seems to get many small details correct. For instance, there is the presence of a non-commissioned office in the form of Morgan Freeman's character. Also, the 54th like other black regiments were used mostly for manual labor instead of getting their chance to fight. Then there is the appointment of Robert Gould Shaw to colonel of the regiment. He was appointed because of political reasons and who his family knew. He was not promoted because he was a great commanding officer. Moreover, Shaw seems to be somewhat incapable on the field of battle as depicted in the opening battle at Antietam. Thus, Ferris Bueller is the perfect candidate for this position. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie did a god job at portraying the tensions between the white and African-American troops and the discrimination they faced. They brought up the fact that the 54th were going to be paid less than the average soldiers and were not given proper supplies. They also showed the 54th working as labors instead of fighting and the white soldiers being racist toward the 54th soldiers.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
I agree with Rachael about the tensions between the white and African-American troops, and I also think that the film did a good job showing tension between the African-American troops, as depicted in the relationship between Trip, a runaway slave, and Thomas, a free man. I thought there were several well-done moments in referencing actual events, such as the mention of "contraband". You could hear one soldier say the line about rather having hogs than black soldiers near the beginning of the film. I really enjoyed Matthew Broderick as Shaw, as well as his characterization (early on, you see him walking by some African-Americans, and he makes room for them to walk by him. Nice touch). When the movie started out with Shaw narrating, I can't lie - I almost expected him to talk about licking his palms a la Ferris Bueller. But I liked that Shaw wasn't shown as a bleeding-heart abolitionist, either. He is clearly sympathetic for his troops but he doesn't make a huge speech about how inspiring they are. I LOVED that Edward Zwick didn't find it necessary to add a ROMANCE to this movie. That was so refreshing. Shaw's dedication to his troops was touching without being sappy. Also, I just have to say this as a music major: James Horner's score is seriously awesome. One of the top ten film scores of the past 25 years. A little over-the-top at times? Yes. But if his music isn't making you cry during that last scene, you have no soul. - Celia<br />
<br />
One aspect the movie showed in the the opening scene was how much contact Col. Shaw had with his family, specifically his mother, back home through the letters he wrote. This scene definitely gives insight into what every other Union soldier was doing at that time, showing how they could have easily tell those at home how the war was going and influence their thoughts on the war. Also the first scene with Frederick Douglass (who is one SCARY looking dude!) shows him actively campaigning for the creation of an African American regiment in the Union army. --Erin L.<br />
<br />
The movie got how nasty the Civil War hospitals really were. When Col Shaw was getting stitches there was a glimps of a doctor dipping his hand in a bloody bowl and moving onto the next patient. It was also pretty accurate to see doctors just cutting off the limbs of people. It was also really disturbing. I also think it was accurate when the 54th was doing manual labor and the Union soldiers were saying very racist things to the black soldiers. Also when the white soldier told Shaw to loot the town and called the black men children. This shows how some white soldiers still were extremely racist. I think the movie did a great job of showing the consequences of slavery. Silas Trip (Denzel) had the scars of a whipping on his back. It was not wonder why he wanted to escape. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
At the beginning of the movie, the war was not yet one for abolition. The North was somewhat antislavery, but there were some obvious racist elements in parts of the Union Army. When they walk into camp for the first time they are ridiculed. Also the scene where a white regiment passes by the area in which they are doing manual labor in South Carolina shows that Union soldiers did not see African Americans as equals and did not think they should be allowed to wear the Union uniform. Even when a superior officer, Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins, commands the white soldiers to move along, they ignore him and a fight almost breaks out. They make a very racist comment about giving stripes to an African American. One powerful scene was when Colonel Shaw saw the feet of the soldiers. He knew he had to demand shoes and uniforms because the superior officers in the war department were not going to listen to soft requests. What is interesting to note is the real life Shaw was a very young colonel, so it makes sense to cast a young actor. However, I am not quite sure if Matthew Broderick is a very convincing colonel. He definitely had his strong and noble moments, but there were some points where he could have reacted with more emotion. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Samantha brings up Broderick's performance. I think Shaw's stoicism lies in the fact that, as Samantha pointed out, Shaw was a very young colonel. He had to command respect from men older than himself--not only among other officers, but among his own regiment--and to do that he had to present an authoritative front. I've seen this kind of behavior in young officers myself; they are desperate to hide the fact that they don't know what the heck they're doing. Broderick conveyed that very well. He communicated how difficult Shaw's job was, especially in the scenes where he had to discipline his boyhood friends. Shaw's development into a leader--which includes his attempts to understand his men--is one of the fascinating parts of this film.-- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
<br />
The movie showed the problems that Black soldiers faced, especially in the realm of not being able to fight. The 54th regiment, in the movie, was seen many times doing manual labor, digging trenches, cutting down trees,etc. Colonel Shaw was always finding ways for his men to be able to fight, which was how these men thought they could prove themselves: by fighting which would bring honor to the army and their regiment. -- Alex M. <br />
<br />
I thought that the movie was pretty accurate overall, but the scene that stood out to me the most was the final one with the charge on Fort Wagner. The movie shows that the 54th was the first regiment to storm the fort and that they did endure heavy casualities but pursued on. The men picked up the colors from their fallen comrades and charged on, even though they were not successful the 54th proved to be a powerful force and changed the Union Army. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
"Glory" is an outstanding movie. Its achievements in dramatic narrative, character development, and evocation of time/place far outweigh the few liberties taken with historical fact. I agree wholeheartedly with Robert Brent Toplin in "Reel History" when he said, "..."Glory's" manipulations are not employed cavalierly; ... Most of the films's distortions serve the purpose of commmunicating broader truths about the Civil War experiences of African Americans" (203). Yes, Denzel's tent was full of fictional characters, but they represented a historically accurate range of backgrounds, with all the interpersonal conflicts and cultural clashes that resulted: the free black and the former slaves, the educated man and the field hand, the young and the old, religious and non-believer. And although the real 54th was comprised mostly of free blacks, and the movie's soldiers were mostly slaves, that was representative of historical truth as well, since Dr. McClurken told us that 55% of blacks who carried arms had been slaves. -Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job of showing the evolution in attitude toward black soldiers. It's obvious in the beginning that many people are uncomfortable and unhappy with black men serving as soldiers, from Forbes saying Shaw would be crazy to take the colonel position to the military denying the men shoes and full pay. Then they are accepted as soldiers, but only in support capacities and as "monkeys" useful for looting parties. Finally, at the end the white men cheer on the 54th, showing that they'd come to respect the black men as soldiers, if maybe not as full equals. That's important because black troops, being as numerous as they were, played such a big part in shaping white northerners' perceptions of African Americans during and after the war. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The looting and burning of Darien, Georgia on June 11, 1863 did historically occur. As portrayed in the film, the colored troops under the command of James Montgomery did break ranks and freely loot. Like in the movie, Colonel Shaw did permit the 54th Massachusetts to commit this atrocity reluctantly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien,_Georgia) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got correct was referring to the runaway slaves as contraband. This was mentioned at the beginning of the film, at the party where Shaw accepts lead of the 54th. This ensured the blacks could continue to be in the Union forces instead of being sent back to the Confederacy, where they would be enslaved again. Another thing the filmmakers did a good job portraying was the racist attitudes of Union soldiers toward blacks. The South was not the only racist region of the country, and "Glory" does a nice job of conveying this. They bring forth the fear of giving arms to blacks, which many whites disapproved of at the time. The movie also depicts the 54th's willingness to fight. Since many blacks were fighting for there freedom or the freedom of their family members, they were eager to get involved in the war and battle for their rights as American citizens. Lastly, "Glory" shows African American culture accurately. When enslaved, African Americans would often sing, often about God, to bring comfort and foster a sense of community. This is shown the night before the 54th attacks Fort Wagner when the men soothe themselves by singing a religious song and praying together. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
First of all I really enjoyed this movie. It was well directed and, for the most part, well acted. I think that Glory accurately portrayed the African American experience as a Union solider. At first they were ill equipped, poor or even missing shoes, no weapons, uniforms, etc. but Colonel Shaw procured these for them. The use of the soldiers was quite accurate as well; they were used as manual labor rather than fighters. I also appreciated the portrayal of the tensions between the white officers and the African American soldiers. Morgan Freeman’s character receiving the rank he did was also accurate. I also noticed how the media (Harpers Bazaar) was used to spread the word about the 54th regiment. Just as an aside I found out that many of the extras in the movie were actually Civil War re-enactors, I gather that this was helpful to maintain an accurate account http://www.sj-r.com/carousel/x1664778899/Our-Saviors-Lutheran-students-participate-in-Civil-War-re-enactment.- Caryn - Caryn<br />
<br />
As mentioned above, many northerners, including many union soldiers were initially opposed to blacks joining the military. Forbes expressed this when he was talking to Shaw about whether or not he should accept the commission. He said, "You know how popular that will be, handing out a thousand guns to coloreds". When the black soldiers march into the camp in Massachusetts, one white union soldier says the quote you mentioned in class, "I'd rather have a hog than a nigger, because at least you can eat the hog." - Michael G.<br />
<br />
This movie was leagues better than the previous war movies we have seen. (It might because of the absence of Mel Gibson)However, I think that the movie accurately depicted the trials that this regiment had to go through in order to fight for what they believed in. Which included the lack of supplies such as clothing and weapons, difference in pay, and the difference in overall treatment. The movie also showed that even though the regiment was better trained than the other regiments (which Dr. McClurken alluded to in class) they still weren't allowed to fight because of their color. Near the end before the final battle one Officer alluded to this by asking Shaw if his men were capable of leading the charge even though they hadn't slept for 2 days. There Shaw went into something that what the 54th had was more than strength, they had something to fight for. Which I think alludes to the theme of the movie. And in case anyone was wonder they did use the [http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/flags/fedflag.shtml right flag] when marching. Yes, I looked it up! - Jenn<br />
<br />
Another thing the movie seemed to get right was the uniform of the black troops in the regiment in the South under the Colonel that ordered them to pillage the town. The black soldiers were wearing red trousers which Susie King Taylor describes in her piece, “The first suits worn by the boys were red coats and pants, which they disliked very much, for, they said, "The rebels see us, miles away."” They weren’t complete red suits in the movie but they did have the pants which I feel like were alluding to these. –Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
This movie showed how there were so many things people had to deal with throughout the Civil War which were not clear. First, it portrayed well how this was not originally a war to abolish slavery (as mentioned in class). Next, it showed well how white northerners treated African-Americans in many different ways. Some were really racist and others were not. It showed the tension between the other military leaders on how tough they should be on the African-American soldiers. It seemed like each person had a different opinion. Also, with the burning of the town in Georgia, Shaw was cornered and had to decide what to do. If he refused to order his solders to burn the town then they could go under command of the bad General (I don't know his title). But if he agreed, then they would have to burn buildings and homes of innocent people. There was no right or wrong decision, because both were bad. I think this movie was very accurate and portrayed a lot of things that other civil war movies leave out. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
I think this movie did very well in telling the story of the 54th regiment. In class, we talked about how Black soldiers faced a lot of discrimination from the white Union soldiers. It was definitely clear that the white soldiers lacked respect for the Black soldiers, even though they were fighting for the same side (but that didn't necessarily mean they were fighting for the same cause). In the lecture, we were told a quote by a union soldier comparing African Americans to hogs, and in the movie, a white Union soldier used that line as the new Black enlistees entered the camp. The second occurrence of discrimination was when the newly appointed Black officer stepped in to deescalate a fight between one of his men (Denzel Washington) and a white Union soldier. The soldier made a comment about the Black officer which just showed the blatant disregard for the Black officer as a person, as well as a soldier. One thing that made me wonder was about how the white Union soldiers began cheering for the 54th regiment as they left for Ft. Wagner. It makes me wonder if at any point during the war, whtie Union soldiers got over their prejudices and began to see themselves as one with colored regiments like the 54th. -- Alex M.<br />
<br />
One thing I thought the movie got right was the portrayal of many blacks inability to read or write. I think every soldier in the regiment was illiterate except for Thomas, who grew up a free black in the north. Since the other men were former slaves, they were unable to read, and I like how they were not just enabled to read all of the sudden. Also, at the end of the movie when the confederate soldiers were going through the bodies and discovered that of Colonel Shaw they picked him up and placed him with his troops. According to account by Susie King Taylor, Shaw was laid to rest next to his soldiers and I like how the movie implemented this because he had grown so close to his men. –afrisk<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
One of the inaccuracies of the movie was in the way no camp prostitutes were shown in the movie. During the scenes the men experienced "liberty" from their duties, they are shown playing dice, singing, dancing, etc. (all that were accurate), but they left out the attendence of prostitutes and the roles of "respectable" women throughout camp. In an interview, Freeman mentions they filmed a scene where Col. Shaw escorted a prostitute into his tent for the night. He added, the scene was discarded because Col. Shaw was not the type of man (and there's no evidence) that he would have acted in such a way.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Debbie. Maybe I was wrong, but I thought it was kind of implied when Denzel (Trip) mentioned a women making biscutts and gravy for whoever wanted it. She might have been a prostitute but none of the men are shown going because it was supposed to be some sort of offence. -LeAnn<br />
<br />
This is kind of trivial, but in the movie, Sgt. Major John Rawlins (Morgan Freeman) tells Denzel Washington's character that he should really appreciate the Union and the white soldiers for fighting in the war for him (him representing black people and slaves). He knew a lot had died because before he joined the regiment, Rawlins spent time digging the dead soldiers' graves. However, this time would have been before the middle of the war and before the reason to fight in the war for many soldiers changed from trying to save the Union to fighting for emancipation. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
There is one very important scene in the movie in which one of the black soldiers, Denzel Washington's character to be exact, is whipped for what the officers consider as trying to run away from camp. It would seem that whipping a black soldier would not have been allowed during the war. I can understand why the scene is used in the movie because it is very powerful and it helps in the development of Shaw's character. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
When the army is marching past the plantation house. One of the kids waving is wearing a digital watch. Bottom right of screen.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
Oh Isaac that was just a young child time traveling for education on the Civil War. He is wearing the digital watch because it allows him to stay in the time period, otherwise he phases back to 20XX.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:19, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One of the other non-accidental things I noticed was that the film's 54th Regiment was comprised of what appeared to only be escaped slaves, and common free black men. To the best of my knowledge it didn't show Frederick Douglass' sons or the other well-to-do free black family of the North. Although I do suppose Thomas was meant to symbolize them, even though we was the "worst solider" and the Douglass boys were reportedly very distinguished. Also, its was very fortunate that all of the lead actors shared the same tent. -Isaac Whalen4<br />
<br />
I am not sure about this, but during the scene when the 54th is marching past the plantations, it shows white and black children playing together. Since the black children would have most likely been slaves, would this have been allowed? --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
While it was very fortunate that all the lead actors shared the same tent, it is especially egregious, because the soldiers actually stayed in a barracks in Massachusetts, according to Corporal Gooding. A character that was particularly disturbing was the Colonel of the African American unit that Shaw meets upon his arrival in South Carolina. In class we discussed how the officers of black units were held to a higher standard of character and ability. However, he displays a complete lack of character and completely disrespects his soldiers. He repeatedly refers to them as monkeys that have to be kept under control, and shoots one of them for touching a white woman. He laughs at them as they burn and pillage, as if they are little kids misbehaving. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
I definitely agree with Debbie and LeAnn about the lack of prostitutes in the camp, but I was also bothered by the lack of any female presence throughout the movie. Who was doing laundry? Who was cooking? Who was reading to the wounded and helping them write letters home? While there may have been less women involved with the black regiments, these men clearly would have had wives, some of whom would have followed them into battle. Susie King Taylor, from our reading, is an excellent example of this. I think that there could have been a whole different dimension added to the emotional impact of the film if women had been working in the camps. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
Once again, we reinforce the idea that only the South ever held slaves. When Shaw meets up with that Colonel in South Carolina, the other Colonel says that he can't imagine Boston with slaves. Come on, Hollywood, how many times do we have to go over this? - Cilla<br />
<br />
Yeah, I definitely noticed the line that Cilla mentions. I thought it was just weird and out of place, especially considering that it wasn't exactly true. - Celia<br />
<br />
It did not show Frederick Douglas's sons in the movie. I think it would of added something to the movie if both of them were shown. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The scene where the 54th is marching out of Boston with extreme patriotic fanfare is not something that I think was accurately portrayed. As we discussed in class, despite there being a minority of people who were in full support of black involvement in the war as soldiers, most in the North were still prejudiced about their capabilities. That being said, there wasn't a single person in the crowd that appeared offended or even not in full support of the 54th. None of that was shown in this scene, although the later scene with the Union soldier who insults Denzel's tries to portray that sentiment. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
As for the issue of women in the camp, there was the scene around Christmastime where they showed one woman mingling with the men. Then there was a mention of someone making biscuits and gravy, however that was it. Like the others above I feel like women definitely played a larger role in the life at camp. And the digital watch? That's where it went! I spent years looking for that! Now I just have to go back and get it, sigh... ;) -Jenn<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed that the movie did not address was the inferior care that the black soldiers received during the war. They received inferior guns as well as medical care even at the end of the war and in the movie there was no indication they had inferior guns and medical care. -afrisk<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
In the commentaries, Freeman mentions how the first battle in the movie, Antietam Creek, was known as the last battle in which the English version of "gentlemanly" fighting occurred. No longer would men on opposite sides meet in the middle of a cleared field, stand in a line, and fire upon each other until one side was left standing.-Debbie M.<br />
<br />
When trying to assess the film as a primary source the first thing I always do is look at the year in which it was made and what was happening in the world. <em>Glory</em> was made in 1989, a year everyone associates with the breaking up of the Eastern Bloc and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Whether it was intentional or rather a collectively sub-conscious thinking of the time <em>Glory</em> can be seen as an allegory between the beginning demise of the Soviet Union and the freedom of the slaves in the Civil War. Like the Union of the 1800s America had actively taken part in the liberation of a people under the control of an opposing power. Yet, I think that if most people make this connection they will only go so far as to say that the film is simply offering ideological support to this endeavor. To me <em>Glory</em> seems to suggest a deeper question: So we're free...now what? After the Union declares all of the slaves free, the newly freed slaves are happy to be free but also skeptical of how they will be accepted by society. Denzel Washington's character says that even if the North wins, it won't matter because the prejudices are still there, strife will continue. When we look back at what happened after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we can see these problems as well. Not very many people disagree with ending the U.S.S.R., but there is still conflicts about how to deal with some of these countries, i.e. Afghanistan, etc. Even in Russia there is still strife between Chechnya and Russia.-Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
1988 was the 125th anniversary of Gettysburg (according to IMDB there are shots of the reenactment in the opening scene of the movie), and I imagine there was quite a bit of Civil War hooplah going on surrounding that milestone. While Glory doesn't deal with Gettysburg directly, it would have benefited from any renewed interest in the battle or the Civil War in general. The filmmakers utilized that spotlight (and all of the star power in the movie) to direct attention to an aspect of the Civil War story that doesn't get talked about nearly often enough which is pretty cool. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think that a lot of the tensions between Denzel Washington, Morgan Freeman, and Andre Braugher's characters regarding race are particularly pertinent to modern discussions from the past 20 years or so. Washington often belittles Braugher for talking or acting "white," while Braugher just considers himself educated. Of course, Morgan Freeman was being Morgan Freeman and sort of mediating things, but the conversations in the film were just like ones being had around 1990 in the media, and that are still happening now. If this movie were made in the 1950s, none of that discussion would have been included. - Cilla<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
<br />
Just like in the film, Susie King in her book and James Henry Gooding in his letter talked about how African American soldiers did not receive equal pay as their white soldier counterparts. Taylor mentioned that the first colored troops did not receive any pay at all until 1863 when they were allowed to receive half of the pay. The African American troops did not accept it, however, and would serve for free until they received full pay. Gooding actually wrote a letter to Abraham Lincoln asking to receive the same amount of pay that other white soldiers were given. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
In the film they mentioned the fact that the African-American soldiers were going to paid less than the white soldiers. I don't know if the African-American soldiers rioted when they found out that they were going to be paid less but it was at least mentioned.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
In James Henry Gooding’s Letter to President Lincoln, he appeals to Lincoln directly. He asks two significant questions, “Are we Soldiers or are we Laborers?...We have done a Soldier’s duty, why can’t we have a Soldier’s pay?” These questions are asked almost word for word in the movie. Denzel Washington does a fantastic job as Private Trip. He is a very passionate and strong-willed soldier and stands up against discrimination by the Union soldiers. He protests the unfair pay rate. When he is being whipped he does not scream or make any noise. He finally just begins to weep, which was a very hard scene to watch. I believe the movie accurately portrays the attitudes of African American soldiers discussed in the reading. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Comparing the movie's portrayal of the attack on Ft. Wagner to the description of the battle in Gooding's letters, it seems the movie did a pretty good job of depicting what happened, even with the flag bearer getting shot down. And I had thought it might have been a bit of dramatic license when they showed Shaw being buried with his men in the mass grave, but turns out he actually was buried alongside of them. I'm not sure if the Confederates treated all high ranking Northern casualties this way, but if not that certainly shows their disdain for white men who would lead black troops. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann is right the final battle was depicted very well, except (and perhaps I am seeing this wrong) the film shows the 54th at least getting a foothold inside of the base. While they didn't get very far into the fort, they definitely did not get wiped right by the fort walls. When Shaw fell and the army continued, they started to make some real progress and in the drama of the moment I forgot that they were going to be unsuccessful...damn history refuting Hollywood *sigh*--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:17, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Rachael mentioned the pay issue. In Susie King Taylor's journal of life in camp she says that the white officers supported the soldiers' protest against unequal pay (Section III). She says Cpt. Heasley told his company, "Boys, stand up for your full pay! I am with you and so are all the officers." I don't know if that means that he and the officers, like Shaw in the movie, volunteered to go without pay themselves, but it does back up the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Gooding's account of the expedition to Darien confirms that the town was looted and burned. He does not mention any acts of violence against the town's women, nor whether Col. Montgomery (or any other officer) shot one of his own soldiers for laying hands on a white woman. However, Dr. McClurken told us that Shaw later expressed great concerns about how that incident was handled.--Deborah <br />
<br />
In the reading by Gooding he mentions that African Americans, no matter if they are former slaves, intellectuals, or free men, should all band together to fight for freedom of their race. This is seen in the portrayal of the 54th, as Thomas, Morgan Freeman's character, and Denzel Washington's character, who all come from different backgrounds all join the regiment and fight alongside each other.--Anna Holman <br />
<br />
I completely agree with Deborah's point regarding the pay of the colored regiments and how it was also portrayed in the movie, it appears completely accurate, but I do wonder if it had something to do with white officers who were asked to command the colored troops? Did men who were just assigned command over the troops give up their pay as well? Also, through the reading African Americans appeared to truly respect the Union soldiers, as was seen in the movie when the regiments marched through parts of the South. -Megan W. <br />
<br />
Something that I saw in the readings that was not in the film was the aspect of retaliation of the former slaves against their masters. There was one account in the reading that described the capture of a Confederate soldier, who was whipped first by a Union officer, then by women whom he had owned as slaves. This did not seem to be an issue in the film, as none of the men who had been slaves ever encountered white men whom they knew from their time in bondage. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I think the readings, especially Gooding's account, were reflected well in the movie. A difference between the movie and the readings was that Gooding talked about how the training camp had wooden barracks for them to live in, while in the movie they lived in tents. Also, Gooding talks about how there were some Black men in the North from Massachusetts who did not register to serve in the 54th; he was always calling to them to join the cause and said some men just sat around not wanting to join and fight. The movie definitely did not depict the draft this way. It made it seem as though every free Black in the North wanted to join up in the 54th and serve. One thing that was depicted accurately was when Gooding talked about how Col. Shaw was buried. He was very upset because Shaw was not given a proper funeral, especially since he was a Colonel. Gooding claimed he had just been thrown in the ditch with the others bodies and that the Confederate soldiers could have at least honored him with a proper burial just as Col. Shaw had done for one of their officers. The movie pretty much ends with Col. Shaw's body being rolled into a grave along with his men, which was definitely one of the more intense scenes especially as a way to end the movie. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
Like the 54th Massachusetts in the film, in Susie King Taylor's ''Reminiscences of My Life in Camp'', the very first colored troops refused "half pay." As a result, the wives of the very first colored troops had to support themselves and their children as laundresses and bakers. Only in 1864 that the government granted blacks equal pay with whites. - A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
When Robert Shaw is writing out his letters to his mother, are those actual letters he wrote or is that just wonderful hollywood soliloquy?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 16:51, 5 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Is it documented anywhere that Saw had symptoms of PTSD? (On a side-note is believed Broderick is related to Shaw [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097441/trivia?tr0693852], but thats form IMDB so I don't know how reliable it is.) - Isaac Whalen<br />
<br />
IMDB is edited by the site users so I don't know how accurate that is, Isaac. However, if it is true, it is quite interesting. Also, I didn't know where to put this but what was with those American flags with the stars in the shape of a star during the parade of the 54th? -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
I was wondering the same thing about the flags during the parade, I found that they used the right flag while marching into the battle. However I couldn't find any evidence of the star shaped flags. I know there were a lot of different flags during that time, but knowing where they came from would be nice. (If they existed at all) -Jenn<br />
<br />
Did they say who Frederick Douglass’s sons were? –afrisk</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_7_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 7 Questions/Comments2010-10-06T19:08:43Z<p>Hobnail: </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 />
At the beginning of the movie, the war was not yet one for abolition. The North was somewhat antislavery, but there were some obvious racist elements in parts of the Union Army. When they walk into camp for the first time they are ridiculed. Also the scene where a white regiment passes by the area in which they are doing manual labor in South Carolina shows that Union soldiers did not see African Americans as equals and did not think they should be allowed to wear the Union uniform. Even when a superior officer, Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins, commands the white soldiers to move along, they ignore him and a fight almost breaks out. They make a very racist comment about giving stripes to an African American. One powerful scene was when Colonel Shaw saw the feet of the soldiers. He knew he had to demand shoes and uniforms because the superior officers in the war department were not going to listen to soft requests. What is interesting to note is the real life Shaw was a very young colonel, so it makes sense to cast a young actor. However, I am not quite sure if Matthew Broderick is a very convincing colonel. He definitely had his strong and noble moments, but there were some points where he could have reacted with more emotion. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Samantha brings up Broderick's performance. I think Shaw's stoicism lies in the fact that, as Samantha pointed out, Shaw was a very young colonel. He had to command respect from men older than himself--not only among other officers, but among his own regiment--and to do that he had to present an authoritative front. I've seen this kind of behavior in young officers myself; they are desperate to hide the fact that they don't know what the heck they're doing. Broderick conveyed that very well. He communicated how difficult Shaw's job was, especially in the scenes where he had to discipline his boyhood friends. Shaw's development into a leader--which includes his attempts to understand his men--is one of the fascinating parts of this film.-- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
I thought that the movie was pretty accurate overall, but the scene that stood out to me the most was the final one with the charge on Fort Wagner. The movie shows that the 54th was the first regiment to storm the fort and that they did endure heavy casualities but pursued on. The men picked up the colors from their fallen comrades and charged on, even though they were not successful the 54th proved to be a powerful force and changed the Union Army. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
"Glory" is an outstanding movie. Its achievements in dramatic narrative, character development, and evocation of time/place far outweigh the few liberties taken with historical fact. I agree wholeheartedly with Robert Brent Toplin in "Reel History" when he said, "..."Glory's" manipulations are not employed cavalierly; ... Most of the films's distortions serve the purpose of commmunicating broader truths about the Civil War experiences of African Americans" (203). Yes, Denzel's tent was full of fictional characters, but they represented a historically accurate range of backgrounds, with all the interpersonal conflicts and cultural clashes that resulted: the free black and the former slaves, the educated man and the field hand, the young and the old, religious and non-believer. And although the real 54th was comprised mostly of free blacks, and the movie's soldiers were mostly slaves, that was representative of historical truth as well, since Dr. McClurken told us that 55% of blacks who carried arms had been slaves. -Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job of showing the evolution in attitude toward black soldiers. It's obvious in the beginning that many people are uncomfortable and unhappy with black men serving as soldiers, from Forbes saying Shaw would be crazy to take the colonel position to the military denying the men shoes and full pay. Then they are accepted as soldiers, but only in support capacities and as "monkeys" useful for looting parties. Finally, at the end the white men cheer on the 54th, showing that they'd come to respect the black men as soldiers, if maybe not as full equals. That's important because black troops, being as numerous as they were, played such a big part in shaping white northerners' perceptions of African Americans during and after the war. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
The looting and burning of Darien, Georgia on June 11, 1863 did historically occur. As portrayed in the film, the colored troops under the command of James Montgomery did break ranks and freely loot. Like in the movie, Colonel Shaw did permit the 54th Massachusetts to commit this atrocity reluctantly. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darien,_Georgia) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== 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 />
Oh Isaac that was just a young child time traveling for education on the Civil War. He is wearing the digital watch because it allows him to stay in the time period, otherwise he phases back to 20XX.--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:19, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 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 />
In James Henry Gooding’s Letter to President Lincoln, he appeals to Lincoln directly. He asks two significant questions, “Are we Soldiers or are we Laborers?...We have done a Soldier’s duty, why can’t we have a Soldier’s pay?” These questions are asked almost word for word in the movie. Denzel Washington does a fantastic job as Private Trip. He is a very passionate and strong-willed soldier and stands up against discrimination by the Union soldiers. He protests the unfair pay rate. When he is being whipped he does not scream or make any noise. He finally just begins to weep, which was a very hard scene to watch. I believe the movie accurately portrays the attitudes of African American soldiers discussed in the reading. -Samantha W.<br />
<br />
Comparing the movie's portrayal of the attack on Ft. Wagner to the description of the battle in Gooding's letters, it seems the movie did a pretty good job of depicting what happened, even with the flag bearer getting shot down. And I had thought it might have been a bit of dramatic license when they showed Shaw being buried with his men in the mass grave, but turns out he actually was buried alongside of them. I'm not sure if the Confederates treated all high ranking Northern casualties this way, but if not that certainly shows their disdain for white men who would lead black troops. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
I think Mary Ann is right the final battle was depicted very well, except (and perhaps I am seeing this wrong) the film shows the 54th at least getting a foothold inside of the base. While they didn't get very far into the fort, they definitely did not get wiped right by the fort walls. When Shaw fell and the army continued, they started to make some real progress and in the drama of the moment I forgot that they were going to be unsuccessful...damn history refuting Hollywood *sigh*--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 06:17, 6 October 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
Rachael mentioned the pay issue. In Susie King Taylor's journal of life in camp she says that the white officers supported the soldiers' protest against unequal pay (Section III). She says Cpt. Heasley told his company, "Boys, stand up for your full pay! I am with you and so are all the officers." I don't know if that means that he and the officers, like Shaw in the movie, volunteered to go without pay themselves, but it does back up the movie. -- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
Gooding's account of the expedition to Darien confirms that the town was looted and burned. He does not mention any acts of violence against the town's women, nor whether Col. Montgomery (or any other officer) shot one of his own soldiers for laying hands on a white woman. However, Dr. McClurken told us that Shaw later expressed great concerns about how that incident was handled.--Deborah S.<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>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T19:10:07Z<p>Hobnail: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! -- Alex M.'''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
'''ANTEBELLUM'''<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. -- Megan W.<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
'''One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves.''' There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and '''Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy'''.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The depiction of the antebellum South and the effects of the war brought on Georgia are quite accurate. The barbecue scene illustrates the rich culture of the antebellum period. Dr. McClurken mentioned that '''the planters basically controlled the government. This is especially true in the film in the scene with all of the men at the party in one room discussing plans for war.''' The scene with the thousands of soldiers lying in the streets outside of the hospital was very powerful. It shows in a strong manner just how bad the diseases really were and their effects on the soldiers. Also, '''the portrayal of Mrs. O’Hara demonstrates the point that plantation mistresses held a remarkable amount of power in household management, food and clothing, and caring for the ill. Mrs. O’Hara holds much power in the house; even her husband says that they should consult Mrs. O’Hara, or that Mrs. O’Hara will know what to do.''' I also just have to say that I love '''the character of Mammy'''. She is so full of attitude and one liners towards Scarlett. She provides comic relief to intense moments in the movie with her straightforwardness and blunt remarks to Scarlett’s stupidity. I’m not sure if slaves would have been allowed to voice such opinions, but I’m very glad that’s how she was in the movie. I will venture a guess that Grey’s Anatomy modeled one of its main characters after Mammy.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''WARTIME'''<br />
<br />
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. -- 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" Sherman. '''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 Sherman's Union soldiers ''unnecessarily'' did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked.''' --Erin L.<br />
<br />
'''This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point.''' <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was '''the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital'''. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. '''If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene).''' Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
'''The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war''' (and how many didn't come back). Scarlett's first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. '''Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone,''' including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn't have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
'''This movie showed correctly how terrible the Civil War was.''' It '''showed how people were really excited to go to war before it started, but then they realized how terrible it is.''' One shocking scene was the hundreds of wounded soldiers lying on the ground and railroad tracks waiting for the doctor or nurse (It showed how trivial Scarlett's problem was.) Also another shocking scene was in the hospital when they are amputating one soldiers leg. I can't blame Scarlett for running out of the hospital and not wanting to go back. As mentioned above, some of the soldiers who returned (in the movie) seemed to have PTSD. They didn't know what to do after the South lost the war and their home and everything they knew before was destroyed. They also showed a change in roles. I never saw Ashley do any labor or manual work before the war, but after he was trying to split wood. Scarlett's gained more authority during and after the war. She had to do physical work, such as work in the fields, or she would have starved. -- Justine<br />
<br />
One of the points that the movie got right was the reason that many of the men went to war. Scarlett's father says in the beginning of the movie that she can't hate Tara because their land was the only thing that was worth working or fighting for. this clearly drives Scarlett's motivation throughout the film, as her subsequent marriage to Frank Kennedy and work on the plantation are primarily to save Tara. I also thought that it was interesting that in the end of the film, Ashley says that he would have freed all of his slaves when his father died whether they were legally emancipated or not. Whether or not this is true, there were clearly members of wealthy plantation families who were opposed to slavery, like Mary Chestnut. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
<br />
The makeshift hospitals stuck out as very realistic in particular. The shortage of pain meds, the shortage of beds, the brutal amputations, the lack of sanitation, and just cramming people in wherever possible. ''' Calling for Scarlett in the operating room was an unlikely plot device to make her watch the amputation of a man's leg, but other than that, the gruesome hospital seemed dead on.''' (I just realized that may seem like a sick pun, but I can't think of another phrase at the moment, so you'll have to excuse it and take my word that it wasn't intentional!) -- Cilla<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''POSTWAR'''<br />
<br />
'''Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind''', she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. '''The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder.''' This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, '''but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice.''' Also, there were '''many female widows after the war and some did remarry''' (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I also think the movie did a good job showing the change in men after returning from the war. '''When Ashley returns home for Christmas you can already see a change in his attitude towards the war, and his conversation with Scarlett when he comes back to Tara shows how despondent and useless he feels.''' ''Ashley annoys me a LOT, but it's still sad to see.'' Another factor that the film did well was '''Scarlett's struggle to feed her family when she returns to Tara. She and her (whining) sisters would most likely have NO idea how to plant and grow their own food.''' - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Celia's point about the men returning from war. I thought '''the part when Scarlett and Ashley were talking in the barn about how awful his experiences were to be especially poignant.''' Also, I thought the character transformation of Scarlett throughout the movie was done quite well. Admittedly she is kind of annoying sometimes, I found her to be amazingly smart and self-sufficient. '''She played her gender role perfectly; before the war, she was all about manipulation for the sake of sport. But, when the war came, Scarlett changed the use of manipulation in order to keep Tara.''' -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I have to agree with the early sentiments regarding the ridiculous character of Scarlett or maybe it’s just the way that Viven Leigh played her, I think that Bette Davis would have portrayed the character a little better. But, this is all beside the point. I felt that the movie certainly depicted and accurate portrayal of the men returning home from war. '''What I found really interesting was how Ashley seemed to feel emasculated by Scarlett…and possibly even his wife. He expressed this when Scarlett married Frank Kennedy in order to save Tara Plantation.''' This is something that men truly did feel when they returned from war. They were either incapacitated by being wounded or suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and possibly unable to run a household. - Caryn<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. '''Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo.''' -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how '''when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again.''' You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. '''She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town.''' Another thing the movie did right was '''displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street.''' You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw free Blacks in the street and all over the town. '''She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta.''' --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''I never understood why Hollywood chose to romanticize female characters as flighty, sobbing, narcissistic, and really obnoxious beings. Then I read the first chapters of [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200161.txt the book] and realized that is how Scarlett is portrayed.''' Clearly I agree with the comments made above. However I do think that this movie does accurately depict the reaction of the Southerners to the Civil War before, during and after. Before the war all the Men were quite arrogant, and wouldn't hear it when someone suggested that the Yankees might be better equipped. During the war it was rough, for soldiers and for those who remained behind. After the war many of the men did suffer from some sort of PTSD, as shown through Ashley Wilkes and Mr. Kennedy. -Jenn<br />
<br />
'''I'm surprised Michael G hasn't mentioned the director including death by common diseases of the day. But I was (er..) "satisfied" that at least some people died of typhoid, dysentery or yellow fever. Clearly this film is far more hardcore than the Patriot, Mel Gibson clearly you need to learn from the classics. You can still have realistic issues (terminal illnesses) and be an award winning film.''' -- BahktinJali<br />
<br />
<br />
There were several things I noticed that seemed small, but created a well rounded background for this film and the time period it portrayed. For example, when Scarlett was going to Atlanta, her mother said she could "take Prissy with her" as if Prissy were a thing to be taken wherever. Scarlett also threatens to beat Prissy several times, which goes back to what we were discussing inc class, that women were often times just as harsh with slaves as men. Another example was during the hospital scene, the doctor states, he's out of medicine, which was common during the war. I also thought it was interesting that '''you could see a clear distinction before and after the war of the new set of manners in the South.''' When Scarlett goes into the city after the war, no one is giving her the walkway, even the black men that were singing, men are "cat calling" her; all of which Scarlett contributes to the Yankees. I think the set up of these types of things set the mood and feeling of the South, both before and after the war and how it changed dramatically. '''''All in all, I wasn't as disappointed as I thought I'd be.''''' - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
'''SLAVERY AND RACE RELATIONS'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, '''the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners.''' In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
<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 treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie.''' Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." '''These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie.''' You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. '''Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee.''' Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
This movie made it seem like some of Scarlett's slaves were happy. They decided to stay with her during and after the war. As mentioned in class, most slaves worked in the fields. We did not see a lot of that in the movie, but we saw mostly the slaves working in the house. '''It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is "Gone with the Wind."''' -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was '''the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett.''' In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Rachel points out that the movie got the part about the slaves wrong. That is true and '''what really stood out was Big Sam saving Scarlett from the other men.''' We learned in class that slaves did not agree with paternalism so why would a former slave help out his former master? If I were him I might have just let it happen. He did not owe her anything. Also I think '''the portrayal of the young girl (Prissy) who stayed on did a good job showing the ways in which slaves resisted but I thought it was stupid how she was portreyed as a whole. Slaves were not stupid so I could not tell is this girl has some issues or was trying to resist.''' -LeAnn<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex and Rachael's points, but '''I also think it's a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O'Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn't have any children, I don't think it's completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her.''' - Celia<br />
<br />
'''The part of the movie that irked me the most (other than Scarlett and her thousand-yard stare) was the portrayal of the slaves.''' They seemed very loyal to the O'Haras, and even happy to be working for people who clearly had very little consideration for them. None of the slaves who we actually got to know in the movie (Prissy, Mammy, Big Sam) seemed to have any motivation to leave. Big Sam even seems pleased to be digging ditches for the Confederacy. I think that the movie would have been a lot more accurate if some of the slaves had left Tara and Scarlett had been confused about why they weren't happy there. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I was unsettled by how the slaves seemed to buy into the paternalism theory. '''They did not seem to be upset or angry to be slaves at all; rather, they seemed quite content. It also seemed like the slaves were friends with the O'Hara's instead of forced labor.''' --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
GENDER<br />
<br />
'''The thing that bothered me the most was Scarlett's character in general. I understand that not all women were passive and submissive to men, but her character seems a bit over the top.''' In my opinion it was probably a statement to women in the early 1900's about becoming stronger and more independent. However, it just didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the characters. Practically every other woman in the film is somewhat submissive to the male figures, even if not completely. I know we talked about women being put into new roles both during and after the war, but when Scarlett is running the lumberyard of the business, '''she is so overbearing to both her husband and even Ashley, that it leads me to doubt that this is the way a woman would have really acted. It may also have to do with the fact that I also really just dislike her character in general...''' - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
ANTEBELLUM<br />
<br />
'''Also, most southerners did not live like the people in Twelve Oaks and Tara'''. That was only a small percentage of the population. It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is "Gone with the Wind." -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
As we've noted in class earlier this week, '''the amount of Southerners that had the type of money the O'Hara's had was exceedingly low. Given that fact, how is it that an immigrant family could drum up so much money? I was under the impression that the majority of Irish were laborers and not wealthy plantation owners.''' Also, thanks to Professor Moon's immigration class, '''I doubt that Irish, who had to struggle to be accepted by white society, would play nicely with the slaves''' who had, at least earlier in the 1800s, in about the same socio-economic status. While they might have climb the social ladder, I doubt that the descendants of Catholic Irish would be able to do so well in this period. Am I completely off base?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:32, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed that the movie did not necessarily get wrong, but did not portray was '''the true wealth of many in the south'''. As I discovered in class, many in the south did not actually have these huge, lavish plantations like Terra and Twelve Oaks in the movie. Many southerners only had five or so slaves and would actually rent slaves from wealthier plantation owners and in the movie, all we really see are these incredibly wealthy landowners with numerous slaves working. I believe the movie did this in order to romanticize the old south and give them a lavish and distinguished reputation in order to enhance our opinions of them. '''If the movie had presented the lower classes of the south more aggressively, the movie would not of accomplished one of its main goals: romanticizing the old south'''. -afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
WARTIME<br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Mr. Hara shouted to everyone that the war was really over because Lee surrendered. In actuality, Lee's surrender had no impact on Georgia. Only with Georgia state troops surrendering did the war's end had an effect on Georgia. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031381/goofs) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
<br />
POSTWAR<br />
<br />
'''The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. ''' As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
<br />
In class we defined carpetbaggers as northerners who came to the south after the war who may or may not have wanted to exploit the south and those who inhabited it. Scalawags were from the South and were southerners who supported the union or the Republican party later on. '''With that being said, Scarlett called a man (I can't remember his name but the man who married the "white trash" woman and made an offer to Scarlet about her house after her taxes were raised) a carpetbagger even though he should have been called a scalawag.''' I wonder if the reason for this was because the term "carpetbagger" would have been more well known or understood by an audience more than the term "scalawag" would have been. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
'''''Role of the Great War in shaping the book and movie?'''''<br />
<br />
'''This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil'''. Also, it would make '''viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation.''' This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.Scarlett said it best herself, "After all, tomorrow is another day."<br />
'''Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to model yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett's character can be looked to for resilience.''' After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Mike's point. Scarlett's arrogant personality makes her an easy target for criticism, but it can't be denied that she gets the job done. Yes, it might be by stealing away her annoying sister's fiancee (Suellen had it coming), but that's better than starving to death. Her tactics might be brash, but she is trying to survive and hold onto her family's home. Is she a hero? No, but her resilience and persistance has to be admired. I can definitely see how an audience that had been suffering through the Great Depression would see her as an inspiration. - Celia<br />
<br />
'''In the credits before the movie, it lists the names of actors and actresses who played "servants." It does not say anything about slaves. In 1939, I don't think they would have called them "slaves," but today they would.''' Gone with the Wind does not show the terrible conditions for the slaves. Amistad definitely is vivid with showing how terrible the middle passage is because it was made in 1997 not 1939. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The movie definitely portrays the hidden racism of the era. Race is never directly attacked, but the film depicts the ideology of blacks as inferior and ignorant, which was the attitude of the era of "Gone With The Wind" as well as in 1939. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As a primary source I think that '''this movie epitomizes the Lost Cause mentality.''' It adds to the revisionist history that took place in the early 1900s and then again or continued through the 1930s. Gone with the Wind depicts the noble Southern hero who is terrorized by the licentious Yankee troops. They are free from immoral or criminal behavior…they are the victims not the culprits. The Civil War itself seems to be depicted as needless and unnecessary but exciting all the same. Slavery is barely addressed in the movie adding to this revisionist stance, it almost seems like the slaves want to be on the plantation, and as if they would have stayed once they were freed. I guess this could be part of the ideal of paternalism at work. - Caryn<br />
<br />
'''I found it interesting to see how the slaves were portrayed during this time, just because the movie was filmed during a time where racism was rampant, and slavery was still a subject that I am sure people had a firsthand account of.''' The children of the Civil War generation would have been grand parents, or even parents during this time. For that, the slaves/servants were largely ignored.... or rather their status was glossed over. Nobody really wanted to get into that. Also Caryn makes an interesting point about it symbolizing the "Lost Cause" mentality, which I completely agree with. The decade was coming to a close, I wonder if people were looking for what to do next, to keep going. - Jenn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to think of the film as encouraging resilience, because Scarlett essentially "pulls herself up by her own bootstraps". While she marries a guy or two along the way, she has enough wits and strength to rebuild her own empire. Scarlett advances herself through her own land and even draws a significant income from the Georgia pines of her home state. If you are going to rebuild yourself, it's far better to use the resources of your nation rather than think that some outside group is really going to help. eh eh?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:42, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I definitely saw a connection between this film and the time period it was made. '''Something I noticed was the difference between Melanie and Scarlett being a statement of the old and new woman of the United States. Just coming out of the roaring twenties (and the depression) women were drastically changing their identies and becoming what some might say, more masculine. By Scarlett's outspokenness and keen business skills, she is the representation of what women in the 20's and 30's were striving to become. Melanie on the other hand is a representation of the old women.''' Submissive, gentle, highly fragile; all these things were associated with the old ways and in the end, Melanie dies, while Scarlett continues to thrive. _- Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
'''The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be''' (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her "trash." She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. '''After reading "Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863," there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite.''' They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
'''The Fitzhugh reading, which is the pro-slavery argument, contradicts certain points that Dr. McClurken made in class. It said that African American women did not have to do much work and that the slaves only worked about nine hour days. D'''r. McClurken taught that slaves worked about 15 hours a day, and the women either were in the kitchens and houses or were doing field work. '''The Carl Schurz reading describes the end of the war and the circumstances people found themselves in. The planters, who used to be thought of as the elite, were now in poverty and participating in menial labor in order to survive. This appears in the movie when Scarlett and her family are picking cotton in the field in order to earn money to get food.''' It was also interesting to see that some of the former slaves who were in the O’Hara household could not perform certain tasks, for example, tying up the cow. One of the African Americans actually told Scarlett that they were domestic servants and had no experience with livestock. Prissy also did not seem to have many talents when it came to housekeeping. I’m not quite sure how accurate that is. I know Deborah mentioned that its inaccurate that Prissy had no knowledge of “birthin’ babies.”-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
'''Because so much of Gone with the Wind actually takes place after the war is over, its imagining of Reconstruction is important. Scarlett returns home to a Tara that is "not only conquered in a political and military sense, but economically ruined" as Carl Shurz describes the post-war South. Scarlett, for some inexplicably reason, still had some of her former slaves to help rebuild Tara, but most Southerners had to learn how to restructure their entire way of doing things. Scarlett fits in with the all of the Southerners who "must do something, honest or dishonest, and must do it soon, to make a living." That sense of economic desperation makes Scarlett's decision to marry Mr. Kennedy and her drive to make money by any means possible seem relatively realistic.''' -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
'''Compared to what Mike E. said, I actually found the grandmother in the "Trials of a Slave Girl" reading to be a little like the Mammy character. Mammy was a black women who held the respect of other slaves and even some white people, including Rhett Butler.''' At first I thought Harriet Jacobs (the slave girl) and maybe other black people in the family or community were the only ones who respected her a great deal but something in the primary source caught my eye. When the master was building a house for Jacobs the grandmother "had high words" with him and "told him pretty plainly what she thought of his character." I don't think a slave who wasn't at least a little bit respected by her owners or white people could get away with talking in that manner. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike's point. Not only does Mammy speak out of terms to Scarlett, Rhett, and others she doesn't even know. But many of the other slaves/ex-slaves act as if they are good friends with some of the white characters. After reading "Letters from Slaves" and discussing in class, I don't think the film did a good job of portraying the slave image truthfully. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
One reading I found particularly interesting was “The Universal Law of Slavery,” by George Fitzhugh. I found comparisons not only to how whites viewed the institution of slavery in the South, but also the portrayal of slaves in the movie. In class, '''we discussed how (white) southerners really believed they were doing blacks a service by enslaving them and therefore providing them with basic survival elements and they would not know the proper way to survive on their own. In the reading by Fitzhugh he echoes this sentiment. ''' He claims that the “negro slaves of the South are the happiest,” and “not only better off as to physical comfort than free laborers, but [also] their moral condition is better.” Many southerners actually truly believed they were doing blacks a service by en-slaving them, and blacks obviously had a totally opposite view. '''In the movie, although we do not directly view any characters really even discussing slavery, let alone mentioning how blacks are better off, I believe this belief if implied. Many of the characters constantly talk about the cause and this traditional way of southern life that they possess, which is clearly dependent on slavery. Even though the characters never said how there slaves are better off en-slaved, I think it could have been implied by the weirdly good treatment of them?''' I only saw one instance of discipline when Scarlett, hit Prissy for not being able to fetch the doctor. –afrisk<br />
<br />
There were historically women, like Scarlett, who had independent minds during this era. For example,in "A Southern Aristocrat's Diary During the Civil War," Mary Chesnut disapproved of men who mixed up the Bible to support their passions. Also, she wrote that her husband had been right to lose their plantation since he had a hand in starting the Civil War. -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure if this was an actual question but Dr. McClurken did want us to acknowledge the memory of war. I felt that the memory of the war was not depicted well in the movie. Yes, the men came back bruised, wounded, some never came back, but they seemed to move right back into their lives. It is clear that the war left scars and Atlanta had to be rebuilt but yet it once again flourished. I thought the one point that showed hints of the war lingering around, was the $300 tax Scarlett's family had to pay during Reconstruction. It showed that Southerners were not forgiven and had to repay debts. Aside from the movie, the memory of the Civil War is alive and well, whether a Confederate flag is displayed or families pass down memorabilia, the time in history is significant to the structure of the United States and its history. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I don't know if I would say that the movie portrayed the memory of war "well", but I did notice one thing. When Scarlett is talking with Ashley after he returns to Tara, he begins to describe some of the things he experienced during the war and the battles. It slightly resembled PTSD to me. It's not super clear or defined, but it does give credit to the fact that soldiers were left dealing with stress from the war after they returned home. - Victoria Y.</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T17:49:07Z<p>Hobnail: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! -- Alex M.'''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
'''ANTEBELLUM'''<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. -- Megan W.<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
'''One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves.''' There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and '''Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy'''.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The depiction of the antebellum South and the effects of the war brought on Georgia are quite accurate. The barbecue scene illustrates the rich culture of the antebellum period. Dr. McClurken mentioned that '''the planters basically controlled the government. This is especially true in the film in the scene with all of the men at the party in one room discussing plans for war.''' The scene with the thousands of soldiers lying in the streets outside of the hospital was very powerful. It shows in a strong manner just how bad the diseases really were and their effects on the soldiers. Also, '''the portrayal of Mrs. O’Hara demonstrates the point that plantation mistresses held a remarkable amount of power in household management, food and clothing, and caring for the ill. Mrs. O’Hara holds much power in the house; even her husband says that they should consult Mrs. O’Hara, or that Mrs. O’Hara will know what to do.''' I also just have to say that I love '''the character of Mammy'''. She is so full of attitude and one liners towards Scarlett. She provides comic relief to intense moments in the movie with her straightforwardness and blunt remarks to Scarlett’s stupidity. I’m not sure if slaves would have been allowed to voice such opinions, but I’m very glad that’s how she was in the movie. I will venture a guess that Grey’s Anatomy modeled one of its main characters after Mammy.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''WARTIME'''<br />
<br />
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. -- 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" Sherman. '''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 Sherman's Union soldiers ''unnecessarily'' did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked.''' --Erin L.<br />
<br />
'''This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point.''' <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was '''the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital'''. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. '''If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene).''' Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
'''The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war''' (and how many didn't come back). Scarlett's first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. '''Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone,''' including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn't have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
'''This movie showed correctly how terrible the Civil War was.''' It '''showed how people were really excited to go to war before it started, but then they realized how terrible it is.''' One shocking scene was the hundreds of wounded soldiers lying on the ground and railroad tracks waiting for the doctor or nurse (It showed how trivial Scarlett's problem was.) Also another shocking scene was in the hospital when they are amputating one soldiers leg. I can't blame Scarlett for running out of the hospital and not wanting to go back. As mentioned above, some of the soldiers who returned (in the movie) seemed to have PTSD. They didn't know what to do after the South lost the war and their home and everything they knew before was destroyed. They also showed a change in roles. I never saw Ashley do any labor or manual work before the war, but after he was trying to split wood. Scarlett's gained more authority during and after the war. She had to do physical work, such as work in the fields, or she would have starved. -- Justine<br />
<br />
One of the points that the movie got right was the reason that many of the men went to war. Scarlett's father says in the beginning of the movie that she can't hate Tara because their land was the only thing that was worth working or fighting for. this clearly drives Scarlett's motivation throughout the film, as her subsequent marriage to Frank Kennedy and work on the plantation are primarily to save Tara. I also thought that it was interesting that in the end of the film, Ashley says that he would have freed all of his slaves when his father died whether they were legally emancipated or not. Whether or not this is true, there were clearly members of wealthy plantation families who were opposed to slavery, like Mary Chestnut. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
<br />
The makeshift hospitals stuck out as very realistic in particular. The shortage of pain meds, the shortage of beds, the brutal amputations, the lack of sanitation, and just cramming people in wherever possible. ''' Calling for Scarlett in the operating room was an unlikely plot device to make her watch the amputation of a man's leg, but other than that, the gruesome hospital seemed dead on.''' (I just realized that may seem like a sick pun, but I can't think of another phrase at the moment, so you'll have to excuse it and take my word that it wasn't intentional!) -- Cilla<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''POSTWAR'''<br />
<br />
'''Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind''', she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. '''The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder.''' This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, '''but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice.''' Also, there were '''many female widows after the war and some did remarry''' (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I also think the movie did a good job showing the change in men after returning from the war. '''When Ashley returns home for Christmas you can already see a change in his attitude towards the war, and his conversation with Scarlett when he comes back to Tara shows how despondent and useless he feels.''' ''Ashley annoys me a LOT, but it's still sad to see.'' Another factor that the film did well was '''Scarlett's struggle to feed her family when she returns to Tara. She and her (whining) sisters would most likely have NO idea how to plant and grow their own food.''' - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Celia's point about the men returning from war. I thought '''the part when Scarlett and Ashley were talking in the barn about how awful his experiences were to be especially poignant.''' Also, I thought the character transformation of Scarlett throughout the movie was done quite well. Admittedly she is kind of annoying sometimes, I found her to be amazingly smart and self-sufficient. '''She played her gender role perfectly; before the war, she was all about manipulation for the sake of sport. But, when the war came, Scarlett changed the use of manipulation in order to keep Tara.''' -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I have to agree with the early sentiments regarding the ridiculous character of Scarlett or maybe it’s just the way that Viven Leigh played her, I think that Bette Davis would have portrayed the character a little better. But, this is all beside the point. I felt that the movie certainly depicted and accurate portrayal of the men returning home from war. '''What I found really interesting was how Ashley seemed to feel emasculated by Scarlett…and possibly even his wife. He expressed this when Scarlett married Frank Kennedy in order to save Tara Plantation.''' This is something that men truly did feel when they returned from war. They were either incapacitated by being wounded or suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and possibly unable to run a household. - Caryn<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. '''Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo.''' -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how '''when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again.''' You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. '''She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town.''' Another thing the movie did right was '''displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street.''' You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw free Blacks in the street and all over the town. '''She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta.''' --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''I never understood why Hollywood chose to romanticize female characters as flighty, sobbing, narcissistic, and really obnoxious beings. Then I read the first chapters of [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200161.txt the book] and realized that is how Scarlett is portrayed.''' Clearly I agree with the comments made above. However I do think that this movie does accurately depict the reaction of the Southerners to the Civil War before, during and after. Before the war all the Men were quite arrogant, and wouldn't hear it when someone suggested that the Yankees might be better equipped. During the war it was rough, for soldiers and for those who remained behind. After the war many of the men did suffer from some sort of PTSD, as shown through Ashley Wilkes and Mr. Kennedy. -Jenn<br />
<br />
'''I'm surprised Michael G hasn't mentioned the director including death by common diseases of the day. But I was (er..) "satisfied" that at least some people died of typhoid, dysentery or yellow fever. Clearly this film is far more hardcore than the Patriot, Mel Gibson clearly you need to learn from the classics. You can still have realistic issues (terminal illnesses) and be an award winning film.''' -- BahktinJali<br />
<br />
<br />
There were several things I noticed that seemed small, but created a well rounded background for this film and the time period it portrayed. For example, when Scarlett was going to Atlanta, her mother said she could "take Prissy with her" as if Prissy were a thing to be taken wherever. Scarlett also threatens to beat Prissy several times, which goes back to what we were discussing inc class, that women were often times just as harsh with slaves as men. Another example was during the hospital scene, the doctor states, he's out of medicine, which was common during the war. I also thought it was interesting that '''you could see a clear distinction before and after the war of the new set of manners in the South.''' When Scarlett goes into the city after the war, no one is giving her the walkway, even the black men that were singing, men are "cat calling" her; all of which Scarlett contributes to the Yankees. I think the set up of these types of things set the mood and feeling of the South, both before and after the war and how it changed dramatically. '''''All in all, I wasn't as disappointed as I thought I'd be.''''' - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
'''SLAVERY AND RACE RELATIONS'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, '''the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners.''' In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
<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 treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie.''' Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." '''These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie.''' You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. '''Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee.''' Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
This movie made it seem like some of Scarlett's slaves were happy. They decided to stay with her during and after the war. As mentioned in class, most slaves worked in the fields. We did not see a lot of that in the movie, but we saw mostly the slaves working in the house. '''It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is "Gone with the Wind."''' -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was '''the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett.''' In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Rachel points out that the movie got the part about the slaves wrong. That is true and '''what really stood out was Big Sam saving Scarlett from the other men.''' We learned in class that slaves did not agree with paternalism so why would a former slave help out his former master? If I were him I might have just let it happen. He did not owe her anything. Also I think '''the portrayal of the young girl (Prissy) who stayed on did a good job showing the ways in which slaves resisted but I thought it was stupid how she was portreyed as a whole. Slaves were not stupid so I could not tell is this girl has some issues or was trying to resist.''' -LeAnn<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex and Rachael's points, but '''I also think it's a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O'Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn't have any children, I don't think it's completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her.''' - Celia<br />
<br />
'''The part of the movie that irked me the most (other than Scarlett and her thousand-yard stare) was the portrayal of the slaves.''' They seemed very loyal to the O'Haras, and even happy to be working for people who clearly had very little consideration for them. None of the slaves who we actually got to know in the movie (Prissy, Mammy, Big Sam) seemed to have any motivation to leave. Big Sam even seems pleased to be digging ditches for the Confederacy. I think that the movie would have been a lot more accurate if some of the slaves had left Tara and Scarlett had been confused about why they weren't happy there. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I was unsettled by how the slaves seemed to buy into the paternalism theory. '''They did not seem to be upset or angry to be slaves at all; rather, they seemed quite content. It also seemed like the slaves were friends with the O'Hara's instead of forced labor.''' --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
GENDER<br />
<br />
'''The thing that bothered me the most was Scarlett's character in general. I understand that not all women were passive and submissive to men, but her character seems a bit over the top.''' In my opinion it was probably a statement to women in the early 1900's about becoming stronger and more independent. However, it just didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the characters. Practically every other woman in the film is somewhat submissive to the male figures, even if not completely. I know we talked about women being put into new roles both during and after the war, but when Scarlett is running the lumberyard of the business, '''she is so overbearing to both her husband and even Ashley, that it leads me to doubt that this is the way a woman would have really acted. It may also have to do with the fact that I also really just dislike her character in general...''' - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
ANTEBELLUM<br />
<br />
'''Also, most southerners did not live like the people in Twelve Oaks and Tara'''. That was only a small percentage of the population. It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is "Gone with the Wind." -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
As we've noted in class earlier this week, '''the amount of Southerners that had the type of money the O'Hara's had was exceedingly low. Given that fact, how is it that an immigrant family could drum up so much money? I was under the impression that the majority of Irish were laborers and not wealthy plantation owners.''' Also, thanks to Professor Moon's immigration class, '''I doubt that Irish, who had to struggle to be accepted by white society, would play nicely with the slaves''' who had, at least earlier in the 1800s, in about the same socio-economic status. While they might have climb the social ladder, I doubt that the descendants of Catholic Irish would be able to do so well in this period. Am I completely off base?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:32, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed that the movie did not necessarily get wrong, but did not portray was '''the true wealth of many in the south'''. As I discovered in class, many in the south did not actually have these huge, lavish plantations like Terra and Twelve Oaks in the movie. Many southerners only had five or so slaves and would actually rent slaves from wealthier plantation owners and in the movie, all we really see are these incredibly wealthy landowners with numerous slaves working. I believe the movie did this in order to romanticize the old south and give them a lavish and distinguished reputation in order to enhance our opinions of them. '''If the movie had presented the lower classes of the south more aggressively, the movie would not of accomplished one of its main goals: romanticizing the old south'''. -afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
WARTIME<br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Mr. Hara shouted to everyone that the war was really over because Lee surrendered. In actuality, Lee's surrender had no impact on Georgia. Only with Georgia state troops surrendering did the war's end had an effect on Georgia. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0031381/goofs) -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
<br />
POSTWAR<br />
<br />
'''The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. ''' As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
<br />
In class we defined carpetbaggers as northerners who came to the south after the war who may or may not have wanted to exploit the south and those who inhabited it. Scalawags were from the South and were southerners who supported the union or the Republican party later on. '''With that being said, Scarlett called a man (I can't remember his name but the man who married the "white trash" woman and made an offer to Scarlet about her house after her taxes were raised) a carpetbagger even though he should have been called a scalawag.''' I wonder if the reason for this was because the term "carpetbagger" would have been more well known or understood by an audience more than the term "scalawag" would have been. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
'''''Role of the Great War in shaping the book and movie?'''''<br />
<br />
'''This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil'''. Also, it would make '''viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation.''' This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.Scarlett said it best herself, "After all, tomorrow is another day."<br />
'''Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to model yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett's character can be looked to for resilience.''' After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Mike's point. Scarlett's arrogant personality makes her an easy target for criticism, but it can't be denied that she gets the job done. Yes, it might be by stealing away her annoying sister's fiancee (Suellen had it coming), but that's better than starving to death. Her tactics might be brash, but she is trying to survive and hold onto her family's home. Is she a hero? No, but her resilience and persistance has to be admired. I can definitely see how an audience that had been suffering through the Great Depression would see her as an inspiration. - Celia<br />
<br />
'''In the credits before the movie, it lists the names of actors and actresses who played "servants." It does not say anything about slaves. In 1939, I don't think they would have called them "slaves," but today they would.''' Gone with the Wind does not show the terrible conditions for the slaves. Amistad definitely is vivid with showing how terrible the middle passage is because it was made in 1997 not 1939. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The movie definitely portrays the hidden racism of the era. Race is never directly attacked, but the film depicts the ideology of blacks as inferior and ignorant, which was the attitude of the era of "Gone With The Wind" as well as in 1939. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As a primary source I think that '''this movie epitomizes the Lost Cause mentality.''' It adds to the revisionist history that took place in the early 1900s and then again or continued through the 1930s. Gone with the Wind depicts the noble Southern hero who is terrorized by the licentious Yankee troops. They are free from immoral or criminal behavior…they are the victims not the culprits. The Civil War itself seems to be depicted as needless and unnecessary but exciting all the same. Slavery is barely addressed in the movie adding to this revisionist stance, it almost seems like the slaves want to be on the plantation, and as if they would have stayed once they were freed. I guess this could be part of the ideal of paternalism at work. - Caryn<br />
<br />
'''I found it interesting to see how the slaves were portrayed during this time, just because the movie was filmed during a time where racism was rampant, and slavery was still a subject that I am sure people had a firsthand account of.''' The children of the Civil War generation would have been grand parents, or even parents during this time. For that, the slaves/servants were largely ignored.... or rather their status was glossed over. Nobody really wanted to get into that. Also Caryn makes an interesting point about it symbolizing the "Lost Cause" mentality, which I completely agree with. The decade was coming to a close, I wonder if people were looking for what to do next, to keep going. - Jenn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to think of the film as encouraging resilience, because Scarlett essentially "pulls herself up by her own bootstraps". While she marries a guy or two along the way, she has enough wits and strength to rebuild her own empire. Scarlett advances herself through her own land and even draws a significant income from the Georgia pines of her home state. If you are going to rebuild yourself, it's far better to use the resources of your nation rather than think that some outside group is really going to help. eh eh?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:42, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I definitely saw a connection between this film and the time period it was made. '''Something I noticed was the difference between Melanie and Scarlett being a statement of the old and new woman of the United States. Just coming out of the roaring twenties (and the depression) women were drastically changing their identies and becoming what some might say, more masculine. By Scarlett's outspokenness and keen business skills, she is the representation of what women in the 20's and 30's were striving to become. Melanie on the other hand is a representation of the old women.''' Submissive, gentle, highly fragile; all these things were associated with the old ways and in the end, Melanie dies, while Scarlett continues to thrive. _- Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
'''The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be''' (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her "trash." She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. '''After reading "Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863," there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite.''' They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
'''The Fitzhugh reading, which is the pro-slavery argument, contradicts certain points that Dr. McClurken made in class. It said that African American women did not have to do much work and that the slaves only worked about nine hour days. D'''r. McClurken taught that slaves worked about 15 hours a day, and the women either were in the kitchens and houses or were doing field work. '''The Carl Schurz reading describes the end of the war and the circumstances people found themselves in. The planters, who used to be thought of as the elite, were now in poverty and participating in menial labor in order to survive. This appears in the movie when Scarlett and her family are picking cotton in the field in order to earn money to get food.''' It was also interesting to see that some of the former slaves who were in the O’Hara household could not perform certain tasks, for example, tying up the cow. One of the African Americans actually told Scarlett that they were domestic servants and had no experience with livestock. Prissy also did not seem to have many talents when it came to housekeeping. I’m not quite sure how accurate that is. I know Deborah mentioned that its inaccurate that Prissy had no knowledge of “birthin’ babies.”-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
'''Because so much of Gone with the Wind actually takes place after the war is over, its imagining of Reconstruction is important. Scarlett returns home to a Tara that is "not only conquered in a political and military sense, but economically ruined" as Carl Shurz describes the post-war South. Scarlett, for some inexplicably reason, still had some of her former slaves to help rebuild Tara, but most Southerners had to learn how to restructure their entire way of doing things. Scarlett fits in with the all of the Southerners who "must do something, honest or dishonest, and must do it soon, to make a living." That sense of economic desperation makes Scarlett's decision to marry Mr. Kennedy and her drive to make money by any means possible seem relatively realistic.''' -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
'''Compared to what Mike E. said, I actually found the grandmother in the "Trials of a Slave Girl" reading to be a little like the Mammy character. Mammy was a black women who held the respect of other slaves and even some white people, including Rhett Butler.''' At first I thought Harriet Jacobs (the slave girl) and maybe other black people in the family or community were the only ones who respected her a great deal but something in the primary source caught my eye. When the master was building a house for Jacobs the grandmother "had high words" with him and "told him pretty plainly what she thought of his character." I don't think a slave who wasn't at least a little bit respected by her owners or white people could get away with talking in that manner. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike's point. Not only does Mammy speak out of terms to Scarlett, Rhett, and others she doesn't even know. But many of the other slaves/ex-slaves act as if they are good friends with some of the white characters. After reading "Letters from Slaves" and discussing in class, I don't think the film did a good job of portraying the slave image truthfully. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
One reading I found particularly interesting was “The Universal Law of Slavery,” by George Fitzhugh. I found comparisons not only to how whites viewed the institution of slavery in the South, but also the portrayal of slaves in the movie. In class, '''we discussed how (white) southerners really believed they were doing blacks a service by enslaving them and therefore providing them with basic survival elements and they would not know the proper way to survive on their own. In the reading by Fitzhugh he echoes this sentiment. ''' He claims that the “negro slaves of the South are the happiest,” and “not only better off as to physical comfort than free laborers, but [also] their moral condition is better.” Many southerners actually truly believed they were doing blacks a service by en-slaving them, and blacks obviously had a totally opposite view. '''In the movie, although we do not directly view any characters really even discussing slavery, let alone mentioning how blacks are better off, I believe this belief if implied. Many of the characters constantly talk about the cause and this traditional way of southern life that they possess, which is clearly dependent on slavery. Even though the characters never said how there slaves are better off en-slaved, I think it could have been implied by the weirdly good treatment of them?''' I only saw one instance of discipline when Scarlett, hit Prissy for not being able to fetch the doctor. –afrisk<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure if this was an actual question but Dr. McClurken did want us to acknowledge the memory of war. I felt that the memory of the war was not depicted well in the movie. Yes, the men came back bruised, wounded, some never came back, but they seemed to move right back into their lives. It is clear that the war left scars and Atlanta had to be rebuilt but yet it once again flourished. I thought the one point that showed hints of the war lingering around, was the $300 tax Scarlett's family had to pay during Reconstruction. It showed that Southerners were not forgiven and had to repay debts. Aside from the movie, the memory of the Civil War is alive and well, whether a Confederate flag is displayed or families pass down memorabilia, the time in history is significant to the structure of the United States and its history. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I don't know if I would say that the movie portrayed the memory of war "well", but I did notice one thing. When Scarlett is talking with Ashley after he returns to Tara, he begins to describe some of the things he experienced during the war and the battles. It slightly resembled PTSD to me. It's not super clear or defined, but it does give credit to the fact that soldiers were left dealing with stress from the war after they returned home. - Victoria Y.</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T17:48:18Z<p>Hobnail: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! -- Alex M.'''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
'''ANTEBELLUM'''<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. -- Megan W.<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
'''One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves.''' There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and '''Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy'''.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The depiction of the antebellum South and the effects of the war brought on Georgia are quite accurate. The barbecue scene illustrates the rich culture of the antebellum period. Dr. McClurken mentioned that '''the planters basically controlled the government. This is especially true in the film in the scene with all of the men at the party in one room discussing plans for war.''' The scene with the thousands of soldiers lying in the streets outside of the hospital was very powerful. It shows in a strong manner just how bad the diseases really were and their effects on the soldiers. Also, '''the portrayal of Mrs. O’Hara demonstrates the point that plantation mistresses held a remarkable amount of power in household management, food and clothing, and caring for the ill. Mrs. O’Hara holds much power in the house; even her husband says that they should consult Mrs. O’Hara, or that Mrs. O’Hara will know what to do.''' I also just have to say that I love '''the character of Mammy'''. She is so full of attitude and one liners towards Scarlett. She provides comic relief to intense moments in the movie with her straightforwardness and blunt remarks to Scarlett’s stupidity. I’m not sure if slaves would have been allowed to voice such opinions, but I’m very glad that’s how she was in the movie. I will venture a guess that Grey’s Anatomy modeled one of its main characters after Mammy.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''WARTIME'''<br />
<br />
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. -- 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" Sherman. '''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 Sherman's Union soldiers ''unnecessarily'' did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked.''' --Erin L.<br />
<br />
'''This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point.''' <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was '''the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital'''. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. '''If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene).''' Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
'''The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war''' (and how many didn't come back). Scarlett's first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. '''Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone,''' including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn't have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
'''This movie showed correctly how terrible the Civil War was.''' It '''showed how people were really excited to go to war before it started, but then they realized how terrible it is.''' One shocking scene was the hundreds of wounded soldiers lying on the ground and railroad tracks waiting for the doctor or nurse (It showed how trivial Scarlett's problem was.) Also another shocking scene was in the hospital when they are amputating one soldiers leg. I can't blame Scarlett for running out of the hospital and not wanting to go back. As mentioned above, some of the soldiers who returned (in the movie) seemed to have PTSD. They didn't know what to do after the South lost the war and their home and everything they knew before was destroyed. They also showed a change in roles. I never saw Ashley do any labor or manual work before the war, but after he was trying to split wood. Scarlett's gained more authority during and after the war. She had to do physical work, such as work in the fields, or she would have starved. -- Justine<br />
<br />
One of the points that the movie got right was the reason that many of the men went to war. Scarlett's father says in the beginning of the movie that she can't hate Tara because their land was the only thing that was worth working or fighting for. this clearly drives Scarlett's motivation throughout the film, as her subsequent marriage to Frank Kennedy and work on the plantation are primarily to save Tara. I also thought that it was interesting that in the end of the film, Ashley says that he would have freed all of his slaves when his father died whether they were legally emancipated or not. Whether or not this is true, there were clearly members of wealthy plantation families who were opposed to slavery, like Mary Chestnut. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
<br />
The makeshift hospitals stuck out as very realistic in particular. The shortage of pain meds, the shortage of beds, the brutal amputations, the lack of sanitation, and just cramming people in wherever possible. ''' Calling for Scarlett in the operating room was an unlikely plot device to make her watch the amputation of a man's leg, but other than that, the gruesome hospital seemed dead on.''' (I just realized that may seem like a sick pun, but I can't think of another phrase at the moment, so you'll have to excuse it and take my word that it wasn't intentional!) -- Cilla<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''POSTWAR'''<br />
<br />
'''Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind''', she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. '''The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder.''' This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, '''but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice.''' Also, there were '''many female widows after the war and some did remarry''' (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I also think the movie did a good job showing the change in men after returning from the war. '''When Ashley returns home for Christmas you can already see a change in his attitude towards the war, and his conversation with Scarlett when he comes back to Tara shows how despondent and useless he feels.''' ''Ashley annoys me a LOT, but it's still sad to see.'' Another factor that the film did well was '''Scarlett's struggle to feed her family when she returns to Tara. She and her (whining) sisters would most likely have NO idea how to plant and grow their own food.''' - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Celia's point about the men returning from war. I thought '''the part when Scarlett and Ashley were talking in the barn about how awful his experiences were to be especially poignant.''' Also, I thought the character transformation of Scarlett throughout the movie was done quite well. Admittedly she is kind of annoying sometimes, I found her to be amazingly smart and self-sufficient. '''She played her gender role perfectly; before the war, she was all about manipulation for the sake of sport. But, when the war came, Scarlett changed the use of manipulation in order to keep Tara.''' -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I have to agree with the early sentiments regarding the ridiculous character of Scarlett or maybe it’s just the way that Viven Leigh played her, I think that Bette Davis would have portrayed the character a little better. But, this is all beside the point. I felt that the movie certainly depicted and accurate portrayal of the men returning home from war. '''What I found really interesting was how Ashley seemed to feel emasculated by Scarlett…and possibly even his wife. He expressed this when Scarlett married Frank Kennedy in order to save Tara Plantation.''' This is something that men truly did feel when they returned from war. They were either incapacitated by being wounded or suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and possibly unable to run a household. - Caryn<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. '''Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo.''' -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how '''when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again.''' You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. '''She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town.''' Another thing the movie did right was '''displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street.''' You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw free Blacks in the street and all over the town. '''She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta.''' --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''I never understood why Hollywood chose to romanticize female characters as flighty, sobbing, narcissistic, and really obnoxious beings. Then I read the first chapters of [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200161.txt the book] and realized that is how Scarlett is portrayed.''' Clearly I agree with the comments made above. However I do think that this movie does accurately depict the reaction of the Southerners to the Civil War before, during and after. Before the war all the Men were quite arrogant, and wouldn't hear it when someone suggested that the Yankees might be better equipped. During the war it was rough, for soldiers and for those who remained behind. After the war many of the men did suffer from some sort of PTSD, as shown through Ashley Wilkes and Mr. Kennedy. -Jenn<br />
<br />
'''I'm surprised Michael G hasn't mentioned the director including death by common diseases of the day. But I was (er..) "satisfied" that at least some people died of typhoid, dysentery or yellow fever. Clearly this film is far more hardcore than the Patriot, Mel Gibson clearly you need to learn from the classics. You can still have realistic issues (terminal illnesses) and be an award winning film.''' -- BahktinJali<br />
<br />
<br />
There were several things I noticed that seemed small, but created a well rounded background for this film and the time period it portrayed. For example, when Scarlett was going to Atlanta, her mother said she could "take Prissy with her" as if Prissy were a thing to be taken wherever. Scarlett also threatens to beat Prissy several times, which goes back to what we were discussing inc class, that women were often times just as harsh with slaves as men. Another example was during the hospital scene, the doctor states, he's out of medicine, which was common during the war. I also thought it was interesting that '''you could see a clear distinction before and after the war of the new set of manners in the South.''' When Scarlett goes into the city after the war, no one is giving her the walkway, even the black men that were singing, men are "cat calling" her; all of which Scarlett contributes to the Yankees. I think the set up of these types of things set the mood and feeling of the South, both before and after the war and how it changed dramatically. '''''All in all, I wasn't as disappointed as I thought I'd be.''''' - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
'''SLAVERY AND RACE RELATIONS'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, '''the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners.''' In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
<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 treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie.''' Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." '''These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie.''' You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. '''Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee.''' Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
This movie made it seem like some of Scarlett's slaves were happy. They decided to stay with her during and after the war. As mentioned in class, most slaves worked in the fields. We did not see a lot of that in the movie, but we saw mostly the slaves working in the house. '''It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is "Gone with the Wind."''' -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was '''the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett.''' In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Rachel points out that the movie got the part about the slaves wrong. That is true and '''what really stood out was Big Sam saving Scarlett from the other men.''' We learned in class that slaves did not agree with paternalism so why would a former slave help out his former master? If I were him I might have just let it happen. He did not owe her anything. Also I think '''the portrayal of the young girl (Prissy) who stayed on did a good job showing the ways in which slaves resisted but I thought it was stupid how she was portreyed as a whole. Slaves were not stupid so I could not tell is this girl has some issues or was trying to resist.''' -LeAnn<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex and Rachael's points, but '''I also think it's a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O'Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn't have any children, I don't think it's completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her.''' - Celia<br />
<br />
'''The part of the movie that irked me the most (other than Scarlett and her thousand-yard stare) was the portrayal of the slaves.''' They seemed very loyal to the O'Haras, and even happy to be working for people who clearly had very little consideration for them. None of the slaves who we actually got to know in the movie (Prissy, Mammy, Big Sam) seemed to have any motivation to leave. Big Sam even seems pleased to be digging ditches for the Confederacy. I think that the movie would have been a lot more accurate if some of the slaves had left Tara and Scarlett had been confused about why they weren't happy there. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I was unsettled by how the slaves seemed to buy into the paternalism theory. '''They did not seem to be upset or angry to be slaves at all; rather, they seemed quite content. It also seemed like the slaves were friends with the O'Hara's instead of forced labor.''' --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
GENDER<br />
<br />
'''The thing that bothered me the most was Scarlett's character in general. I understand that not all women were passive and submissive to men, but her character seems a bit over the top.''' In my opinion it was probably a statement to women in the early 1900's about becoming stronger and more independent. However, it just didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the characters. Practically every other woman in the film is somewhat submissive to the male figures, even if not completely. I know we talked about women being put into new roles both during and after the war, but when Scarlett is running the lumberyard of the business, '''she is so overbearing to both her husband and even Ashley, that it leads me to doubt that this is the way a woman would have really acted. It may also have to do with the fact that I also really just dislike her character in general...''' - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
ANTEBELLUM<br />
<br />
'''Also, most southerners did not live like the people in Twelve Oaks and Tara'''. That was only a small percentage of the population. It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is "Gone with the Wind." -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
As we've noted in class earlier this week, '''the amount of Southerners that had the type of money the O'Hara's had was exceedingly low. Given that fact, how is it that an immigrant family could drum up so much money? I was under the impression that the majority of Irish were laborers and not wealthy plantation owners.''' Also, thanks to Professor Moon's immigration class, '''I doubt that Irish, who had to struggle to be accepted by white society, would play nicely with the slaves''' who had, at least earlier in the 1800s, in about the same socio-economic status. While they might have climb the social ladder, I doubt that the descendants of Catholic Irish would be able to do so well in this period. Am I completely off base?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:32, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed that the movie did not necessarily get wrong, but did not portray was '''the true wealth of many in the south'''. As I discovered in class, many in the south did not actually have these huge, lavish plantations like Terra and Twelve Oaks in the movie. Many southerners only had five or so slaves and would actually rent slaves from wealthier plantation owners and in the movie, all we really see are these incredibly wealthy landowners with numerous slaves working. I believe the movie did this in order to romanticize the old south and give them a lavish and distinguished reputation in order to enhance our opinions of them. '''If the movie had presented the lower classes of the south more aggressively, the movie would not of accomplished one of its main goals: romanticizing the old south'''. -afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
WARTIME<br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Mr. Hara shouted to everyone that the war was really over because Lee surrendered. In actuality, Lee's surrender had no impact on Georgia. Only with Georgia state troops surrendering did the war's end had an effect on Georgia. -A. Brudno<br />
<br />
<br />
POSTWAR<br />
<br />
'''The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. ''' As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
<br />
In class we defined carpetbaggers as northerners who came to the south after the war who may or may not have wanted to exploit the south and those who inhabited it. Scalawags were from the South and were southerners who supported the union or the Republican party later on. '''With that being said, Scarlett called a man (I can't remember his name but the man who married the "white trash" woman and made an offer to Scarlet about her house after her taxes were raised) a carpetbagger even though he should have been called a scalawag.''' I wonder if the reason for this was because the term "carpetbagger" would have been more well known or understood by an audience more than the term "scalawag" would have been. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
'''''Role of the Great War in shaping the book and movie?'''''<br />
<br />
'''This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil'''. Also, it would make '''viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation.''' This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.Scarlett said it best herself, "After all, tomorrow is another day."<br />
'''Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to model yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett's character can be looked to for resilience.''' After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Mike's point. Scarlett's arrogant personality makes her an easy target for criticism, but it can't be denied that she gets the job done. Yes, it might be by stealing away her annoying sister's fiancee (Suellen had it coming), but that's better than starving to death. Her tactics might be brash, but she is trying to survive and hold onto her family's home. Is she a hero? No, but her resilience and persistance has to be admired. I can definitely see how an audience that had been suffering through the Great Depression would see her as an inspiration. - Celia<br />
<br />
'''In the credits before the movie, it lists the names of actors and actresses who played "servants." It does not say anything about slaves. In 1939, I don't think they would have called them "slaves," but today they would.''' Gone with the Wind does not show the terrible conditions for the slaves. Amistad definitely is vivid with showing how terrible the middle passage is because it was made in 1997 not 1939. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The movie definitely portrays the hidden racism of the era. Race is never directly attacked, but the film depicts the ideology of blacks as inferior and ignorant, which was the attitude of the era of "Gone With The Wind" as well as in 1939. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As a primary source I think that '''this movie epitomizes the Lost Cause mentality.''' It adds to the revisionist history that took place in the early 1900s and then again or continued through the 1930s. Gone with the Wind depicts the noble Southern hero who is terrorized by the licentious Yankee troops. They are free from immoral or criminal behavior…they are the victims not the culprits. The Civil War itself seems to be depicted as needless and unnecessary but exciting all the same. Slavery is barely addressed in the movie adding to this revisionist stance, it almost seems like the slaves want to be on the plantation, and as if they would have stayed once they were freed. I guess this could be part of the ideal of paternalism at work. - Caryn<br />
<br />
'''I found it interesting to see how the slaves were portrayed during this time, just because the movie was filmed during a time where racism was rampant, and slavery was still a subject that I am sure people had a firsthand account of.''' The children of the Civil War generation would have been grand parents, or even parents during this time. For that, the slaves/servants were largely ignored.... or rather their status was glossed over. Nobody really wanted to get into that. Also Caryn makes an interesting point about it symbolizing the "Lost Cause" mentality, which I completely agree with. The decade was coming to a close, I wonder if people were looking for what to do next, to keep going. - Jenn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to think of the film as encouraging resilience, because Scarlett essentially "pulls herself up by her own bootstraps". While she marries a guy or two along the way, she has enough wits and strength to rebuild her own empire. Scarlett advances herself through her own land and even draws a significant income from the Georgia pines of her home state. If you are going to rebuild yourself, it's far better to use the resources of your nation rather than think that some outside group is really going to help. eh eh?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:42, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I definitely saw a connection between this film and the time period it was made. '''Something I noticed was the difference between Melanie and Scarlett being a statement of the old and new woman of the United States. Just coming out of the roaring twenties (and the depression) women were drastically changing their identies and becoming what some might say, more masculine. By Scarlett's outspokenness and keen business skills, she is the representation of what women in the 20's and 30's were striving to become. Melanie on the other hand is a representation of the old women.''' Submissive, gentle, highly fragile; all these things were associated with the old ways and in the end, Melanie dies, while Scarlett continues to thrive. _- Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
'''The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be''' (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her "trash." She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. '''After reading "Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863," there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite.''' They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
'''The Fitzhugh reading, which is the pro-slavery argument, contradicts certain points that Dr. McClurken made in class. It said that African American women did not have to do much work and that the slaves only worked about nine hour days. D'''r. McClurken taught that slaves worked about 15 hours a day, and the women either were in the kitchens and houses or were doing field work. '''The Carl Schurz reading describes the end of the war and the circumstances people found themselves in. The planters, who used to be thought of as the elite, were now in poverty and participating in menial labor in order to survive. This appears in the movie when Scarlett and her family are picking cotton in the field in order to earn money to get food.''' It was also interesting to see that some of the former slaves who were in the O’Hara household could not perform certain tasks, for example, tying up the cow. One of the African Americans actually told Scarlett that they were domestic servants and had no experience with livestock. Prissy also did not seem to have many talents when it came to housekeeping. I’m not quite sure how accurate that is. I know Deborah mentioned that its inaccurate that Prissy had no knowledge of “birthin’ babies.”-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
'''Because so much of Gone with the Wind actually takes place after the war is over, its imagining of Reconstruction is important. Scarlett returns home to a Tara that is "not only conquered in a political and military sense, but economically ruined" as Carl Shurz describes the post-war South. Scarlett, for some inexplicably reason, still had some of her former slaves to help rebuild Tara, but most Southerners had to learn how to restructure their entire way of doing things. Scarlett fits in with the all of the Southerners who "must do something, honest or dishonest, and must do it soon, to make a living." That sense of economic desperation makes Scarlett's decision to marry Mr. Kennedy and her drive to make money by any means possible seem relatively realistic.''' -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
'''Compared to what Mike E. said, I actually found the grandmother in the "Trials of a Slave Girl" reading to be a little like the Mammy character. Mammy was a black women who held the respect of other slaves and even some white people, including Rhett Butler.''' At first I thought Harriet Jacobs (the slave girl) and maybe other black people in the family or community were the only ones who respected her a great deal but something in the primary source caught my eye. When the master was building a house for Jacobs the grandmother "had high words" with him and "told him pretty plainly what she thought of his character." I don't think a slave who wasn't at least a little bit respected by her owners or white people could get away with talking in that manner. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike's point. Not only does Mammy speak out of terms to Scarlett, Rhett, and others she doesn't even know. But many of the other slaves/ex-slaves act as if they are good friends with some of the white characters. After reading "Letters from Slaves" and discussing in class, I don't think the film did a good job of portraying the slave image truthfully. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
One reading I found particularly interesting was “The Universal Law of Slavery,” by George Fitzhugh. I found comparisons not only to how whites viewed the institution of slavery in the South, but also the portrayal of slaves in the movie. In class, '''we discussed how (white) southerners really believed they were doing blacks a service by enslaving them and therefore providing them with basic survival elements and they would not know the proper way to survive on their own. In the reading by Fitzhugh he echoes this sentiment. ''' He claims that the “negro slaves of the South are the happiest,” and “not only better off as to physical comfort than free laborers, but [also] their moral condition is better.” Many southerners actually truly believed they were doing blacks a service by en-slaving them, and blacks obviously had a totally opposite view. '''In the movie, although we do not directly view any characters really even discussing slavery, let alone mentioning how blacks are better off, I believe this belief if implied. Many of the characters constantly talk about the cause and this traditional way of southern life that they possess, which is clearly dependent on slavery. Even though the characters never said how there slaves are better off en-slaved, I think it could have been implied by the weirdly good treatment of them?''' I only saw one instance of discipline when Scarlett, hit Prissy for not being able to fetch the doctor. –afrisk<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure if this was an actual question but Dr. McClurken did want us to acknowledge the memory of war. I felt that the memory of the war was not depicted well in the movie. Yes, the men came back bruised, wounded, some never came back, but they seemed to move right back into their lives. It is clear that the war left scars and Atlanta had to be rebuilt but yet it once again flourished. I thought the one point that showed hints of the war lingering around, was the $300 tax Scarlett's family had to pay during Reconstruction. It showed that Southerners were not forgiven and had to repay debts. Aside from the movie, the memory of the Civil War is alive and well, whether a Confederate flag is displayed or families pass down memorabilia, the time in history is significant to the structure of the United States and its history. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I don't know if I would say that the movie portrayed the memory of war "well", but I did notice one thing. When Scarlett is talking with Ashley after he returns to Tara, he begins to describe some of the things he experienced during the war and the battles. It slightly resembled PTSD to me. It's not super clear or defined, but it does give credit to the fact that soldiers were left dealing with stress from the war after they returned home. - Victoria Y.</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_6_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 6 Questions/Comments2010-09-30T17:47:22Z<p>Hobnail: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! -- Alex M.'''<br />
<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got right ==<br />
<br />
'''ANTEBELLUM'''<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. -- Megan W.<br />
<br />
The disdain expressed by the O'Hara's and Mammy for lower class southerners was evident from the beginning of the movie. Mrs. O'Hara comes home from a helping a lower class woman give birth, and tells Mr O'Hara that it was their overseer's child and that he should be fired for having relations with a "white trash girl." She also said that the child died in birth and that it was a blessing. Mammy frequently yells at Scarlett and tells her to stop acting like a white trash as well. Another scene that seamed realistic was when Rhett said that the Confederate Army had commandeered his horse and buggy for the war effort. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
'''One of the things I thought the movie did well was the way Scarlett treated her slaves.''' There were many times when she treated slaves pretty realistically for example when she slaps Prissy and threatens to whip her. We also talked about in class how there was no sentimental feelings from white women toward their slaves and '''Scarlet clearly showed that when she frequently insulted Mammy'''.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
The depiction of the antebellum South and the effects of the war brought on Georgia are quite accurate. The barbecue scene illustrates the rich culture of the antebellum period. Dr. McClurken mentioned that '''the planters basically controlled the government. This is especially true in the film in the scene with all of the men at the party in one room discussing plans for war.''' The scene with the thousands of soldiers lying in the streets outside of the hospital was very powerful. It shows in a strong manner just how bad the diseases really were and their effects on the soldiers. Also, '''the portrayal of Mrs. O’Hara demonstrates the point that plantation mistresses held a remarkable amount of power in household management, food and clothing, and caring for the ill. Mrs. O’Hara holds much power in the house; even her husband says that they should consult Mrs. O’Hara, or that Mrs. O’Hara will know what to do.''' I also just have to say that I love '''the character of Mammy'''. She is so full of attitude and one liners towards Scarlett. She provides comic relief to intense moments in the movie with her straightforwardness and blunt remarks to Scarlett’s stupidity. I’m not sure if slaves would have been allowed to voice such opinions, but I’m very glad that’s how she was in the movie. I will venture a guess that Grey’s Anatomy modeled one of its main characters after Mammy.<br />
-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''WARTIME'''<br />
<br />
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. -- 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" Sherman. '''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 Sherman's Union soldiers ''unnecessarily'' did is also evident in the movie when Scarlett returns to Ashley's plantation Twelve Oaks to find it utterly decimated and sacked.''' --Erin L.<br />
<br />
'''This has nothing to do with what the movie got right but I totally agree with Erin’s first point.''' <br />
Moving on… one part the movie got right was '''the use of the church in Atlanta as a hospital'''. Pews had been torn out (and probably burned for fuel) the men were then laid on the floor and cared for by the limited number nurses/doctors. If one man died another would be brought in and fill his spot. '''If there was no spot in the buildings the men would be lying on the street (as is seen in the evacuation of Atlanta scene).''' Other buildings probably used as hospitals in Atlanta would include public buildings like a town/city hall, while officers might be housed and cared for in citizens’ homes. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
'''The movie did accurately portray how many Southern men went off to war''' (and how many didn't come back). Scarlett's first husband and virtually every other man at the Twelve Oaks picnic ride off to enlist when the announcement of the war comes. And when Scarlett and Melanie are in Atlanta looking at the casualty lists many of the families huddled around burst into tears upon reading the names. '''Scarlett herself comments that nearly every family in her county lost someone,''' including both of the Tarleton brothers. It was the rare family that didn't have a father, son, or brother in harms way at any given time. -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
'''This movie showed correctly how terrible the Civil War was.''' It '''showed how people were really excited to go to war before it started, but then they realized how terrible it is.''' One shocking scene was the hundreds of wounded soldiers lying on the ground and railroad tracks waiting for the doctor or nurse (It showed how trivial Scarlett's problem was.) Also another shocking scene was in the hospital when they are amputating one soldiers leg. I can't blame Scarlett for running out of the hospital and not wanting to go back. As mentioned above, some of the soldiers who returned (in the movie) seemed to have PTSD. They didn't know what to do after the South lost the war and their home and everything they knew before was destroyed. They also showed a change in roles. I never saw Ashley do any labor or manual work before the war, but after he was trying to split wood. Scarlett's gained more authority during and after the war. She had to do physical work, such as work in the fields, or she would have starved. -- Justine<br />
<br />
One of the points that the movie got right was the reason that many of the men went to war. Scarlett's father says in the beginning of the movie that she can't hate Tara because their land was the only thing that was worth working or fighting for. this clearly drives Scarlett's motivation throughout the film, as her subsequent marriage to Frank Kennedy and work on the plantation are primarily to save Tara. I also thought that it was interesting that in the end of the film, Ashley says that he would have freed all of his slaves when his father died whether they were legally emancipated or not. Whether or not this is true, there were clearly members of wealthy plantation families who were opposed to slavery, like Mary Chestnut. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
<br />
The makeshift hospitals stuck out as very realistic in particular. The shortage of pain meds, the shortage of beds, the brutal amputations, the lack of sanitation, and just cramming people in wherever possible. ''' Calling for Scarlett in the operating room was an unlikely plot device to make her watch the amputation of a man's leg, but other than that, the gruesome hospital seemed dead on.''' (I just realized that may seem like a sick pun, but I can't think of another phrase at the moment, so you'll have to excuse it and take my word that it wasn't intentional!) -- Cilla<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
'''POSTWAR'''<br />
<br />
'''Scarlett's behavior post-war did reflect a change in gender roles, even though she had always spoken her mind''', she did find a way to keep her plantation through her business and was able to use that angle in her dealings with men. Scarlett always found a way to make her presence known and it showed she was a.) slightly a brat and b.) established that women were viewed in the same scope as men, not outside or below it. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
There are certain aspects of the movie that appear to be accurate in parts. '''The men come back from war with what seems like post-traumatic stress disorder.''' This type of depression allows/forces women to take over duties that had previously considered a mans job, '''but Scarlett was not thrust into this position, she took it because Mr. Kennedy was not doing his business justice.''' Also, there were '''many female widows after the war and some did remarry''' (Scarlett). Further more, those men that did die in war were made to look like heroes that gave their life for the right cause on the glorious battlefield. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I also think the movie did a good job showing the change in men after returning from the war. '''When Ashley returns home for Christmas you can already see a change in his attitude towards the war, and his conversation with Scarlett when he comes back to Tara shows how despondent and useless he feels.''' ''Ashley annoys me a LOT, but it's still sad to see.'' Another factor that the film did well was '''Scarlett's struggle to feed her family when she returns to Tara. She and her (whining) sisters would most likely have NO idea how to plant and grow their own food.''' - Celia<br />
<br />
I agree with Celia's point about the men returning from war. I thought '''the part when Scarlett and Ashley were talking in the barn about how awful his experiences were to be especially poignant.''' Also, I thought the character transformation of Scarlett throughout the movie was done quite well. Admittedly she is kind of annoying sometimes, I found her to be amazingly smart and self-sufficient. '''She played her gender role perfectly; before the war, she was all about manipulation for the sake of sport. But, when the war came, Scarlett changed the use of manipulation in order to keep Tara.''' -- Kelly R.<br />
<br />
I have to agree with the early sentiments regarding the ridiculous character of Scarlett or maybe it’s just the way that Viven Leigh played her, I think that Bette Davis would have portrayed the character a little better. But, this is all beside the point. I felt that the movie certainly depicted and accurate portrayal of the men returning home from war. '''What I found really interesting was how Ashley seemed to feel emasculated by Scarlett…and possibly even his wife. He expressed this when Scarlett married Frank Kennedy in order to save Tara Plantation.''' This is something that men truly did feel when they returned from war. They were either incapacitated by being wounded or suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome and possibly unable to run a household. - Caryn<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did very well in portraying the different reactions women had to being forced into new roles. Scarlett, although initially struggling during the chaos in Atlanta with her job as a nurse, showed how women could fully embrace leadership roles in the Reconstruction Era. From completely controlling what was left of the plantation at Tara, to eventually running one of the most successful businesses in Atlanta, she proved just how smart and business-savvy women could be. '''Her sister Sue Ellen, however, demonstrated that many women were merely adjusting as far as necessary and wanted nothing more than to return to the pre-war status quo.''' -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
I feel like each week the movies are slowly becoming more and more historically accurate! In class, we talked about how '''when the men returned home from war, they felt the need to assert themselves into society and make a name for themselves again, especially the Confederate soldiers. In the movie, Ashley claimed he wanted to "stand alone" when he spoke about moving to New York to work at a bank and try and get his life back on track again.''' You could also see how Scarlett had taken on more responsibilities and actually had to experience real work during the war and afterward. '''She had to pick cotton along with the other women of the household, but even when the men returned, she quickly took over the business of Mr. Kennedy (her 2nd of 3 husbands... that's a whole other topic) and was even driving her own buggy, which was the talk of the town.''' Another thing the movie did right was '''displaying Atlanta after the war. The carpetbaggers from the North were swarming the city and were giving free Blacks deals for land, etc. Also, free Blacks were singing and dancing in the street.''' You could see Scarlett's shock when she saw free Blacks in the street and all over the town. '''She seemed to have had a sense of disillusionment about the whole experience she saw in Atlanta.''' --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
<br />
'''I never understood why Hollywood chose to romanticize female characters as flighty, sobbing, narcissistic, and really obnoxious beings. Then I read the first chapters of [http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200161.txt the book] and realized that is how Scarlett is portrayed.''' Clearly I agree with the comments made above. However I do think that this movie does accurately depict the reaction of the Southerners to the Civil War before, during and after. Before the war all the Men were quite arrogant, and wouldn't hear it when someone suggested that the Yankees might be better equipped. During the war it was rough, for soldiers and for those who remained behind. After the war many of the men did suffer from some sort of PTSD, as shown through Ashley Wilkes and Mr. Kennedy. -Jenn<br />
<br />
'''I'm surprised Michael G hasn't mentioned the director including death by common diseases of the day. But I was (er..) "satisfied" that at least some people died of typhoid, dysentery or yellow fever. Clearly this film is far more hardcore than the Patriot, Mel Gibson clearly you need to learn from the classics. You can still have realistic issues (terminal illnesses) and be an award winning film.''' -- BahktinJali<br />
<br />
<br />
There were several things I noticed that seemed small, but created a well rounded background for this film and the time period it portrayed. For example, when Scarlett was going to Atlanta, her mother said she could "take Prissy with her" as if Prissy were a thing to be taken wherever. Scarlett also threatens to beat Prissy several times, which goes back to what we were discussing inc class, that women were often times just as harsh with slaves as men. Another example was during the hospital scene, the doctor states, he's out of medicine, which was common during the war. I also thought it was interesting that '''you could see a clear distinction before and after the war of the new set of manners in the South.''' When Scarlett goes into the city after the war, no one is giving her the walkway, even the black men that were singing, men are "cat calling" her; all of which Scarlett contributes to the Yankees. I think the set up of these types of things set the mood and feeling of the South, both before and after the war and how it changed dramatically. '''''All in all, I wasn't as disappointed as I thought I'd be.''''' - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Things the movie got wrong ==<br />
<br />
'''SLAVERY AND RACE RELATIONS'''<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
First of all, watching the entire war scene was comparable to my own little version of the "Middle Passage." That aside, '''the ex-slaves in this movie typify what the southerners always believed their slaves to be, they where happy to serve their owners.''' In fact, they stayed with their masters during the entirety of the war and after. Also, they here the voice of the little white girl they used to work for at one time and come to her rescue against the "carpetbaggers," who were more like trolls under the bridge. Then there is the issue with the women prior to the war. As we learned in class, women had to shift their roles and take charge when men who came back from war were too depressed and inept to do so. This is the case for the movie, but Mrs. O'Hara was telling Mr. O'Hara what to do before the war even began. - Mike E. <br />
<br />
<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 treatment of slavery was the most egregious element in the movie.''' Two of my favorite quotes in the movie were when Ashley, describing what he misses about the Old South to Scarlett, says that he misses "the soft negro laughter from the porch." The other is when Gerald O'Hara is lecturing Scarlett on how to treat inferiors, he says "you must be firm with inferiors, but you must be gentle with them." '''These comments represent the pervasive message in the movie, that slaves actually enjoyed slavery and that they were treated with compassion. The paternalistic view of slavery, is the only one represented in the movie.''' You never see a slave mistreated in the film and they seem to accept their roles without any qualms. '''Scarlett's mother even sends her slaves away to work for the Confederate Army without any fear that they will flee.''' Another one of the O'Hara's slaves has left the plantation, but comes running to save Scarlett when she is being attacked, and takes her current husband. Mammy rarely acts with deference to Scarlett, rather she frequently yells at her and insults her, which is not how a household slave would have behaved in the Antebellum South. Gone with the Wind treats slavery as a harmless institution that everyone is happy with. - Michael G.<br />
<br />
This movie made it seem like some of Scarlett's slaves were happy. They decided to stay with her during and after the war. As mentioned in class, most slaves worked in the fields. We did not see a lot of that in the movie, but we saw mostly the slaves working in the house. '''It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is "Gone with the Wind."''' -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
One of the things the movie got wrong was '''the way that some of Scarlett's slaves stayed with her after the war and throughout her marriage to Rhett.''' In class we talked about how slaves wanted to get away from the old masters and create new lives.-Rachael A.<br />
<br />
Rachel points out that the movie got the part about the slaves wrong. That is true and '''what really stood out was Big Sam saving Scarlett from the other men.''' We learned in class that slaves did not agree with paternalism so why would a former slave help out his former master? If I were him I might have just let it happen. He did not owe her anything. Also I think '''the portrayal of the young girl (Prissy) who stayed on did a good job showing the ways in which slaves resisted but I thought it was stupid how she was portreyed as a whole. Slaves were not stupid so I could not tell is this girl has some issues or was trying to resist.''' -LeAnn<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Rachael's point. Along with what she said, another thing the movie got wrong was how they displayed Black and White relations was when the slaves helped Scarlett. While she was being attacked in her buggy while going to the shantytown, two or three of her former slaves showed up and fought the men off. Then, one of them took her back to her home. In reality, would that have actually happened? I highly doubt it, because once emancipated, slaves had no desire to even associate with white people, much less take care of their former masters and mistresses. --- Alex M.<br />
<br />
I agree with Alex and Rachael's points, but '''I also think it's a little reasonable to suggest that at least Mammy, if not the other servants, would stay with Scarlett. Mammy raised Mrs. O'Hara and all of the daughters. She clearly loves Scarlett, and if she doesn't have any children, I don't think it's completely irrational to suggest that she considers Scarlett her family, and would want to stay with her.''' - Celia<br />
<br />
'''The part of the movie that irked me the most (other than Scarlett and her thousand-yard stare) was the portrayal of the slaves.''' They seemed very loyal to the O'Haras, and even happy to be working for people who clearly had very little consideration for them. None of the slaves who we actually got to know in the movie (Prissy, Mammy, Big Sam) seemed to have any motivation to leave. Big Sam even seems pleased to be digging ditches for the Confederacy. I think that the movie would have been a lot more accurate if some of the slaves had left Tara and Scarlett had been confused about why they weren't happy there. --Meagan P.<br />
<br />
I was unsettled by how the slaves seemed to buy into the paternalism theory. '''They did not seem to be upset or angry to be slaves at all; rather, they seemed quite content. It also seemed like the slaves were friends with the O'Hara's instead of forced labor.''' --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
GENDER<br />
<br />
'''The thing that bothered me the most was Scarlett's character in general. I understand that not all women were passive and submissive to men, but her character seems a bit over the top.''' In my opinion it was probably a statement to women in the early 1900's about becoming stronger and more independent. However, it just didn't seem to fit in with the rest of the characters. Practically every other woman in the film is somewhat submissive to the male figures, even if not completely. I know we talked about women being put into new roles both during and after the war, but when Scarlett is running the lumberyard of the business, '''she is so overbearing to both her husband and even Ashley, that it leads me to doubt that this is the way a woman would have really acted. It may also have to do with the fact that I also really just dislike her character in general...''' - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
ANTEBELLUM<br />
<br />
'''Also, most southerners did not live like the people in Twelve Oaks and Tara'''. That was only a small percentage of the population. It definitely romanticizes the south and makes the audience sad that that way of life is "Gone with the Wind." -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
As we've noted in class earlier this week, '''the amount of Southerners that had the type of money the O'Hara's had was exceedingly low. Given that fact, how is it that an immigrant family could drum up so much money? I was under the impression that the majority of Irish were laborers and not wealthy plantation owners.''' Also, thanks to Professor Moon's immigration class, '''I doubt that Irish, who had to struggle to be accepted by white society, would play nicely with the slaves''' who had, at least earlier in the 1800s, in about the same socio-economic status. While they might have climb the social ladder, I doubt that the descendants of Catholic Irish would be able to do so well in this period. Am I completely off base?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:32, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed that the movie did not necessarily get wrong, but did not portray was '''the true wealth of many in the south'''. As I discovered in class, many in the south did not actually have these huge, lavish plantations like Terra and Twelve Oaks in the movie. Many southerners only had five or so slaves and would actually rent slaves from wealthier plantation owners and in the movie, all we really see are these incredibly wealthy landowners with numerous slaves working. I believe the movie did this in order to romanticize the old south and give them a lavish and distinguished reputation in order to enhance our opinions of them. '''If the movie had presented the lower classes of the south more aggressively, the movie would not of accomplished one of its main goals: romanticizing the old south'''. -afrisk<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
WARTIME<br />
<br />
What I had a problem with in the church hospital scene was that Charlotte was sent to help in the amputation. As Dr. McClurken mentioned in class the women nurses didn’t really help in the medical duties that nurses today assist in. However, it was late in the war and the situation might have been desperate enough for them to use the female nurses as aids in the surgery. Additionally, I find it hard to believe that the slaves would remain with the O’Haras post-war. Only Prissy is absent after the war is over. -Megan Mc.<br />
<br />
Mr. Hara shouted to everyone that the war was really over because Lee surrendered. In actuality, Lee's surrender had no impact on Georgia. Only with Georgia state troops surrendering did the war's end had an effect on Georgia.<br />
<br />
<br />
POSTWAR<br />
<br />
'''The numerous times Scarlett was attacked was something that I really had a problem with. ''' As Professor McClurken said in class, although attacks on newly-freed African-American girls were common, the likelihood of someone of Scarlett's status being attacked was relatively minimal. The Union soldier's intentions at Tara when he is stealing the jewelry are not explicit, as he doesn't get close enough to physically attack Scarlett before she shoots him, but that seems to be what the filmmakers are implying. This, combined with the second time she is attacked in the shanty town, make it seem as if violence against white, upper-class women was commonplace. -Melissa E.<br />
<br />
<br />
In class we defined carpetbaggers as northerners who came to the south after the war who may or may not have wanted to exploit the south and those who inhabited it. Scalawags were from the South and were southerners who supported the union or the Republican party later on. '''With that being said, Scarlett called a man (I can't remember his name but the man who married the "white trash" woman and made an offer to Scarlet about her house after her taxes were raised) a carpetbagger even though he should have been called a scalawag.''' I wonder if the reason for this was because the term "carpetbagger" would have been more well known or understood by an audience more than the term "scalawag" would have been. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
== The movie as a primary source about the time/people who made it ==<br />
<br />
'''''Role of the Great War in shaping the book and movie?'''''<br />
<br />
'''This movie was released during the Great Depression and it appears that it would give people hope in a time of turmoil'''. Also, it would make '''viewers realize that their trials and tribulations were not the first of their kind for this nation.''' This movie and the corresponding book was to be proof that in the depths of tragedy and loss, some good can come out of it. The fact is that the sun will rise tomorrow.Scarlett said it best herself, "After all, tomorrow is another day."<br />
'''Although Scarlett is not exactly the best character to model yourself after, unless you want to marry as many men as you can until you finally return to your previous social status. In reality, Scarlett's character can be looked to for resilience.''' After the burning of Atlanta, Scarlett returns home and is just about starved to death. She wanders into the field, pulls a raw radish from the soil, and devours it. At this point she had reached the bottom of the barrel, which many Americans at this time could relate to, and at that moment decided that no matter what she is determined to make it through this hardship. This type of attitude is what the American people should have looked to for inspiration in their own life. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
I completely agree with Mike's point. Scarlett's arrogant personality makes her an easy target for criticism, but it can't be denied that she gets the job done. Yes, it might be by stealing away her annoying sister's fiancee (Suellen had it coming), but that's better than starving to death. Her tactics might be brash, but she is trying to survive and hold onto her family's home. Is she a hero? No, but her resilience and persistance has to be admired. I can definitely see how an audience that had been suffering through the Great Depression would see her as an inspiration. - Celia<br />
<br />
'''In the credits before the movie, it lists the names of actors and actresses who played "servants." It does not say anything about slaves. In 1939, I don't think they would have called them "slaves," but today they would.''' Gone with the Wind does not show the terrible conditions for the slaves. Amistad definitely is vivid with showing how terrible the middle passage is because it was made in 1997 not 1939. -- Justine R.<br />
<br />
The movie definitely portrays the hidden racism of the era. Race is never directly attacked, but the film depicts the ideology of blacks as inferior and ignorant, which was the attitude of the era of "Gone With The Wind" as well as in 1939. --Anna Holman<br />
<br />
As a primary source I think that '''this movie epitomizes the Lost Cause mentality.''' It adds to the revisionist history that took place in the early 1900s and then again or continued through the 1930s. Gone with the Wind depicts the noble Southern hero who is terrorized by the licentious Yankee troops. They are free from immoral or criminal behavior…they are the victims not the culprits. The Civil War itself seems to be depicted as needless and unnecessary but exciting all the same. Slavery is barely addressed in the movie adding to this revisionist stance, it almost seems like the slaves want to be on the plantation, and as if they would have stayed once they were freed. I guess this could be part of the ideal of paternalism at work. - Caryn<br />
<br />
'''I found it interesting to see how the slaves were portrayed during this time, just because the movie was filmed during a time where racism was rampant, and slavery was still a subject that I am sure people had a firsthand account of.''' The children of the Civil War generation would have been grand parents, or even parents during this time. For that, the slaves/servants were largely ignored.... or rather their status was glossed over. Nobody really wanted to get into that. Also Caryn makes an interesting point about it symbolizing the "Lost Cause" mentality, which I completely agree with. The decade was coming to a close, I wonder if people were looking for what to do next, to keep going. - Jenn<br />
<br />
It's interesting to think of the film as encouraging resilience, because Scarlett essentially "pulls herself up by her own bootstraps". While she marries a guy or two along the way, she has enough wits and strength to rebuild her own empire. Scarlett advances herself through her own land and even draws a significant income from the Georgia pines of her home state. If you are going to rebuild yourself, it's far better to use the resources of your nation rather than think that some outside group is really going to help. eh eh?--[[User:Bakhtinjali|Bakhtinjali]] 22:42, 29 September 2010 (MDT)<br />
<br />
I definitely saw a connection between this film and the time period it was made. '''Something I noticed was the difference between Melanie and Scarlett being a statement of the old and new woman of the United States. Just coming out of the roaring twenties (and the depression) women were drastically changing their identies and becoming what some might say, more masculine. By Scarlett's outspokenness and keen business skills, she is the representation of what women in the 20's and 30's were striving to become. Melanie on the other hand is a representation of the old women.''' Submissive, gentle, highly fragile; all these things were associated with the old ways and in the end, Melanie dies, while Scarlett continues to thrive. _- Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
== Comments on the reading versus the movie ==<br />
'''The excerpt we read from "The Journal of Ella Gertrude Clanton Thomas" was fascinating. Several themes in it were seen in the movie: the devaluation of money; the men's bitterness ("Mr. T. appeared cast down, utterly spirit broken...", 265); and, most particularly, how some women were not taught to keep house and weren't about to learn. Now, Scarlett and Melanie pulled up their Big-Girl shimmys and turned their delicate hands to many tasks. But Suellen didn't want to pick cotton and was probably as bewildered in the kitchen as Mrs. Thomas appeared to be''' (272). --- Deborah S.<br />
<br />
The character of the slave named Mammy troubles me a little bit. At some points in the movie I was scared for her life due to the way she talked to the children of the masters she was owned by, the way she talked to white lady that no one like and called her "trash." She even told a Union officer that he had better not question the word of Mrs. Wilkes. '''After reading "Letters From Slaves, 1795-1863," there is no proof that slaves or ex-slaves for that matter would address their masters or any other whites in a way that would be seen as disrespectful in any way. These letters actually show the opposite.''' They show that these women showed a tremendous amount of respect for their racial counterparts. Even if they were cursing them inside, there was no evidence that they let it come out verbally. - Mike E.<br />
<br />
'''The Fitzhugh reading, which is the pro-slavery argument, contradicts certain points that Dr. McClurken made in class. It said that African American women did not have to do much work and that the slaves only worked about nine hour days. D'''r. McClurken taught that slaves worked about 15 hours a day, and the women either were in the kitchens and houses or were doing field work. '''The Carl Schurz reading describes the end of the war and the circumstances people found themselves in. The planters, who used to be thought of as the elite, were now in poverty and participating in menial labor in order to survive. This appears in the movie when Scarlett and her family are picking cotton in the field in order to earn money to get food.''' It was also interesting to see that some of the former slaves who were in the O’Hara household could not perform certain tasks, for example, tying up the cow. One of the African Americans actually told Scarlett that they were domestic servants and had no experience with livestock. Prissy also did not seem to have many talents when it came to housekeeping. I’m not quite sure how accurate that is. I know Deborah mentioned that its inaccurate that Prissy had no knowledge of “birthin’ babies.”-Samantha W.<br />
<br />
'''Because so much of Gone with the Wind actually takes place after the war is over, its imagining of Reconstruction is important. Scarlett returns home to a Tara that is "not only conquered in a political and military sense, but economically ruined" as Carl Shurz describes the post-war South. Scarlett, for some inexplicably reason, still had some of her former slaves to help rebuild Tara, but most Southerners had to learn how to restructure their entire way of doing things. Scarlett fits in with the all of the Southerners who "must do something, honest or dishonest, and must do it soon, to make a living." That sense of economic desperation makes Scarlett's decision to marry Mr. Kennedy and her drive to make money by any means possible seem relatively realistic.''' -Mary Ann<br />
<br />
'''Compared to what Mike E. said, I actually found the grandmother in the "Trials of a Slave Girl" reading to be a little like the Mammy character. Mammy was a black women who held the respect of other slaves and even some white people, including Rhett Butler.''' At first I thought Harriet Jacobs (the slave girl) and maybe other black people in the family or community were the only ones who respected her a great deal but something in the primary source caught my eye. When the master was building a house for Jacobs the grandmother "had high words" with him and "told him pretty plainly what she thought of his character." I don't think a slave who wasn't at least a little bit respected by her owners or white people could get away with talking in that manner. -Amy V.<br />
<br />
I agree with Mike's point. Not only does Mammy speak out of terms to Scarlett, Rhett, and others she doesn't even know. But many of the other slaves/ex-slaves act as if they are good friends with some of the white characters. After reading "Letters from Slaves" and discussing in class, I don't think the film did a good job of portraying the slave image truthfully. - Victoria Y.<br />
<br />
One reading I found particularly interesting was “The Universal Law of Slavery,” by George Fitzhugh. I found comparisons not only to how whites viewed the institution of slavery in the South, but also the portrayal of slaves in the movie. In class, '''we discussed how (white) southerners really believed they were doing blacks a service by enslaving them and therefore providing them with basic survival elements and they would not know the proper way to survive on their own. In the reading by Fitzhugh he echoes this sentiment. ''' He claims that the “negro slaves of the South are the happiest,” and “not only better off as to physical comfort than free laborers, but [also] their moral condition is better.” Many southerners actually truly believed they were doing blacks a service by en-slaving them, and blacks obviously had a totally opposite view. '''In the movie, although we do not directly view any characters really even discussing slavery, let alone mentioning how blacks are better off, I believe this belief if implied. Many of the characters constantly talk about the cause and this traditional way of southern life that they possess, which is clearly dependent on slavery. Even though the characters never said how there slaves are better off en-slaved, I think it could have been implied by the weirdly good treatment of them?''' I only saw one instance of discipline when Scarlett, hit Prissy for not being able to fetch the doctor. –afrisk<br />
<br />
== Questions asked in class ==<br />
<br />
I am not sure if this was an actual question but Dr. McClurken did want us to acknowledge the memory of war. I felt that the memory of the war was not depicted well in the movie. Yes, the men came back bruised, wounded, some never came back, but they seemed to move right back into their lives. It is clear that the war left scars and Atlanta had to be rebuilt but yet it once again flourished. I thought the one point that showed hints of the war lingering around, was the $300 tax Scarlett's family had to pay during Reconstruction. It showed that Southerners were not forgiven and had to repay debts. Aside from the movie, the memory of the Civil War is alive and well, whether a Confederate flag is displayed or families pass down memorabilia, the time in history is significant to the structure of the United States and its history. -Megan W.<br />
<br />
I don't know if I would say that the movie portrayed the memory of war "well", but I did notice one thing. When Scarlett is talking with Ashley after he returns to Tara, he begins to describe some of the things he experienced during the war and the battles. It slightly resembled PTSD to me. It's not super clear or defined, but it does give credit to the fact that soldiers were left dealing with stress from the war after they returned home. - Victoria Y.</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-08-27T00:25:53Z<p>Hobnail: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is a test.</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_2_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 2 Questions/Comments2010-08-26T18:14:08Z<p>Hobnail: New page: First comment.</p>
<hr />
<div>First comment.</div>Hobnailhttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329-2010--Week_1_Questions/Comments329-2010--Week 1 Questions/Comments2010-08-26T17:59:39Z<p>Hobnail: </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 />
New comment -- <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.<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. -Debbie M.</div>Hobnail 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