Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ApiMain::$mCommit is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/api/ApiMain.php on line 195
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 571
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 585
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 578
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 603
Deprecated: Return type of ExplodeIterator::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/StringUtils.php on line 553
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::current() should either be compatible with Iterator::current(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 186
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::next() should either be compatible with Iterator::next(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 203
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::key() should either be compatible with Iterator::key(): mixed, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 196
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::valid() should either be compatible with Iterator::valid(): bool, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 212
Deprecated: Return type of ResultWrapper::rewind() should either be compatible with Iterator::rewind(): void, or the #[\ReturnTypeWillChange] attribute should be used to temporarily suppress the notice in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/DatabaseUtility.php on line 175
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property MessageCache::$mMemc is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/cache/MessageCache.php on line 135
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property LoadBalancer::$mWriteIndex is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/db/LoadBalancer.php on line 59
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Parser::$mPreprocessorClass is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Parser.php on line 234
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property RequestContext::$recursion is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/context/RequestContext.php on line 292
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property PPDStack::$accum is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/parser/Preprocessor_DOM.php on line 755
Warning: preg_match(): Compilation failed: subpattern name must start with a non-digit at offset 8 in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/MagicWord.php on line 907
Deprecated: Using ${var} in strings is deprecated, use {$var} instead in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Pager.php on line 908
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$contribs is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 627
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$tagFilter is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 629
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$nsInvert is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 630
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$associated is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 631
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$deletedOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 633
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property ContribsPager::$topOnly is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/specials/SpecialContributions.php on line 634
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContentHandler::$mModelName is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/ContentHandler.php on line 402
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mTextId is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 505
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property Revision::$mUnpatrolled is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/Revision.php on line 661
Deprecated: Creation of dynamic property WikitextContent::$mText is deprecated in /home/umwhisto/public_html/mcclurken/wiki/includes/content/TextContent.php on line 51
Deprecated: header(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($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=Jbell2jaMcClurken Wiki - User contributions [en]2026-09-18T22:20:51ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.22.0https://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments329--Week 15 Questions/Comments2008-12-03T22:16:17Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* Comments on Reading in ''Reel History'' */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
I'm going to assume that all of the video clips and radio broadcasts were the originals, so showing the clips and audio clips of the time brings authenticity to the movie. Seeing as the movie was released only a few years after the scandal dissipated, and two years after Nixon's resignation, it feels real. Nixon's impeachment hearings made history back in the 1970s, and much like 9/11 was to us in 2003, people remember how they felt during that time. It's akin to ''Best Years of Our Lives'' in that it's so close to the event. Unlike in the ''Patriot'' where people were acting as people who lived two hundred years ago, these actors -remember-. -Lauren <br />
<br />
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went. The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
The film didn't do a ton to explain this in detail, but through the newspaper headlines we see that Eagleton was picked as the original VP but then in other news snippets we see that McGovern is forced to be dropped from the ticket. Then in one of the planning meetings the editors joke over how nobody wants to take the now vacant VP spot, referencing the names mentioned in class. While this was something that fell outside of the focus of the film, it was nice to see that it was subtly worked into the story.- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
All the women shown working in this movie were doing various types of secretarial work, and not working as say reporters. I'm guessing this is an accurate portrayal of working women of this time, since this movie took place during the woman's rights movement. -Katherine Stinson<br />
<br />
<br />
I wondered for a while why "Woodstein" always introduced themselves as "Hi this is ____ from the Washington Post," and then go on. But then I realized that it was important (at least back then) for reporters to identify themselves. I felt that the "on record" vs "off record" barriers were really clearly defined. Somehow I am a little skeptical that reporters today are so gracious and just, though I haven't been interviewed by the Washington Post recently so how do I really know? - Elle<br />
<br />
In response to Kellye's comment about Deep Throat, I thought his role in the movie was sufficient. In the film, it seemed that Woodward only went to his source when he and Bernstein ran into a road-block during their investigation (which was often). I also wondered why DT only met with Woodward and not Bernstein, but apparently DT was only Woodward's source and DT never met Bernstein at all during the investigation. This was key when Felt (DT) was asked if he ever leaked information to Woodward AND Bernstein. According to the book, Woodward wondered if Felt denied this and got out of it b/c of a technicality (he only leaked info to Woodward). - David F.<br />
<br />
I felt the movie did a pretty good job of portraying the relationship of Bernstein and Woodward. Though they worked together in the movie their were several signs that they didn't particularly like each other since they would do things without telling each other about it and they were portrayed a bit competitive. This movie also does a good job at showing the depth and significance of CREEP in showing just how deep they were in the American government and talking about the various things they were involved in. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Perhaps things have changed since the 70s, but how did Woodstein never get caught in traffic? I mean this is DC we are talking about here. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I am curious as to whether the safety of Woodward and Bernstein was played up for the sake of the film? Certainly they were being spied on, but did they really have to fear their lives? That whole fear aspect seemed a bit awkward in the film and I am curious if it was a real fear or something played up to add tension in the film?- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
In the book and in the movie, Woodward would put the flag up whenever he wanted to meet w/ Deep Throat, and DT would mark the NY Times in case he wanted to meet w/ Woodward. However, the movie primarily showed Woodward making an effort to meet DT. How often did DT request to meet w/ Woodward? - David F.<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
Would this movie really be a secondary source about the Watergate scandal? Dr. McClurken said that the filmmaker was thinking about making the movie as the scandal was happening and that the rights to make a movie out of the book was bought some time around then.-Lauren<br />
<br />
One revelation that the movie showed through Woodstein's work that I think is important is how the dirty tricks had been going on since long before the Watergate break-in, back at least to the formation of CREEP. At one point, Bradlee told Woodstein that only half the public polled had heard of the name Watergate. We know that by the time Nixon resigned, the whole nation knew about it, but they may not have known just how far back it went. With all Woodstein's investigation and the stated realization of how much larger the issue was than the break-in, this shows that CREEP's workings had been successfully kept secret for a long time. -Whitney Holcomb.<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Kellye, this movie may have definitely helped to push people over to Democrats in 1976 because they were reminded right before the election about the Watergate Scandal and that many Republicans tried to cover it up and lied about it.--Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
In the beginning, there was darkness and it was good; then there was a loud and jolting noise of a typewriter. I wonder if the filmmakers did that to convey how the American were in relation to knowing what was going on with President Nixon? The people were happy because they didn't know what was happening, then Woodstein reported what their investigation had uncovered and since they wrote via the typewriter, that machine woke the population up with a startle.-Lauren <br />
<br />
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Tagging onto Christine's comment, I think it was a very important preface to the movie that McClurken specified that it was a movie about the Washington Post breaking the story of Watergate. Part of me was like "what? we didn't see what actually happens!" but we did see the Post succeed in cracking the story, and the trial and all those details were irrelevant to the Post story. - Elle<br />
<br />
I like that it shows the half-legitimate ways Woodstein were "confirming" information from sources. They could be very indirect, without making the people being questioned explicitly state an answer, effectively getting information from those who didn't want to talk. My favorite was when Bernstein counted to ten on the phone about Haldeman. Also, there was getting the bookkeeper to nod at the initials L, M, and P. Third, when they got Sloan to finally say that he "would not have a problem" with their accusatory article if they published it. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
In reference to Dr. M's reference to the Orioles in lecture, I recognized the actor who played Rosenfeld, Jack Warden, as Juror 7 from 12 Angry Men. He was the guy who kept wanting to reach a verdict quickly because he had Yankees tickets and said the line which still resonates for dopes like me who still root for the O's: "Baltimore? That's like being hit in the head with a crow bar once a day. " Ugh. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I too am a Baltimore sports fan! Baltimore Sports teams have been quite successful considering none of their franchises are ancient. The Colts were only in Baltimore for roughly 30 years yet had many championships to boast. They were also involved in some of the most pivotal games in NFL history: the 1958 Championship game versus the New York Giants which ushered in the era of televised football, Super Bowl III where the upstart New York Jets from the Mickey Mouse League (the AFL) beat the Colts in one of the biggest upsets leading to the merger in 1970, and "the ghost to the post" game in 1977 vs. the Raiders. The Orioles were a great team in the late '60s and early '70s and could have won even more championships. Cal Ripken will go down as one of the best and purest players in the game, now if he could just take over the team they could return to prominence. Now to my point, I think this is an important movie because without the Post article (or any other press investigation of the break-in) there is a good chance that the crimes of the Nixon administration would have gone unchecked. Movies like Stone's ''Nixon'' do not place much emphasis on the Post article, but without Woodstein's work would there have been a resignation? - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
A lot of the methods of historical movies talked about in "Reel History" are present in this movie. Historic TV clips were used throughout the movie and did a good job of helping contributing to the historic feel of the movie. They also follow the method of the protagonist character Bernstein and Woodward and villian character CREEP and those involved with the coverup. There is always a feeling of paranoia throughout the movie showed by the dark scenes and especially when Woodward meets with Bernstein to show the potential danger even when it never directly shows any characters planning to do anything against Woodward and Bernstein. There is also the resolution at the end of the movie that shows the success of the protagonists. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall Comments on Movie ==<br />
<br />
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward<br />
<br />
While I completely agree that this type of journalism is vital to preserving democracy, does anyone feel like in the post-Watergate world we are too quick in assuming the worst of our politicians (perhaps this is a bad question in the post Bush era)? This was a sentiment brought up in a book I had to read for another class which addressed declining voter turnout, and I was curious if anyone else felt that the media now perhaps tries too hard to uncover the next Watergate? The book (The Vanishing Voter) argues that the media has taken a "never again" type stance toward political corruption and that this has at times led to overly negative news coverage, which has in turn depressed voters into apathy towards the whole political process. Is this a change in the practices of the media, or has this simply been exacerbated by the 24/7 news hole? This is a tricky situation in that we need to be kept abreast of these types of abuses, but after a while every little lead on political corruption does take its toll.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It's largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
This was more of a lecture thing, but I did not realize how popular Nixon was. “Nixon and the environment”, “Nixon and China”, even “Nixon and Vietnam” seemed to all be pluses for him- and his approval ratings showed it. Nixon was an effective President, but because of Watergate I suppose that effectiveness will always be suspect. Because of the aforementioned reasons I kept asking myself, why would Nixon do this? Why would he utterly destroy his opponents when he had achieved rather impressive political feats?(I guess that begs the question: did he only have successes because of the obliteration of his opponents?) Either way I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that Nixon was a man so fraught with insecurity that he could never be satisfied with his successes. Nixon was so plagued by his past failures that he was determined to have as much power as possible. The Alger Hiss case and The Checkers Speech were our warnings, but alas!-Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I was very glad that the -Gate phenomenon was referenced in lecture. That is something that seriously drives me nuts. Who decides what gets -Gate status anyway? Why is there a Troopergate and Cigargate, but other political scandals get off the -Gate hook, so to speak? Why wasn't John Edwards' cheating scandal called Infidelity-gate, or Dick Cheney's hunting incident a few years back Shot-in-the-face-gate? Is there some unwritten journalist code that determines this naming process? And just last year this practice made its way into the sports world with the Spygate scandal that tainted the Patriots' undefeated regular season. What happens if there is a scandal involving an American spy in the future? Does this theoretical incident then get dubbed Spygate II, or does it get a less cool sounding -Gate name, I mean shouldn't real life spies get first dibs on the -Gate name? What happens when there is a political scandal on the Golden Gate Bridge, is it then called Golden Gate-Gate or is that too stupid? What if there is a scandal literally involving a gate? Does this bother anyone else? Is it sad that I can muster more vitriol over something trivial like a scandal naming process rather than the scandal that supplied the name in the first place? Can I fit any more questions into a wiki-post?- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
So I did some research and apparently there are 3 (!) Troopergates, 2 Spygates (both of which were sports related, as real spies the world over are no doubt shaking their heads in dismay) and 2 Grannygates. Also, there is an Iguanagate, a Tasergate (Sweet), and even a Bingogate. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Niiiice. Well said. And no, I don't think it's sad that you've mustered this much vitriol about a trivial aspect. I do the same thing sometimes. However, that may mean I'm just a sad case, too. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Kind of sad that the name combo has degenerated in much the same way as the -Gate phenomenon. Where Woodstein was a combo of two young journalists on the rise, now we are subjected to Bennifer, Branjelina and others. I blame Nixon.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I was surprised by how small a role Deep Throat seemed to play in the film. He is referenced so much in pop culture and has been parodied by The Simpsons AND Family Guy, so he seems like a big deal. In the movie, though, he didn't really do much or even seem to help that much. I guess I was just surprised by the amount of controversy over DT contrasted with what seems to be the role he played. --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I'm in the minority so far... I really didn't like the movie, I kept staring at the time elapse to see how much time was left in the film. I was hoping I would like it because it sounded similar to the film I did for my project, but I just couldn't get into this one. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== Comments on Reading in ''Reel History'' ==<br />
<br />
"Reel History" mentioned how the other important figures involved in uncovering Watergate are never really talked about in the movie. I think it is reasonable in this movie because the movie never shows what really happens to cause Nixon to resign and never shows anything of what happens in the courts. The movie really is not about the Watergate Scandal, but about the role of Bernstein and Woodward in investigating the scandal. I think the primary message the movie is presenting is that Bernstein and Woodward helped pave the way towards the exposure of Nixon even if they did not have the big role in the Nixon investigations. - Jonathan Bell</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments329--Week 15 Questions/Comments2008-12-03T22:10:00Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
I'm going to assume that all of the video clips and radio broadcasts were the originals, so showing the clips and audio clips of the time brings authenticity to the movie. Seeing as the movie was released only a few years after the scandal dissipated, and two years after Nixon's resignation, it feels real. Nixon's impeachment hearings made history back in the 1970s, and much like 9/11 was to us in 2003, people remember how they felt during that time. It's akin to ''Best Years of Our Lives'' in that it's so close to the event. Unlike in the ''Patriot'' where people were acting as people who lived two hundred years ago, these actors -remember-. -Lauren <br />
<br />
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went. The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
The film didn't do a ton to explain this in detail, but through the newspaper headlines we see that Eagleton was picked as the original VP but then in other news snippets we see that McGovern is forced to be dropped from the ticket. Then in one of the planning meetings the editors joke over how nobody wants to take the now vacant VP spot, referencing the names mentioned in class. While this was something that fell outside of the focus of the film, it was nice to see that it was subtly worked into the story.- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
All the women shown working in this movie were doing various types of secretarial work, and not working as say reporters. I'm guessing this is an accurate portrayal of working women of this time, since this movie took place during the woman's rights movement. -Katherine Stinson<br />
<br />
<br />
I wondered for a while why "Woodstein" always introduced themselves as "Hi this is ____ from the Washington Post," and then go on. But then I realized that it was important (at least back then) for reporters to identify themselves. I felt that the "on record" vs "off record" barriers were really clearly defined. Somehow I am a little skeptical that reporters today are so gracious and just, though I haven't been interviewed by the Washington Post recently so how do I really know? - Elle<br />
<br />
In response to Kellye's comment about Deep Throat, I thought his role in the movie was sufficient. In the film, it seemed that Woodward only went to his source when he and Bernstein ran into a road-block during their investigation (which was often). I also wondered why DT only met with Woodward and not Bernstein, but apparently DT was only Woodward's source and DT never met Bernstein at all during the investigation. This was key when Felt (DT) was asked if he ever leaked information to Woodward AND Bernstein. According to the book, Woodward wondered if Felt denied this and got out of it b/c of a technicality (he only leaked info to Woodward). - David F.<br />
<br />
I felt the movie did a pretty good job of portraying the relationship of Bernstein and Woodward. Though they worked together in the movie their were several signs that they didn't particularly like each other since they would do things without telling each other about it and they were portrayed a bit competitive. This movie also does a good job at showing the depth and significance of CREEP in showing just how deep they were in the American government and talking about the various things they were involved in. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Perhaps things have changed since the 70s, but how did Woodstein never get caught in traffic? I mean this is DC we are talking about here. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I am curious as to whether the safety of Woodward and Bernstein was played up for the sake of the film? Certainly they were being spied on, but did they really have to fear their lives? That whole fear aspect seemed a bit awkward in the film and I am curious if it was a real fear or something played up to add tension in the film?- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
In the book and in the movie, Woodward would put the flag up whenever he wanted to meet w/ Deep Throat, and DT would mark the NY Times in case he wanted to meet w/ Woodward. However, the movie primarily showed Woodward making an effort to meet DT. How often did DT request to meet w/ Woodward? - David F.<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
Would this movie really be a secondary source about the Watergate scandal? Dr. McClurken said that the filmmaker was thinking about making the movie as the scandal was happening and that the rights to make a movie out of the book was bought some time around then.-Lauren<br />
<br />
One revelation that the movie showed through Woodstein's work that I think is important is how the dirty tricks had been going on since long before the Watergate break-in, back at least to the formation of CREEP. At one point, Bradlee told Woodstein that only half the public polled had heard of the name Watergate. We know that by the time Nixon resigned, the whole nation knew about it, but they may not have known just how far back it went. With all Woodstein's investigation and the stated realization of how much larger the issue was than the break-in, this shows that CREEP's workings had been successfully kept secret for a long time. -Whitney Holcomb.<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Kellye, this movie may have definitely helped to push people over to Democrats in 1976 because they were reminded right before the election about the Watergate Scandal and that many Republicans tried to cover it up and lied about it.--Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
In the beginning, there was darkness and it was good; then there was a loud and jolting noise of a typewriter. I wonder if the filmmakers did that to convey how the American were in relation to knowing what was going on with President Nixon? The people were happy because they didn't know what was happening, then Woodstein reported what their investigation had uncovered and since they wrote via the typewriter, that machine woke the population up with a startle.-Lauren <br />
<br />
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Tagging onto Christine's comment, I think it was a very important preface to the movie that McClurken specified that it was a movie about the Washington Post breaking the story of Watergate. Part of me was like "what? we didn't see what actually happens!" but we did see the Post succeed in cracking the story, and the trial and all those details were irrelevant to the Post story. - Elle<br />
<br />
I like that it shows the half-legitimate ways Woodstein were "confirming" information from sources. They could be very indirect, without making the people being questioned explicitly state an answer, effectively getting information from those who didn't want to talk. My favorite was when Bernstein counted to ten on the phone about Haldeman. Also, there was getting the bookkeeper to nod at the initials L, M, and P. Third, when they got Sloan to finally say that he "would not have a problem" with their accusatory article if they published it. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
In reference to Dr. M's reference to the Orioles in lecture, I recognized the actor who played Rosenfeld, Jack Warden, as Juror 7 from 12 Angry Men. He was the guy who kept wanting to reach a verdict quickly because he had Yankees tickets and said the line which still resonates for dopes like me who still root for the O's: "Baltimore? That's like being hit in the head with a crow bar once a day. " Ugh. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I too am a Baltimore sports fan! Baltimore Sports teams have been quite successful considering none of their franchises are ancient. The Colts were only in Baltimore for roughly 30 years yet had many championships to boast. They were also involved in some of the most pivotal games in NFL history: the 1958 Championship game versus the New York Giants which ushered in the era of televised football, Super Bowl III where the upstart New York Jets from the Mickey Mouse League (the AFL) beat the Colts in one of the biggest upsets leading to the merger in 1970, and "the ghost to the post" game in 1977 vs. the Raiders. The Orioles were a great team in the late '60s and early '70s and could have won even more championships. Cal Ripken will go down as one of the best and purest players in the game, now if he could just take over the team they could return to prominence. Now to my point, I think this is an important movie because without the Post article (or any other press investigation of the break-in) there is a good chance that the crimes of the Nixon administration would have gone unchecked. Movies like Stone's ''Nixon'' do not place much emphasis on the Post article, but without Woodstein's work would there have been a resignation? - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
A lot of the methods of historical movies talked about in "Reel History" are present in this movie. Historic TV clips were used throughout the movie and did a good job of helping contributing to the historic feel of the movie. They also follow the method of the protagonist character Bernstein and Woodward and villian character CREEP and those involved with the coverup. There is always a feeling of paranoia throughout the movie showed by the dark scenes and especially when Woodward meets with Bernstein to show the potential danger even when it never directly shows any characters planning to do anything against Woodward and Bernstein. There is also the resolution at the end of the movie that shows the success of the protagonists. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall Comments on Movie ==<br />
<br />
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward<br />
<br />
While I completely agree that this type of journalism is vital to preserving democracy, does anyone feel like in the post-Watergate world we are too quick in assuming the worst of our politicians (perhaps this is a bad question in the post Bush era)? This was a sentiment brought up in a book I had to read for another class which addressed declining voter turnout, and I was curious if anyone else felt that the media now perhaps tries too hard to uncover the next Watergate? The book (The Vanishing Voter) argues that the media has taken a "never again" type stance toward political corruption and that this has at times led to overly negative news coverage, which has in turn depressed voters into apathy towards the whole political process. Is this a change in the practices of the media, or has this simply been exacerbated by the 24/7 news hole? This is a tricky situation in that we need to be kept abreast of these types of abuses, but after a while every little lead on political corruption does take its toll.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It's largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
This was more of a lecture thing, but I did not realize how popular Nixon was. “Nixon and the environment”, “Nixon and China”, even “Nixon and Vietnam” seemed to all be pluses for him- and his approval ratings showed it. Nixon was an effective President, but because of Watergate I suppose that effectiveness will always be suspect. Because of the aforementioned reasons I kept asking myself, why would Nixon do this? Why would he utterly destroy his opponents when he had achieved rather impressive political feats?(I guess that begs the question: did he only have successes because of the obliteration of his opponents?) Either way I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that Nixon was a man so fraught with insecurity that he could never be satisfied with his successes. Nixon was so plagued by his past failures that he was determined to have as much power as possible. The Alger Hiss case and The Checkers Speech were our warnings, but alas!-Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I was very glad that the -Gate phenomenon was referenced in lecture. That is something that seriously drives me nuts. Who decides what gets -Gate status anyway? Why is there a Troopergate and Cigargate, but other political scandals get off the -Gate hook, so to speak? Why wasn't John Edwards' cheating scandal called Infidelity-gate, or Dick Cheney's hunting incident a few years back Shot-in-the-face-gate? Is there some unwritten journalist code that determines this naming process? And just last year this practice made its way into the sports world with the Spygate scandal that tainted the Patriots' undefeated regular season. What happens if there is a scandal involving an American spy in the future? Does this theoretical incident then get dubbed Spygate II, or does it get a less cool sounding -Gate name, I mean shouldn't real life spies get first dibs on the -Gate name? What happens when there is a political scandal on the Golden Gate Bridge, is it then called Golden Gate-Gate or is that too stupid? What if there is a scandal literally involving a gate? Does this bother anyone else? Is it sad that I can muster more vitriol over something trivial like a scandal naming process rather than the scandal that supplied the name in the first place? Can I fit any more questions into a wiki-post?- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
So I did some research and apparently there are 3 (!) Troopergates, 2 Spygates (both of which were sports related, as real spies the world over are no doubt shaking their heads in dismay) and 2 Grannygates. Also, there is an Iguanagate, a Tasergate (Sweet), and even a Bingogate. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Niiiice. Well said. And no, I don't think it's sad that you've mustered this much vitriol about a trivial aspect. I do the same thing sometimes. However, that may mean I'm just a sad case, too. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Kind of sad that the name combo has degenerated in much the same way as the -Gate phenomenon. Where Woodstein was a combo of two young journalists on the rise, now we are subjected to Bennifer, Branjelina and others. I blame Nixon.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I was surprised by how small a role Deep Throat seemed to play in the film. He is referenced so much in pop culture and has been parodied by The Simpsons AND Family Guy, so he seems like a big deal. In the movie, though, he didn't really do much or even seem to help that much. I guess I was just surprised by the amount of controversy over DT contrasted with what seems to be the role he played. --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I'm in the minority so far... I really didn't like the movie, I kept staring at the time elapse to see how much time was left in the film. I was hoping I would like it because it sounded similar to the film I did for my project, but I just couldn't get into this one. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== Comments on Reading in ''Reel History'' ==</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_15_Questions/Comments329--Week 15 Questions/Comments2008-12-03T22:02:07Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* a Right: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
I'm going to assume that all of the video clips and radio broadcasts were the originals, so showing the clips and audio clips of the time brings authenticity to the movie. Seeing as the movie was released only a few years after the scandal dissipated, and two years after Nixon's resignation, it feels real. Nixon's impeachment hearings made history back in the 1970s, and much like 9/11 was to us in 2003, people remember how they felt during that time. It's akin to ''Best Years of Our Lives'' in that it's so close to the event. Unlike in the ''Patriot'' where people were acting as people who lived two hundred years ago, these actors -remember-. -Lauren <br />
<br />
The movie does a good job showing the secrecy of the entire scandal. Everyone involved is afraid to say what they know because of how high up the conspiracy went. The movie did a good job of showing the problems that Woodward and Bernstein faced in getting their information confirmed and finding a legitimate source. Even though Deep Throat had a huge amount of involvement in feeding information to the reporters I was surprised at how little he appeared in the movie. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
The movie also did a good job with pulling all the important names of those involved in Watergate. While pulling the names out of people they seemed to reconnect everyone back to all of those involved, helping their case. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing all the intricacies involved in writing a breaking news story. The doubt on behalf of the papers editors. The confirmation and then denial by sources as the story came out. The long hours spent tracking people down to get information. It is surprising they were able to write the story at all.- Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the movie Woodward and Bernstein said CREEP started their electoral sabotage in 1971, with Edmund Muskie being the main target. The dirty tricks worked on Muskie, he wept to the press (in defense of his wife), and his campaign quickly fell apart. This move served up the Democratic nomination to the Liberal George McGovern, who was an easy candidate for Nixon to beat. By adding this into the film, we are able to see how far-reaching and ruthless CREEP was. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
The film didn't do a ton to explain this in detail, but through the newspaper headlines we see that Eagleton was picked as the original VP but then in other news snippets we see that McGovern is forced to be dropped from the ticket. Then in one of the planning meetings the editors joke over how nobody wants to take the now vacant VP spot, referencing the names mentioned in class. While this was something that fell outside of the focus of the film, it was nice to see that it was subtly worked into the story.- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
All the women shown working in this movie were doing various types of secretarial work, and not working as say reporters. I'm guessing this is an accurate portrayal of working women of this time, since this movie took place during the woman's rights movement. -Katherine Stinson<br />
<br />
<br />
I wondered for a while why "Woodstein" always introduced themselves as "Hi this is ____ from the Washington Post," and then go on. But then I realized that it was important (at least back then) for reporters to identify themselves. I felt that the "on record" vs "off record" barriers were really clearly defined. Somehow I am a little skeptical that reporters today are so gracious and just, though I haven't been interviewed by the Washington Post recently so how do I really know? - Elle<br />
<br />
In response to Kellye's comment about Deep Throat, I thought his role in the movie was sufficient. In the film, it seemed that Woodward only went to his source when he and Bernstein ran into a road-block during their investigation (which was often). I also wondered why DT only met with Woodward and not Bernstein, but apparently DT was only Woodward's source and DT never met Bernstein at all during the investigation. This was key when Felt (DT) was asked if he ever leaked information to Woodward AND Bernstein. According to the book, Woodward wondered if Felt denied this and got out of it b/c of a technicality (he only leaked info to Woodward). - David F.<br />
<br />
I felt the movie did a pretty good job of portraying the relationship of Bernstein and Woodward. Though they worked together in the movie their were several signs that they didn't particularly like each other since they would do things without telling each other about it and they were portrayed a bit competitive. This movie also does a good job at showing the depth and significance of CREEP in showing just how deep they were in the American government and talking about the various things they were involved in. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Perhaps things have changed since the 70s, but how did Woodstein never get caught in traffic? I mean this is DC we are talking about here. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I am curious as to whether the safety of Woodward and Bernstein was played up for the sake of the film? Certainly they were being spied on, but did they really have to fear their lives? That whole fear aspect seemed a bit awkward in the film and I am curious if it was a real fear or something played up to add tension in the film?- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
In the book and in the movie, Woodward would put the flag up whenever he wanted to meet w/ Deep Throat, and DT would mark the NY Times in case he wanted to meet w/ Woodward. However, the movie primarily showed Woodward making an effort to meet DT. How often did DT request to meet w/ Woodward? - David F.<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
Would this movie really be a secondary source about the Watergate scandal? Dr. McClurken said that the filmmaker was thinking about making the movie as the scandal was happening and that the rights to make a movie out of the book was bought some time around then.-Lauren<br />
<br />
One revelation that the movie showed through Woodstein's work that I think is important is how the dirty tricks had been going on since long before the Watergate break-in, back at least to the formation of CREEP. At one point, Bradlee told Woodstein that only half the public polled had heard of the name Watergate. We know that by the time Nixon resigned, the whole nation knew about it, but they may not have known just how far back it went. With all Woodstein's investigation and the stated realization of how much larger the issue was than the break-in, this shows that CREEP's workings had been successfully kept secret for a long time. -Whitney Holcomb.<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
I feel the movie definitely helped to republicize the Watergate Scandal, especially since it was released only a few years later. The movie definitely would have had some impact on the 1976 presidential election since it came out months before, resulting in the Democrats winning the presidency. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
In the beginning, there was darkness and it was good; then there was a loud and jolting noise of a typewriter. I wonder if the filmmakers did that to convey how the American were in relation to knowing what was going on with President Nixon? The people were happy because they didn't know what was happening, then Woodstein reported what their investigation had uncovered and since they wrote via the typewriter, that machine woke the population up with a startle.-Lauren <br />
<br />
I liked the way the movie ended with the stream of headlines. It just showed that how once the story came out it snowballed into this big scandal ending with the resignation of Nixon. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Tagging onto Christine's comment, I think it was a very important preface to the movie that McClurken specified that it was a movie about the Washington Post breaking the story of Watergate. Part of me was like "what? we didn't see what actually happens!" but we did see the Post succeed in cracking the story, and the trial and all those details were irrelevant to the Post story. - Elle<br />
<br />
I like that it shows the half-legitimate ways Woodstein were "confirming" information from sources. They could be very indirect, without making the people being questioned explicitly state an answer, effectively getting information from those who didn't want to talk. My favorite was when Bernstein counted to ten on the phone about Haldeman. Also, there was getting the bookkeeper to nod at the initials L, M, and P. Third, when they got Sloan to finally say that he "would not have a problem" with their accusatory article if they published it. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
In reference to Dr. M's reference to the Orioles in lecture, I recognized the actor who played Rosenfeld, Jack Warden, as Juror 7 from 12 Angry Men. He was the guy who kept wanting to reach a verdict quickly because he had Yankees tickets and said the line which still resonates for dopes like me who still root for the O's: "Baltimore? That's like being hit in the head with a crow bar once a day. " Ugh. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I too am a Baltimore sports fan! Baltimore Sports teams have been quite successful considering none of their franchises are ancient. The Colts were only in Baltimore for roughly 30 years yet had many championships to boast. They were also involved in some of the most pivotal games in NFL history: the 1958 Championship game versus the New York Giants which ushered in the era of televised football, Super Bowl III where the upstart New York Jets from the Mickey Mouse League (the AFL) beat the Colts in one of the biggest upsets leading to the merger in 1970, and "the ghost to the post" game in 1977 vs. the Raiders. The Orioles were a great team in the late '60s and early '70s and could have won even more championships. Cal Ripken will go down as one of the best and purest players in the game, now if he could just take over the team they could return to prominence. Now to my point, I think this is an important movie because without the Post article (or any other press investigation of the break-in) there is a good chance that the crimes of the Nixon administration would have gone unchecked. Movies like Stone's ''Nixon'' do not place much emphasis on the Post article, but without Woodstein's work would there have been a resignation? - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall Comments on Movie ==<br />
<br />
This movie is great because it shows the media at its best. The Press is supposed to do what Woodward and Bernstein did. They didn’t let a two-bit break-in fall through the cracks, they saw something more to this story and pursued the truth. What they eventually uncovered was a culture of corruption and cover-up. By revealing the abhorrent nature of Nixonian politics Woodward and Bernstein were able to stop an immoral man from gaining more power at the expense of others. All the President’s Men and the Woodstein story in general is the paragon of journalism.-Jason Ward<br />
<br />
While I completely agree that this type of journalism is vital to preserving democracy, does anyone feel like in the post-Watergate world we are too quick in assuming the worst of our politicians (perhaps this is a bad question in the post Bush era)? This was a sentiment brought up in a book I had to read for another class which addressed declining voter turnout, and I was curious if anyone else felt that the media now perhaps tries too hard to uncover the next Watergate? The book (The Vanishing Voter) argues that the media has taken a "never again" type stance toward political corruption and that this has at times led to overly negative news coverage, which has in turn depressed voters into apathy towards the whole political process. Is this a change in the practices of the media, or has this simply been exacerbated by the 24/7 news hole? This is a tricky situation in that we need to be kept abreast of these types of abuses, but after a while every little lead on political corruption does take its toll.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I have a new favorite film of the semester! It's largely because I like the suspense, that Woodstein is two non-police people working together to solve this huge multi-layered case, skillfully tracking down and extracting information from people, and not letting anything stand in their way. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
This was more of a lecture thing, but I did not realize how popular Nixon was. “Nixon and the environment”, “Nixon and China”, even “Nixon and Vietnam” seemed to all be pluses for him- and his approval ratings showed it. Nixon was an effective President, but because of Watergate I suppose that effectiveness will always be suspect. Because of the aforementioned reasons I kept asking myself, why would Nixon do this? Why would he utterly destroy his opponents when he had achieved rather impressive political feats?(I guess that begs the question: did he only have successes because of the obliteration of his opponents?) Either way I came to the conclusion, as have many others, that Nixon was a man so fraught with insecurity that he could never be satisfied with his successes. Nixon was so plagued by his past failures that he was determined to have as much power as possible. The Alger Hiss case and The Checkers Speech were our warnings, but alas!-Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I was very glad that the -Gate phenomenon was referenced in lecture. That is something that seriously drives me nuts. Who decides what gets -Gate status anyway? Why is there a Troopergate and Cigargate, but other political scandals get off the -Gate hook, so to speak? Why wasn't John Edwards' cheating scandal called Infidelity-gate, or Dick Cheney's hunting incident a few years back Shot-in-the-face-gate? Is there some unwritten journalist code that determines this naming process? And just last year this practice made its way into the sports world with the Spygate scandal that tainted the Patriots' undefeated regular season. What happens if there is a scandal involving an American spy in the future? Does this theoretical incident then get dubbed Spygate II, or does it get a less cool sounding -Gate name, I mean shouldn't real life spies get first dibs on the -Gate name? What happens when there is a political scandal on the Golden Gate Bridge, is it then called Golden Gate-Gate or is that too stupid? What if there is a scandal literally involving a gate? Does this bother anyone else? Is it sad that I can muster more vitriol over something trivial like a scandal naming process rather than the scandal that supplied the name in the first place? Can I fit any more questions into a wiki-post?- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
So I did some research and apparently there are 3 (!) Troopergates, 2 Spygates (both of which were sports related, as real spies the world over are no doubt shaking their heads in dismay) and 2 Grannygates. Also, there is an Iguanagate, a Tasergate (Sweet), and even a Bingogate. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Niiiice. Well said. And no, I don't think it's sad that you've mustered this much vitriol about a trivial aspect. I do the same thing sometimes. However, that may mean I'm just a sad case, too. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Kind of sad that the name combo has degenerated in much the same way as the -Gate phenomenon. Where Woodstein was a combo of two young journalists on the rise, now we are subjected to Bennifer, Branjelina and others. I blame Nixon.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I was surprised by how small a role Deep Throat seemed to play in the film. He is referenced so much in pop culture and has been parodied by The Simpsons AND Family Guy, so he seems like a big deal. In the movie, though, he didn't really do much or even seem to help that much. I guess I was just surprised by the amount of controversy over DT contrasted with what seems to be the role he played. --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, I'm in the minority so far... I really didn't like the movie, I kept staring at the time elapse to see how much time was left in the film. I was hoping I would like it because it sounded similar to the film I did for my project, but I just couldn't get into this one. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== Comments on Reading in ''Reel History'' ==</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments329--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-11-19T22:21:56Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets. They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village. He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit. Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron's character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don't have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, "Cutbacks. The government's just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys." According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I was surprised with how much this movie was able to accurately portray. You really see how hard it was for the Vets to return to the states with little to no support from their country and all of the stresses from war. Most of them were druggies or, like Ron, alcoholics. You also see how crappy the hospitals were and how little funding they received from the federal government. I know we learned in class that it was much less than post-WWII America but the movie really made it real how few doctors there were and how just, disgusting the hospitals actually were. I was NOT prepared for the bedpans and the vomit. That was unnecessary. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I also really liked how well the film showed the difficulty discerning guys in your own troops and the members of the Vietcong. It really amplified how stressful and chaotic the setting was over in Vietnam and how frequently new guys were being added or sent home from American troops. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, much of the hospital horror that occurred in the film has happened as recently as last year. Those of us from the DC area will likely remember the extensive coverage of the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that the Washington Post covered extensively. Red tape, rat and cockroach infestations, mold, all occurring at the US Army's flagship east coast medical center. It was accurate then, it is accurate now. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Whether veterans were disabled or suffering from PTSD, the readjustment to a country at war with itself had to leave any veteran feeling lost in the shuffle (at best). I think this movie conveys the disillusionment of the Vietnam era well. Kovic is a guy who went from “love it or leave” it to “politicians are rapists and thieves”. His story resonates because it was not uncommon, and sadly not unjustified. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
The difference in the two 4th of July parades accurately displays the differing views of the American people. When the WWII veterans returned home, hundreds of people were lining the streets, cheering, clapping, and holding American flags. When Ron is being driven through the parade the people lining the streets are jeering and giving him the figure. It shows the very different reactions of the American people to these two wars. One war they supported (WWII), the other they did not (Vietnam). Also, during the first parade when the fireworks/gun shots(?) are fired the veteran is startled and flinches and young Ron takes notice of that; this is exactly what happens to Ron during the parade, he flinches when he hears that gun shot sound. These are two examples of the PTSD the soldiers experienced that affected them in their everyday life. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
This film was the first that hammered home for me how bad it is when the government isn't prepared to take care of wounded veterans. The scenes in the VA hospital make it easy to understand the difficulties associated with a lack of funding, and what it was like for veterans in those hospitals. I guess watching Forest Gump too many times left me thinking VA hospitals were all ping pong and ice cream. - JT Newcomb<br />
<br />
I thought the scene in the bar where Kovic and the WWII Marine get into a scuffle was powerful in that it showed the disconnect between generations and between the views on the different wars. I know that guys like my grandfather who served in the Marines in the Pacific during WWII and in Korea often had little sympathy for perceived "whiners" from Vietnam. Because of the different circumstances surrounding the two wars and the vast differences between the generations, it is no wonder there were such tensions among the veterans.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I also agree on the movie doing a great job with showing how Ron’s view changes towards the war. It shows how society around him affected his thoughts on how the war had a negative impact on America. The film also gave examples of what was happening in America, the Kent State shootings (Donna briefly stated about) and the brutal beatings by police officers at the war rallies. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
As with the people above me, I felt the film did a good job portraying PTSD, and how no one really knew much about it or what was going on. No one was like 'oh he has blah blah blah' they were like 'your home you should just forget it and get on with life.' --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
In Ron's Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they're just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people. The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control. It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC. Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn't have been. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
Really? I thought the reason they were shocked is that the Americans honestly didn't think there were civilians in the area. The justification for shooting was that the lieutenant saw rifles in the huts, only later did the Americans find out that the VC had used civilians as "Cover". Also I thought the confusion and uncertainty between unarmed civilians and VC was one of the main frustrations American soldiers had fighting in Vietnam. I thought this scene was accurate. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
I interpreted the backwards hanging of the flag as a sign of symbolic protest. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
You have a good point about the shooting, Jason. I guess I missed seeing the rifles part of that. But about the flag, wasn't Ron at that point still very patriotic? -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I felt that overall this movie hit some key points that are accurate, BUT I felt that it was another stereotypical portrayal of a torn up vietnam vet. Maybe I am still living in a fantasy that most of the vets were not drastically screwed up when they returned from the war. I know it was based on a book so this might not have been necessarily a film makers decision. - Elle<br />
<br />
Awe come on, Elle. You didn't like the American Hero story? It's not shown on the silver screen nearly enough. That's not to say it wasn't an impressive life story, but like Elle said, it just seemed to be too much. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Just to offer up some perspective, the screenplay was written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic himself, both of which were veterans of this war. Kovic approved the casting of Tom Cruise, and while there were obviously scenes added for dramatic license (most notably, Ron Kovic telling Will's family that he was responsible for their son's murder), most of it was on the up and up. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
That being said, Parris Island would have only been eight weeks of hell back then. Not thirteen. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Maybe this is a function of there just not being a whole lot of combat scenes but I was wondering where all the black soldiers were? There was the guy that saved Kovic and carried him to safety, but I don't recall seeing any other black soldiers, which is strange seeing as how something like 60 percent of black males were drafted. Though I guess the protest scenes showed a bit more diversity. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I don’t know much about the book the movie is based off of, but I felt the whole scene in Mexico was inaccurate. If I’m wrong please correct me, but this was something America did not talk about if it were true. Was Mexico a popular retreat place for the Vets, and was it exactly like how it was portrayed in the film? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I’m not sure, but in the scene Ron and a friend of his were talking about the war and the friend stated “This is a wealthy man’s war.” What does he mean by that? It was not a war for the common soldier because most soldiers who fought were from the lower class. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I interpreted this quote about "the wealthy man's war" as an acknowledgment of the notion that politicians in Washington "play war", using lower class boys as their playing pieces. In other words, the "fatcats" in Washington make war, but let others do their fightin'. Take a listen to Creedence Clearwater Revival's Fortunate Son. Here is a lyric that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up every time,<br />
"Some folks are born made to wave the flag,<br />
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.<br />
And when the band plays hail to the chief,<br />
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators son, son.<br />
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no,"- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
This movie has a very strange passage of time. It quickly zooms to the Vietnam war without any transition period covering training or the green zone. The movie does not really go into any real depth of experience in the Vietnam war and only focuses on a couple instances of traumatic war experience followed by a stay at a hospital. The way they condemn the hospitals particularly bothers me in relation to the discussion of our lecture in which it was discussed that Vietnam had a large support staff and better health treatment for soldiers. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
In Tim O'Brian's book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In "A Rumor of War," the author discusses how the war appealed to the young generation originally. How most of those who signed up early were teenagers and young adults because they were taught to be proud of their country and wanted to defend it. They answered Kennedy's call of "ask what you can do for your country" and wanted to be like their parents who had fought in previous wars, most notably WWII. You could see this in the movie pretty well, especially when the young Ron is sitting there watching Kennedy's address with his family and gets riled up about how to help and defend his country. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
So this wasn't a major part of anything but I wondered about the letters that were sent to and from soldiers. In the film Ron sends love letters to his lady, and it is also mentioned in the readings. Did this communication with home help also to keep the moral high, or no more so than any other war? - Elle<br />
<br />
I was very pleased to see O'Brien's ''The Things They Carried'' selected as a reading for this film. I would highly suggest that anyone who hasn't read O'Brien to pick up ''TTTC'' or ''Going After Cacciato'' as both are extremely powerful books in understanding the psyche of the Vietnam soldier. I found that of any text (be it film, novel, textbook), The Things They Carried was the most formative for me in understanding the impact of Vietnam on a generation (which is notable seeing as how it is a work of fiction). In regards to this film and ''TTTC'', I found that Kovic's despair upon returning and most people not really caring about the war was reflected well in O'Brien's book. Though not in our excerpt, there is a story of a Vietnam vet who returns home and basically drives around his town every night with nothing to do, trying to figure out where he fits in with the world he has returned home to find. In my opinion it is the most heartbreaking part of the book in that all this person wants is basically the occasional pat on the back for a job well done, not a fancy parade, but he never really gets it. Also the issue of returning home to girls that have since moved on in their lives is reflected in the book, as with Kovic and his childhood sweetheart with whom he can no longer really communicate.- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I really liked ''A Rumor of War''. I thought Caputo’s discussion of nostalgia offered a new perspective on why the Vietnam conflict was so complicated for Vietnam veterans. Whether veterans supported or protested the war, their time in Vietnam was the most formative experience of their lives. Caputo said his objections to Vietnam were informed by a completely different set of circumstances than that of the homefront protesters- war. “Because I had fought in it, it was not an abstract issue, but a deeply emotional experience, the most significant thing that had happened to me.” I think this is the very sentiment that everyone ought to keep in mind when discussing the Vietnam conflict (and really any hot-button issue). Regardless of where people fall on the issue of Vietnam, everyone’s ''opinion'' is valid. Too often one side accuses the other side of “not getting it” or that “they’re wrong”, but this accusation misses the point. With an issue as personal and emotional as war, there is no right or wrong, just a poignant internalization of a provocative reality.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
"In spite of everything, we felt a strange attachment to Vietnam and, even stranger, a longing to return." These words from ''A Rumor of War'' is closely related to Tom Cruise's character. He joins the war initially b/c he finds the thought of combat "attractive" (a term used by this reading). Upon his return, he encounters a brother who has gained liberal thoughts on the war, but Tom Cruise struggles to understand this opposition because of his nostalgia. Furthermore, the reading explains that the overall mission in Vietnam was not to gain position or territory, but to simply "kill communists." These are very powerful words and something Oliver Stone was able to depict well in the movie. - David F.<br />
<br />
This movie does not really fit in well with what they carried in my opinion because it does not show a real variety in the soldiers in Vietnam. The point of that reading was that they didn't all carry the same things and quite a few things they took were personalized, but this was not shown in the movie. The movie never go anywhere near the depth of the readings in conveying the Vietnam war experience for soldiers. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
The soldiers, including Ron Kovic really thought they were going to beat Communists in Vietnam in the beginning. They were disillusioned. The Cold War was coming to an end around the time this movie was made. The Tienanmen Square Massacre happened on July 4, 1989 and Berlin Wall fell in late 1989. It seems like with the release of this film, the filmmakers were making a comment on Communism or the war on it.- Lauren<br />
<br />
With a father who served in Vietnam from 1969-1970, I can say that this movie was pretty accurate with the stories he told about coming back home. While his story is nowhere near the personal hell that Kovic endured in his time back from the fighting, this movie showed, accurately, that our Vietnam Veterans did not get their ticker-tape parades. They were not congratulated. They were not thanked. By the time 1970 rolled around, free love was over. The Rolling Stones had held a concert at Altamont that led to 3 accidental deaths and one murder. Bobby and Jack Kennedy were dead, as were Dr. King and Malcolm X. Popular music was anti-war, involving everyone from the Doors, to Jefferson Airplane to Country Joe and the Fish. For once, America was losing a war, and with it, America lost its innocence. The homefront was a maelstrom of emotion, and while many were thankful for the service of our men and women, the anger, hatred and disenchantment was there as well. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
In watching the documentary in the special features, it was stated that after winning Best Picture for Platoon, "Oliver Stone could have made any movie he wanted." Born On... was a promise kept to Ron Kovic himself that he would get this movie made. Oliver Stone was not looking for an Oscar with this one, but he got one anyway for Best Director. He wasn't looking to gross $70 million, but it did anyway. This wasn't even meant to be Oliver Stone's baby. He had already done that with Platoon. Born On The 4th was a promise kept to a fellow Vietnam Veteran. Kovic felt very much that his story had been left behind and ignored. Oliver Stone promised to bring it back. Wasn't that enough? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
Was the use of the blinking club lights meant to convey a sense of unreality in Ronnie's life after his return home? -Lauren<br />
<br />
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that the jarring nature of the film was really unsettling - but I felt that this was a conscious decision by the film makers to portray how unsettling and choppy the experience of the vietnam was was for soldiers. -Elle<br />
<br />
That makes sense for the "Vietnam Section" I guess we can call it, but for the entire movie? It didn't really seem to make sense and I don't know if it was a wise choice on their part (if it was a conscious decision) to try to do that. Something just doesn't seem to add up. But the choppiness really did work with the war scenes because you did get a sense of confusion and chaos of the situations these guys were in. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's response - I was thinking psychologically it works for the whole movie. I am NOT saying that I enjoyed it as a film viewer, but I can see why it might have been done that way. - Elle<br />
<br />
Kelly and Elle, this is a common technique of Stone's, used in even heavier amounts in Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. Even JFK ran with it. Stone has often said that the stories he tells are filled with an anarchic level of chaos and panic, and the jarring, frantic cuts are his way of showing that panic. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Tangentally, I loved the placement of Johnny Got His Gun in the scene where Kovic learns he will never walk again. For those of you who have never read this (I have two copies, I am willing to let people borrow), there is perhaps no better work of literature that better portrays the agonizing fear that comes with realizing you, as a soldier, will never be understood as a human again. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
In terms of ''Born on the Fourth of July'' 's relationship to other Vietnam films, (I guess this is "filmography" as opposed to historiography) I think this movie does a good job of portraying the Vietnam vet. I would categorize this film as a biographical autobiography, that is Stone told Kovic's story with help from Kovic himself. On one hand ''Born on the Fourth of July'' validates the stock characters we see in other films while ultimately moving beyond those characterizations. Dr. McClurken mentioned that other movies about Vietnam depicted the vets as unstable and alienated, and the real Ron Kovic certainly had to deal with his share of instability and alienation in the years following his return home. What made Kovic different from the characters in other movies is that he was able to channel his feelings into activism. Plenty of veterans came home and never quite recovered, but Kovic’s story is important because he did not let Vietnam defeat him personally. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Why did Tom Cruise's hair change so drastically? I'm assuming it's suppose to show how much he aged while at war, but I have to say it made me somewhat uncomfortable. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I thought most of Ron's childhood scenes were hyper-dramatized and nearly silly. "I had a dream last night Ron. You were talking in front of a whole bunch of people..."? There are the dangers of basing a film on an autobiography. We are all the heroes of our own lives. - JT Newcomb<br />
<br />
Oliver Stone sure has a talent for ruining moments that should be dramatic. For instance, Ron’s breakdown at his parents’ house when he’s shouting and crying about killing children and being paralyzed and castrated? It was intense and very heart wrenching. And then he starts screaming “Penis! Penis!” at the top of his lungs, and the moment is gone. Then when Ron and the other fellow are left in the desert, and they fight over ''who killed more babies'' and start spitting on each other and fall out of their wheelchairs. Yeah, that was really dramatic. Not. A scene like that should ''not'' have been made comedic. And while I’m complaining about Stone’s style, he also has a talent for trying to make moments dramatic that really shouldn't be dramatic. As JT notes above, the childhood scenes boarded on silly. And why did Stone feel the need to use slow motion so gratuitously? I was over the slow-mo in the first five minutes on the movie. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I find the focus on the experiences of one veteran an inferior approach compared to the approach made in "Best Years of Our Lives". I find it problematic how the movie tries to relate all the various problems veterans faced to one person. There are other veterans in the movie, but none are given any real depth compared to the main character. I also found it questionable how little time the movie actually spent in the Vietnam war itself. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times. I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic. Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
As is often difficult for anyone, upon developing bias, it was tough for me to detach from my love for Oliver Stone in watching this. Instead, I watched it from the perspective of a 20 year old kid whose brother is an Iraq vet and whose father is a Vietnam vet. I watched from the perspective of a kid still trying to figure out his own personal politics, while still giving everyone else's, regardless of my agreement/disagreement, a fair day in court. I watch it from the perspective of trying to put myself, a relatively conservative 21-year-old, college-going kid into the perspective of the time, when my politics probably would not have been popular. Finally, I watch it with the knowledge that there is not a single human being alive that WANTS war. With all of these emotions around one simple, three-letter-word, "war," Stone crafted a masterful examination of the human psyche. It was chaotic. To be perfectly honest, the Vietnam era was a pretty terrible time to be American. -Cash Nelson <br />
<br />
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I don't really care for this. It wasn't very entertaining for me and it's not something I would ever watch again. I didn't have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he'd actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he'd been gone. We see kid Ron watching JFK's speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967. Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in '46 do things come together. I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Tom Cruise pre-Vietnam/during the war > Tom Cruise in the hospital to the end. And, I know that's how the style was in the 1970s, but I couldn't handle it. Everything just seemed to be too over-the-top almost and very very dramatic. And I think abbreviating Kovic's life so much to fit it all in in 2 1/2 hours hurt the movie a great deal. As the others said, it was so fragmented and scattered that I had a hard time keeping up with how old Ron was supposed to be, etc. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
One more thing; were those supposed to be New York accents? I know Kovic was from Long Island but come on now. They sounded a bit off to me, but I suppose anything is better than Kevin Costner and a Boston accent. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Try Kevin Costner and a New Orleans accent. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I like that Stone showed the differing views between Ron and Donna. He a Vet and she a war-protester. It reminded me of ''Forrest Gump'' although ''Forrest Gump'' came 8 years after ''Born on the 4th of July''. I'm glad Stone mentioned the protest at Kent State because not only did this horrible event have a big impact on the American public but also college campuses were hubs for protests that held very powerful stances during the Vietnam era. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I was expecting something really bad, and really inaccurate from Oliver Stone. He surprised me, I liked the film... a lot. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
In response to Cash's comment, I cannot resist quoting Robert E. Lee: observing the slaughter of the Battle of Fredericksburg from his vantage point on Telegraph Hill, he said to Gen. Longstreet, "It is well that war is so terrible - we should grow too fond of it." It still rings true. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
<br />
I didn't like the movie all that much, and by the time it ended I was actually fairly... depressed is too strong sounding but I can not think of another word. I didn't like how the movie would just cut to another scene, no transition, no nothing, just one minute your watching something then BAM something completely different. It drove me nuts!! --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Way to ruin “Moon River,” Oliver Stone and Tom Cruise. You two need to apologize to Audrey Hepburn, Henry Mancini, and Johnny Mercer. I’ll never be able to listen to that song the same way again. --Taylor Brann</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments329--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-11-19T22:16:18Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets. They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village. He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit. Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron's character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don't have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, "Cutbacks. The government's just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys." According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I was surprised with how much this movie was able to accurately portray. You really see how hard it was for the Vets to return to the states with little to no support from their country and all of the stresses from war. Most of them were druggies or, like Ron, alcoholics. You also see how crappy the hospitals were and how little funding they received from the federal government. I know we learned in class that it was much less than post-WWII America but the movie really made it real how few doctors there were and how just, disgusting the hospitals actually were. I was NOT prepared for the bedpans and the vomit. That was unnecessary. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I also really liked how well the film showed the difficulty discerning guys in your own troops and the members of the Vietcong. It really amplified how stressful and chaotic the setting was over in Vietnam and how frequently new guys were being added or sent home from American troops. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, much of the hospital horror that occurred in the film has happened as recently as last year. Those of us from the DC area will likely remember the extensive coverage of the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that the Washington Post covered extensively. Red tape, rat and cockroach infestations, mold, all occurring at the US Army's flagship east coast medical center. It was accurate then, it is accurate now. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Whether veterans were disabled or suffering from PTSD, the readjustment to a country at war with itself had to leave any veteran feeling lost in the shuffle (at best). I think this movie conveys the disillusionment of the Vietnam era well. Kovic is a guy who went from “love it or leave” it to “politicians are rapists and thieves”. His story resonates because it was not uncommon, and sadly not unjustified. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
The difference in the two 4th of July parades accurately displays the differing views of the American people. When the WWII veterans returned home, hundreds of people were lining the streets, cheering, clapping, and holding American flags. When Ron is being driven through the parade the people lining the streets are jeering and giving him the figure. It shows the very different reactions of the American people to these two wars. One war they supported (WWII), the other they did not (Vietnam). Also, during the first parade when the fireworks/gun shots(?) are fired the veteran is startled and flinches and young Ron takes notice of that; this is exactly what happens to Ron during the parade, he flinches when he hears that gun shot sound. These are two examples of the PTSD the soldiers experienced that affected them in their everyday life. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
This film was the first that hammered home for me how bad it is when the government isn't prepared to take care of wounded veterans. The scenes in the VA hospital make it easy to understand the difficulties associated with a lack of funding, and what it was like for veterans in those hospitals. I guess watching Forest Gump too many times left me thinking VA hospitals were all ping pong and ice cream. - JT Newcomb<br />
<br />
I thought the scene in the bar where Kovic and the WWII Marine get into a scuffle was powerful in that it showed the disconnect between generations and between the views on the different wars. I know that guys like my grandfather who served in the Marines in the Pacific during WWII and in Korea often had little sympathy for perceived "whiners" from Vietnam. Because of the different circumstances surrounding the two wars and the vast differences between the generations, it is no wonder there were such tensions among the veterans.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I also agree on the movie doing a great job with showing how Ron’s view changes towards the war. It shows how society around him affected his thoughts on how the war had a negative impact on America. The film also gave examples of what was happening in America, the Kent State shootings (Donna briefly stated about) and the brutal beatings by police officers at the war rallies. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
As with the people above me, I felt the film did a good job portraying PTSD, and how no one really knew much about it or what was going on. No one was like 'oh he has blah blah blah' they were like 'your home you should just forget it and get on with life.' --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
In Ron's Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they're just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people. The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control. It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC. Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn't have been. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
Really? I thought the reason they were shocked is that the Americans honestly didn't think there were civilians in the area. The justification for shooting was that the lieutenant saw rifles in the huts, only later did the Americans find out that the VC had used civilians as "Cover". Also I thought the confusion and uncertainty between unarmed civilians and VC was one of the main frustrations American soldiers had fighting in Vietnam. I thought this scene was accurate. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
I interpreted the backwards hanging of the flag as a sign of symbolic protest. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
You have a good point about the shooting, Jason. I guess I missed seeing the rifles part of that. But about the flag, wasn't Ron at that point still very patriotic? -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I felt that overall this movie hit some key points that are accurate, BUT I felt that it was another stereotypical portrayal of a torn up vietnam vet. Maybe I am still living in a fantasy that most of the vets were not drastically screwed up when they returned from the war. I know it was based on a book so this might not have been necessarily a film makers decision. - Elle<br />
<br />
Awe come on, Elle. You didn't like the American Hero story? It's not shown on the silver screen nearly enough. That's not to say it wasn't an impressive life story, but like Elle said, it just seemed to be too much. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Just to offer up some perspective, the screenplay was written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic himself, both of which were veterans of this war. Kovic approved the casting of Tom Cruise, and while there were obviously scenes added for dramatic license (most notably, Ron Kovic telling Will's family that he was responsible for their son's murder), most of it was on the up and up. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
That being said, Parris Island would have only been eight weeks of hell back then. Not thirteen. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Maybe this is a function of there just not being a whole lot of combat scenes but I was wondering where all the black soldiers were? There was the guy that saved Kovic and carried him to safety, but I don't recall seeing any other black soldiers, which is strange seeing as how something like 60 percent of black males were drafted. Though I guess the protest scenes showed a bit more diversity. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I don’t know much about the book the movie is based off of, but I felt the whole scene in Mexico was inaccurate. If I’m wrong please correct me, but this was something America did not talk about if it were true. Was Mexico a popular retreat place for the Vets, and was it exactly like how it was portrayed in the film? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I’m not sure, but in the scene Ron and a friend of his were talking about the war and the friend stated “This is a wealthy man’s war.” What does he mean by that? It was not a war for the common soldier because most soldiers who fought were from the lower class. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I interpreted this quote about "the wealthy man's war" as an acknowledgment of the notion that politicians in Washington "play war", using lower class boys as their playing pieces. In other words, the "fatcats" in Washington make war, but let others do their fightin'. Take a listen to Creedence Clearwater Revival's Fortunate Son. Here is a lyric that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up every time,<br />
"Some folks are born made to wave the flag,<br />
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.<br />
And when the band plays hail to the chief,<br />
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators son, son.<br />
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no,"- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
This movie has a very strange passage of time. It quickly zooms to the Vietnam war without any transition period covering training or the green zone. The movie does not really go into any real depth of experience in the Vietnam war and only focuses on a couple instances of traumatic war experience followed by a stay at a hospital. The way they condemn the hospitals particularly bothers me in relation to the discussion of our lecture in which it was discussed that Vietnam had a large support staff and better health treatment for soldiers. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
In Tim O'Brian's book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In "A Rumor of War," the author discusses how the war appealed to the young generation originally. How most of those who signed up early were teenagers and young adults because they were taught to be proud of their country and wanted to defend it. They answered Kennedy's call of "ask what you can do for your country" and wanted to be like their parents who had fought in previous wars, most notably WWII. You could see this in the movie pretty well, especially when the young Ron is sitting there watching Kennedy's address with his family and gets riled up about how to help and defend his country. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
So this wasn't a major part of anything but I wondered about the letters that were sent to and from soldiers. In the film Ron sends love letters to his lady, and it is also mentioned in the readings. Did this communication with home help also to keep the moral high, or no more so than any other war? - Elle<br />
<br />
I was very pleased to see O'Brien's ''The Things They Carried'' selected as a reading for this film. I would highly suggest that anyone who hasn't read O'Brien to pick up ''TTTC'' or ''Going After Cacciato'' as both are extremely powerful books in understanding the psyche of the Vietnam soldier. I found that of any text (be it film, novel, textbook), The Things They Carried was the most formative for me in understanding the impact of Vietnam on a generation (which is notable seeing as how it is a work of fiction). In regards to this film and ''TTTC'', I found that Kovic's despair upon returning and most people not really caring about the war was reflected well in O'Brien's book. Though not in our excerpt, there is a story of a Vietnam vet who returns home and basically drives around his town every night with nothing to do, trying to figure out where he fits in with the world he has returned home to find. In my opinion it is the most heartbreaking part of the book in that all this person wants is basically the occasional pat on the back for a job well done, not a fancy parade, but he never really gets it. Also the issue of returning home to girls that have since moved on in their lives is reflected in the book, as with Kovic and his childhood sweetheart with whom he can no longer really communicate.- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I really liked ''A Rumor of War''. I thought Caputo’s discussion of nostalgia offered a new perspective on why the Vietnam conflict was so complicated for Vietnam veterans. Whether veterans supported or protested the war, their time in Vietnam was the most formative experience of their lives. Caputo said his objections to Vietnam were informed by a completely different set of circumstances than that of the homefront protesters- war. “Because I had fought in it, it was not an abstract issue, but a deeply emotional experience, the most significant thing that had happened to me.” I think this is the very sentiment that everyone ought to keep in mind when discussing the Vietnam conflict (and really any hot-button issue). Regardless of where people fall on the issue of Vietnam, everyone’s ''opinion'' is valid. Too often one side accuses the other side of “not getting it” or that “they’re wrong”, but this accusation misses the point. With an issue as personal and emotional as war, there is no right or wrong, just a poignant internalization of a provocative reality.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
"In spite of everything, we felt a strange attachment to Vietnam and, even stranger, a longing to return." These words from ''A Rumor of War'' is closely related to Tom Cruise's character. He joins the war initially b/c he finds the thought of combat "attractive" (a term used by this reading). Upon his return, he encounters a brother who has gained liberal thoughts on the war, but Tom Cruise struggles to understand this opposition because of his nostalgia. Furthermore, the reading explains that the overall mission in Vietnam was not to gain position or territory, but to simply "kill communists." These are very powerful words and something Oliver Stone was able to depict well in the movie. - David F.<br />
<br />
This movie does not really fit in well with what they carried in my opinion because it does not show a real variety in the soldiers in Vietnam. The point of that reading was that they didn't all carry the same things and quite a few things they took were personalized, but this was not shown in the movie. The movie never go anywhere near the depth of the readings in conveying the Vietnam war experience for soldiers. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
The soldiers, including Ron Kovic really thought they were going to beat Communists in Vietnam in the beginning. They were disillusioned. The Cold War was coming to an end around the time this movie was made. The Tienanmen Square Massacre happened on July 4, 1989 and Berlin Wall fell in late 1989. It seems like with the release of this film, the filmmakers were making a comment on Communism or the war on it.- Lauren<br />
<br />
With a father who served in Vietnam from 1969-1970, I can say that this movie was pretty accurate with the stories he told about coming back home. While his story is nowhere near the personal hell that Kovic endured in his time back from the fighting, this movie showed, accurately, that our Vietnam Veterans did not get their ticker-tape parades. They were not congratulated. They were not thanked. By the time 1970 rolled around, free love was over. The Rolling Stones had held a concert at Altamont that led to 3 accidental deaths and one murder. Bobby and Jack Kennedy were dead, as were Dr. King and Malcolm X. Popular music was anti-war, involving everyone from the Doors, to Jefferson Airplane to Country Joe and the Fish. For once, America was losing a war, and with it, America lost its innocence. The homefront was a maelstrom of emotion, and while many were thankful for the service of our men and women, the anger, hatred and disenchantment was there as well. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
In watching the documentary in the special features, it was stated that after winning Best Picture for Platoon, "Oliver Stone could have made any movie he wanted." Born On... was a promise kept to Ron Kovic himself that he would get this movie made. Oliver Stone was not looking for an Oscar with this one, but he got one anyway for Best Director. He wasn't looking to gross $70 million, but it did anyway. This wasn't even meant to be Oliver Stone's baby. He had already done that with Platoon. Born On The 4th was a promise kept to a fellow Vietnam Veteran. Kovic felt very much that his story had been left behind and ignored. Oliver Stone promised to bring it back. Wasn't that enough? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
Was the use of the blinking club lights meant to convey a sense of unreality in Ronnie's life after his return home? -Lauren<br />
<br />
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that the jarring nature of the film was really unsettling - but I felt that this was a conscious decision by the film makers to portray how unsettling and choppy the experience of the vietnam was was for soldiers. -Elle<br />
<br />
That makes sense for the "Vietnam Section" I guess we can call it, but for the entire movie? It didn't really seem to make sense and I don't know if it was a wise choice on their part (if it was a conscious decision) to try to do that. Something just doesn't seem to add up. But the choppiness really did work with the war scenes because you did get a sense of confusion and chaos of the situations these guys were in. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's response - I was thinking psychologically it works for the whole movie. I am NOT saying that I enjoyed it as a film viewer, but I can see why it might have been done that way. - Elle<br />
<br />
Kelly and Elle, this is a common technique of Stone's, used in even heavier amounts in Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. Even JFK ran with it. Stone has often said that the stories he tells are filled with an anarchic level of chaos and panic, and the jarring, frantic cuts are his way of showing that panic. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Tangentally, I loved the placement of Johnny Got His Gun in the scene where Kovic learns he will never walk again. For those of you who have never read this (I have two copies, I am willing to let people borrow), there is perhaps no better work of literature that better portrays the agonizing fear that comes with realizing you, as a soldier, will never be understood as a human again. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
In terms of ''Born on the Fourth of July'' 's relationship to other Vietnam films, (I guess this is "filmography" as opposed to historiography) I think this movie does a good job of portraying the Vietnam vet. I would categorize this film as a biographical autobiography, that is Stone told Kovic's story with help from Kovic himself. On one hand ''Born on the Fourth of July'' validates the stock characters we see in other films while ultimately moving beyond those characterizations. Dr. McClurken mentioned that other movies about Vietnam depicted the vets as unstable and alienated, and the real Ron Kovic certainly had to deal with his share of instability and alienation in the years following his return home. What made Kovic different from the characters in other movies is that he was able to channel his feelings into activism. Plenty of veterans came home and never quite recovered, but Kovic’s story is important because he did not let Vietnam defeat him personally. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Why did Tom Cruise's hair change so drastically? I'm assuming it's suppose to show how much he aged while at war, but I have to say it made me somewhat uncomfortable. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I thought most of Ron's childhood scenes were hyper-dramatized and nearly silly. "I had a dream last night Ron. You were talking in front of a whole bunch of people..."? There are the dangers of basing a film on an autobiography. We are all the heroes of our own lives. - JT Newcomb<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times. I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic. Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
As is often difficult for anyone, upon developing bias, it was tough for me to detach from my love for Oliver Stone in watching this. Instead, I watched it from the perspective of a 20 year old kid whose brother is an Iraq vet and whose father is a Vietnam vet. I watched from the perspective of a kid still trying to figure out his own personal politics, while still giving everyone else's, regardless of my agreement/disagreement, a fair day in court. I watch it from the perspective of trying to put myself, a relatively conservative 21-year-old, college-going kid into the perspective of the time, when my politics probably would not have been popular. Finally, I watch it with the knowledge that there is not a single human being alive that WANTS war. With all of these emotions around one simple, three-letter-word, "war," Stone crafted a masterful examination of the human psyche. It was chaotic. To be perfectly honest, the Vietnam era was a pretty terrible time to be American. -Cash Nelson <br />
<br />
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I don't really care for this. It wasn't very entertaining for me and it's not something I would ever watch again. I didn't have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he'd actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he'd been gone. We see kid Ron watching JFK's speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967. Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in '46 do things come together. I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Tom Cruise pre-Vietnam/during the war > Tom Cruise in the hospital to the end. And, I know that's how the style was in the 1970s, but I couldn't handle it. Everything just seemed to be too over-the-top almost and very very dramatic. And I think abbreviating Kovic's life so much to fit it all in in 2 1/2 hours hurt the movie a great deal. As the others said, it was so fragmented and scattered that I had a hard time keeping up with how old Ron was supposed to be, etc. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
One more thing; were those supposed to be New York accents? I know Kovic was from Long Island but come on now. They sounded a bit off to me, but I suppose anything is better than Kevin Costner and a Boston accent. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Try Kevin Costner and a New Orleans accent. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I like that Stone showed the differing views between Ron and Donna. He a Vet and she a war-protester. It reminded me of ''Forrest Gump'' although ''Forrest Gump'' came 8 years after ''Born on the 4th of July''. I'm glad Stone mentioned the protest at Kent State because not only did this horrible event have a big impact on the American public but also college campuses were hubs for protests that held very powerful stances during the Vietnam era. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I was expecting something really bad, and really inaccurate from Oliver Stone. He surprised me, I liked the film... a lot. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
In response to Cash's comment, I cannot resist quoting Robert E. Lee: observing the slaughter of the Battle of Fredericksburg from his vantage point on Telegraph Hill, he said to Gen. Longstreet, "It is well that war is so terrible - we should grow too fond of it." It still rings true. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
<br />
I didn't like the movie all that much, and by the time it ended I was actually fairly... depressed is too strong sounding but I can not think of another word. I didn't like how the movie would just cut to another scene, no transition, no nothing, just one minute your watching something then BAM something completely different. It drove me nuts!! --Ashley Wilkins</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_13_Questions/Comments329--Week 13 Questions/Comments2008-11-19T22:10:43Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
The movie did a great job showing the PTSD of Ron and the other vets. They seemed to have genuine problems dealing with the things that happened during the war. He frequently had flash backs to the critical seen from the war to him in the village. He had a hard time coming to terms with the fact that he killed a member of his unit. Many soldier were killed by friendly fire and this did a good job showing how it could happen in stressful situations. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the split reaction of the American people. Those who supported the war and those who protested. I also liked how it showed the change in Ron's character as he realized what was really going on. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In the hospital when Ron freaks out at the nurses and they don't have the right pump for his leg, the doctor explains to him, "Cutbacks. The government's just not giving us the money we need to take care of you guys." According to what we learned in the lecture, this would have been accurate, and the possibility that someone like Ron could lose his leg because of those cutbacks was real. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I was surprised with how much this movie was able to accurately portray. You really see how hard it was for the Vets to return to the states with little to no support from their country and all of the stresses from war. Most of them were druggies or, like Ron, alcoholics. You also see how crappy the hospitals were and how little funding they received from the federal government. I know we learned in class that it was much less than post-WWII America but the movie really made it real how few doctors there were and how just, disgusting the hospitals actually were. I was NOT prepared for the bedpans and the vomit. That was unnecessary. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I also really liked how well the film showed the difficulty discerning guys in your own troops and the members of the Vietcong. It really amplified how stressful and chaotic the setting was over in Vietnam and how frequently new guys were being added or sent home from American troops. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, much of the hospital horror that occurred in the film has happened as recently as last year. Those of us from the DC area will likely remember the extensive coverage of the neglect scandal at Walter Reed Army Medical Center that the Washington Post covered extensively. Red tape, rat and cockroach infestations, mold, all occurring at the US Army's flagship east coast medical center. It was accurate then, it is accurate now. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Whether veterans were disabled or suffering from PTSD, the readjustment to a country at war with itself had to leave any veteran feeling lost in the shuffle (at best). I think this movie conveys the disillusionment of the Vietnam era well. Kovic is a guy who went from “love it or leave” it to “politicians are rapists and thieves”. His story resonates because it was not uncommon, and sadly not unjustified. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
The difference in the two 4th of July parades accurately displays the differing views of the American people. When the WWII veterans returned home, hundreds of people were lining the streets, cheering, clapping, and holding American flags. When Ron is being driven through the parade the people lining the streets are jeering and giving him the figure. It shows the very different reactions of the American people to these two wars. One war they supported (WWII), the other they did not (Vietnam). Also, during the first parade when the fireworks/gun shots(?) are fired the veteran is startled and flinches and young Ron takes notice of that; this is exactly what happens to Ron during the parade, he flinches when he hears that gun shot sound. These are two examples of the PTSD the soldiers experienced that affected them in their everyday life. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
This film was the first that hammered home for me how bad it is when the government isn't prepared to take care of wounded veterans. The scenes in the VA hospital make it easy to understand the difficulties associated with a lack of funding, and what it was like for veterans in those hospitals. I guess watching Forest Gump too many times left me thinking VA hospitals were all ping pong and ice cream. - JT Newcomb<br />
<br />
I thought the scene in the bar where Kovic and the WWII Marine get into a scuffle was powerful in that it showed the disconnect between generations and between the views on the different wars. I know that guys like my grandfather who served in the Marines in the Pacific during WWII and in Korea often had little sympathy for perceived "whiners" from Vietnam. Because of the different circumstances surrounding the two wars and the vast differences between the generations, it is no wonder there were such tensions among the veterans.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I also agree on the movie doing a great job with showing how Ron’s view changes towards the war. It shows how society around him affected his thoughts on how the war had a negative impact on America. The film also gave examples of what was happening in America, the Kent State shootings (Donna briefly stated about) and the brutal beatings by police officers at the war rallies. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
As with the people above me, I felt the film did a good job portraying PTSD, and how no one really knew much about it or what was going on. No one was like 'oh he has blah blah blah' they were like 'your home you should just forget it and get on with life.' --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
In Ron's Vietnam scene, his unit shoots at huts in this village and then go investigate. But when they find the bodies, they freak out because they realize they're just civilians, and actually call medics to help these innocent people. The Lieutenant is hardly able to keep them under control. It seems implausible they would have reacted like that, because at this point in the war, they would have known the villagers they shot at may or may not be VC. Perhaps some of the green soldiers like Wilson might be surprised, but Ron shouldn't have been. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
Really? I thought the reason they were shocked is that the Americans honestly didn't think there were civilians in the area. The justification for shooting was that the lieutenant saw rifles in the huts, only later did the Americans find out that the VC had used civilians as "Cover". Also I thought the confusion and uncertainty between unarmed civilians and VC was one of the main frustrations American soldiers had fighting in Vietnam. I thought this scene was accurate. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
When Ron is home after the war, in his room with his parents, the American flag on the bedroom wall behind him is hung backwards! The field of stars should be on the left, not the right. -Whitney Holcomb <br />
<br />
I interpreted the backwards hanging of the flag as a sign of symbolic protest. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
You have a good point about the shooting, Jason. I guess I missed seeing the rifles part of that. But about the flag, wasn't Ron at that point still very patriotic? -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I felt that overall this movie hit some key points that are accurate, BUT I felt that it was another stereotypical portrayal of a torn up vietnam vet. Maybe I am still living in a fantasy that most of the vets were not drastically screwed up when they returned from the war. I know it was based on a book so this might not have been necessarily a film makers decision. - Elle<br />
<br />
Awe come on, Elle. You didn't like the American Hero story? It's not shown on the silver screen nearly enough. That's not to say it wasn't an impressive life story, but like Elle said, it just seemed to be too much. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Just to offer up some perspective, the screenplay was written by Oliver Stone and Ron Kovic himself, both of which were veterans of this war. Kovic approved the casting of Tom Cruise, and while there were obviously scenes added for dramatic license (most notably, Ron Kovic telling Will's family that he was responsible for their son's murder), most of it was on the up and up. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
That being said, Parris Island would have only been eight weeks of hell back then. Not thirteen. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Maybe this is a function of there just not being a whole lot of combat scenes but I was wondering where all the black soldiers were? There was the guy that saved Kovic and carried him to safety, but I don't recall seeing any other black soldiers, which is strange seeing as how something like 60 percent of black males were drafted. Though I guess the protest scenes showed a bit more diversity. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I don’t know much about the book the movie is based off of, but I felt the whole scene in Mexico was inaccurate. If I’m wrong please correct me, but this was something America did not talk about if it were true. Was Mexico a popular retreat place for the Vets, and was it exactly like how it was portrayed in the film? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I’m not sure, but in the scene Ron and a friend of his were talking about the war and the friend stated “This is a wealthy man’s war.” What does he mean by that? It was not a war for the common soldier because most soldiers who fought were from the lower class. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I interpreted this quote about "the wealthy man's war" as an acknowledgment of the notion that politicians in Washington "play war", using lower class boys as their playing pieces. In other words, the "fatcats" in Washington make war, but let others do their fightin'. Take a listen to Creedence Clearwater Revival's Fortunate Son. Here is a lyric that makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up every time,<br />
"Some folks are born made to wave the flag,<br />
Ooh, they're red, white and blue.<br />
And when the band plays hail to the chief,<br />
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,It aint me, it aint me, I aint no senators son, son.<br />
It aint me, it aint me; I aint no fortunate one, no,"- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
In Tim O'Brian's book he talks about the baggage the soldiers. It mentions the intangible as well as the tangible. I thought the movie did a good job showing this baggage especially after Ron killed one of his soldiers. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In "A Rumor of War," the author discusses how the war appealed to the young generation originally. How most of those who signed up early were teenagers and young adults because they were taught to be proud of their country and wanted to defend it. They answered Kennedy's call of "ask what you can do for your country" and wanted to be like their parents who had fought in previous wars, most notably WWII. You could see this in the movie pretty well, especially when the young Ron is sitting there watching Kennedy's address with his family and gets riled up about how to help and defend his country. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
So this wasn't a major part of anything but I wondered about the letters that were sent to and from soldiers. In the film Ron sends love letters to his lady, and it is also mentioned in the readings. Did this communication with home help also to keep the moral high, or no more so than any other war? - Elle<br />
<br />
I was very pleased to see O'Brien's ''The Things They Carried'' selected as a reading for this film. I would highly suggest that anyone who hasn't read O'Brien to pick up ''TTTC'' or ''Going After Cacciato'' as both are extremely powerful books in understanding the psyche of the Vietnam soldier. I found that of any text (be it film, novel, textbook), The Things They Carried was the most formative for me in understanding the impact of Vietnam on a generation (which is notable seeing as how it is a work of fiction). In regards to this film and ''TTTC'', I found that Kovic's despair upon returning and most people not really caring about the war was reflected well in O'Brien's book. Though not in our excerpt, there is a story of a Vietnam vet who returns home and basically drives around his town every night with nothing to do, trying to figure out where he fits in with the world he has returned home to find. In my opinion it is the most heartbreaking part of the book in that all this person wants is basically the occasional pat on the back for a job well done, not a fancy parade, but he never really gets it. Also the issue of returning home to girls that have since moved on in their lives is reflected in the book, as with Kovic and his childhood sweetheart with whom he can no longer really communicate.- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I really liked ''A Rumor of War''. I thought Caputo’s discussion of nostalgia offered a new perspective on why the Vietnam conflict was so complicated for Vietnam veterans. Whether veterans supported or protested the war, their time in Vietnam was the most formative experience of their lives. Caputo said his objections to Vietnam were informed by a completely different set of circumstances than that of the homefront protesters- war. “Because I had fought in it, it was not an abstract issue, but a deeply emotional experience, the most significant thing that had happened to me.” I think this is the very sentiment that everyone ought to keep in mind when discussing the Vietnam conflict (and really any hot-button issue). Regardless of where people fall on the issue of Vietnam, everyone’s ''opinion'' is valid. Too often one side accuses the other side of “not getting it” or that “they’re wrong”, but this accusation misses the point. With an issue as personal and emotional as war, there is no right or wrong, just a poignant internalization of a provocative reality.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
"In spite of everything, we felt a strange attachment to Vietnam and, even stranger, a longing to return." These words from ''A Rumor of War'' is closely related to Tom Cruise's character. He joins the war initially b/c he finds the thought of combat "attractive" (a term used by this reading). Upon his return, he encounters a brother who has gained liberal thoughts on the war, but Tom Cruise struggles to understand this opposition because of his nostalgia. Furthermore, the reading explains that the overall mission in Vietnam was not to gain position or territory, but to simply "kill communists." These are very powerful words and something Oliver Stone was able to depict well in the movie. - David F.<br />
<br />
This movie does not really fit in well with what they carried in my opinion because it does not show a real variety in the soldiers in Vietnam. The point of that reading was that they didn't all carry the same things and quite a few things they took were personalized, but this was not shown in the movie. The movie never go anywhere near the depth of the readings in conveying the Vietnam war experience for soldiers. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
The soldiers, including Ron Kovic really thought they were going to beat Communists in Vietnam in the beginning. They were disillusioned. The Cold War was coming to an end around the time this movie was made. The Tienanmen Square Massacre happened on July 4, 1989 and Berlin Wall fell in late 1989. It seems like with the release of this film, the filmmakers were making a comment on Communism or the war on it.- Lauren<br />
<br />
With a father who served in Vietnam from 1969-1970, I can say that this movie was pretty accurate with the stories he told about coming back home. While his story is nowhere near the personal hell that Kovic endured in his time back from the fighting, this movie showed, accurately, that our Vietnam Veterans did not get their ticker-tape parades. They were not congratulated. They were not thanked. By the time 1970 rolled around, free love was over. The Rolling Stones had held a concert at Altamont that led to 3 accidental deaths and one murder. Bobby and Jack Kennedy were dead, as were Dr. King and Malcolm X. Popular music was anti-war, involving everyone from the Doors, to Jefferson Airplane to Country Joe and the Fish. For once, America was losing a war, and with it, America lost its innocence. The homefront was a maelstrom of emotion, and while many were thankful for the service of our men and women, the anger, hatred and disenchantment was there as well. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
In watching the documentary in the special features, it was stated that after winning Best Picture for Platoon, "Oliver Stone could have made any movie he wanted." Born On... was a promise kept to Ron Kovic himself that he would get this movie made. Oliver Stone was not looking for an Oscar with this one, but he got one anyway for Best Director. He wasn't looking to gross $70 million, but it did anyway. This wasn't even meant to be Oliver Stone's baby. He had already done that with Platoon. Born On The 4th was a promise kept to a fellow Vietnam Veteran. Kovic felt very much that his story had been left behind and ignored. Oliver Stone promised to bring it back. Wasn't that enough? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
Was the use of the blinking club lights meant to convey a sense of unreality in Ronnie's life after his return home? -Lauren<br />
<br />
How often did soldiers go off to Mexico to avoid what was going on in the US? It seemed that there were a lot of the men, especially those in wheelchairs that were in Mexico trying to recover and avoid the criticism in the states. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I felt that the jarring nature of the film was really unsettling - but I felt that this was a conscious decision by the film makers to portray how unsettling and choppy the experience of the vietnam was was for soldiers. -Elle<br />
<br />
That makes sense for the "Vietnam Section" I guess we can call it, but for the entire movie? It didn't really seem to make sense and I don't know if it was a wise choice on their part (if it was a conscious decision) to try to do that. Something just doesn't seem to add up. But the choppiness really did work with the war scenes because you did get a sense of confusion and chaos of the situations these guys were in. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In response to Kelly's response - I was thinking psychologically it works for the whole movie. I am NOT saying that I enjoyed it as a film viewer, but I can see why it might have been done that way. - Elle<br />
<br />
Kelly and Elle, this is a common technique of Stone's, used in even heavier amounts in Natural Born Killers, U-Turn and Any Given Sunday. Even JFK ran with it. Stone has often said that the stories he tells are filled with an anarchic level of chaos and panic, and the jarring, frantic cuts are his way of showing that panic. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Tangentally, I loved the placement of Johnny Got His Gun in the scene where Kovic learns he will never walk again. For those of you who have never read this (I have two copies, I am willing to let people borrow), there is perhaps no better work of literature that better portrays the agonizing fear that comes with realizing you, as a soldier, will never be understood as a human again. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
In terms of ''Born on the Fourth of July'' 's relationship to other Vietnam films, (I guess this is "filmography" as opposed to historiography) I think this movie does a good job of portraying the Vietnam vet. I would categorize this film as a biographical autobiography, that is Stone told Kovic's story with help from Kovic himself. On one hand ''Born on the Fourth of July'' validates the stock characters we see in other films while ultimately moving beyond those characterizations. Dr. McClurken mentioned that other movies about Vietnam depicted the vets as unstable and alienated, and the real Ron Kovic certainly had to deal with his share of instability and alienation in the years following his return home. What made Kovic different from the characters in other movies is that he was able to channel his feelings into activism. Plenty of veterans came home and never quite recovered, but Kovic’s story is important because he did not let Vietnam defeat him personally. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Why did Tom Cruise's hair change so drastically? I'm assuming it's suppose to show how much he aged while at war, but I have to say it made me somewhat uncomfortable. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I thought most of Ron's childhood scenes were hyper-dramatized and nearly silly. "I had a dream last night Ron. You were talking in front of a whole bunch of people..."? There are the dangers of basing a film on an autobiography. We are all the heroes of our own lives. - JT Newcomb<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really did not like this movie. Most of the time I felt very confused, it seemed to jump around a lot and it made it hard to follow at times. I also had a hard time believing in Tom Cruise as the main character Ron Kovic. Maybe this is because I am so used to seeing him in different roles that this role was just different enough to make it seem strange. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
As is often difficult for anyone, upon developing bias, it was tough for me to detach from my love for Oliver Stone in watching this. Instead, I watched it from the perspective of a 20 year old kid whose brother is an Iraq vet and whose father is a Vietnam vet. I watched from the perspective of a kid still trying to figure out his own personal politics, while still giving everyone else's, regardless of my agreement/disagreement, a fair day in court. I watch it from the perspective of trying to put myself, a relatively conservative 21-year-old, college-going kid into the perspective of the time, when my politics probably would not have been popular. Finally, I watch it with the knowledge that there is not a single human being alive that WANTS war. With all of these emotions around one simple, three-letter-word, "war," Stone crafted a masterful examination of the human psyche. It was chaotic. To be perfectly honest, the Vietnam era was a pretty terrible time to be American. -Cash Nelson <br />
<br />
I also had a hard time following the movie. I agree with Kellye that it seemed to jump around a lot. I also found it hard to believe Tom Cruise as the main character. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I don't really care for this. It wasn't very entertaining for me and it's not something I would ever watch again. I didn't have any problems with the film jumping around, but I kept trying to figure out when he'd actually gone away, and therefore how old he was and how long he'd been gone. We see kid Ron watching JFK's speech in 1961, then Ron is a senior in high school, then we are in Vietnam in October 1967. Only after a parade when a speaker says Ron was born in '46 do things come together. I was preoccupied with this on multiple occasions. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Tom Cruise pre-Vietnam/during the war > Tom Cruise in the hospital to the end. And, I know that's how the style was in the 1970s, but I couldn't handle it. Everything just seemed to be too over-the-top almost and very very dramatic. And I think abbreviating Kovic's life so much to fit it all in in 2 1/2 hours hurt the movie a great deal. As the others said, it was so fragmented and scattered that I had a hard time keeping up with how old Ron was supposed to be, etc. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
One more thing; were those supposed to be New York accents? I know Kovic was from Long Island but come on now. They sounded a bit off to me, but I suppose anything is better than Kevin Costner and a Boston accent. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Try Kevin Costner and a New Orleans accent. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I like that Stone showed the differing views between Ron and Donna. He a Vet and she a war-protester. It reminded me of ''Forrest Gump'' although ''Forrest Gump'' came 8 years after ''Born on the 4th of July''. I'm glad Stone mentioned the protest at Kent State because not only did this horrible event have a big impact on the American public but also college campuses were hubs for protests that held very powerful stances during the Vietnam era. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I was expecting something really bad, and really inaccurate from Oliver Stone. He surprised me, I liked the film... a lot. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
In response to Cash's comment, I cannot resist quoting Robert E. Lee: observing the slaughter of the Battle of Fredericksburg from his vantage point on Telegraph Hill, he said to Gen. Longstreet, "It is well that war is so terrible - we should grow too fond of it." It still rings true. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
<br />
I didn't like the movie all that much, and by the time it ended I was actually fairly... depressed is too strong sounding but I can not think of another word. I didn't like how the movie would just cut to another scene, no transition, no nothing, just one minute your watching something then BAM something completely different. It drove me nuts!! --Ashley Wilkins</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments329--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-11-12T22:37:21Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct. For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa's sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers' choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn't know what was going on. -Lauren<br />
<br />
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Dates and major events all happened at the right time, including the bombing of Dr. King's home. Through tear-fogged eyes, I was able to see that this was a heartbreakingly accurate depiction of a world where we referred to other human beings as dogs, and often worse names than that. The Citizen's Coalition seemed to be accurately depicted, down to the Confederate Flag as its logo. This wasn't an easy movie to get through, but that was the point. It wasn't an easy time to be black either. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I felt that the dissension between the groups was well depicted - Miriam and her husband disagreed on the issue, and the black family's daughter didn't get it either. I like that we could see all sides of the story through these two families. Blacks didn't all automatically think YEAH! Let's walk everywhere! It caught on through the meetings/rallies and some had to be convinced. And not all whites felt the same way about the situation either - and I also liked the progression that both Miriam and her husband went through - not affected, somewhat concerned, then taking action. Very powerful movie. - Elle<br />
<br />
I found the depictions of the non-violent responses by the Montgomery black population to be very powerful. There is the scene where the middle son basically takes a whupping, resisting the urge to fight back, and the violent white mob at the end of the movie is met merely with song. Many civil rights leaders, like MLK, relied on non-violent resistance and this movie did well to exhibit the power inherent in non-violence.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I thought that the way the movie handled the black community's gender roles fairly well. Though in many cases it was the women out on the front lines protesting, earning, taking the long walks, in all the church scenes the authority figures were male.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Well it would be true that most of the leaders of black civil rights groups would be male although women played a very heavy role in the movement they were not given as much representation in leadership so I do not feel that was inaccurate. I also thought the bus scene at the beginning of the movie was particularly well done from an historic standpoint. I also felt this movie had a very good time progression you can see this especially as the actions of Whites against the boycott become progresively worse over the course of the movie. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
I found Miriam's revelation of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she's willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word "nigger" a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don't doubt that some Southern white women did help, ''but'' that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren<br />
<br />
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the ''Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr'' reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, "Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home."(225)Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be "fresh and alert" during work, or "I want my maid to be on time", Southern white women were helping with the boycott. As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of "I want you to be awake!", the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam's character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious "I stayed in the pool" mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary's zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
<br />
Lauren, I didn't find what Miriam did to be very unlikely, as this was one opportunity for the caring housewives with no money of their own to make a difference for the blacks. I don't think Miriam rushed into it, although we didn't see much hesitation on her part during the film. First of all, she had always treated her maids well, although she also always knew her husband didn't agree with it. She knew from the start that her husband didn't approve of her even driving Odessa, and she stopped when he found out and made her do so. She didn't want to, but she did spend time thinking it over and finally determined that what her husband did was the final straw, the culmination of her long-held feelings that blacks deserved better treatment. By making up her mind she was rebelling against her husband and the whites' sense of right or wrong, and she was aware of what consequences might be if the blacks won--she was in support of them. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Where were all of the real characters from the ''Rosa Parks'' reading?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Wow, sorry if I sound redundant there, but apparently Jason and I were apparently writing that at exactly the same time! -Whitney<br />
<br />
--Whitney, you reminded me of another point that I wanted to say. I was so happy when Miriam stood up to her husband on her right to drive Odessa to work and told him that if he insists on running her household, that she'll involve herself in his business. After all, she does have a college degree. That defiance wasn't surprising coming from her, but suddenly (thinking for what seemed like a day) she has a determination to get a job just so she can drive Odessa and have her own money. From what I can see, she never had a job before and she was wholly dependent on her husband for as long they've been married. I'm just questioning the likelihood that Miriam would change her career life dramatically. Helping with the boycott changes her and her family's life in any case, but going to work outside the home would impact her and her family even more directly. --Jason, I agree with you about her broad personality, but I viewed her as naive. She's had her husband take care of her for years and now she's taking large steps very quickly towards progression. Women in her place would have been more hesitant or taken smaller steps over a longer period of time, ''if'' they did anything. The behavior and views of Miriam's companions illustrate what many Southern women felt. With the time constraints on the movie, the filmmakers felt the need to speed the process of Miriam's change; but I felt it was too fast. Some Southern white women did help, like Virginia Durr; but she went to Wellesley College in Massachusetts. That experience in the North must've impacted her life in a positive way towards blacks (Source: http://www.wellesley.edu/Anniversary/durr.html). Unlike most Southern women, Virginia Durr had experience with black peers and got to understand them as more than inferior people who work for her. As far as I can see, Miriam has lived in the South all her life. -Lauren<br />
<br />
The scene that I found most questionable was the end scene. Although I know Miriam decided to support the bus boycott I just find it unlikely that any women would go so far as to stand up to a mob especially when they had a daughter to worry about. I also found Miriam's change in atitude a little to sudden she never really talked heart to heart with Odessa before and after one conversation with her she suddenly becomes a fanatic to the cause even if she was sympathetic to the cause. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed: When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened. In Mrs. Durr's statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit. Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I really liked the ''Testimony of Thomas Williams''. I felt the main idea of the testimony was to convey the ''de facto'' laws of the South, and how those laws were rooted in white supremacist tradition rather than American jurisprudence. It was the small but powerful phrase uttered by the bus driver that justified everything that happened to Williams and thousands of blacks in the Jim Crow era- "Your in the South now". Whites were able to get away with this behavior because they had the power to do so, and until the late 1950s no one made them do any differently. I think Williams exposed the crucial factor that would change life in the South- enforcement. "...Supreme Court decisions just are not enough. It is necessary to have a law to prevent them from doing these things." In the movie we see whites dominating and intimidating blacks because they could. The policemen were actively orchestrating that domination and intimidation. As was proven with the integration of schools in the decades to follow, enforcement of law would be the only way to ensure tangible change. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
This might be silly BUT... Why was there not even the slightest mention of the schools - Brown v. Board had already happened... how long did it take for the desegregation of schools to actually kick in? -Elle<br />
<br />
If I remember from the readings correctly, the South continued with their segregation and Jim Crow laws even after Supreme Court decisions. Much of the unconstitutional decisions did go in effect in the South until the federal government forcibly made the South listen to those decisions. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Jason, I,too, found Thomas Williams' account to be truly profound. In particular, when he discusses his experience in the jail. He said that he was treated peacefully, which to be honest I was surprised because as we see in the movie and from our knowledge of history this is an extremely hostile time for African Americans. He further explains how one of the deputies tells him he should consider him self lucky for being treated so kindly (... yeah, OK) and not getting his "head beat in" and in all "fairness" that is what would have happened if a white person stepped outside their bounds. ''The Long Walk Home'' and Thomas Williams' account are both truly heartbreaking and it's sickening to know that a country who prides itself on democratic beliefs and equality for all citizens could have endured such an unfathomable period of history. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I feel the movie does a good job at following the details given about the bus boycott in primary sources. The instances of the car speeding incidence and the attitude of the police was well shown in this movie by the scene where Odessa advices Miriam to drive slow because of tickets and the scene where Odessa is kicked out of the park by the police. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
I don't know if this happened on purpose, but Long Walk Home was nestled in a chronology of MAJOR movies being made about growing up in America as a member of the black community. Others were Do The Right Thing (1989), Boyz N The Hood (1991), Malcolm X (1992), and Menace II Society (1993). Anyone know if this was coincidence or not? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
The style of this movie was somewhat strange to me - the camera would focus on closer objects or people, or further objects and have the alternate distance one blurry. Also I remember a few rolling shots where it followed Miriam across the room, but she goes behind something and comes out on the other side. Another example - close up on the telephone. Strange to me, but artistic. - Elle<br />
<br />
Did anyone have a problem with a movie about the Montgomery Bus Boycotts being told from a young affluent white girl's perspective? Was it just me, or did this movie seem to be a bit too focused on the evolution of Miriam into an activist, rather than the movement to organize a successful boycott? Granted, I still felt that this was a powerful depiction, I just thought that maybe the story of the black family should have been more clearly the "A" storyline.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Also, I liked how they alluded to MLK without actually showing him. Is it just me or is there some unspoken Hollywood agreement that King will not be prominently depicted on screen? I was trying to think about this, and to my memory there aren't any movies where an actor portrays King. Why do you think this is the case? Is it because he was such an electrifying and dynamic person that no actor is comfortable risking their career depicting such an icon? Another thing I was wondering, how is it that there have not been any movies about the Freedom Rides (at least to my knowledge)? After reading James Farmer's autobiography ''Lay Bare the Heart'' last year I was struck at how compelling a narrative that the freedom rides would make for film. Certainly this would make for a better movie than Saw 38 or whatever number they are on.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Bryan, I have to say I agree, but unfortunately my answer is a bit cynical. Hollywood has, in addition to trying to re-define (read: stereotype!) gender roles, also fit racial roles into neat, little stereotypical boxes. Your cheeky inclusion of the Saw movies (they've greenlit Saw 8, by the way, even though only 5 have been made) is actually rather relevant, because no genre is more guilty of this than horror. After all, if any rule remains constant, it's that the black guy dies first. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
The next point to make is that we have very few legendary black actors. Our most famous, Denzel Washington, has been typecast to an epic level. Man On Fire, Virtuosity, Out of Time and Inside Man are all the same movie, in a different setting, with different names. It's unfortunate, but as a culture, we are simply not ready to let our black actors shine the way we let our whites. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
The movie seems to hold back a bit on showing the actual violence going on. The movie implies the violence is bad by mentioning the church bombings, but the couple of scenes of actual violence in the movie are relevantly tame. There is clearly an attitude of fear in the movie about the situation, but we never really see the real reason for the fear as all the characters in the movie get off ok. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements. However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I cried. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I sobbed. On more than one occasion, and loudly. I still don't have words to really articulate the way I felt after this one, other than to say I think it's the best movie we've watched so far. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I got teary-eyed, too, at some point, although I can't remember where. Overall, I think this movie is an effective portrayal of this significant event in US history, since its details are often overlooked in classrooms. It gets across the personal effects of racism to these particular families and how they had tolerated it but would no longer. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I liked that they didn't try to portray the monumental people of this movement in the film - there was no rosa parks or MLK Jr, which, to me made it better. Overall, very good film. - Elle<br />
<br />
I have a bit of interesting information that I wanted to share with everyone. I was reading up on the movie just to get some more background information and I read that one of the buses used in the film was actually the Montgomery Bus Lines bus that Rosa Parks was riding on when she was arrested. --Mallory Cruise<br />
<br />
After some of the films we've watched this semester, and comparing it to the length of next week's film, this one was rather short. Not that I mind, it was nice to have a shorter film. --Ashley Wilkins</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments329--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-11-12T22:31:03Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct. For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa's sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers' choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn't know what was going on. -Lauren<br />
<br />
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Dates and major events all happened at the right time, including the bombing of Dr. King's home. Through tear-fogged eyes, I was able to see that this was a heartbreakingly accurate depiction of a world where we referred to other human beings as dogs, and often worse names than that. The Citizen's Coalition seemed to be accurately depicted, down to the Confederate Flag as its logo. This wasn't an easy movie to get through, but that was the point. It wasn't an easy time to be black either. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I felt that the dissension between the groups was well depicted - Miriam and her husband disagreed on the issue, and the black family's daughter didn't get it either. I like that we could see all sides of the story through these two families. Blacks didn't all automatically think YEAH! Let's walk everywhere! It caught on through the meetings/rallies and some had to be convinced. And not all whites felt the same way about the situation either - and I also liked the progression that both Miriam and her husband went through - not affected, somewhat concerned, then taking action. Very powerful movie. - Elle<br />
<br />
I found the depictions of the non-violent responses by the Montgomery black population to be very powerful. There is the scene where the middle son basically takes a whupping, resisting the urge to fight back, and the violent white mob at the end of the movie is met merely with song. Many civil rights leaders, like MLK, relied on non-violent resistance and this movie did well to exhibit the power inherent in non-violence.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I thought that the way the movie handled the black community's gender roles fairly well. Though in many cases it was the women out on the front lines protesting, earning, taking the long walks, in all the church scenes the authority figures were male.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Well it would be true that most of the leaders of black civil rights groups would be male although women played a very heavy role in the movement they were not given as much representation in leadership so I do not feel that was inaccurate. I also thought the bus scene at the beginning of the movie was particularly well done from an historic standpoint. I also felt this movie had a very good time progression you can see this especially as the actions of Whites against the boycott become progresively worse over the course of the movie. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
I found Miriam's revelation of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she's willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word "nigger" a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don't doubt that some Southern white women did help, ''but'' that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren<br />
<br />
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the ''Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr'' reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, "Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home."(225)Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be "fresh and alert" during work, or "I want my maid to be on time", Southern white women were helping with the boycott. As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of "I want you to be awake!", the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam's character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious "I stayed in the pool" mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary's zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
<br />
Lauren, I didn't find what Miriam did to be very unlikely, as this was one opportunity for the caring housewives with no money of their own to make a difference for the blacks. I don't think Miriam rushed into it, although we didn't see much hesitation on her part during the film. First of all, she had always treated her maids well, although she also always knew her husband didn't agree with it. She knew from the start that her husband didn't approve of her even driving Odessa, and she stopped when he found out and made her do so. She didn't want to, but she did spend time thinking it over and finally determined that what her husband did was the final straw, the culmination of her long-held feelings that blacks deserved better treatment. By making up her mind she was rebelling against her husband and the whites' sense of right or wrong, and she was aware of what consequences might be if the blacks won--she was in support of them. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Where were all of the real characters from the ''Rosa Parks'' reading?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Wow, sorry if I sound redundant there, but apparently Jason and I were apparently writing that at exactly the same time! -Whitney<br />
<br />
--Whitney, you reminded me of another point that I wanted to say. I was so happy when Miriam stood up to her husband on her right to drive Odessa to work and told him that if he insists on running her household, that she'll involve herself in his business. After all, she does have a college degree. That defiance wasn't surprising coming from her, but suddenly (thinking for what seemed like a day) she has a determination to get a job just so she can drive Odessa and have her own money. From what I can see, she never had a job before and she was wholly dependent on her husband for as long they've been married. I'm just questioning the likelihood that Miriam would change her career life dramatically. Helping with the boycott changes her and her family's life in any case, but going to work outside the home would impact her and her family even more directly. --Jason, I agree with you about her broad personality, but I viewed her as naive. She's had her husband take care of her for years and now she's taking large steps very quickly towards progression. Women in her place would have been more hesitant or taken smaller steps over a longer period of time, ''if'' they did anything. The behavior and views of Miriam's companions illustrate what many Southern women felt. With the time constraints on the movie, the filmmakers felt the need to speed the process of Miriam's change; but I felt it was too fast. Some Southern white women did help, like Virginia Durr; but she went to Wellesley College in Massachusetts. That experience in the North must've impacted her life in a positive way towards blacks (Source: http://www.wellesley.edu/Anniversary/durr.html). Unlike most Southern women, Virginia Durr had experience with black peers and got to understand them as more than inferior people who work for her. As far as I can see, Miriam has lived in the South all her life. -Lauren<br />
<br />
The scene that I found most questionable was the end scene. Although I know Miriam decided to support the bus boycott I just find it unlikely that any women would go so far as to stand up to a mob especially when they had a daughter to worry about. I also found Miriam's change in atitude a little to sudden she never really talked heart to heart with Odessa before and after one conversation with her she suddenly becomes a fanatic to the cause even if she was sympathetic to the cause. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed: When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened. In Mrs. Durr's statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit. Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I really liked the ''Testimony of Thomas Williams''. I felt the main idea of the testimony was to convey the ''de facto'' laws of the South, and how those laws were rooted in white supremacist tradition rather than American jurisprudence. It was the small but powerful phrase uttered by the bus driver that justified everything that happened to Williams and thousands of blacks in the Jim Crow era- "Your in the South now". Whites were able to get away with this behavior because they had the power to do so, and until the late 1950s no one made them do any differently. I think Williams exposed the crucial factor that would change life in the South- enforcement. "...Supreme Court decisions just are not enough. It is necessary to have a law to prevent them from doing these things." In the movie we see whites dominating and intimidating blacks because they could. The policemen were actively orchestrating that domination and intimidation. As was proven with the integration of schools in the decades to follow, enforcement of law would be the only way to ensure tangible change. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
This might be silly BUT... Why was there not even the slightest mention of the schools - Brown v. Board had already happened... how long did it take for the desegregation of schools to actually kick in? -Elle<br />
<br />
If I remember from the readings correctly, the South continued with their segregation and Jim Crow laws even after Supreme Court decisions. Much of the unconstitutional decisions did go in effect in the South until the federal government forcibly made the South listen to those decisions. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Jason, I,too, found Thomas Williams' account to be truly profound. In particular, when he discusses his experience in the jail. He said that he was treated peacefully, which to be honest I was surprised because as we see in the movie and from our knowledge of history this is an extremely hostile time for African Americans. He further explains how one of the deputies tells him he should consider him self lucky for being treated so kindly (... yeah, OK) and not getting his "head beat in" and in all "fairness" that is what would have happened if a white person stepped outside their bounds. ''The Long Walk Home'' and Thomas Williams' account are both truly heartbreaking and it's sickening to know that a country who prides itself on democratic beliefs and equality for all citizens could have endured such an unfathomable period of history. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I feel the movie does a good job at following the details given about the bus boycott in primary sources. The instances of the car speeding incidence and the attitude of the police was well shown in this movie by the scene where Odessa advices Miriam to drive slow because of tickets and the scene where Odessa is kicked out of the park by the police. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
I don't know if this happened on purpose, but Long Walk Home was nestled in a chronology of MAJOR movies being made about growing up in America as a member of the black community. Others were Do The Right Thing (1989), Boyz N The Hood (1991), Malcolm X (1992), and Menace II Society (1993). Anyone know if this was coincidence or not? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
The style of this movie was somewhat strange to me - the camera would focus on closer objects or people, or further objects and have the alternate distance one blurry. Also I remember a few rolling shots where it followed Miriam across the room, but she goes behind something and comes out on the other side. Another example - close up on the telephone. Strange to me, but artistic. - Elle<br />
<br />
Did anyone have a problem with a movie about the Montgomery Bus Boycotts being told from a young affluent white girl's perspective? Was it just me, or did this movie seem to be a bit too focused on the evolution of Miriam into an activist, rather than the movement to organize a successful boycott? Granted, I still felt that this was a powerful depiction, I just thought that maybe the story of the black family should have been more clearly the "A" storyline.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Also, I liked how they alluded to MLK without actually showing him. Is it just me or is there some unspoken Hollywood agreement that King will not be prominently depicted on screen? I was trying to think about this, and to my memory there aren't any movies where an actor portrays King. Why do you think this is the case? Is it because he was such an electrifying and dynamic person that no actor is comfortable risking their career depicting such an icon? Another thing I was wondering, how is it that there have not been any movies about the Freedom Rides (at least to my knowledge)? After reading James Farmer's autobiography ''Lay Bare the Heart'' last year I was struck at how compelling a narrative that the freedom rides would make for film. Certainly this would make for a better movie than Saw 38 or whatever number they are on.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Bryan, I have to say I agree, but unfortunately my answer is a bit cynical. Hollywood has, in addition to trying to re-define (read: stereotype!) gender roles, also fit racial roles into neat, little stereotypical boxes. Your cheeky inclusion of the Saw movies (they've greenlit Saw 8, by the way, even though only 5 have been made) is actually rather relevant, because no genre is more guilty of this than horror. After all, if any rule remains constant, it's that the black guy dies first. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
The next point to make is that we have very few legendary black actors. Our most famous, Denzel Washington, has been typecast to an epic level. Man On Fire, Virtuosity, Out of Time and Inside Man are all the same movie, in a different setting, with different names. It's unfortunate, but as a culture, we are simply not ready to let our black actors shine the way we let our whites. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements. However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I cried. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I sobbed. On more than one occasion, and loudly. I still don't have words to really articulate the way I felt after this one, other than to say I think it's the best movie we've watched so far. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I got teary-eyed, too, at some point, although I can't remember where. Overall, I think this movie is an effective portrayal of this significant event in US history, since its details are often overlooked in classrooms. It gets across the personal effects of racism to these particular families and how they had tolerated it but would no longer. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I liked that they didn't try to portray the monumental people of this movement in the film - there was no rosa parks or MLK Jr, which, to me made it better. Overall, very good film. - Elle<br />
<br />
I have a bit of interesting information that I wanted to share with everyone. I was reading up on the movie just to get some more background information and I read that one of the buses used in the film was actually the Montgomery Bus Lines bus that Rosa Parks was riding on when she was arrested. --Mallory Cruise<br />
<br />
After some of the films we've watched this semester, and comparing it to the length of next week's film, this one was rather short. Not that I mind, it was nice to have a shorter film. --Ashley Wilkins</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments329--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-11-12T22:20:25Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct. For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa's sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers' choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn't know what was going on. -Lauren<br />
<br />
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Dates and major events all happened at the right time, including the bombing of Dr. King's home. Through tear-fogged eyes, I was able to see that this was a heartbreakingly accurate depiction of a world where we referred to other human beings as dogs, and often worse names than that. The Citizen's Coalition seemed to be accurately depicted, down to the Confederate Flag as its logo. This wasn't an easy movie to get through, but that was the point. It wasn't an easy time to be black either. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I felt that the dissension between the groups was well depicted - Miriam and her husband disagreed on the issue, and the black family's daughter didn't get it either. I like that we could see all sides of the story through these two families. Blacks didn't all automatically think YEAH! Let's walk everywhere! It caught on through the meetings/rallies and some had to be convinced. And not all whites felt the same way about the situation either - and I also liked the progression that both Miriam and her husband went through - not affected, somewhat concerned, then taking action. Very powerful movie. - Elle<br />
<br />
I found the depictions of the non-violent responses by the Montgomery black population to be very powerful. There is the scene where the middle son basically takes a whupping, resisting the urge to fight back, and the violent white mob at the end of the movie is met merely with song. Many civil rights leaders, like MLK, relied on non-violent resistance and this movie did well to exhibit the power inherent in non-violence.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I thought that the way the movie handled the black community's gender roles fairly well. Though in many cases it was the women out on the front lines protesting, earning, taking the long walks, in all the church scenes the authority figures were male.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Well it would be true that most of the leaders of black civil rights groups would be male although women played a very heavy role in the movement they were not given as much representation in leadership so I do not feel that was inaccurate. I also thought the bus scene at the beginning of the movie was particularly well done from an historic standpoint. I also felt this movie had a very good time progression you can see this especially as the actions of Whites against the boycott become progresively worse over the course of the movie. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
I found Miriam's revelation of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she's willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word "nigger" a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don't doubt that some Southern white women did help, ''but'' that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren<br />
<br />
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the ''Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr'' reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, "Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home."(225)Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be "fresh and alert" during work, or "I want my maid to be on time", Southern white women were helping with the boycott. As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of "I want you to be awake!", the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam's character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious "I stayed in the pool" mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary's zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
<br />
Lauren, I didn't find what Miriam did to be very unlikely, as this was one opportunity for the caring housewives with no money of their own to make a difference for the blacks. I don't think Miriam rushed into it, although we didn't see much hesitation on her part during the film. First of all, she had always treated her maids well, although she also always knew her husband didn't agree with it. She knew from the start that her husband didn't approve of her even driving Odessa, and she stopped when he found out and made her do so. She didn't want to, but she did spend time thinking it over and finally determined that what her husband did was the final straw, the culmination of her long-held feelings that blacks deserved better treatment. By making up her mind she was rebelling against her husband and the whites' sense of right or wrong, and she was aware of what consequences might be if the blacks won--she was in support of them. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Where were all of the real characters from the ''Rosa Parks'' reading?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Wow, sorry if I sound redundant there, but apparently Jason and I were apparently writing that at exactly the same time! -Whitney<br />
<br />
--Whitney, you reminded me of another point that I wanted to say. I was so happy when Miriam stood up to her husband on her right to drive Odessa to work and told him that if he insists on running her household, that she'll involve herself in his business. After all, she does have a college degree. That defiance wasn't surprising coming from her, but suddenly (thinking for what seemed like a day) she has a determination to get a job just so she can drive Odessa and have her own money. From what I can see, she never had a job before and she was wholly dependent on her husband for as long they've been married. I'm just questioning the likelihood that Miriam would change her career life dramatically. Helping with the boycott changes her and her family's life in any case, but going to work outside the home would impact her and her family even more directly. --Jason, I agree with you about her broad personality, but I viewed her as naive. She's had her husband take care of her for years and now she's taking large steps very quickly towards progression. Women in her place would have been more hesitant or taken smaller steps over a longer period of time, ''if'' they did anything. The behavior and views of Miriam's companions illustrate what many Southern women felt. With the time constraints on the movie, the filmmakers felt the need to speed the process of Miriam's change; but I felt it was too fast. Some Southern white women did help, like Virginia Durr; but she went to Wellesley College in Massachusetts. That experience in the North must've impacted her life in a positive way towards blacks (Source: http://www.wellesley.edu/Anniversary/durr.html). Unlike most Southern women, Virginia Durr had experience with black peers and got to understand them as more than inferior people who work for her. As far as I can see, Miriam has lived in the South all her life. -Lauren<br />
<br />
The scene that I found most questionable was the end scene. Although I know Miriam decided to support the bus boycott I just find it unlikely that any women would go so far as to stand up to a mob especially when they had a daughter to worry about. I also found Miriam's change in atitude a little to sudden she never really talked heart to heart with Odessa before and after one conversation with her she suddenly becomes a fanatic to the cause even if she was sympathetic to the cause. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed: When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened. In Mrs. Durr's statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit. Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I really liked the ''Testimony of Thomas Williams''. I felt the main idea of the testimony was to convey the ''de facto'' laws of the South, and how those laws were rooted in white supremacist tradition rather than American jurisprudence. It was the small but powerful phrase uttered by the bus driver that justified everything that happened to Williams and thousands of blacks in the Jim Crow era- "Your in the South now". Whites were able to get away with this behavior because they had the power to do so, and until the late 1950s no one made them do any differently. I think Williams exposed the crucial factor that would change life in the South- enforcement. "...Supreme Court decisions just are not enough. It is necessary to have a law to prevent them from doing these things." In the movie we see whites dominating and intimidating blacks because they could. The policemen were actively orchestrating that domination and intimidation. As was proven with the integration of schools in the decades to follow, enforcement of law would be the only way to ensure tangible change. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
This might be silly BUT... Why was there not even the slightest mention of the schools - Brown v. Board had already happened... how long did it take for the desegregation of schools to actually kick in? -Elle<br />
<br />
Jason, I,too, found Thomas Williams' account to be truly profound. In particular, when he discusses his experience in the jail. He said that he was treated peacefully, which to be honest I was surprised because as we see in the movie and from our knowledge of history this is an extremely hostile time for African Americans. He further explains how one of the deputies tells him he should consider him self lucky for being treated so kindly (... yeah, OK) and not getting his "head beat in" and in all "fairness" that is what would have happened if a white person stepped outside their bounds. ''The Long Walk Home'' and Thomas Williams' account are both truly heartbreaking and it's sickening to know that a country who prides itself on democratic beliefs and equality for all citizens could have endured such an unfathomable period of history. --Mallory C.<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
I don't know if this happened on purpose, but Long Walk Home was nestled in a chronology of MAJOR movies being made about growing up in America as a member of the black community. Others were Do The Right Thing (1989), Boyz N The Hood (1991), Malcolm X (1992), and Menace II Society (1993). Anyone know if this was coincidence or not? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
The style of this movie was somewhat strange to me - the camera would focus on closer objects or people, or further objects and have the alternate distance one blurry. Also I remember a few rolling shots where it followed Miriam across the room, but she goes behind something and comes out on the other side. Another example - close up on the telephone. Strange to me, but artistic. - Elle<br />
<br />
Did anyone have a problem with a movie about the Montgomery Bus Boycotts being told from a young affluent white girl's perspective? Was it just me, or did this movie seem to be a bit too focused on the evolution of Miriam into an activist, rather than the movement to organize a successful boycott? Granted, I still felt that this was a powerful depiction, I just thought that maybe the story of the black family should have been more clearly the "A" storyline.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Also, I liked how they alluded to MLK without actually showing him. Is it just me or is there some unspoken Hollywood agreement that King will not be prominently depicted on screen? I was trying to think about this, and to my memory there aren't any movies where an actor portrays King. Why do you think this is the case? Is it because he was such an electrifying and dynamic person that no actor is comfortable risking their career depicting such an icon? Another thing I was wondering, how is it that there have not been any movies about the Freedom Rides (at least to my knowledge)? After reading James Farmer's autobiography ''Lay Bare the Heart'' last year I was struck at how compelling a narrative that the freedom rides would make for film. Certainly this would make for a better movie than Saw 38 or whatever number they are on.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Bryan, I have to say I agree, but unfortunately my answer is a bit cynical. Hollywood has, in addition to trying to re-define (read: stereotype!) gender roles, also fit racial roles into neat, little stereotypical boxes. Your cheeky inclusion of the Saw movies (they've greenlit Saw 8, by the way, even though only 5 have been made) is actually rather relevant, because no genre is more guilty of this than horror. After all, if any rule remains constant, it's that the black guy dies first. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
The next point to make is that we have very few legendary black actors. Our most famous, Denzel Washington, has been typecast to an epic level. Man On Fire, Virtuosity, Out of Time and Inside Man are all the same movie, in a different setting, with different names. It's unfortunate, but as a culture, we are simply not ready to let our black actors shine the way we let our whites. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements. However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I cried. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I sobbed. On more than one occasion, and loudly. I still don't have words to really articulate the way I felt after this one, other than to say I think it's the best movie we've watched so far. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I got teary-eyed, too, at some point, although I can't remember where. Overall, I think this movie is an effective portrayal of this significant event in US history, since its details are often overlooked in classrooms. It gets across the personal effects of racism to these particular families and how they had tolerated it but would no longer. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I liked that they didn't try to portray the monumental people of this movement in the film - there was no rosa parks or MLK Jr, which, to me made it better. Overall, very good film. - Elle<br />
<br />
I have a bit of interesting information that I wanted to share with everyone. I was reading up on the movie just to get some more background information and I read that one of the buses used in the film was actually the Montgomery Bus Lines bus that Rosa Parks was riding on when she was arrested. --Mallory Cruise</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_12_Questions/Comments329--Week 12 Questions/Comments2008-11-12T22:09:10Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* a Right: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
This movie got a lot of aspects of the 1950s South correct. For instance, the movie showed in the beginning Odessa's sons bringing home from school fliers about the bus boycott, and how Selma had to pay her bus fare, and then get off to go through the back door of the bus. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
As Dr. McClurken mentions, blacks had to pay in the front then get off only to get back on in the back of the bus. I believe that the filmmakers' choice to use that as part of the beginning scene sends a strong emotion through the audience, especially if they didn't know what was going on. -Lauren<br />
<br />
The church has always played an integral role in the black community. I think the movie did a nice job of portraying black churches as the epicenters for the emotional and spiritual struggle through segregation. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Dates and major events all happened at the right time, including the bombing of Dr. King's home. Through tear-fogged eyes, I was able to see that this was a heartbreakingly accurate depiction of a world where we referred to other human beings as dogs, and often worse names than that. The Citizen's Coalition seemed to be accurately depicted, down to the Confederate Flag as its logo. This wasn't an easy movie to get through, but that was the point. It wasn't an easy time to be black either. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I felt that the dissension between the groups was well depicted - Miriam and her husband disagreed on the issue, and the black family's daughter didn't get it either. I like that we could see all sides of the story through these two families. Blacks didn't all automatically think YEAH! Let's walk everywhere! It caught on through the meetings/rallies and some had to be convinced. And not all whites felt the same way about the situation either - and I also liked the progression that both Miriam and her husband went through - not affected, somewhat concerned, then taking action. Very powerful movie. - Elle<br />
<br />
I found the depictions of the non-violent responses by the Montgomery black population to be very powerful. There is the scene where the middle son basically takes a whupping, resisting the urge to fight back, and the violent white mob at the end of the movie is met merely with song. Many civil rights leaders, like MLK, relied on non-violent resistance and this movie did well to exhibit the power inherent in non-violence.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I thought that the way the movie handled the black community's gender roles fairly well. Though in many cases it was the women out on the front lines protesting, earning, taking the long walks, in all the church scenes the authority figures were male.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Well it would be true that most of the leaders of black civil rights groups would be male although women played a very heavy role in the movement they were not given as much representation in leadership so I do not feel that was inaccurate. I also thought the bus scene at the beginning of the movie was particularly well done from an historic standpoint. I also felt this movie had a very good time progression you can see this especially as the actions of Whites against the boycott become progresively worse over the course of the movie. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
I found Miriam's revelation of the importance of Odessa and her desire to help out with the boycott more than slightly unlikely. True, Miriam has a good heart before her revelation, but the fact that she's willing to risk her safety and reputation to help out without too much thought is troubling. When I hear my older Southern relatives speak of blacks or watch their behavior around blacks, I hear the word "nigger" a few times or see them act differently around blacks. Old habits die hard. I don't doubt that some Southern white women did help, ''but'' that they were hesitant and a bit nervous in some layer of their being. Northern women would be more likely to be quicker to help than Southern white women. -Lauren<br />
<br />
I am in no way doubting or disagreeing with your general interpretation Lauren, but I will say that according to the ''Rosa Parks and Virginia Durr'' reading from this week that it was likely for Southern women to help with the boycott. In that reading Durr said, "Then the policemen began giving tickets to the white women who were taking black women home."(225)Regardless of their motives, e.g. wanting their maids to be "fresh and alert" during work, or "I want my maid to be on time", Southern white women were helping with the boycott. As it pertains to the movie, although Miriam starts with the attitude of "I want you to be awake!", the directors give her a biography that explains her sympathy towards the boycotters. Miriam tells the story about traveling with her family to Portland in the 1930s and how the white children stayed in the pool even when the black boys had gotten in. What makes this story believable to me is that Miriam's character was given a broader array of experiences, but not a sanctimonious "I stayed in the pool" mentality. Miriam was definitely a take charge type, with a missionary's zeal, but her actions were sincere. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
<br />
Lauren, I didn't find what Miriam did to be very unlikely, as this was one opportunity for the caring housewives with no money of their own to make a difference for the blacks. I don't think Miriam rushed into it, although we didn't see much hesitation on her part during the film. First of all, she had always treated her maids well, although she also always knew her husband didn't agree with it. She knew from the start that her husband didn't approve of her even driving Odessa, and she stopped when he found out and made her do so. She didn't want to, but she did spend time thinking it over and finally determined that what her husband did was the final straw, the culmination of her long-held feelings that blacks deserved better treatment. By making up her mind she was rebelling against her husband and the whites' sense of right or wrong, and she was aware of what consequences might be if the blacks won--she was in support of them. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Where were all of the real characters from the ''Rosa Parks'' reading?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Wow, sorry if I sound redundant there, but apparently Jason and I were apparently writing that at exactly the same time! -Whitney<br />
<br />
--Whitney, you reminded me of another point that I wanted to say. I was so happy when Miriam stood up to her husband on her right to drive Odessa to work and told him that if he insists on running her household, that she'll involve herself in his business. After all, she does have a college degree. That defiance wasn't surprising coming from her, but suddenly (thinking for what seemed like a day) she has a determination to get a job just so she can drive Odessa and have her own money. From what I can see, she never had a job before and she was wholly dependent on her husband for as long they've been married. I'm just questioning the likelihood that Miriam would change her career life dramatically. Helping with the boycott changes her and her family's life in any case, but going to work outside the home would impact her and her family even more directly. --Jason, I agree with you about her broad personality, but I viewed her as naive. She's had her husband take care of her for years and now she's taking large steps very quickly towards progression. Women in her place would have been more hesitant or taken smaller steps over a longer period of time, ''if'' they did anything. The behavior and views of Miriam's companions illustrate what many Southern women felt. With the time constraints on the movie, the filmmakers felt the need to speed the process of Miriam's change; but I felt it was too fast. Some Southern white women did help, like Virginia Durr; but she went to Wellesley College in Massachusetts. That experience in the North must've impacted her life in a positive way towards blacks (Source: http://www.wellesley.edu/Anniversary/durr.html). Unlike most Southern women, Virginia Durr had experience with black peers and got to understand them as more than inferior people who work for her. As far as I can see, Miriam has lived in the South all her life. -Lauren<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
This is an accuracy detail that I noticed: When Odessa and Miriam are driving in town and Miriam they notice the policeman closely following them, Odessa says to just slow down some and they should leave her alone, which is what happened. In Mrs. Durr's statements on page 224 she tells that police were cracking down on carpool drivers for going two miles over the speed limit. Odessa was very aware that this was what was happening, not just that the police wee being suspicious. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I really liked the ''Testimony of Thomas Williams''. I felt the main idea of the testimony was to convey the ''de facto'' laws of the South, and how those laws were rooted in white supremacist tradition rather than American jurisprudence. It was the small but powerful phrase uttered by the bus driver that justified everything that happened to Williams and thousands of blacks in the Jim Crow era- "Your in the South now". Whites were able to get away with this behavior because they had the power to do so, and until the late 1950s no one made them do any differently. I think Williams exposed the crucial factor that would change life in the South- enforcement. "...Supreme Court decisions just are not enough. It is necessary to have a law to prevent them from doing these things." In the movie we see whites dominating and intimidating blacks because they could. The policemen were actively orchestrating that domination and intimidation. As was proven with the integration of schools in the decades to follow, enforcement of law would be the only way to ensure tangible change. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
This might be silly BUT... Why was there not even the slightest mention of the schools - Brown v. Board had already happened... how long did it take for the desegregation of schools to actually kick in? -Elle<br />
<br />
Jason, I,too, found Thomas Williams' account to be truly profound. In particular, when he discusses his experience in the jail. He said that he was treated peacefully, which to be honest I was surprised because as we see in the movie and from our knowledge of history this is an extremely hostile time for African Americans. He further explains how one of the deputies tells him he should consider him self lucky for being treated so kindly (... yeah, OK) and not getting his "head beat in" and in all "fairness" that is what would have happened if a white person stepped outside their bounds. ''The Long Walk Home'' and Thomas Williams' account are both truly heartbreaking and it's sickening to know that a country who prides itself on democratic beliefs and equality for all citizens could have endured such an unfathomable period of history. --Mallory C.<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
I don't know if this happened on purpose, but Long Walk Home was nestled in a chronology of MAJOR movies being made about growing up in America as a member of the black community. Others were Do The Right Thing (1989), Boyz N The Hood (1991), Malcolm X (1992), and Menace II Society (1993). Anyone know if this was coincidence or not? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
The style of this movie was somewhat strange to me - the camera would focus on closer objects or people, or further objects and have the alternate distance one blurry. Also I remember a few rolling shots where it followed Miriam across the room, but she goes behind something and comes out on the other side. Another example - close up on the telephone. Strange to me, but artistic. - Elle<br />
<br />
Did anyone have a problem with a movie about the Montgomery Bus Boycotts being told from a young affluent white girl's perspective? Was it just me, or did this movie seem to be a bit too focused on the evolution of Miriam into an activist, rather than the movement to organize a successful boycott? Granted, I still felt that this was a powerful depiction, I just thought that maybe the story of the black family should have been more clearly the "A" storyline.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Also, I liked how they alluded to MLK without actually showing him. Is it just me or is there some unspoken Hollywood agreement that King will not be prominently depicted on screen? I was trying to think about this, and to my memory there aren't any movies where an actor portrays King. Why do you think this is the case? Is it because he was such an electrifying and dynamic person that no actor is comfortable risking their career depicting such an icon? Another thing I was wondering, how is it that there have not been any movies about the Freedom Rides (at least to my knowledge)? After reading James Farmer's autobiography ''Lay Bare the Heart'' last year I was struck at how compelling a narrative that the freedom rides would make for film. Certainly this would make for a better movie than Saw 38 or whatever number they are on.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Bryan, I have to say I agree, but unfortunately my answer is a bit cynical. Hollywood has, in addition to trying to re-define (read: stereotype!) gender roles, also fit racial roles into neat, little stereotypical boxes. Your cheeky inclusion of the Saw movies (they've greenlit Saw 8, by the way, even though only 5 have been made) is actually rather relevant, because no genre is more guilty of this than horror. After all, if any rule remains constant, it's that the black guy dies first. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
The next point to make is that we have very few legendary black actors. Our most famous, Denzel Washington, has been typecast to an epic level. Man On Fire, Virtuosity, Out of Time and Inside Man are all the same movie, in a different setting, with different names. It's unfortunate, but as a culture, we are simply not ready to let our black actors shine the way we let our whites. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I thought this movie was kind of short, seeing how much there was to the whole bus boycotts, and Civil Rights Movements. However, I do think the movie was still good, and I was impressed with how much was fit into such a short movie. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I cried. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I sobbed. On more than one occasion, and loudly. I still don't have words to really articulate the way I felt after this one, other than to say I think it's the best movie we've watched so far. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I got teary-eyed, too, at some point, although I can't remember where. Overall, I think this movie is an effective portrayal of this significant event in US history, since its details are often overlooked in classrooms. It gets across the personal effects of racism to these particular families and how they had tolerated it but would no longer. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I liked that they didn't try to portray the monumental people of this movement in the film - there was no rosa parks or MLK Jr, which, to me made it better. Overall, very good film. - Elle<br />
<br />
I have a bit of interesting information that I wanted to share with everyone. I was reading up on the movie just to get some more background information and I read that one of the buses used in the film was actually the Montgomery Bus Lines bus that Rosa Parks was riding on when she was arrested. --Mallory Cruise</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Project_List329--Project List2008-11-11T01:08:00Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 329--Project List */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 329--Project List ==<br />
<br />
'''Place your name and the link to the start of your project below.'''<br />
<br />
<br />
James Drury: [http://jwdrury.umwblogs.org/] jwdrury.umwblogs.org/<br />
<br />
Kellye Sorber: http://ksorb2yv.umwblogs.org/apollo-13-study/<br />
<br />
Ashley Wilkins: http://awilkins.umwblogs.org/ (Its a variety of pages on the Side Links, 5 to be exact)<br />
<br />
Elle Weaver: http://eweaver.umwblogs.org/bonnieandclyde/<br />
<br />
Mary Beth Conrad: http://embea.umwblogs.org/<br />
<br />
Cash Nelson: http://nickn87.umwblogs.org/2008/11/06/jfk-project-page-one/ (the blog directly after this one chronologically is part two, and then the biblio)<br />
<br />
Whitney Holcomb: http://wholcomb.umwblogs.org/sounder/<br />
<br />
Jonathan Bell: http://jbell2ja.umwblogs.org/history-in-film-patton/ Mine is all in one page with two columns read the left side first.</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments329--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-11-05T04:54:38Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
Homer's sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren<br />
<br />
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred's nightmares. He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he's a hot shot but then can't find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn't want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war. Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left. Fred's wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going? How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I'm glad to be seeing this after the lecture. Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn't help Fred much. One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tibits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn't just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not ''all'' women were either extreme! It's the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy "the homewrecker"). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren<br />
<br />
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn't really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate. Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place. His daughter then makes an interesting comment about taking a class in domestic science. Was this a common course in most school's curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
This movies use of the romantic small town seems to be a greater symbol of what the creators are portraying as American. Additionally the lack of racial or ethnic diversity in the town is also a part of this symbolic message. In the end everyone also lives happily ever after making this movie follow a cliche story line. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred's marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I like this movie better than any that we've seen so far. It was more engaging and had good suspense. I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we're supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred's marriage. I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him.... I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed. I didn't get that from any of the other movies. That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts. In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history. I wasn't judging it like I judge historical movies. -Whitney Holcomb</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments329--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-11-05T04:49:36Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
Homer's sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren<br />
<br />
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred's nightmares. He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he's a hot shot but then can't find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn't want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war. Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left. Fred's wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going? How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I'm glad to be seeing this after the lecture. Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn't help Fred much. One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tibits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn't just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not ''all'' women were either extreme! It's the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy "the homewrecker"). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren<br />
<br />
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn't really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
The representation of minorities in this movie would have bothered me more if they were showing a city or other type of diverse community. For a small town during this period in time it was quite possible depending on the location that there was little to know racial or ethnic diversity. This fact, however is also the most troubling feature of the movie because it is representing soldiers experiences, but soldiers experiences would be different depending on where they went back too. The whole movie is from this romantic small town cliche. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate. Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place. His daughter then makes an interesting comment about taking a class in domestic science. Was this a common course in most school's curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred's marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I like this movie better than any that we've seen so far. It was more engaging and had good suspense. I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we're supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred's marriage. I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him.... I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed. I didn't get that from any of the other movies. That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts. In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history. I wasn't judging it like I judge historical movies. -Whitney Holcomb</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments329--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-11-05T04:42:53Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* a Right: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
Homer's sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren<br />
<br />
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred's nightmares. He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he's a hot shot but then can't find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn't want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war. Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left. Fred's wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going? How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I'm glad to be seeing this after the lecture. Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn't help Fred much. One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I liked the way the movie adds little factual tibits throughout the movie. The instance of Fred going back to the place he worked and being told that he couldn't just get his job back because the Selective Service act technicality that if the business changed ownership he was excluded was a good example of the nice little historical touches in this movie. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not ''all'' women were either extreme! It's the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy "the homewrecker"). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren<br />
<br />
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn't really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate. Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place. His daughter then makes an interesting comment about taking a class in domestic science. Was this a common course in most school's curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred's marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I like this movie better than any that we've seen so far. It was more engaging and had good suspense. I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we're supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred's marriage. I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him.... I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed. I didn't get that from any of the other movies. That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts. In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history. I wasn't judging it like I judge historical movies. -Whitney Holcomb</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_11_Questions/Comments329--Week 11 Questions/Comments2008-11-05T04:39:22Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
Homer's sense of helplessness because he lost both of his hands in the war felt extremely real to me. The fact that the independence he had with his hands is tied to his masculinity is a reality for men then and now. Dependence is a feminine trait, not a masculine trait. -Lauren<br />
<br />
You can see the Post Traumatic Stress with Fred's nightmares. He seems fine for the most part but has repeated nightmares. And you can see that Al has become an alcoholic since returning home. The three men seem to be experience many of the problems that soldiers typically faced upon returning.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the different ways different soldiers reacted to returning home. Al who came back as an alcoholic but got a job probably equivilant to the one he would of had if he never left. Fred who has nightmares and comes home thinking he's a hot shot but then can't find a job or at least a job he wants. Homer who is diabled but doesn't want anyone to look at him differently but the real problem is the way he views himself. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
The movie also showed how not all marriages survived the war. Many soldiers came home to find their families very different from when they had left. Fred's wife Marie is so upset with how different he has become that their marriage ends in divorce. Did many soldiers, like Homer, return home to girlfriends and were able to keep the relationship going? How many worked out nicely in the end? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
According to what we learned in class, the film did a good job showing what returning servicemen had to deal with, in both relationships and in terms of getting back on their feet financially, and I'm glad to be seeing this after the lecture. Most particularly, we see about the provisions in the GI bill for loans, including the 50% explanation, and what that means for men like Mr. Novak; the 52/20 that Homer was able to benefit from; and also the Selective Service Act provision for men to get their old jobs back, with how that works for Al but doesn't help Fred much. One key thing that we can get from this is how the legislation passed in anticipation of after the war was able to benefit some veterans more than others, in different ways, depending on their situations, their readjustments to family life, their dreams, and their past experiences. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
The depiction of Peggy and Marie was very problematic and propaganda-ish. Peggy is the good girl who is patriotic and works as a nurse, helping others, while Marie is a vain and flirtatious woman who works at a nightclub for a time and resents Fred for making her quit her job. All Marie wants to do is to go out while Peggy is more than happy staying at home shucking peas and cooking dinner for Fred and her family. Not ''all'' women were either extreme! It's the virgin/whore scenario. Oh, and the guy will always end up with the virgin (ie Fred and Peggy "the homewrecker"). This is only typecasting women in one of two parties while the male characters were much more complex.-Lauren<br />
<br />
I thought it was kind of a problem that the only minorities shown were in minor servant like positions. Also it was troubling that they didn't really show the roles women had taken during the war, it just showed their post war roles. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
The soldiers in this movie are really broader symbols of the various types of problems soldiers faced returning home. The navy man represented returning soldiers dealing with a debilitating injury also noted he was taking payments for the GI Bill. The army man represented the soldiers who returned home, but had questions about their family life, but he is also represented as the men who returned home to be successful (the success meant not taking the payments from the GI bill). The air force men represents men who returned home to face marriage problems resulting in divorce and had trouble adjusting to society in relation to the GI bill he represents those not taking payments due to issues of pride. All of these attributes are characteristics discussed about soldiers in the class lecture. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Since the movie was made during the time it represents, I feel that most of the sentiments were fairly accurate. Many soldiers were facing similar problems to those of Al, Fred and Homer. It is also somewhat of a propaganda film because it shows all the relationships and problems being solved and ending happily, when in reality this did not happen. Many of the returning soldiers were never the same and faced life long problems as a result of the war. At the same time they wanted the movie to be encouraging to all of these men that returned to find life different, they wanted to give them hope and everyone else that they had a chance to make things happy again. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with Kellye I think the movie does a good job showing the opptimism the country had for its future as well as the fear of more war or depression. It was trying to be positive while dealing with very real fears. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
Mr. Stevenson was surprised that his maid had vanished and his daughter had taken her place. His daughter then makes an interesting comment about taking a class in domestic science. Was this a common course in most school's curriculum during the World War 2 years? -James Drury<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I really loved this movie, I kept cheering on the love story the entire time and was happy that Fred's marriage ended in divorce. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I like this movie better than any that we've seen so far. It was more engaging and had good suspense. I found myself rooting for Fred and Peggy and disliking Marie (which we're supposed to do), and cheers even erupted as we watched Peggy say that she would break up Fred's marriage. I liked Homer and really wanted him to ask Wilma to marry him.... I felt the connections that I think a viewer is supposed to feel and the characters they want to succeed. I didn't get that from any of the other movies. That may have something to do with the fact that the characters are all made up and not to be compared with true figures and facts. In sum, I guess I liked it because it was meant to be fiction, rather than history. I wasn't judging it like I judge historical movies. -Whitney Holcomb</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments329--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-10-29T21:19:51Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them. They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job. Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I liked how Joe tapped into the idea of Scientific Management during his first rousing speech at the workers meeting. He described the exploitative practices of the bosses and how workers were like parts of a machine that could be replaced. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Agreeing with Jason, I have to say I was actually kind of surprised that Kenehan brought up the subject of Scientific Management during his speech. I think it was helpful for swaying the men to the union because I don't think many men realized just how invaluable they really were to large companies. The white men could easily have been (and were in the process of being) replaced by the Italian men and the blacks that were also arriving in Matewan. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I liked that the Italian woman and the old white woman, though at first not being very good neighbors (at least the old one) eventually became reconciled to share and sit together--and to provide comfort when the old lady's son (grandson?) was killed. The union had to get the miners to accept the minority scabs who wanted to join the union with them, so it seems appropriate to show that their families had to learn to get along and accept each other, as well. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I think that the movie was pretty generally accurate. It's not the most perfect of the films we've watched, but it did seem to present most of the different sides and opinions involved in the formation of unions and the difficulties of the time. For the record, 'villain' is a side, in this case, as we are still talking about a Hollywood movie, and the corporations and secret police could be legitimately cruel. ---Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job with showing how even though the men had skepticisms about joining the Union, it was necessary in order to stand up to the mining companies and to demand that they be treated better than just mere "equipment." The movie accurately portrayed the brutality that went along with the competition for jobs between races and ethnicities. Also, as Kenehan pointed out it was a fight between those who worked and those who didn't ( bosses standing around holding guns as miners walked out of mine), it shouldn't be about skin color or background because at the end of the day they're all workers and they're all oppressed. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I haven't finished the movie yet, in fact I'm not in to it all that much. However, from the beginning of the movie they did get right just how dirty the men got, and also that they coughed a lot from the dust and particles. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The tensions between the whites/blacks, blacks/Italians and Italians/Whites were all very well-portrayed in my opinion. The attacks that Few Clothes incurred towards the beginning of the movie, as well as the tension between the Italian grandmother and white mother throughout the film were both very realistic to me. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
We learned in class that the Red Scare was a real blow to the Labor Movement in the U.S and people were suspicious of anyone/anything that could be seen as promoting Communism. This is shown in the movie when Hatfield (I believe) is writing a letter to Felts and says he believes it's possible Kenehan could be a Red. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I felt the movie did a good job in portraying the problems facing the workers. Particularly I felt they did a good job dealing with the issue of the company store and company owned houses. The movie made clear the problems mine workers faced because of this arrangement and also shows the fact that the company really did have a lot of power. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
Would a woman shoot a dead man multiple times like that woman did after the massacre? I know people were pissed at the mine owners' treatment of miners and their families, but that's excessive. -Lauren<br />
<br />
If I was that woman, I probably would have done the same thing, simply because her boy just had his throat slit by those men. She was pissed off and emotionally a wreck from not just the union stuff, but her boy being murdered. Just my opinion though. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems. The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real? I do not remember talking about him in class at all? Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character ''Matewan'' rivals ''Glory'' in the way that history is caricatured. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I liked the movie a lot, but for the sake of criticism I think the stereotypical characters and characterizations need to be examined. Now that I have a complex about “stealing people’s thunder” I will only briefly layout my litany and encourage people to elaborate on and/or discredit my claims. The Stone Mountain men clearly mocked the hill people and miners’ way of life, but were especially damning (pun intended) of their religiosity. Were businessmen at this time secular, or was this a plot device to further distinguish the two groups? The mayor was quite noble and honest, was the real Testerman so virtuous or was that too a mechanism of contrast? Finally, the boy preacher Andrew, were young miners (another pun?) that well- educated and articulate, and capable of rallying the members of a community to champion a cause? – Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Like Kellye and Jason, I was caught off guard when the main character was fictional. At least in the other movies we've watched, the main characters have been based off of, and were supposed to be, the historical figure. To see "Few Clothes" Johnson and Sheriff Hatfield in this movie you would expect the writers to use an actual member of the union to be the central figure. I just don't understand why filmmakers decide to create people instead of take an historical event and follow through with it. -Kelly Wuyscik <br />
<br />
I think that although Testerman was noble and honest, he was also portrayed as naive and unassertive. He's the character to take pity on when he dies at the end because he was only for upholding what was right and never hurt anybody. He was not assertive in anything he said, from a first "this is town property" to the agents (that was their point...) to his final "You people have no right to come to this town...." Ultimately, we find that his words were pretty much in vain. Nevertheless, his and Hatsfield's standing up to the agents is a testament to their characters, who in reality refused bribes from coal corporations. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I would like to point out another Glade Plug-In Moment - When Hillard's (not sure how to spell) Mom offers her extra food to the large Italian family and there is some trouble in the communication - then all of the sudden a vague gesture indicates for the white lady to sit down and POOF the Italian woman understands a compliment about her beautiful children. I agree that there is a good point here that there was a mixing of cultures, immigrants, blacks and white hillbillies, but it is cinematic effect again that transcends all language barrier that is unbelievable to me. And for the record I was a grumbler as we left the theater, I didn't particularly like the movie and I'm not a film buff but I do know what I like and don't like entertainment-wise. - Elle<br />
<br />
Was it common to have young people working in the coal mines? I think the movie showed the boy preacher, I believe his name was Danny, working in the coal mines. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
I feel like someone as young as Danny would not have been allowed to work in the coal mines, or would he of because he would have been cheaper labor? Also, would a congregation really sit and listen to a 15 year old preach to them? That just seemed a bit weird to me. Danny also didn't know how to throw a baseball apparently, but that's a different subject altogether. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Katherine and Kelly, I'm pretty sure that at the time, especially with labor like this, that there were HS-age kids working in the mines. They are cheap labor and are probably going to be healthier for longer, also making them long-available labor. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I also don't think the movie did all that great of a job showing the dangers of working in a coal mine. None of the characters had coal mining related injuries, but there was one guy in the beginning of the movie who had a bad cough, he might have had black lung from all the coal dust. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
Just a minor issue, the readings led me to believe, it could have been just the one, that most miners didn't leave or get out of the mines until after dark, but they definitely left and got home in the daylight, at least in the beginning. I'll try to remember to update this after I finish the movie. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Some of the problems I had with this movie is that I feel it really simplified the race ethnic union unification. It would not be something that would happen as rapidly and easily as the movie showed, but something that would take a lot of effort over time. I also did not like the fact that after the first scene in the movie no one else was shown either sick or coughing although the damage to peoples lungs would carry on even when they were not working in the mines. A lot of scenes also felt cliche or just silly. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
When the black scabs are considering joining the union, Few Clothes likens the mining situation to slavery, largely due to the fact that the miners are made to be entirely dependent upon the company for its needs. Referring to the start of the UMWA, Ratliff has called the mining situation slavery. In "The Tyranny of the Company Store" we read accounts of the forced dependence. Having to work for as long as they did, in the danger they did, essentially getting in return their food and housing, perhaps clothing, all subtracted from the binding scrip wages, and not being economically able to move out of the town, was akin to some conditions of slavery. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the Piece Rate system that we heard only good things about in the reading was actually not endorsed by Joe in the film. Now I am skeptical of who wrote this account. Joe's machinery explanation makes more sense to me. - Elle<br />
<br />
Another part of the readings that I found odd in comparison to the film was the passivity of the dying coal miners in their last notes to their loved ones. In the film these miners seemed anything but passive. Religious and definitely along the same lines of waiting for their loved ones in heaven, but a little more spiteful towards the poor conditions that caused deaths and injuries. Only one man writes to his sons to never become coal miners - I felt it should have been more than that. - Elle<br />
<br />
What I didn't like about the movie was how little they focused on actually being in the mines (although, for the record you couldn't see a thing while they were actually in the mines so maybe it's for the best.) because the audience never got a sense of how terrible work actually was in there. In some of the readings you can really get a sense that there was little air and that they were getting sick and trapped and injured but in the movie, more people died of gunfire than via coal mining. It just didn't seem to measure up right. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
The reading for this week titled “Oh God, For One More Breath”: Early 20th century Tennessee Coal Miners’ Last Words, showed how religious these people were. They constantly referred to Jesus, and how they were going to go to Heaven, and wanted to meet their family up there too. These documents reminded me of how religious the miners in the movie, especially the Italians, were with their statues of Mary, and other religious items. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
In the reading, “The Greatest Thing” Hawkins and Ratliff were talking about the revival of the UMWA by John L. Lewis and the election of FDR as the end of “slavery”. The use of slavery- era rhetoric is interesting, and I think apt. Using this language has particular prudence in the American discussion of workers rights, but was it uniquely American? I imagine that in the European context “slavery” would not be as emotive. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Considering how religious mine workers were from the readings it seems off the way movie treats religion. Joe Canahan is accepted in the movie easily enough even after he states he is not religious. It seems that type of behavior would alienate and anger a lot mine workers who were very religious. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
I found a United States Court of Appeals case that included UMWA and a coal company back in the 1980s (INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant-Appellant: 916 F.2d 1499; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18131; 135 L.R.R.M. 2663; 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,363 [Source: Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.com]). Since the events that was discussed in the case happened when the movie came out, this is evidence that there was unrest between the miners and the mine owners that they worked for, even up to the late 1980s. So, there had to be tensions during the production of the film. In this particular case, there was an agreement between the two parties that expired in spring of 1987. The employers gave the miners an offer that the union rejected by striking. Afterward, the company refused to let some of the workers back on the basis of misconduct during the strike (like Dr. M said during the lecture, the companies found ways to get at the strikers). The court ruled in favor of the union.-Lauren<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
I think it was neat how they made the impression that the young boy, Danny, was the narrator in the movie. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving our luxury theatre. So here's my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of "There Will Be Blood," a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out "I abandoned my boy!" There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we've watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
I couldn't agree more! - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Holy crap. Take it back Jackie. Take it back right now. There Will Be Blood was the best movie I've seen in years, unquestionably. How can you possibly rag on a PT Anderson film?! And if we are going to nitpick actors, Will Oldham showed everyone why he should have stuck to music. He's great in Old Joy, but pretty awful in this. However, Chris Cooper showed why he has been given so many solid roles in later years, and I have yet to see a James Earl Jones movie I don't like. And did anyone else notice that the guy who plays Dr.Kelso on '''Scrubs''' was in this?? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Oh come, now, Jackie. You couldn't understand the WV accent? I enjoyed listening to the dialect (and understanding it all), but I think my awareness of and interest in dialects other than my own (I'm told it's largely Midwest) have been heightened since I've been taking linguistics. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Slowest. Movie. Ever. I don't care how accurate it was, for me it was as slow as Last of the Mohicans. Scratch that, it felt 12 times longer. Also, I'm beyond upset that they killed Hillard. He was my favorite. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think this was the movie that was the hardest for me to get through. Although, I thought it was comparable to Patriot's meandering story, not so much Mohicans, which I love every time I sit down to watch it. I'm not the biggest Heath Ledger fan though... -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I think that that this movie is very evenly paced for what it is depicting. Its not like a war movie, this deals with strikes and unions. Its not like Mel Gibson is in this movie. The miners have to strike hard enough to be noticed but not enough to be considered a riot.-- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
Awh, come on now, those accents were bad or thick. I should know, been out that way a lot with having lots of family from WV... I thought it was easy enough to understand them to be honest, but my golden rule is if you have trouble understanding put subtitles on. :-D --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The way the Baldwin detectives in the movie feels very stylistic too me. They are portrayed as complete vllians with no sympathetic attributes whatsoever. The movie takes a clear good versus evil approach. Sure the Baldwin detectives may have done terrible things, but I think this movie goes too far in portraying them as evil. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with this movie being slow but it is definitely one of the more accurate movies we've watched (company stores and the cruel/creepy bosses/Felts just to name a few). But, the music is awesome and I felt claustrophobic (esp during the opening credits) just watching this movie! -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I thoght the use of the church to tell parts of the story was a very well done and really moved it along.--matt</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments329--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-10-29T21:15:47Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them. They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job. Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I liked how Joe tapped into the idea of Scientific Management during his first rousing speech at the workers meeting. He described the exploitative practices of the bosses and how workers were like parts of a machine that could be replaced. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Agreeing with Jason, I have to say I was actually kind of surprised that Kenehan brought up the subject of Scientific Management during his speech. I think it was helpful for swaying the men to the union because I don't think many men realized just how invaluable they really were to large companies. The white men could easily have been (and were in the process of being) replaced by the Italian men and the blacks that were also arriving in Matewan. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I liked that the Italian woman and the old white woman, though at first not being very good neighbors (at least the old one) eventually became reconciled to share and sit together--and to provide comfort when the old lady's son (grandson?) was killed. The union had to get the miners to accept the minority scabs who wanted to join the union with them, so it seems appropriate to show that their families had to learn to get along and accept each other, as well. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I think that the movie was pretty generally accurate. It's not the most perfect of the films we've watched, but it did seem to present most of the different sides and opinions involved in the formation of unions and the difficulties of the time. For the record, 'villain' is a side, in this case, as we are still talking about a Hollywood movie, and the corporations and secret police could be legitimately cruel. ---Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job with showing how even though the men had skepticisms about joining the Union, it was necessary in order to stand up to the mining companies and to demand that they be treated better than just mere "equipment." The movie accurately portrayed the brutality that went along with the competition for jobs between races and ethnicities. Also, as Kenehan pointed out it was a fight between those who worked and those who didn't ( bosses standing around holding guns as miners walked out of mine), it shouldn't be about skin color or background because at the end of the day they're all workers and they're all oppressed. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I haven't finished the movie yet, in fact I'm not in to it all that much. However, from the beginning of the movie they did get right just how dirty the men got, and also that they coughed a lot from the dust and particles. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The tensions between the whites/blacks, blacks/Italians and Italians/Whites were all very well-portrayed in my opinion. The attacks that Few Clothes incurred towards the beginning of the movie, as well as the tension between the Italian grandmother and white mother throughout the film were both very realistic to me. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
We learned in class that the Red Scare was a real blow to the Labor Movement in the U.S and people were suspicious of anyone/anything that could be seen as promoting Communism. This is shown in the movie when Hatfield (I believe) is writing a letter to Felts and says he believes it's possible Kenehan could be a Red. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I felt the movie did a good job in portraying the problems facing the workers. Particularly I felt they did a good job dealing with the issue of the company store and company owned houses. The movie made clear the problems mine workers faced because of this arrangement and also shows the fact that the company really did have a lot of power. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
Would a woman shoot a dead man multiple times like that woman did after the massacre? I know people were pissed at the mine owners' treatment of miners and their families, but that's excessive. -Lauren<br />
<br />
If I was that woman, I probably would have done the same thing, simply because her boy just had his throat slit by those men. She was pissed off and emotionally a wreck from not just the union stuff, but her boy being murdered. Just my opinion though. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems. The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real? I do not remember talking about him in class at all? Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character ''Matewan'' rivals ''Glory'' in the way that history is caricatured. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I liked the movie a lot, but for the sake of criticism I think the stereotypical characters and characterizations need to be examined. Now that I have a complex about “stealing people’s thunder” I will only briefly layout my litany and encourage people to elaborate on and/or discredit my claims. The Stone Mountain men clearly mocked the hill people and miners’ way of life, but were especially damning (pun intended) of their religiosity. Were businessmen at this time secular, or was this a plot device to further distinguish the two groups? The mayor was quite noble and honest, was the real Testerman so virtuous or was that too a mechanism of contrast? Finally, the boy preacher Andrew, were young miners (another pun?) that well- educated and articulate, and capable of rallying the members of a community to champion a cause? – Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Like Kellye and Jason, I was caught off guard when the main character was fictional. At least in the other movies we've watched, the main characters have been based off of, and were supposed to be, the historical figure. To see "Few Clothes" Johnson and Sheriff Hatfield in this movie you would expect the writers to use an actual member of the union to be the central figure. I just don't understand why filmmakers decide to create people instead of take an historical event and follow through with it. -Kelly Wuyscik <br />
<br />
I think that although Testerman was noble and honest, he was also portrayed as naive and unassertive. He's the character to take pity on when he dies at the end because he was only for upholding what was right and never hurt anybody. He was not assertive in anything he said, from a first "this is town property" to the agents (that was their point...) to his final "You people have no right to come to this town...." Ultimately, we find that his words were pretty much in vain. Nevertheless, his and Hatsfield's standing up to the agents is a testament to their characters, who in reality refused bribes from coal corporations. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I would like to point out another Glade Plug-In Moment - When Hillard's (not sure how to spell) Mom offers her extra food to the large Italian family and there is some trouble in the communication - then all of the sudden a vague gesture indicates for the white lady to sit down and POOF the Italian woman understands a compliment about her beautiful children. I agree that there is a good point here that there was a mixing of cultures, immigrants, blacks and white hillbillies, but it is cinematic effect again that transcends all language barrier that is unbelievable to me. And for the record I was a grumbler as we left the theater, I didn't particularly like the movie and I'm not a film buff but I do know what I like and don't like entertainment-wise. - Elle<br />
<br />
Was it common to have young people working in the coal mines? I think the movie showed the boy preacher, I believe his name was Danny, working in the coal mines. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
I feel like someone as young as Danny would not have been allowed to work in the coal mines, or would he of because he would have been cheaper labor? Also, would a congregation really sit and listen to a 15 year old preach to them? That just seemed a bit weird to me. Danny also didn't know how to throw a baseball apparently, but that's a different subject altogether. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Katherine and Kelly, I'm pretty sure that at the time, especially with labor like this, that there were HS-age kids working in the mines. They are cheap labor and are probably going to be healthier for longer, also making them long-available labor. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I also don't think the movie did all that great of a job showing the dangers of working in a coal mine. None of the characters had coal mining related injuries, but there was one guy in the beginning of the movie who had a bad cough, he might have had black lung from all the coal dust. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
Just a minor issue, the readings led me to believe, it could have been just the one, that most miners didn't leave or get out of the mines until after dark, but they definitely left and got home in the daylight, at least in the beginning. I'll try to remember to update this after I finish the movie. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Some of the problems I had with this movie is that I feel it really simplified the race ethnic union unification. It would not be something that would happen as rapidly and easily as the movie showed, but something that would take a lot of effort over time. I also did not like the fact that after the first scene in the movie no one else was shown either sick or coughing although the damage to peoples lungs would carry on even when they were not working in the mines. A lot of scenes also felt cliche or just silly. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
When the black scabs are considering joining the union, Few Clothes likens the mining situation to slavery, largely due to the fact that the miners are made to be entirely dependent upon the company for its needs. Referring to the start of the UMWA, Ratliff has called the mining situation slavery. In "The Tyranny of the Company Store" we read accounts of the forced dependence. Having to work for as long as they did, in the danger they did, essentially getting in return their food and housing, perhaps clothing, all subtracted from the binding scrip wages, and not being economically able to move out of the town, was akin to some conditions of slavery. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the Piece Rate system that we heard only good things about in the reading was actually not endorsed by Joe in the film. Now I am skeptical of who wrote this account. Joe's machinery explanation makes more sense to me. - Elle<br />
<br />
Another part of the readings that I found odd in comparison to the film was the passivity of the dying coal miners in their last notes to their loved ones. In the film these miners seemed anything but passive. Religious and definitely along the same lines of waiting for their loved ones in heaven, but a little more spiteful towards the poor conditions that caused deaths and injuries. Only one man writes to his sons to never become coal miners - I felt it should have been more than that. - Elle<br />
<br />
What I didn't like about the movie was how little they focused on actually being in the mines (although, for the record you couldn't see a thing while they were actually in the mines so maybe it's for the best.) because the audience never got a sense of how terrible work actually was in there. In some of the readings you can really get a sense that there was little air and that they were getting sick and trapped and injured but in the movie, more people died of gunfire than via coal mining. It just didn't seem to measure up right. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
The reading for this week titled “Oh God, For One More Breath”: Early 20th century Tennessee Coal Miners’ Last Words, showed how religious these people were. They constantly referred to Jesus, and how they were going to go to Heaven, and wanted to meet their family up there too. These documents reminded me of how religious the miners in the movie, especially the Italians, were with their statues of Mary, and other religious items. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
In the reading, “The Greatest Thing” Hawkins and Ratliff were talking about the revival of the UMWA by John L. Lewis and the election of FDR as the end of “slavery”. The use of slavery- era rhetoric is interesting, and I think apt. Using this language has particular prudence in the American discussion of workers rights, but was it uniquely American? I imagine that in the European context “slavery” would not be as emotive. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Considering how religious mine workers were from the readings it seems off the way movie treats religion. Joe Canahan is accepted in the movie easily enough even after he states he is not religious. It seems that type of behavior would alienate and anger a lot mine workers who were very religious. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
I found a United States Court of Appeals case that included UMWA and a coal company back in the 1980s (INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant-Appellant: 916 F.2d 1499; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18131; 135 L.R.R.M. 2663; 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,363 [Source: Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.com]). Since the events that was discussed in the case happened when the movie came out, this is evidence that there was unrest between the miners and the mine owners that they worked for, even up to the late 1980s. So, there had to be tensions during the production of the film. In this particular case, there was an agreement between the two parties that expired in spring of 1987. The employers gave the miners an offer that the union rejected by striking. Afterward, the company refused to let some of the workers back on the basis of misconduct during the strike (like Dr. M said during the lecture, the companies found ways to get at the strikers). The court ruled in favor of the union.-Lauren<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
I think it was neat how they made the impression that the young boy, Danny, was the narrator in the movie. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving our luxury theatre. So here's my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of "There Will Be Blood," a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out "I abandoned my boy!" There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we've watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
I couldn't agree more! - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Holy crap. Take it back Jackie. Take it back right now. There Will Be Blood was the best movie I've seen in years, unquestionably. How can you possibly rag on a PT Anderson film?! And if we are going to nitpick actors, Will Oldham showed everyone why he should have stuck to music. He's great in Old Joy, but pretty awful in this. However, Chris Cooper showed why he has been given so many solid roles in later years, and I have yet to see a James Earl Jones movie I don't like. And did anyone else notice that the guy who plays Dr.Kelso on '''Scrubs''' was in this?? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Oh come, now, Jackie. You couldn't understand the WV accent? I enjoyed listening to the dialect (and understanding it all), but I think my awareness of and interest in dialects other than my own (I'm told it's largely Midwest) have been heightened since I've been taking linguistics. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Slowest. Movie. Ever. I don't care how accurate it was, for me it was as slow as Last of the Mohicans. Scratch that, it felt 12 times longer. Also, I'm beyond upset that they killed Hillard. He was my favorite. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think this was the movie that was the hardest for me to get through. Although, I thought it was comparable to Patriot's meandering story, not so much Mohicans, which I love every time I sit down to watch it. I'm not the biggest Heath Ledger fan though... -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I think that that this movie is very evenly paced for what it is depicting. Its not like a war movie, this deals with strikes and unions. Its not like Mel Gibson is in this movie. The miners have to strike hard enough to be noticed but not enough to be considered a riot.-- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
Awh, come on now, those accents were bad or thick. I should know, been out that way a lot with having lots of family from WV... I thought it was easy enough to understand them to be honest, but my golden rule is if you have trouble understanding put subtitles on. :-D --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with this movie being slow but it is definitely one of the more accurate movies we've watched (company stores and the cruel/creepy bosses/Felts just to name a few). But, the music is awesome and I felt claustrophobic (esp during the opening credits) just watching this movie! -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I thoght the use of the church to tell parts of the story was a very well done and really moved it along.--matt</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments329--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-10-29T21:12:23Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them. They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job. Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I liked how Joe tapped into the idea of Scientific Management during his first rousing speech at the workers meeting. He described the exploitative practices of the bosses and how workers were like parts of a machine that could be replaced. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Agreeing with Jason, I have to say I was actually kind of surprised that Kenehan brought up the subject of Scientific Management during his speech. I think it was helpful for swaying the men to the union because I don't think many men realized just how invaluable they really were to large companies. The white men could easily have been (and were in the process of being) replaced by the Italian men and the blacks that were also arriving in Matewan. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I liked that the Italian woman and the old white woman, though at first not being very good neighbors (at least the old one) eventually became reconciled to share and sit together--and to provide comfort when the old lady's son (grandson?) was killed. The union had to get the miners to accept the minority scabs who wanted to join the union with them, so it seems appropriate to show that their families had to learn to get along and accept each other, as well. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I think that the movie was pretty generally accurate. It's not the most perfect of the films we've watched, but it did seem to present most of the different sides and opinions involved in the formation of unions and the difficulties of the time. For the record, 'villain' is a side, in this case, as we are still talking about a Hollywood movie, and the corporations and secret police could be legitimately cruel. ---Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job with showing how even though the men had skepticisms about joining the Union, it was necessary in order to stand up to the mining companies and to demand that they be treated better than just mere "equipment." The movie accurately portrayed the brutality that went along with the competition for jobs between races and ethnicities. Also, as Kenehan pointed out it was a fight between those who worked and those who didn't ( bosses standing around holding guns as miners walked out of mine), it shouldn't be about skin color or background because at the end of the day they're all workers and they're all oppressed. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I haven't finished the movie yet, in fact I'm not in to it all that much. However, from the beginning of the movie they did get right just how dirty the men got, and also that they coughed a lot from the dust and particles. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The tensions between the whites/blacks, blacks/Italians and Italians/Whites were all very well-portrayed in my opinion. The attacks that Few Clothes incurred towards the beginning of the movie, as well as the tension between the Italian grandmother and white mother throughout the film were both very realistic to me. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
We learned in class that the Red Scare was a real blow to the Labor Movement in the U.S and people were suspicious of anyone/anything that could be seen as promoting Communism. This is shown in the movie when Hatfield (I believe) is writing a letter to Felts and says he believes it's possible Kenehan could be a Red. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I felt the movie did a good job in portraying the problems facing the workers. Particularly I felt they did a good job dealing with the issue of the company store and company owned houses. The movie made clear the problems mine workers faced because of this arrangement and also shows the fact that the company really did have a lot of power. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
Would a woman shoot a dead man multiple times like that woman did after the massacre? I know people were pissed at the mine owners' treatment of miners and their families, but that's excessive. -Lauren<br />
<br />
If I was that woman, I probably would have done the same thing, simply because her boy just had his throat slit by those men. She was pissed off and emotionally a wreck from not just the union stuff, but her boy being murdered. Just my opinion though. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems. The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real? I do not remember talking about him in class at all? Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character ''Matewan'' rivals ''Glory'' in the way that history is caricatured. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I liked the movie a lot, but for the sake of criticism I think the stereotypical characters and characterizations need to be examined. Now that I have a complex about “stealing people’s thunder” I will only briefly layout my litany and encourage people to elaborate on and/or discredit my claims. The Stone Mountain men clearly mocked the hill people and miners’ way of life, but were especially damning (pun intended) of their religiosity. Were businessmen at this time secular, or was this a plot device to further distinguish the two groups? The mayor was quite noble and honest, was the real Testerman so virtuous or was that too a mechanism of contrast? Finally, the boy preacher Andrew, were young miners (another pun?) that well- educated and articulate, and capable of rallying the members of a community to champion a cause? – Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Like Kellye and Jason, I was caught off guard when the main character was fictional. At least in the other movies we've watched, the main characters have been based off of, and were supposed to be, the historical figure. To see "Few Clothes" Johnson and Sheriff Hatfield in this movie you would expect the writers to use an actual member of the union to be the central figure. I just don't understand why filmmakers decide to create people instead of take an historical event and follow through with it. -Kelly Wuyscik <br />
<br />
I think that although Testerman was noble and honest, he was also portrayed as naive and unassertive. He's the character to take pity on when he dies at the end because he was only for upholding what was right and never hurt anybody. He was not assertive in anything he said, from a first "this is town property" to the agents (that was their point...) to his final "You people have no right to come to this town...." Ultimately, we find that his words were pretty much in vain. Nevertheless, his and Hatsfield's standing up to the agents is a testament to their characters, who in reality refused bribes from coal corporations. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I would like to point out another Glade Plug-In Moment - When Hillard's (not sure how to spell) Mom offers her extra food to the large Italian family and there is some trouble in the communication - then all of the sudden a vague gesture indicates for the white lady to sit down and POOF the Italian woman understands a compliment about her beautiful children. I agree that there is a good point here that there was a mixing of cultures, immigrants, blacks and white hillbillies, but it is cinematic effect again that transcends all language barrier that is unbelievable to me. And for the record I was a grumbler as we left the theater, I didn't particularly like the movie and I'm not a film buff but I do know what I like and don't like entertainment-wise. - Elle<br />
<br />
Was it common to have young people working in the coal mines? I think the movie showed the boy preacher, I believe his name was Danny, working in the coal mines. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
I feel like someone as young as Danny would not have been allowed to work in the coal mines, or would he of because he would have been cheaper labor? Also, would a congregation really sit and listen to a 15 year old preach to them? That just seemed a bit weird to me. Danny also didn't know how to throw a baseball apparently, but that's a different subject altogether. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Katherine and Kelly, I'm pretty sure that at the time, especially with labor like this, that there were HS-age kids working in the mines. They are cheap labor and are probably going to be healthier for longer, also making them long-available labor. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I also don't think the movie did all that great of a job showing the dangers of working in a coal mine. None of the characters had coal mining related injuries, but there was one guy in the beginning of the movie who had a bad cough, he might have had black lung from all the coal dust. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
Just a minor issue, the readings led me to believe, it could have been just the one, that most miners didn't leave or get out of the mines until after dark, but they definitely left and got home in the daylight, at least in the beginning. I'll try to remember to update this after I finish the movie. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Some of the problems I had with this movie is that I feel it really simplified the race ethnic union unification. It would not be something that would happen as rapidly and easily as the movie showed, but something that would take a lot of effort over time. I also did not like the fact that after the first scene in the movie no one else was shown either sick or coughing although the damage to peoples lungs would carry on even when they were not working in the mines. A lot of scenes also felt cliche or just silly. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
When the black scabs are considering joining the union, Few Clothes likens the mining situation to slavery, largely due to the fact that the miners are made to be entirely dependent upon the company for its needs. Referring to the start of the UMWA, Ratliff has called the mining situation slavery. In "The Tyranny of the Company Store" we read accounts of the forced dependence. Having to work for as long as they did, in the danger they did, essentially getting in return their food and housing, perhaps clothing, all subtracted from the binding scrip wages, and not being economically able to move out of the town, was akin to some conditions of slavery. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the Piece Rate system that we heard only good things about in the reading was actually not endorsed by Joe in the film. Now I am skeptical of who wrote this account. Joe's machinery explanation makes more sense to me. - Elle<br />
<br />
Another part of the readings that I found odd in comparison to the film was the passivity of the dying coal miners in their last notes to their loved ones. In the film these miners seemed anything but passive. Religious and definitely along the same lines of waiting for their loved ones in heaven, but a little more spiteful towards the poor conditions that caused deaths and injuries. Only one man writes to his sons to never become coal miners - I felt it should have been more than that. - Elle<br />
<br />
What I didn't like about the movie was how little they focused on actually being in the mines (although, for the record you couldn't see a thing while they were actually in the mines so maybe it's for the best.) because the audience never got a sense of how terrible work actually was in there. In some of the readings you can really get a sense that there was little air and that they were getting sick and trapped and injured but in the movie, more people died of gunfire than via coal mining. It just didn't seem to measure up right. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
The reading for this week titled “Oh God, For One More Breath”: Early 20th century Tennessee Coal Miners’ Last Words, showed how religious these people were. They constantly referred to Jesus, and how they were going to go to Heaven, and wanted to meet their family up there too. These documents reminded me of how religious the miners in the movie, especially the Italians, were with their statues of Mary, and other religious items. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
In the reading, “The Greatest Thing” Hawkins and Ratliff were talking about the revival of the UMWA by John L. Lewis and the election of FDR as the end of “slavery”. The use of slavery- era rhetoric is interesting, and I think apt. Using this language has particular prudence in the American discussion of workers rights, but was it uniquely American? I imagine that in the European context “slavery” would not be as emotive. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
I found a United States Court of Appeals case that included UMWA and a coal company back in the 1980s (INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant-Appellant: 916 F.2d 1499; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18131; 135 L.R.R.M. 2663; 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,363 [Source: Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.com]). Since the events that was discussed in the case happened when the movie came out, this is evidence that there was unrest between the miners and the mine owners that they worked for, even up to the late 1980s. So, there had to be tensions during the production of the film. In this particular case, there was an agreement between the two parties that expired in spring of 1987. The employers gave the miners an offer that the union rejected by striking. Afterward, the company refused to let some of the workers back on the basis of misconduct during the strike (like Dr. M said during the lecture, the companies found ways to get at the strikers). The court ruled in favor of the union.-Lauren<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
I think it was neat how they made the impression that the young boy, Danny, was the narrator in the movie. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving our luxury theatre. So here's my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of "There Will Be Blood," a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out "I abandoned my boy!" There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we've watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
I couldn't agree more! - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Holy crap. Take it back Jackie. Take it back right now. There Will Be Blood was the best movie I've seen in years, unquestionably. How can you possibly rag on a PT Anderson film?! And if we are going to nitpick actors, Will Oldham showed everyone why he should have stuck to music. He's great in Old Joy, but pretty awful in this. However, Chris Cooper showed why he has been given so many solid roles in later years, and I have yet to see a James Earl Jones movie I don't like. And did anyone else notice that the guy who plays Dr.Kelso on '''Scrubs''' was in this?? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Oh come, now, Jackie. You couldn't understand the WV accent? I enjoyed listening to the dialect (and understanding it all), but I think my awareness of and interest in dialects other than my own (I'm told it's largely Midwest) have been heightened since I've been taking linguistics. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Slowest. Movie. Ever. I don't care how accurate it was, for me it was as slow as Last of the Mohicans. Scratch that, it felt 12 times longer. Also, I'm beyond upset that they killed Hillard. He was my favorite. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think this was the movie that was the hardest for me to get through. Although, I thought it was comparable to Patriot's meandering story, not so much Mohicans, which I love every time I sit down to watch it. I'm not the biggest Heath Ledger fan though... -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I think that that this movie is very evenly paced for what it is depicting. Its not like a war movie, this deals with strikes and unions. Its not like Mel Gibson is in this movie. The miners have to strike hard enough to be noticed but not enough to be considered a riot.-- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
Awh, come on now, those accents were bad or thick. I should know, been out that way a lot with having lots of family from WV... I thought it was easy enough to understand them to be honest, but my golden rule is if you have trouble understanding put subtitles on. :-D --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with this movie being slow but it is definitely one of the more accurate movies we've watched (company stores and the cruel/creepy bosses/Felts just to name a few). But, the music is awesome and I felt claustrophobic (esp during the opening credits) just watching this movie! -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I thoght the use of the church to tell parts of the story was a very well done and really moved it along.--matt</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_10_Questions/Comments329--Week 10 Questions/Comments2008-10-29T21:07:40Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* a Right: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
The movie did a good job portraying all the different people who worked in the mines. There were native men and children, as well as the blacks and Italians, who were brought in to break the strike. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I thought the movie did a good job showing the conflicting sentiments about joining a union. They showed all the men who wanted change but knew the company would just bring in scabs. It also showed how the blacks and the Italians were persuaded to join the union so they could be stronger. The movie also showed how women felt about their husbands and sons joining the union. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
<br />
Along with the idea of wanting to join the union and being conflicted, it seems that most men did know which was best for them. They knew that the union might get them better wages and conditions, but at the same time joining the union meant they could be out of a job. Joining the union also could mean upsetting the company owners, which could lead to losing their home or other privileges. The movie did a good job showing what could happen if you upset or went against the mine owners.-- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I liked how Joe tapped into the idea of Scientific Management during his first rousing speech at the workers meeting. He described the exploitative practices of the bosses and how workers were like parts of a machine that could be replaced. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Agreeing with Jason, I have to say I was actually kind of surprised that Kenehan brought up the subject of Scientific Management during his speech. I think it was helpful for swaying the men to the union because I don't think many men realized just how invaluable they really were to large companies. The white men could easily have been (and were in the process of being) replaced by the Italian men and the blacks that were also arriving in Matewan. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I liked that the Italian woman and the old white woman, though at first not being very good neighbors (at least the old one) eventually became reconciled to share and sit together--and to provide comfort when the old lady's son (grandson?) was killed. The union had to get the miners to accept the minority scabs who wanted to join the union with them, so it seems appropriate to show that their families had to learn to get along and accept each other, as well. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I think that the movie was pretty generally accurate. It's not the most perfect of the films we've watched, but it did seem to present most of the different sides and opinions involved in the formation of unions and the difficulties of the time. For the record, 'villain' is a side, in this case, as we are still talking about a Hollywood movie, and the corporations and secret police could be legitimately cruel. ---Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
The movie did a good job with showing how even though the men had skepticisms about joining the Union, it was necessary in order to stand up to the mining companies and to demand that they be treated better than just mere "equipment." The movie accurately portrayed the brutality that went along with the competition for jobs between races and ethnicities. Also, as Kenehan pointed out it was a fight between those who worked and those who didn't ( bosses standing around holding guns as miners walked out of mine), it shouldn't be about skin color or background because at the end of the day they're all workers and they're all oppressed. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I haven't finished the movie yet, in fact I'm not in to it all that much. However, from the beginning of the movie they did get right just how dirty the men got, and also that they coughed a lot from the dust and particles. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
The tensions between the whites/blacks, blacks/Italians and Italians/Whites were all very well-portrayed in my opinion. The attacks that Few Clothes incurred towards the beginning of the movie, as well as the tension between the Italian grandmother and white mother throughout the film were both very realistic to me. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
We learned in class that the Red Scare was a real blow to the Labor Movement in the U.S and people were suspicious of anyone/anything that could be seen as promoting Communism. This is shown in the movie when Hatfield (I believe) is writing a letter to Felts and says he believes it's possible Kenehan could be a Red. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I felt the movie did a good job in portraying the problems facing the workers. Particularly I felt they did a good job dealing with the issue of the company store and company owned houses. The movie made clear the problems mine workers faced because of this arrangement and also shows the fact that the company really did have a lot of power. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
Would a woman shoot a dead man multiple times like that woman did after the massacre? I know people were pissed at the mine owners' treatment of miners and their families, but that's excessive. -Lauren<br />
<br />
If I was that woman, I probably would have done the same thing, simply because her boy just had his throat slit by those men. She was pissed off and emotionally a wreck from not just the union stuff, but her boy being murdered. Just my opinion though. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
While I do not think there were many the movie had some problems. The main problem was with the main character, Kenehan, was he actually real? I do not remember talking about him in class at all? Why have a main character that did not exist when so many of the other would have done the job just fine. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Kellye, it is funny that you made that comment because I thought the same exact thing when I watched the movie. By presenting Joe as this archetypal stock character all the screenwriters had to worry about was the accuracy of his ideals and motives. By creating this fictional character the movies’ creators could simply say ‘Oh, Joe didn’t exist, but this is an accurate depiction of what it would have been like if he did- and hey, we don’t have to worry about adhering to anyone’s biography now!’. The problem with fictionalizing his character is that it distorts the historical accuracy of the film as it relates to the real story of Matewan. In other words, by adding in this stereotypical character ''Matewan'' rivals ''Glory'' in the way that history is caricatured. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I liked the movie a lot, but for the sake of criticism I think the stereotypical characters and characterizations need to be examined. Now that I have a complex about “stealing people’s thunder” I will only briefly layout my litany and encourage people to elaborate on and/or discredit my claims. The Stone Mountain men clearly mocked the hill people and miners’ way of life, but were especially damning (pun intended) of their religiosity. Were businessmen at this time secular, or was this a plot device to further distinguish the two groups? The mayor was quite noble and honest, was the real Testerman so virtuous or was that too a mechanism of contrast? Finally, the boy preacher Andrew, were young miners (another pun?) that well- educated and articulate, and capable of rallying the members of a community to champion a cause? – Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Like Kellye and Jason, I was caught off guard when the main character was fictional. At least in the other movies we've watched, the main characters have been based off of, and were supposed to be, the historical figure. To see "Few Clothes" Johnson and Sheriff Hatfield in this movie you would expect the writers to use an actual member of the union to be the central figure. I just don't understand why filmmakers decide to create people instead of take an historical event and follow through with it. -Kelly Wuyscik <br />
<br />
I think that although Testerman was noble and honest, he was also portrayed as naive and unassertive. He's the character to take pity on when he dies at the end because he was only for upholding what was right and never hurt anybody. He was not assertive in anything he said, from a first "this is town property" to the agents (that was their point...) to his final "You people have no right to come to this town...." Ultimately, we find that his words were pretty much in vain. Nevertheless, his and Hatsfield's standing up to the agents is a testament to their characters, who in reality refused bribes from coal corporations. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I would like to point out another Glade Plug-In Moment - When Hillard's (not sure how to spell) Mom offers her extra food to the large Italian family and there is some trouble in the communication - then all of the sudden a vague gesture indicates for the white lady to sit down and POOF the Italian woman understands a compliment about her beautiful children. I agree that there is a good point here that there was a mixing of cultures, immigrants, blacks and white hillbillies, but it is cinematic effect again that transcends all language barrier that is unbelievable to me. And for the record I was a grumbler as we left the theater, I didn't particularly like the movie and I'm not a film buff but I do know what I like and don't like entertainment-wise. - Elle<br />
<br />
Was it common to have young people working in the coal mines? I think the movie showed the boy preacher, I believe his name was Danny, working in the coal mines. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
I feel like someone as young as Danny would not have been allowed to work in the coal mines, or would he of because he would have been cheaper labor? Also, would a congregation really sit and listen to a 15 year old preach to them? That just seemed a bit weird to me. Danny also didn't know how to throw a baseball apparently, but that's a different subject altogether. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Katherine and Kelly, I'm pretty sure that at the time, especially with labor like this, that there were HS-age kids working in the mines. They are cheap labor and are probably going to be healthier for longer, also making them long-available labor. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I also don't think the movie did all that great of a job showing the dangers of working in a coal mine. None of the characters had coal mining related injuries, but there was one guy in the beginning of the movie who had a bad cough, he might have had black lung from all the coal dust. ~Katherine~<br />
<br />
Just a minor issue, the readings led me to believe, it could have been just the one, that most miners didn't leave or get out of the mines until after dark, but they definitely left and got home in the daylight, at least in the beginning. I'll try to remember to update this after I finish the movie. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
When the black scabs are considering joining the union, Few Clothes likens the mining situation to slavery, largely due to the fact that the miners are made to be entirely dependent upon the company for its needs. Referring to the start of the UMWA, Ratliff has called the mining situation slavery. In "The Tyranny of the Company Store" we read accounts of the forced dependence. Having to work for as long as they did, in the danger they did, essentially getting in return their food and housing, perhaps clothing, all subtracted from the binding scrip wages, and not being economically able to move out of the town, was akin to some conditions of slavery. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
<br />
I found it interesting that the Piece Rate system that we heard only good things about in the reading was actually not endorsed by Joe in the film. Now I am skeptical of who wrote this account. Joe's machinery explanation makes more sense to me. - Elle<br />
<br />
Another part of the readings that I found odd in comparison to the film was the passivity of the dying coal miners in their last notes to their loved ones. In the film these miners seemed anything but passive. Religious and definitely along the same lines of waiting for their loved ones in heaven, but a little more spiteful towards the poor conditions that caused deaths and injuries. Only one man writes to his sons to never become coal miners - I felt it should have been more than that. - Elle<br />
<br />
What I didn't like about the movie was how little they focused on actually being in the mines (although, for the record you couldn't see a thing while they were actually in the mines so maybe it's for the best.) because the audience never got a sense of how terrible work actually was in there. In some of the readings you can really get a sense that there was little air and that they were getting sick and trapped and injured but in the movie, more people died of gunfire than via coal mining. It just didn't seem to measure up right. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
The reading for this week titled “Oh God, For One More Breath”: Early 20th century Tennessee Coal Miners’ Last Words, showed how religious these people were. They constantly referred to Jesus, and how they were going to go to Heaven, and wanted to meet their family up there too. These documents reminded me of how religious the miners in the movie, especially the Italians, were with their statues of Mary, and other religious items. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
In the reading, “The Greatest Thing” Hawkins and Ratliff were talking about the revival of the UMWA by John L. Lewis and the election of FDR as the end of “slavery”. The use of slavery- era rhetoric is interesting, and I think apt. Using this language has particular prudence in the American discussion of workers rights, but was it uniquely American? I imagine that in the European context “slavery” would not be as emotive. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
I found a United States Court of Appeals case that included UMWA and a coal company back in the 1980s (INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. BIG HORN COAL COMPANY, a Wyoming corporation, Defendant-Appellant: 916 F.2d 1499; 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 18131; 135 L.R.R.M. 2663; 116 Lab. Cas. (CCH) P10,363 [Source: Lexis Nexis www.lexisnexis.com]). Since the events that was discussed in the case happened when the movie came out, this is evidence that there was unrest between the miners and the mine owners that they worked for, even up to the late 1980s. So, there had to be tensions during the production of the film. In this particular case, there was an agreement between the two parties that expired in spring of 1987. The employers gave the miners an offer that the union rejected by striking. Afterward, the company refused to let some of the workers back on the basis of misconduct during the strike (like Dr. M said during the lecture, the companies found ways to get at the strikers). The court ruled in favor of the union.-Lauren<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
I think it was neat how they made the impression that the young boy, Danny, was the narrator in the movie. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
I have a feeling a lot of people are going to trash this movie as a film because of the grumbling I heard leaving our luxury theatre. So here's my defense of the film for all your contemplation. It reminded me a whole lot of "There Will Be Blood," a period film not about the coal industry but the oil industry, and a little more heart warming (the life of a poor wretched town not a mean, wretched man). Still, the style and the pacing was annoyingly slow and only climactic in short, tense spurts. And when the people were in the church I was waiting for someone to yell out "I abandoned my boy!" There is no denying that both movies are slow and pretty depressing, but the acting and the stylistic elements (definitely the authentic bad-ass music) are undeniable. If someone can point out one bad performance in the, largely, ensemble cast of characters, please do and then we will duke it out Thunder Dome-style. No one can understand a Western Virginian accent and the sound quality was a bit crappy but hey, it was a low budget film from the 80s, what can you expect? I think Matewan falls in the upper-end of the films we've watched both cinematically and historically (themes of union efforts and coal miners run true without being over-the-top preachy or sentimental). --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
I couldn't agree more! - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Holy crap. Take it back Jackie. Take it back right now. There Will Be Blood was the best movie I've seen in years, unquestionably. How can you possibly rag on a PT Anderson film?! And if we are going to nitpick actors, Will Oldham showed everyone why he should have stuck to music. He's great in Old Joy, but pretty awful in this. However, Chris Cooper showed why he has been given so many solid roles in later years, and I have yet to see a James Earl Jones movie I don't like. And did anyone else notice that the guy who plays Dr.Kelso on '''Scrubs''' was in this?? -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Oh come, now, Jackie. You couldn't understand the WV accent? I enjoyed listening to the dialect (and understanding it all), but I think my awareness of and interest in dialects other than my own (I'm told it's largely Midwest) have been heightened since I've been taking linguistics. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Slowest. Movie. Ever. I don't care how accurate it was, for me it was as slow as Last of the Mohicans. Scratch that, it felt 12 times longer. Also, I'm beyond upset that they killed Hillard. He was my favorite. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think this was the movie that was the hardest for me to get through. Although, I thought it was comparable to Patriot's meandering story, not so much Mohicans, which I love every time I sit down to watch it. I'm not the biggest Heath Ledger fan though... -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I think that that this movie is very evenly paced for what it is depicting. Its not like a war movie, this deals with strikes and unions. Its not like Mel Gibson is in this movie. The miners have to strike hard enough to be noticed but not enough to be considered a riot.-- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
Awh, come on now, those accents were bad or thick. I should know, been out that way a lot with having lots of family from WV... I thought it was easy enough to understand them to be honest, but my golden rule is if you have trouble understanding put subtitles on. :-D --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
Overall I think the movie did a pretty good job with historical accuracy but I think it made the film suffer. It seemed really long and was very slow. At times it was hard to follow the plot if there even was a plot. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Did the Mine companies unusually allow the widows of mine workers to still live in company housing? Did they also give them some kind of pension to use in the company store? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I agree with this movie being slow but it is definitely one of the more accurate movies we've watched (company stores and the cruel/creepy bosses/Felts just to name a few). But, the music is awesome and I felt claustrophobic (esp during the opening credits) just watching this movie! -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I thoght the use of the church to tell parts of the story was a very well done and really moved it along.--matt</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments329--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-10-22T21:31:54Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 6 Overall */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle<br />
<br />
...The names were right. And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I'd like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target. I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West. Also, even though the Clanton family didn't "rustle" the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (''Problems of the Old West'', 198). - David F.<br />
<br />
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. <br />
<br />
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C. <br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
WOW! Where to start with this movie! ''My Darling Clementine'' rivals ''Pocahontas'' in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:<br />
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. <br />
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.<br />
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. <br />
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.<br />
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. <br />
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?<br />
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???<br />
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. <br />
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans. The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on "ER" who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don't see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, "Oui, Mademoiselle" about Doc's health. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona's heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand. The film's representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town. We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town's establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they've been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle<br />
<br />
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West? Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then. Were hospitals built? If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.<br />
<br />
I don't know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like ''Pocahontas'' in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong. Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of 'hero' in class on Tuesday, but that's how he is portrayed in the film. Also... I don't remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier. Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone? This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have 'heard' of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie. It was very stereotypical of westerns. It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn't even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
Why did the director kill of poor James Earp? as far as i can tell he was one of the only good brothers. I don't understand why a director changes history in order to make a story work. The director apparently only want to have a classic western then an actually historical story. The Clanton's are immediately made the villains and the Earp's are the righteous heroes.-- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
Another major problem in this movies historical accuracy is the relationship between Doc Holliday and Wyatt Erp. They were already friends before they even came to Tombstone. They also had their own women and their wasn't a rivalry between them like the movie portrays. Morgan dosen't die to after the showdown not before. Wheres Wyatt's pistol whipping. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, ''A Century of Dishonor''). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives '''were''' in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the "Indian Department" help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison's "Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage" at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as "naturally warlike" so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren<br />
<br />
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward<br />
<br />
''My Darling Clementine'' and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, ''An Overland Journey'' (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in ''My Darling Clementine'' articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Edward Gould Buffum's Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to "My Darling Clementine" in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle<br />
<br />
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out. McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn't have the skill, he couldn't control the cattle and they would run away. It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps' cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere. Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother's death. Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle. Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially ''My Darling Clementine'', are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I'm gonna be around here for a while. Can't tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I'm gonna be around here for a while. Can't tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says "Some day, this country's gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come." These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
The scene where Wyatt kicks out the drunk indian reflects stereotypes and racism towards Indians during the time period. As far as history about the times goes this scene seems unusual because as racist as people were towards Indians at that time period it seems more likely that the people would have ganged up and killed the Indian and it seems unusual that there was even an Indian in the town in the first place. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
''My Darling Clementine'' is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as ''Pocahontas'' is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films. What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. ''Pocahontas'' is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas ''My Darling Clementine'' is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. ''My Darling Clementine'' does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, ''My Darling Clementine'' is as damaging as ''Pocahontas'', but less definitive. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
This movie wasn't really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard "My Darling Clementine" in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn't about her?! -Lauren<br />
<br />
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson's character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don't know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris' character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing. In this film and in ''Tombstone'' (not sure about ''Wyatt Earp'' though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out. I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling). So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F<br />
<br />
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
When I watched this movie I kept thinking back to Tombstone. Tombstone was one of my favorite movies and so I found myself constantly comparing the two movies in my head while watching it. Tombstone really did a much better job at portraying the characters then My Darling Clementine. First off all the important characters were included in Tombstone while many characters were excluded in My Darling Clementine such as Maddie, Mayor Beahan, Johnny Ringo etc. Tombstone also portrayed Wyatt in a more accurate way as a gambler who would use pistol whipping violence to get what he wanted and was only really interested in justice when he had something personal at stake. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week. Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb. Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to "Oh My Darling Clementine?" They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including "dwelt a miner forty-niner"... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ. And Clementine drowns. And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don't care about him (probably because I've never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan not as a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne's westerns don't lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don't include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Bryan, I'm guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it's just a thought. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...<br />
<br />
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash<br />
<br />
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I've been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone's style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn't expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
What is up with Chihuahua is she Latino? why not get an actually Hispanic actress instead of a white actress? I totally didn't understand that she was Latino until I looked it up on IMDB then I found out she didn't even have a last name. That is just sad that a director introduces a character without at least giving it a last name. Seriously, I didn't understand that she was Latino except by her name, she just looked like a white lady that has never taken a bath.-- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
Being a big fan of Tombstone really makes it hard for me to see this movie in a good way. Although Tombstone get several things wrong as well it portrayed the actual characters and situation far better than My Darling Clementine. Also the Doc Holliday in My Darling Clementine can never compare to Val Kilmers Doc Holliday from Tombstone. - Jonathan Bell</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments329--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-10-22T21:26:35Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle<br />
<br />
...The names were right. And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I'd like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target. I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West. Also, even though the Clanton family didn't "rustle" the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (''Problems of the Old West'', 198). - David F.<br />
<br />
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. <br />
<br />
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C. <br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
WOW! Where to start with this movie! ''My Darling Clementine'' rivals ''Pocahontas'' in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:<br />
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. <br />
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.<br />
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. <br />
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.<br />
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. <br />
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?<br />
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???<br />
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. <br />
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans. The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on "ER" who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don't see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, "Oui, Mademoiselle" about Doc's health. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona's heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand. The film's representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town. We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town's establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they've been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle<br />
<br />
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West? Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then. Were hospitals built? If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.<br />
<br />
I don't know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like ''Pocahontas'' in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong. Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of 'hero' in class on Tuesday, but that's how he is portrayed in the film. Also... I don't remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier. Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone? This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have 'heard' of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie. It was very stereotypical of westerns. It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn't even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
Why did the director kill of poor James Earp? as far as i can tell he was one of the only good brothers. I don't understand why a director changes history in order to make a story work. The director apparently only want to have a classic western then an actually historical story. The Clanton's are immediately made the villains and the Earp's are the righteous heroes.-- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
Another major problem in this movies historical accuracy is the relationship between Doc Holliday and Wyatt Erp. They were already friends before they even came to Tombstone. They also had their own women and their wasn't a rivalry between them like the movie portrays. Morgan dosen't die to after the showdown not before. Wheres Wyatt's pistol whipping. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, ''A Century of Dishonor''). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives '''were''' in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the "Indian Department" help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison's "Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage" at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as "naturally warlike" so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren<br />
<br />
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward<br />
<br />
''My Darling Clementine'' and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, ''An Overland Journey'' (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in ''My Darling Clementine'' articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Edward Gould Buffum's Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to "My Darling Clementine" in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle<br />
<br />
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out. McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn't have the skill, he couldn't control the cattle and they would run away. It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps' cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere. Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother's death. Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle. Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially ''My Darling Clementine'', are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I'm gonna be around here for a while. Can't tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I'm gonna be around here for a while. Can't tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says "Some day, this country's gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come." These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
The scene where Wyatt kicks out the drunk indian reflects stereotypes and racism towards Indians during the time period. As far as history about the times goes this scene seems unusual because as racist as people were towards Indians at that time period it seems more likely that the people would have ganged up and killed the Indian and it seems unusual that there was even an Indian in the town in the first place. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
''My Darling Clementine'' is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as ''Pocahontas'' is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films. What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. ''Pocahontas'' is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas ''My Darling Clementine'' is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. ''My Darling Clementine'' does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, ''My Darling Clementine'' is as damaging as ''Pocahontas'', but less definitive. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
This movie wasn't really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard "My Darling Clementine" in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn't about her?! -Lauren<br />
<br />
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson's character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don't know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris' character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing. In this film and in ''Tombstone'' (not sure about ''Wyatt Earp'' though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out. I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling). So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F<br />
<br />
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
When I watched this movie I kept thinking back to Tombstone. Tombstone was one of my favorite movies and so I found myself constantly comparing the two movies in my head while watching it. Tombstone really did a much better job at portraying the characters then My Darling Clementine. First off all the important characters were included in Tombstone while many characters were excluded in My Darling Clementine such as Maddie, Mayor Beahan, Johnny Ringo etc. Tombstone also portrayed Wyatt in a more accurate way as a gambler who would use pistol whipping violence to get what he wanted and was only really interested in justice when he had something personal at stake. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week. Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb. Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to "Oh My Darling Clementine?" They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including "dwelt a miner forty-niner"... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ. And Clementine drowns. And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don't care about him (probably because I've never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan not as a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne's westerns don't lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don't include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Bryan, I'm guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it's just a thought. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...<br />
<br />
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash<br />
<br />
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I've been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone's style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn't expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
What is up with Chihuahua is she Latino? why not get an actually Hispanic actress instead of a white actress? I totally didn't understand that she was Latino until I looked it up on IMDB then I found out she didn't even have a last name. That is just sad that a director introduces a character without at least giving it a last name. Seriously, I didn't understand that she was Latino except by her name, she just looked like a white lady that has never taken a bath.-- Matt DeMarr</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments329--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-10-22T21:18:23Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle<br />
<br />
...The names were right. And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I'd like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target. I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West. Also, even though the Clanton family didn't "rustle" the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (''Problems of the Old West'', 198). - David F.<br />
<br />
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. <br />
<br />
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C. <br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
WOW! Where to start with this movie! ''My Darling Clementine'' rivals ''Pocahontas'' in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:<br />
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. <br />
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.<br />
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. <br />
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.<br />
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. <br />
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?<br />
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???<br />
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. <br />
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans. The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on "ER" who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don't see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, "Oui, Mademoiselle" about Doc's health. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona's heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand. The film's representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town. We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town's establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they've been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle<br />
<br />
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West? Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then. Were hospitals built? If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.<br />
<br />
I don't know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like ''Pocahontas'' in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong. Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of 'hero' in class on Tuesday, but that's how he is portrayed in the film. Also... I don't remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier. Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone? This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have 'heard' of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie. It was very stereotypical of westerns. It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn't even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
Why did the director kill of poor James Earp? as far as i can tell he was one of the only good brothers. I don't understand why a director changes history in order to make a story work. The director apparently only want to have a classic western then an actually historical story. The Clanton's are immediately made the villains and the Earp's are the righteous heroes.-- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, ''A Century of Dishonor''). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives '''were''' in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the "Indian Department" help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison's "Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage" at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as "naturally warlike" so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren<br />
<br />
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward<br />
<br />
''My Darling Clementine'' and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, ''An Overland Journey'' (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in ''My Darling Clementine'' articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Edward Gould Buffum's Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to "My Darling Clementine" in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle<br />
<br />
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out. McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn't have the skill, he couldn't control the cattle and they would run away. It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps' cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere. Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother's death. Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle. Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially ''My Darling Clementine'', are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I'm gonna be around here for a while. Can't tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I'm gonna be around here for a while. Can't tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says "Some day, this country's gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come." These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
The scene where Wyatt kicks out the drunk indian reflects stereotypes and racism towards Indians during the time period. As far as history about the times goes this scene seems unusual because as racist as people were towards Indians at that time period it seems more likely that the people would have ganged up and killed the Indian and it seems unusual that there was even an Indian in the town in the first place. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
''My Darling Clementine'' is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as ''Pocahontas'' is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films. What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. ''Pocahontas'' is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas ''My Darling Clementine'' is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. ''My Darling Clementine'' does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, ''My Darling Clementine'' is as damaging as ''Pocahontas'', but less definitive. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
This movie wasn't really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard "My Darling Clementine" in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn't about her?! -Lauren<br />
<br />
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson's character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don't know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris' character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing. In this film and in ''Tombstone'' (not sure about ''Wyatt Earp'' though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out. I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling). So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F<br />
<br />
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
When I watched this movie I kept thinking back to Tombstone. Tombstone was one of my favorite movies and so I found myself constantly comparing the two movies in my head while watching it. Tombstone really did a much better job at portraying the characters then My Darling Clementine. First off all the important characters were included in Tombstone while many characters were excluded in My Darling Clementine such as Maddie, Mayor Beahan, Johnny Ringo etc. Tombstone also portrayed Wyatt in a more accurate way as a gambler who would use pistol whipping violence to get what he wanted and was only really interested in justice when he had something personal at stake. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week. Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb. Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to "Oh My Darling Clementine?" They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including "dwelt a miner forty-niner"... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ. And Clementine drowns. And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don't care about him (probably because I've never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan not as a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne's westerns don't lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don't include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Bryan, I'm guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it's just a thought. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...<br />
<br />
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash<br />
<br />
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I've been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone's style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn't expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
What is up with Chihuahua is she Latino? why not get an actually Hispanic actress instead of a white actress? I totally didn't understand that she was Latino until I looked it up on IMDB then I found out she didn't even have a last name. That is just sad that a director introduces a character without at least giving it a last name. Seriously, I didn't understand that she was Latino except by her name, she just looked like a white lady that has never taken a bath.-- Matt DeMarr</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_9_Questions/Comments329--Week 9 Questions/Comments2008-10-22T21:13:51Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
Though mostly used for comedic effect, the barber from Chicago illustrated how people were coming out west not just to farm or mine but, as mentioned in the lecture, to be in the service industries. Also, relating to the service industries, the ambiguities of women in their less than reputable roles in the community was depicted as it is unclear exactly what Chihuahua does for money, though this could have been an ambiguity forced by censors of the day. Also the diversity of western settlements are largely ignored in the film, though there are a fair share of Mexicans, albeit not in flattering depictions.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
The landscapes looked pretty legit for the most part. - Elle<br />
<br />
...The names were right. And like Elle said, the landscape looked pretty real. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I'd like to be the third person to agree and say that the scenery seemed on target. I watched this movie in my Intro to Film Studies class and we focused mainly on mise-en-scene and the setting, and how this movie is a great depiction of the environment of the Old West. Also, even though the Clanton family didn't "rustle" the cattle James Earp was protecting in reality, according to the reading, cattle rustling was common behavior (''Problems of the Old West'', 198). - David F.<br />
<br />
While I did question much of the accuracy of the movie, one scene that really stood out in my mind was the accurate portrayal of the burial of James in the middle of the prairie. In her diary, Lydia Allen Rudd describes seeing the man made tombs they encountered along the way and how families would bury their relatives who died of diseases, albeit the horrifying effects and rampant spread of disease was not discussed in the movie although it was a significant part of western life, during the journey westward. --Mallory C. <br />
<br />
Also, to add onto what Bryan mentioned, the barber/ dentist was accurate. We learned in class that many settlers who moved out west would try their hands at many different professions instead of just sticking to one industry such as mining or gold digging. In this case the guy could cut hair and also pull teeth, as indicated by the sign hanging in the store. -- Mallory C. <br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
WOW! Where to start with this movie! ''My Darling Clementine'' rivals ''Pocahontas'' in the way that it includes historical characters, for the most part, while simultaneously fabricating the whole story. Here are some glaring inconsistencies that jumped out at me:<br />
* Wyatt Earp was far from a moralistic vigilante marshal, he was a vagrant and outlaw in his own right. <br />
* The Clanton’s didn’t kill James. The Clanton’s didn’t even instigate matters.<br />
* Wyatt and Doc knew each other rather well prior to Tombstone and even “ran together”. <br />
* There was NO mention of politics or political contexts to rivalries- all of the disputes in the movie were personal grievances.<br />
* In the film, Tombstone was a one- street town full of vice. Although there was plenty of vice in the Old West, there was also an infrastructure and a functioning civil society. <br />
* The Tombstone depicted in the film seemed to represent a rather monolithic society of white drinkers, outlaws, and gamblers, with a token black minstrel and Indian drunkard. Where were the representations of racial and cultural diversity?<br />
* Where was Kate Elder, Clementine, “Curly” Bill Brocious, Mattie Blaylock, Johnny Ringo, John Behan, or Frank and Thomas McLaury, or Josephine Behan???<br />
* No one in this movie died of disease. It was obvious that Doc was suffering from illness, but it was not specified. <br />
These issues seem to be easy to work into the film. The exclusion of these characters and contexts make the movie easier to follow, but inevitably oversimplify and trivialize the complexities of the Old West. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
As Jason mentioned, this movie failed to include some minority groups, such as Asians and African Americans. The minority groups that were shown, Mexicans, and Native Americans, were portrayed in stereotypical and racist ways, with the Mexicans all wearing sombreros, and serapes, and the Native Americans as poor people who get drunk easily, and do crazy things while drunk. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I found the surgery scene to be misleading for a few reasons. First off Doc was walking around like a surgeon on "ER" who just scrubbed up, when cleanliness was not typically a recognized necessity. Also Doc became a surgeon in the movie when he was actually a dentist. Unless Chihuahua was shot in the mouth I don't see how he could have been a whole lot of help. Lastly, Chihuahua looked better on her death bed than she did in the rest of the film, not exactly an historical inaccuracy but bothersome nonetheless. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I agree with Bryan on the surgery scene. This scene seemed too Hollywood where they called for a “doctor in the house” and Dr. Holiday came to the rescue and saved the day; well not really later in the movie. Also Chiuana did look better when she was on her death bed than the beginning of the film. She had too much makeup on, which didn’t give a real look of how women were portrayed. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
Regarding racial and ethnic diversity, I noticed that aside from the Indian drunkard, and stereotypically indeed, there were scatterings of Indians in background of mainly outdoor scenes, either standing or sitting, but always serious and with blankets wrapped around themselves. There were a lot of Mexicans in the tavern, at times more than others, and the cooks were also Mexican. What amused me, however, is when one male Mexican-looking cook answers Clementine, "Oui, Mademoiselle" about Doc's health. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
This has already been said, but honestly, where were the Asians and Blacks? Also, I honestly feel like I only remember seeing no more than 3 or 4 Latinos. This just seems impossible to me, especially with Arizona's heavy Latin influence. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
In class Dr. M showed us a layout of the city of tombstone, and we saw the 1881 picture of the town with a population of several thousand. The film's representation of Tombstone as a tiny one-street town full of rowdy people at night supports the stereotypical tiny frontier town. We learned that there were often schools and churches early in a town's establishment, which, nevertheless, we actually do see depicted in Tombstone. Coincidentally, it while the Earps were there that the church was dedicated and Clementine was chosen as a teacher. Nothing, however, implies that the town is recent, and all these families show up for church from...goodness knows where, but seemingly all miles away, talking as though they've been waiting years for a church. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I found the character of Clementine to be problematic. We are led to believe she has been riding stage coaches across the west in search of Doc. First off, where are the trains? Also, the lecture pointed out that if anything, most women were reluctant to be dragged out west, not fall all over themselves to go out on their own. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
The shoot out was not at all how it was described in the lecture. Remember it did not take place in the OK Corral, it took place in an abandoned lot NEAR the corral - so the dramatic shooting between horses is just classic film embellishment. -Elle<br />
<br />
Did prostitutes know how to sing back in the days of the Old West? Also, since so many people referenced the surgery scene, I wanted to know how they handled medical treatment then. Were hospitals built? If not, did they aid victims right there on the spot (like in the movie, when Chihuahua got shot, would they have taken her to the back room of the bar to do surgery)? - David F.<br />
<br />
I don't know where to start with this film, I have to agree that its like ''Pocahontas'' in the way that it used historical characters and you got to see pretty scenery that should have matched the approximate time and place... however, just about everything else seems wrong. Wyatt Earp was definitely not described as some kind of 'hero' in class on Tuesday, but that's how he is portrayed in the film. Also... I don't remember one of the brothers being killed that earlier. Another problem was that I remember hearing that Doc and the Earps were friends before Tombstone? This movie is completely wacked, but I remember it being said in class that the book by Mr. Lake was basically fiction. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Its kind of annoying that everyone seemed to have 'heard' of Wyatt beforehand... like he had some legend preceeding him... but we learned in class that it was not so. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
There were a lot of things wrong with this movie. It was very stereotypical of westerns. It only showed Native Americas, whites and only a few Latinos. How was Doc able to preform surgery when he was a dentist? and by how he talked he hadn't even been doing that for awhile. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
When did being a dentist qualify someone to preform surgery on a bullet wound? Last time i checked a Bullet wound is much more damaging then a wisdom tooth.--- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
Why did the director kill of poor James Earp? as far as i can tell he was one of the only good brothers. I don't understand why a director changes history in order to make a story work. The director apparently only want to have a classic western then an actually historical story. The Clanton's are immediately made the villains and the Earp's are the righteous heroes.-- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
The portrayal and treatment of the drunken Indian related to the three of the readings that we had to read for this week that discussed Indian affairs. That Indian was idle and he got drunk, presumably at the saloon. Helen Hunt Jackson talked some about idleness of the Native Americans. She said that so many Indians have suffered either by the US government or by the white migrants (Jackson, ''A Century of Dishonor''). Also, the fact that we still a couple of Native Americans sitting in the background seems to respond to the fact that during the times of the actual events, the welfare of the Natives '''were''' in the back of the minds of the American people. As said by Red Cloud, the white people in charged of the "Indian Department" help themselves before helping the people who need it! Benjamin Harrison's "Report on Wounded Knee and the Decrease in Indian Land Acreage" at Wounded Knee shows just how in the background the Indians were. He described the Sioux tribes as "naturally warlike" so he dismisses their hardships based on that. -Lauren<br />
<br />
I feel that the diaries from Lydia Allen Rudd and Sister Monica provide a glimpse of the hardships that the Western settlers faced. They chronicled the wretched weather, illness, disease, insecurities, and struggles with dire detail. None of the fears and challenges that plagued actual settlers were conveyed in the movie. – Jason Ward<br />
<br />
''My Darling Clementine'' and most other Westerns succeed in having the Old West exist in a vacuum devoid of any contact with the East or other cultures. In, ''An Overland Journey'' (1860) Horace Greeley explains how vitally important it is to be connected to the Eastern establishment. Greeley points to the transcontinental railroad as the harbinger of civilization for the West and prosperity for the entire nation. From Greeley’s perspective, with improved transportation comes improved communication, migration, (especially the migration of women who up to this point were in the distinct minority in the West) and education. Greeley says that by working together to build a railroad, our industry and technology will improve, leading to greater prosperity. None of the characters or storylines in ''My Darling Clementine'' articulated any of the desires that are present in the Greeley reading. The movie makes it seem that these settlers were out West languishing in vagrancy and insecurity, when in fact boom towns had institutions that constituted a civil society. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Edward Gould Buffum's Six Months in Gold Mines correlates to "My Darling Clementine" in that is demonstrates somewhat how the citizens had to take the law into their own hands. The source describes an out of hand situation where men were lynched for petty crimes due to a rambunctious mob. At the beginning of the film Wyatt took the law into his own hands to clobber the drunken indian who was shooting up a saloon. Later citizens were in charge of appointing their own marshall. - Elle<br />
<br />
When James died and the cattle were gone, it was pouring rain out. McCoy wrote about how in heavy storms, if the herder didn't have the skill, he couldn't control the cattle and they would run away. It seems possible that this is what could have actually happened to the Earps' cattle once Billy Clanton killed James, and in the middle of nowhere they could have gone anywhere. Wyatt speaks early on of their cattle having been rustled, but never mentions that again; he is only concerned with avenging his brother's death. Not once does he confront the Clantons about his cattle. Even at the end, he suggests that he might try to buy some new cattle and start ranching again--implying that he never believed his cattle could be recovered. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
I found a few interesting Cold War references in this 1946 American Western classic. Firstly, let us start with the genre. “The Western” itself is uniquely and quintessentially American, speaking in the most stereotypical terms. Westerns typically had a strong, moralistic, vigilante male who would rid the town of evil, and what better time to extol American character and values than during one of the most vulnerable periods in our modern history- The Cold War. I think the “good vs. evil” dichotomy that dominated the Western narratives mirrors the “good vs. evil” battle being waged on the Cold War frontiers in the decade following World War II. Secondly, these films, especially ''My Darling Clementine'', are peppered with Pro- American rhetoric and symbolism. The first instance that struck me was when Wyatt Earp was talking to His brother James’ tombstone. Earp vowed that he would avenge James’ death by taking the law into his own hands and ridding the world of evil. Earp says “I'm gonna be around here for a while. Can't tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” I am sure safety and security was something that western frontiersmen wanted for their kin, but this particular dialogue smacks of RED FEAR! The second reference intrigued me for a few reasons, and that was the symbolism of the Church. The inclusion of the church struck me as out of place in a way. I do not know how common it was for churches to be found in cattle towns or mining towns, especially when vagrancy and immorality seemed to epitomize the way of life therein. Visually, the two American flags flying on the half- built church served to equate America with Godliness, leaving John Ford with yet another way to criticize those Godless Commies! - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
There was only one “Indian” reference, and it was not flattering to them at all. The Indian at the beginning of the film goes on a shooting rampage because he is too liquored up, then Wyatt Earp takes control of the situation by beating him over the head with a rock. Earp first chastises the townspeople for allowing an Indian to drink, (I assume because of the stereotype that Native Americans have a low tolerance for alcohol) then runs the Indian out of town saying don’t come back. Was such little contact with so few Indians the norm? Would interactions be so cruel? Was that interaction an accurate portrayal of White- Native relations back then, or was it more representative of America in the 1940s? - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Jason, I wonder if maybe you are overplaying the role of communism in the symbolism of the film? Ford, though an ardent military man who prided himself on his service in the Navy, had six years earlier made, The Grapes of Wrath (also starring Henry Fonda). This was a film which faced a lot of criticism for socialist overtones. Also a line similar to “I'm gonna be around here for a while. Can't tell. Maybe when we leave this country young kids like you will be able to grow up and live safe.” is in The Searchers (also by Ford) where Mrs. Jorgenson says "Some day, this country's gonna be a fine, good place to be. Maybe it needs our bones in the ground before that time can come." These lines struck me more as being in the tone of rugged individuals dealing with the harsh realities of setting up a new life than any sort of reference to Russians. Though the flags on the church do seem a bit heavy handed. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
''My Darling Clementine'' is probably just as inaccurate and damaging to our understanding of the Old West as ''Pocahontas'' is to our understanding of initial English settlement and European- Native relations if we isolate the two films. What distinguishes these two movies are their impacts on Americans’ understandings of the respective contexts covered by the films. ''Pocahontas'' is one of the few widely popularized versions of that period in our national history, whereas ''My Darling Clementine'' is simply another movie in a seemingly infinite line of films depicting the Old West. ''My Darling Clementine'' does not define how we understand the Old West as much as it simply adds to our distorted perception of the time. It can be argued that Pocahontas is the only representation many Americans have of the first wave of settlement by Europeans. Therefore, ''My Darling Clementine'' is as damaging as ''Pocahontas'', but less definitive. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
This movie wasn't really about Clementine, yet the name implies it. She was a supporting character. The movie was about Wyatt Earp and his life. The name irks me. I heard "My Darling Clementine" in some of the scenes that she appeared, but why did the makers pick that name when the movies isn't about her?! -Lauren<br />
<br />
It is remarkable how upon seeing My Darling Clementine for the first time I was struck by how many conventions there were used in the film that reminded me of other films which have followed. Doc Holiday is the respected and feared individualist acting outside the law, much like Ethan Edwards (The Searchers), Shane (Shane), Tom Doniphun (The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance), Tom Dunson (Red River), and Charlie Bronson's character in Once Upon a Time in the West. Earp is the righteous lawman who will go against long odds to stand for what he believes in much like Will Kane (High Noon), JT Chance (Rio Bravo), and to some extent Rance Stoddard (...Liberty Valance). There are also smaller things like Old Man Clanton carrying around a whip, as did Liberty Valance and I believe the eldest Ryker in Shane does as well. Also, I don't know if anyone has seen Appaloosa, but the way that Earp leaned on his chair out on the porch made me think immediately of Ed Harris' character in that movie. Lastly, beyond the use of actors who would play roles in many other westerns (Fonda, Ward Bond, Walter Brennan), Ford made use of Monument Valley as he would in numerous other films, notably The Searchers.- Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
As for the scene with the building of the church, was that accurate with the excitement from the community in the creation of the church in the Tombstone town during the 19th century? –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
The relationship between Wyatt Earp and Doc Holliday is intriguing. In this film and in ''Tombstone'' (not sure about ''Wyatt Earp'' though) they are portrayed as having much tension between them, even though we know they were friends before the shoot-out. I think the choice to have these two figures depicted in such a way was to convey that the two would have represented what it was to be masculine in the Old West (Wyatt going through all the jobs of the Old West and both Doc and the Earps having a love for gambling). So, to have Doc and Wyatt be character foils to each other was maybe a directorial choice, created purely for dramatic effect. - David F<br />
<br />
Did anyone else find this movie blatantly politically incorrect and offensive? I understand that when the movie was made it was a different era than the one we live in now, but the one drunk Indian and the Oriental Saloon? --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
When I watched this movie I kept thinking back to Tombstone. Tombstone was one of my favorite movies and so I found myself constantly comparing the two movies in my head while watching it. Tombstone really did a much better job at portraying the characters then My Darling Clementine. First off all the important characters were included in Tombstone while many characters were excluded in My Darling Clementine such as Maddie, Mayor Beahan, Johnny Ringo etc. Tombstone also portrayed Wyatt in a more accurate way as a gambler who would use pistol whipping violence to get what he wanted and was only really interested in justice when he had something personal at stake. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
I loved it. I love Henry Fonda! - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
See? No one understood why I was so excited to watch this movie this week. Henry Fonda is amazing. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think that the movie was okay, but the title was dumb. Clementine played little part in the plot, and has anybody else checked out the lyrics to "Oh My Darling Clementine?" They began and ended the movie with singing parts of the song including "dwelt a miner forty-niner"... not quite someone in a silver rush in AZ. And Clementine drowns. And I apologize to all those people who love Henry Fonda, but I don't care about him (probably because I've never seen him in anything else) and I think Victor Mature as Doc is pretty cute.<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the film and Fonda is good, but how do we include a western and not have it be one with John Wayne, THE definitive western film star? Also I enjoyed seeing Walter Brennan not as a bumbling old coot.(note: the more I thought about it, most of Wayne's westerns don't lend themselves to an historical analysis as they don't include real historical figures like the denizens of Tombstone.) -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Bryan, I'm guessing Dr. M is trying to avoid lauding one of the most racist actors in the American canon, but it's just a thought. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
Cash, I think Mel Gibson would like to have a word with you...<br />
<br />
Hey. Mel Gibson was in What Women Want and Signs. He has paid his debt to society. --Cash<br />
<br />
Overall I enjoyed the film especially when the Marshall “buffaloed” (spelling?) one of the Clanton brothers in the bar with his gun when he was trying to get the Shakespearean actor. –Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
I have to be completely honest, I was very disappointed by this movie. I kept checking the time left option while watching. Where did the love story come in? Maybe I've been spoiled by my love for Sergio Leone's style of western, but I guess I was expecting Wyatt Earp to be more of a Man With No Name than anything else. Bummer. --Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the film overall, but I think its because I expected it to be basically a fictional film I wasn't expecting it to be to overly accurate. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I did enjoy the movie, it really reminded me of a soap opera, there was so much drama between the characters. I still think Tombstone is a better movie. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
What is up with Chihuahua is she Latino? why not get an actually Hispanic actress instead of a white actress? I totally didn't understand that she was Latino until I looked it up on IMDB then I found out she didn't even have a last name. That is just sad that a director introduces a character without at least giving it a last name. Seriously, I didn't understand that she was Latino except by her name, she just looked like a white lady that has never taken a bath.-- Matt DeMarr</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments329--Week 7 Questions/Comments2008-10-08T00:06:52Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
When Denzel Washington, as Private Trip, pulls off his shirt to receive his punishment after his apparent "desertion" the lash scars already on his back is what most, if not all, slaves had. It was rare that a slave did not feel the tip of a whip nor was it rare that a master or an overseer would use it or threaten to use it. -Lauren <br />
<br />
The fact that the movie shows the black soldiers initially as manual laborers, as Dr. M said today in the lecture today, was accurate. The men were hauling logs, I believe, when the white troops passed them. Although the work was not what they wanted, it enabled more white soldiers to the battle front. Related to the black soldiers, the fact that Shaw was shown to work hard in order to get his men to the battlefield, was exactly what Shaw had to do. Arming black men was not a popular idea with white people on both sides of the war. -Lauren <br />
<br />
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn't they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn't it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
The one thing that really bothers me in this movie is the cliche characterization of characters. You have the traditional scene of one soldier who dislikes another soldier only to be saved by that soldier in the end. You also have the 1 wise reliable soldier (the non commissioned officer). The movie really focuses on just a few cast members and does not really give you the true composition of the army such as there were several prominent black abolitionists fighting in the 54th when the movie only portrays just one. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In Gooding's first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in "Glory" don't act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving "to make themselves a people." --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
This is a bit cheeky, but this movie shows the popular white male actors of the 1980s, Ferris Bueller (Broderick) and Westley (Elwes) of the ''Princess Bride.'' -Lauren<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Characterization is something that bothers me with this movie. The movie really focuses on just a few characters ignoring pretty much everyone else. The confederates who were the enemies were never really characterized as anything more than fodder. While I suppose this is better than characterizing characters in a stereotypical or false way it really limits the scope of history this movie presents. The movie is show entirely through a few member of the 54th division and ends up giving a really limited scope causing the movie to miss out on presenting a broader picture of what was going on during the time. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments329--Week 7 Questions/Comments2008-10-08T00:00:07Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
When Denzel Washington, as Private Trip, pulls off his shirt to receive his punishment after his apparent "desertion" the lash scars already on his back is what most, if not all, slaves had. It was rare that a slave did not feel the tip of a whip nor was it rare that a master or an overseer would use it or threaten to use it. -Lauren <br />
<br />
The fact that the movie shows the black soldiers initially as manual laborers, as Dr. M said today in the lecture today, was accurate. The men were hauling logs, I believe, when the white troops passed them. Although the work was not what they wanted, it enabled more white soldiers to the battle front. Related to the black soldiers, the fact that Shaw was shown to work hard in order to get his men to the battlefield, was exactly what Shaw had to do. Arming black men was not a popular idea with white people on both sides of the war. -Lauren <br />
<br />
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn't they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn't it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
The one thing that really bothers me in this movie is the cliche characterization of characters. You have the traditional scene of one soldier who dislikes another soldier only to be saved by that soldier in the end. You also have the 1 wise reliable soldier (the non commissioned officer). The movie really focuses on just a few cast members and does not really give you the true composition of the army such as there were several prominent black abolitionists fighting in the 54th when the movie only portrays just one. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In Gooding's first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in "Glory" don't act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving "to make themselves a people." --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_7_Questions/Comments329--Week 7 Questions/Comments2008-10-07T23:45:38Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* a Right: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
<br />
This movie gets many small details right compared to previous movies i have seen. This is the first of the military movies I have seen in this class where the soldiers actually have to properly load and fire muskets, there were no women present in the hospital scene. It gives a lot of little historical details such as the proclamation of the south in regards to black soldiers and officers of black soldiers. It portrays properly that it did take a significant period of time before the black soldiers were actually allowed to participate in battle and that Gould had to push to get the regiment into combat duty. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
One thing I noticed was when it came time to get paid and all the black soldiers refused because they were going to be paid less than regular white soldiers. Didn't they get paid the right amount until almost the end of the war so wouldn't it have been foolish of them to refuse to take the money especially since a lot of them needed whatever money they could get. Also would the officers have done the same thing to show support of the black soldiers. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
The scenes with the battle for the fort seemed to be pretty accurate based on the letters we read from James Henry Gooding. He even talked about how Shaw was buried in the same mass grave as the black soldiers. He also mentioned they were raising money to dig Shaw up and give him a proper burial, did that ever happen? - Christine W.<br />
<br />
In Gooding's first letter, he discusses how being a soldier was a better job than any one African-American could hope to perform at this time, since the other jobs involved tasks that could be performed by white men and women themselves. The men in "Glory" don't act as if being a soldier is a job, they seem to take it as a given, but it does echo the sentiment in the letter of the importance of serving "to make themselves a people." --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
I thought it was interesting how all of the black lead characters seemed stereotypical. There was the runaway black always angry and looking for a fight, the free educated black man, the former slave who is uneducated, and the wise old black man that no one really knows much about but who seems to be very worldly. Everyone else is just an extra with little or no lines. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments329--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-10-01T20:00:07Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
There are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things had turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat and he believes they have no hope for victory, which was true after Gettysburg. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much "arrogance" as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers and the burning of plantation homes, but that "nearly every home in the county" lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless and without income. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren't totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now "gone with the wind," never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
As Jackie said, there were a lot of things that the movie did get right, such as one scene where Rhett tells Scarlett that she has to date him because "there is no one else around older than 16 and younger than 60 to show [her] a good time." As we discussed in class, most of the men in the South during the Civil War between those ages were off fighting, and many of them died, posing a problem for the women back at home. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
One of Rhett Butler's first lines in this film is him explaining how the North was better equipped than the South, a reason why they shouldn't have gone into war in the first place. He states that while the North was armed with factories, superior weapons, and coal mines, all the South had were "slaves, cotton, and arrogance." This is a nice summary of the South's economic dependence on the production of cotton, which is of course directly dependent on slave labor. Furthermore, the "arrogance" can be interpreted as their belief in white supremacy and how that may have driven the South to go to war (which the movie eventually proved to be destructive to them). - David F<br />
<br />
I found the depiction of the civil war "hospitals" to be at least mildly accurate. They gave no sense of cleanliness or sterility, and were at times gruesome as Scarlett couldn't handle bearing witness to the amputation sans chloroform. Perhaps there were some instances of nurse touching in the movie which was not allowed in real life, but it did portray one lady writing a letter for an incapacitated man as mentioned in the lecture. Also there was some sense that disease played just as important a role in the death toll as the war wounds. Scarlett's first husband falls to pneumonia, her mother to typhoid, and there were allusions to lice and other diseases in the "hospitals." -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Post-traumatic stress/depression displayed by the returning Confederate soldiers was at least shown in the movie, though not named. Ashley came back and he was not happy with the destroyed life he came back to. He lost his sense of being a man.-Lauren<br />
<br />
''Gone with the Wind'' did a great job with portraying the notion of the romanticized southern history and lifestyle. The nation is on the brink of civil war yet in the movie they are having a grand ole time at the bbq and various balls. As the men are discussing the war, they believe it is more important to be gentlemen who know how to use their words as oppose to discussing potential strategies. Rhett Butler is ostracized for explaining that the North has a better chance of winning the war because they have factories, ship yards, coal mines and other necessary supplies. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I believe the southern gender roles are accurately portrayed, most especially in the beginning/first half of the movie. Concerning the elite class, the women are dainty, southern belles who wear big dresses and flaunt fancy, elaborate hats. Marriage was intended for money and land, which is explained when Mr. O'Hara explains to Scarlett that it doesn't matter who you marry just as long as he's southern and thinks the same way. While the women are upstairs napping, the men are downstairs smoking, drinking and talking man business such as war. The movie is pretty stereotypical of what people believed and how they acted at the time. The movie shows how the South was convinced that it would be victorious because the soldiers were defending slavery, cotton, and southern land. The movie truly turned the North into the villain, which was a prevailing belief in the South. The South was not a fan base for Abraham Lincoln. In her journal, Ella explains her despise for Lincoln and in the movie Scarlett tells Rhett at the fundraiser that on that night she would have even danced with Abraham Lincoln. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
It really does portray the romanticized version of the south, most people take a good part of this movie to explain what they know about southern history. The movie did a good job portraying the different challenges women faced when the war started. They were thrown into new and different roles on top of having to do the different tasks they had to before the war. Mallory at that point in the movie when Scarlett tells Rhett that she would have danced with Lincoln she still hates Rhett he is just a way for her to have fun and enjoy herself. She is so miserable not being able to have fun since she is a widow that she will take any opportunity to have a good time. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I found the scene at the hospital although not completely accurate does do a very good job at depicting how gruesome a Civil War hospital was. Many people got horrible injuries many people had to have limbs amputated. The movie also does a great job showing depression and trauma in people after the events of the war especially in men. Mr. Wilks and Scarlett's father are both prominent examples of depression in the movie. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I'd like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing. There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Props to alluding to the KKK. But Great and Unbelievable Condemnation to making it seem glorious and righteous! Yeah that's maybe what the bitter white dudes who created it thought but the movie makes it seem so gentile, defending their women from rape. Never mind that slave women had been sexually abused and taken advantage of for years and years before the war and then too, they were in danger during the war. The only thing the film or the book for that matter worries about is the virtue of white Ladies like Scarlet who goes off into the backwoods where poor criminal men (black and white) live and almost gets raped. The movie portrays her attacker as white and her savior as a former slave who had always been treated with respect and who in turn cared highly for his former mistress. This type of justification and wacky self-righteousness was ever present in the 20th century. The South had recently experienced a resurgence of the KKK- and black men who often lynched under the excuse that they had assaulted a white woman (usually if it had any truth at all it was consensual). The movie treads so lightly on the subject (even less than the book) that what was really going on is practically undetectable. It's been a while since my sister had seen the film but even, now I had to explain to her that "illegal raid" was the KKK in action and as characters we are made to feel completely fond of or sympathetic for. --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
This might be nit-picky, but the scenes where Scarlett and Melanie are working as nurses for the wounded soldiers, they are bandaging the soldiers and taking their temperatures. As we discussed in class, female nurses at this time would not be doing things like that; it would have been considered inappropriate, and they would have been doing tasks such as writing letters home for soldiers. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
In regards to women’s roles, it is apparent that Scarlet takes full advantage of the men being away. She keeps her role even when they return, managing the farm, the mill, the store, and her countless husbands. This example is of a truly one of a kind woman, and I don’t think (from my knowledge on gender roles etc.) that many women welcomed that much more responsibility, or were bold enough to take it into their own hands. -Elle<br />
<br />
I have to mention Sherman’s march – sure Sherman wasn’t the nicest, but the Yankees are so villain-ized that it proves how much hatred there really was between the confederates and Yankees. Even from what is considered a southern state, Virginia, I was never taught such a one sided account. One thing that was overlooked that we discussed in class was the Confederates’ path of destruction as well – they tried to eliminate food sources that the Yankees could later stumble upon. -Elle<br />
<br />
In the movie's romanticizing of the antebellum South, it appeared to me that the movie completely glossed over whites who were not in the planter class elite. There were no representations of the poor whites, or really any whites who owned less than a score of slaves who were not city dwellers. Also, though there was a mention of some of the O'Hara slaves running off, many slaves chose to remain very loyal to the family despite the South's tenuous hold on slavery. - Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Is Melanie supposed to be absolutely ignorant that Scarlett loves Ashley? She and Scarlett were very close since Charles died and Scarlett moved in with her and her aunt, but part of Scarlett's friendship is just a facade, because she promised her love that she'd look after Melanie. You'd think that it wouldn't take 8 or so years for someone to see Scarlett in Ashley's arms and pick up on something. - Whitney H.<br />
<br />
Whitney, Melanie is not ignorant to that fact that Scarlett love Ashley but she is such a good person that she doesn't want to believe in bad things. Melanie chooses to ignore that fact. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
What the deal with Scarlett's cleavage? Every other woman is dressed modestly except for Belle (no coincidence). Once Scarlett returns to Tara and her father, she takes to wearing her pink dress WAY unbuttoned, and after that it seems like the only time you don't see bare chest is when she's in mourning! But when she gets money and all these nice new clothes she does buy some dresses that cover her up more. This all seems quite scandalous to be in a movie in 1939. Someone mentioned "Aviator"--do you remember the cleavage discussion that went on with the board of censors? Yeah. How easy was it to get that much on screen for GWTW? -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
As far as censor issues go for this movie, I mostly think language and content was the issue--not cleavage. When comparing the chest size of Hughe's muse Jane Russell and Vivien Leigh it doesn't seem to be as big a deal you know? They weren't pushing the envelope much more than anyone else was back then. And plus, this was a BIG budget movie that was highly publicized and popular before filming even began so censors would not have even had much power over it. Alos keep in mind, they were probably sending things to the Prod. Code Office for approval throughout production. The two censor issues I know of were the lines "I don't give a damn" (got away with it cuz the emphasis was on "give" and not "damn" and the line "maybe you'll get luck and have an miscarriage" which had to be changed to "have an accident."--Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken mentioned in his lecture that men who returned home after the war stepped back into their patriarchal roles, but Ashley acted so feminine, like he lost all hope of regaining his masculinity. It seemed to me that his wife tried her best to keep both of their spirits afloat as they did their best to survive. Does anyone else think that or do people disagree? -Lauren<br />
<br />
When this movie first came out it was pretty much given a rated of X which then was similar to our now a days R. I have grown up watching this with my grandmother and I remember her telling me that when it first came out she was forbidden to go see it by her parents. She would have been around 15 at that time.<br />
<br />
The way slaves and the union were portrayed in this movie was a big problem for accuracy. Even after the war the slaves have not left Scarlett and they are still submissive to her and working for her which is just not accurate at all. The key black characters in the movie are shown as completely devoted to Scarlett even after she treats them like crap and the war is over. The movie is entirely biased in that the union perspective is never shown and in the small scenes it does show union characters these scenes all portray negative stereotypes. When a movie is so clearly biased it loses a lot of historical credibility. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
George Fitzhugh’s “The Blessings of Slavery” shows how ignorant white southern slave owners can be. The idea that a person is more happy in forced servitude than as a free citizen is ridiculous. Beyond that, it meshes with stories of other slaveholders that were surprised when their slaves ran away – treating slaves well is better than treating them terribly, but they are still slaves. Gone with the Wind falls into this ignorance. Like most film productions where southern whites are slaveholders, the slaves love their masters like family. Mammy, Sissy, etc. (I can’t help but flashback to the Patriot as Mel helps his free black friends plow the field). -Elle<br />
<br />
Yes the portrayal of slaves is extremely absurd in this movie in relation to actual scholarship and history. From the readings it is clear that after the war the slaves were freed and left the plantations. The slaves would not come back to the same families they were enslaved by before and when they did show up again their former owners wanted them gone. The movie takes the ideas of patternalism seriously even though it was just a delusion of Southern Whites. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
So apparently the Civil War only affected white people.... Mammy and Prissy and the other old slave man all stay with Miss Scarlet and her family throughout the whole movie. Not once is there mention of slaves being emancipated, and not once do the slaves mention being free (although we do see Old Sam is living away from them now, since he became a trench digger). Through all that post-war poverty, and being the only blacks left on Tara, they stayed loyal. But of course! They'd always been treated and fed well and loved their white family and would never think of anything but staying. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
The addressing of racial issues in Gone With The Wind was equally infuriating and heartbreaking. The thought that kept rushing through my head during the scenes with Mammy, Pris and Pork was it's similarity to 1915's Birth Of A Nation, which cost $110,000 to make and grossed $3 million in the US and $10 million worldwide. Gone With The Wind, to date, has grossed nearly $200 million dollars, after taking just under $4 million to produce. While BOAN was released 24 years previous to GWTW, it is clear that this racism is still prevalent and, as the above numbers show, commercially viable. In both films, the black characters were satirical caricatures of the southern slave population and were often seen not only as members of an inferior race but sometimes even as nothing more than loyal dogs. Human Beings or Man's Best Friend? Unfortunately, this was clearly the southern attitude towards the black population. I suppose this racism is a great history lesson for those curious about race relations during the antebellum, in-war and post-war years, but it makes both films vastly uncomfortable viewing. --Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
What I found interesting is that none of the slave characters ever talked about their own families (if they had them) or relatives or even other slaves. Is this a matter of people in this period not wanting to hear about real slavery (people who worked outside of the house), or was it just a lack of caring? --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
I was watching TCM a few weeks ago and they did a 15 minute feature on Hattie McDaniel, the actress who played Mamie. Before and after ''Gone With The Wind'' McDaniel was type cast into motherly, domestic roles hundreds of times. McDaniel was respected in Hollywood (for what it was/is worth) and won an academy award for best supporting actress for her role as Mamie. Her roles as a domestic caretaker often caricatured blacks by being boisterous and plainspoken. Those portrayals helped make black characters appear lovable and benign, while simultaneously implying that they were subservient and not to be taken seriously. McDaniel and other black actresses were criticized for taking roles which allegedly validated or at least perpetuated the servile status of blacks. McDaniel said “I’d rather play a maid for $700 a week than be one for $7”. I think this movie is as strong a primary source as it is a secondary source, for it reveals the complexity of race relations in this country in the late 1930s. On one hand, blacks had acting jobs, so that is progress from the era of blackface. On the other hand, those acting roles depicted blacks as servants with no desire to advance. McDaniel’s own comment conveys a certain contentment with being a stock character, which sent the message that she was content with being a second class citizen. What did it say to blacks at the time that one of their most beloved actresses was not willing to rock the boat? – Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
"Gone With the Wind" is beautifully filmed and edited. The use of color, music and other forms of mise en scene are spectacular, which a whole other class period could be devoted to for discussion. One of the scenes that stood out to me was when one of the soldiers comes back from battle and exclaims "It's over, the war is over, we surrendered!" Immediately after this, the spectrum of reactions from the south is expressed in only a matter of seconds through a couple of lines (these lines are of course paraphrased to the best of my memory): "Why did we ever go to war?" (feeling of reluctance and regret), "Oh (insert name of husband) is coming home!" (relief that a loved one made it alive), "We surrendered?!?!" (shock of losing the war). - David F<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to say - the first half.... LONG and BORING. The second half - on the edge of my seat at times. I had to leave for a club meeting (for literally 5 minutes) and it was hard to pry myself away. I must say NOT what I expected. Also, I totally called the deaths of Bonnie (foreshadowing) and Melanie (classic Little Women-like Beth character). -Elle<br />
<br />
One more thing - symbolism... I felt that Scarlet's love for Ashley (which tragically ended at the end at his wife's death, when Scarlet finally really gets a clue and realizes Ashley has loved his wife all along) was symbolic for the death of the south. Not a very uplifting ending. -Elle<br />
<br />
Very nice insights, Elle. I was just wondering the likelihood of someone like Scarlett's character truly existing during the Civil War. Her extremely demanding personality gave me no choice but to stereotype all white women in the south during that time; but, I still feel that nobody that hysterical could really be based off a real person(s). I know a lot of it probably has to do with dramatic effect, but generalizing off of Elle's interpretation of Scarlett's love for Ashley symbolizing the death of the south, is Scarlett's personality representative of the arrogance of the South and how that lead to severe psychological repercussions? - David F.<br />
<br />
What a demeaning image of a southern white lady, and how awful to have to play that role and reinforce this stereotype! Scarlett is purely selfish, immature, whiny, vain, stubborn, hysterical, greedy...the list goes on. Uggh! And how she is in the beginning turning from one guy to another, entirely insincere and loving attention. She marries to help herself and spite other men, and it takes until the loving, perfect Melanie dies for her to realize that Ashley was right when he said that he loved his wife and not her, and to realize that Rhett also loved her, like he always said he did. And I don't even need to go into her spending habits. Frankly, I couldn't give a damn what she did without Rhett, either. To sum it up, as Elle said, "God, she's pathetic." -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
How is Rhett supposed to have become and stayed a millionaire? -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
I beg to differ on several of the above comments. First off, I LOVE AND WILL FOREVER LOVE THIS STORY!!!!!! The film is amazing in so many ways in its own right but the story Margaret Mitchell invented is beautiful. The characters are each tragically flawed in just the perfect way to make you love them, but mostly hate them and yet keeps you wanting to read it. I went as Scarlet in the red "look your part" dress in 2nd grade, so yeah, I am an undying fan. Scarlet is all of those horrible things but Rhett is a lot of them too. He just admits to them instead of trying to adhere to the hypocrisy of that society until Bonnie comes along. And the movie is ridiculously sad at the end, giving you zero time to breath in between Rhett's devastation over Scarlet's miscarriage (a word that they were not allowed to say in 1939 Code Hollywood), to Bonnie's death and then Melanie's death and then the final blow of Rhett leaving Scarlet at the precise moment she has her freakin' epiphany. But I love all these characters, even Scarlet- because Melanie (even though she deludes herself into thinking that Scarlet is not in love with Ashley) does see the good qualities of Scarlet, her sense of loyalty and the constant protection she provides to her family. It all seems selfish and she whines to some about having to do it, but in the end she goes back to Tara, the place that gives her strength because it is apart of her identity as the daughter of an Irish man, as a Southerner, as passionate person who demands control over her own life and destiny and will prevail "as God as her witness" even under all the tragedies of the world. It is actually an inspiring character, because she does change in the end (though you can debate that point) for the better. She gains a bit of insight and learns to love those she has taken for granted, and let go of others she had no right to love in the first place (got over her silly girlhood crush basically). I could quote this TIMELESS FILM all night long so I'll stop before I do.--Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
After Rhett gets drunk and sweeps Scarlett off her feet to presumably have "marital relations" with her, when we see her the next morning in her bed, was she smiling because she received multiple orgasms or was she happy for some other reasons? Can it be assume that since Rhett likes to hang around harlots and "bad women" like Belle, that he knows how to be an impeccable lover?-Lauren<br />
<br />
Was it really that common of a practice to take group naps in other people's homes? In the movie it seemed like a common occurrence during parties. -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving? We're they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes? If so, would there had been any radishes left? I've only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Nothing is explained, but somehow they do manage enough food to even feed returning soldiers too, though much to selfish Scarlet's dismay.--Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
Remember this is fiction it was not meant to be looked at critically. Do we judge other works of fiction with the same characteristics? -- Kellye Sorber</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments329--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-10-01T19:52:16Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
There are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things had turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat and he believes they have no hope for victory, which was true after Gettysburg. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much "arrogance" as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers and the burning of plantation homes, but that "nearly every home in the county" lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless and without income. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren't totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now "gone with the wind," never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
As Jackie said, there were a lot of things that the movie did get right, such as one scene where Rhett tells Scarlett that she has to date him because "there is no one else around older than 16 and younger than 60 to show [her] a good time." As we discussed in class, most of the men in the South during the Civil War between those ages were off fighting, and many of them died, posing a problem for the women back at home. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
One of Rhett Butler's first lines in this film is him explaining how the North was better equipped than the South, a reason why they shouldn't have gone into war in the first place. He states that while the North was armed with factories, superior weapons, and coal mines, all the South had were "slaves, cotton, and arrogance." This is a nice summary of the South's economic dependence on the production of cotton, which is of course directly dependent on slave labor. Furthermore, the "arrogance" can be interpreted as their belief in white supremacy and how that may have driven the South to go to war (which the movie eventually proved to be destructive to them). - David F<br />
<br />
I found the depiction of the civil war "hospitals" to be at least mildly accurate. They gave no sense of cleanliness or sterility, and were at times gruesome as Scarlett couldn't handle bearing witness to the amputation sans chloroform. Perhaps there were some instances of nurse touching in the movie which was not allowed in real life, but it did portray one lady writing a letter for an incapacitated man as mentioned in the lecture. Also there was some sense that disease played just as important a role in the death toll as the war wounds. Scarlett's first husband falls to pneumonia, her mother to typhoid, and there were allusions to lice and other diseases in the "hospitals." -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Post-traumatic stress/depression displayed by the returning Confederate soldiers was at least shown in the movie, though not named. Ashley came back and he was not happy with the destroyed life he came back to. He lost his sense of being a man.-Lauren<br />
<br />
''Gone with the Wind'' did a great job with portraying the notion of the romanticized southern history and lifestyle. The nation is on the brink of civil war yet in the movie they are having a grand ole time at the bbq and various balls. As the men are discussing the war, they believe it is more important to be gentlemen who know how to use their words as oppose to discussing potential strategies. Rhett Butler is ostracized for explaining that the North has a better chance of winning the war because they have factories, ship yards, coal mines and other necessary supplies. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I believe the southern gender roles are accurately portrayed, most especially in the beginning/first half of the movie. Concerning the elite class, the women are dainty, southern belles who wear big dresses and flaunt fancy, elaborate hats. Marriage was intended for money and land, which is explained when Mr. O'Hara explains to Scarlett that it doesn't matter who you marry just as long as he's southern and thinks the same way. While the women are upstairs napping, the men are downstairs smoking, drinking and talking man business such as war. The movie is pretty stereotypical of what people believed and how they acted at the time. The movie shows how the South was convinced that it would be victorious because the soldiers were defending slavery, cotton, and southern land. The movie truly turned the North into the villain, which was a prevailing belief in the South. The South was not a fan base for Abraham Lincoln. In her journal, Ella explains her despise for Lincoln and in the movie Scarlett tells Rhett at the fundraiser that on that night she would have even danced with Abraham Lincoln. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
It really does portray the romanticized version of the south, most people take a good part of this movie to explain what they know about southern history. The movie did a good job portraying the different challenges women faced when the war started. They were thrown into new and different roles on top of having to do the different tasks they had to before the war. Mallory at that point in the movie when Scarlett tells Rhett that she would have danced with Lincoln she still hates Rhett he is just a way for her to have fun and enjoy herself. She is so miserable not being able to have fun since she is a widow that she will take any opportunity to have a good time. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I found the scene at the hospital although not completely accurate does do a very good job at depicting how gruesome a Civil War hospital was. Many people got horrible injuries many people had to have limbs amputated. The movie also does a great job showing depression and trauma in people after the events of the war especially in men. Mr. Wilks and Scarlett's father are both prominent examples of depression in the movie. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I'd like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing. There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Props to alluding to the KKK. But Great and Unbelievable Condemnation to making it seem glorious and righteous! Yeah that's maybe what the bitter white dudes who created it thought but the movie makes it seem so gentile, defending their women from rape. Never mind that slave women had been sexually abused and taken advantage of for years and years before the war and then too, they were in danger during the war. The only thing the film or the book for that matter worries about is the virtue of white Ladies like Scarlet who goes off into the backwoods where poor criminal men (black and white) live and almost gets raped. The movie portrays her attacker as white and her savior as a former slave who had always been treated with respect and who in turn cared highly for his former mistress. This type of justification and wacky self-righteousness was ever present in the 20th century. The South had recently experienced a resurgence of the KKK- and black men who often lynched under the excuse that they had assaulted a white woman (usually if it had any truth at all it was consensual). The movie treads so lightly on the subject (even less than the book) that what was really going on is practically undetectable. It's been a while since my sister had seen the film but even, now I had to explain to her that "illegal raid" was the KKK in action and as characters we are made to feel completely fond of or sympathetic for. --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
This might be nit-picky, but the scenes where Scarlett and Melanie are working as nurses for the wounded soldiers, they are bandaging the soldiers and taking their temperatures. As we discussed in class, female nurses at this time would not be doing things like that; it would have been considered inappropriate, and they would have been doing tasks such as writing letters home for soldiers. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
In regards to women’s roles, it is apparent that Scarlet takes full advantage of the men being away. She keeps her role even when they return, managing the farm, the mill, the store, and her countless husbands. This example is of a truly one of a kind woman, and I don’t think (from my knowledge on gender roles etc.) that many women welcomed that much more responsibility, or were bold enough to take it into their own hands. -Elle<br />
<br />
I have to mention Sherman’s march – sure Sherman wasn’t the nicest, but the Yankees are so villain-ized that it proves how much hatred there really was between the confederates and Yankees. Even from what is considered a southern state, Virginia, I was never taught such a one sided account. One thing that was overlooked that we discussed in class was the Confederates’ path of destruction as well – they tried to eliminate food sources that the Yankees could later stumble upon. -Elle<br />
<br />
In the movie's romanticizing of the antebellum South, it appeared to me that the movie completely glossed over whites who were not in the planter class elite. There were no representations of the poor whites, or really any whites who owned less than a score of slaves who were not city dwellers. Also, though there was a mention of some of the O'Hara slaves running off, many slaves chose to remain very loyal to the family despite the South's tenuous hold on slavery. - Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Is Melanie supposed to be absolutely ignorant that Scarlett loves Ashley? She and Scarlett were very close since Charles died and Scarlett moved in with her and her aunt, but part of Scarlett's friendship is just a facade, because she promised her love that she'd look after Melanie. You'd think that it wouldn't take 8 or so years for someone to see Scarlett in Ashley's arms and pick up on something. - Whitney H.<br />
<br />
Whitney, Melanie is not ignorant to that fact that Scarlett love Ashley but she is such a good person that she doesn't want to believe in bad things. Melanie chooses to ignore that fact. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
What the deal with Scarlett's cleavage? Every other woman is dressed modestly except for Belle (no coincidence). Once Scarlett returns to Tara and her father, she takes to wearing her pink dress WAY unbuttoned, and after that it seems like the only time you don't see bare chest is when she's in mourning! But when she gets money and all these nice new clothes she does buy some dresses that cover her up more. This all seems quite scandalous to be in a movie in 1939. Someone mentioned "Aviator"--do you remember the cleavage discussion that went on with the board of censors? Yeah. How easy was it to get that much on screen for GWTW? -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
As far as censor issues go for this movie, I mostly think language and content was the issue--not cleavage. When comparing the chest size of Hughe's muse Jane Russell and Vivien Leigh it doesn't seem to be as big a deal you know? They weren't pushing the envelope much more than anyone else was back then. And plus, this was a BIG budget movie that was highly publicized and popular before filming even began so censors would not have even had much power over it. Alos keep in mind, they were probably sending things to the Prod. Code Office for approval throughout production. The two censor issues I know of were the lines "I don't give a damn" (got away with it cuz the emphasis was on "give" and not "damn" and the line "maybe you'll get luck and have an miscarriage" which had to be changed to "have an accident."--Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken mentioned in his lecture that men who returned home after the war stepped back into their patriarchal roles, but Ashley acted so feminine, like he lost all hope of regaining his masculinity. It seemed to me that his wife tried her best to keep both of their spirits afloat as they did their best to survive. Does anyone else think that or do people disagree? -Lauren<br />
<br />
When this movie first came out it was pretty much given a rated of X which then was similar to our now a days R. I have grown up watching this with my grandmother and I remember her telling me that when it first came out she was forbidden to go see it by her parents. She would have been around 15 at that time.<br />
<br />
The way slaves and the union were portrayed in this movie was a big problem for accuracy. Even after the war the slaves have not left Scarlett and they are still submissive to her and working for her which is just not accurate at all. The key black characters in the movie are shown as completely devoted to Scarlett even after she treats them like crap and the war is over. The movie is entirely biased in that the union perspective is never shown and in the small scenes it does show union characters these scenes all portray negative stereotypes. When a movie is so clearly biased it loses a lot of historical credibility. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
George Fitzhugh’s “The Blessings of Slavery” shows how ignorant white southern slave owners can be. The idea that a person is more happy in forced servitude than as a free citizen is ridiculous. Beyond that, it meshes with stories of other slaveholders that were surprised when their slaves ran away – treating slaves well is better than treating them terribly, but they are still slaves. Gone with the Wind falls into this ignorance. Like most film productions where southern whites are slaveholders, the slaves love their masters like family. Mammy, Sissy, etc. (I can’t help but flashback to the Patriot as Mel helps his free black friends plow the field). -Elle<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
So apparently the Civil War only affected white people.... Mammy and Prissy and the other old slave man all stay with Miss Scarlet and her family throughout the whole movie. Not once is there mention of slaves being emancipated, and not once do the slaves mention being free (although we do see Old Sam is living away from them now, since he became a trench digger). Through all that post-war poverty, and being the only blacks left on Tara, they stayed loyal. But of course! They'd always been treated and fed well and loved their white family and would never think of anything but staying. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
The addressing of racial issues in Gone With The Wind was equally infuriating and heartbreaking. The thought that kept rushing through my head during the scenes with Mammy, Pris and Pork was it's similarity to 1915's Birth Of A Nation, which cost $110,000 to make and grossed $3 million in the US and $10 million worldwide. Gone With The Wind, to date, has grossed nearly $200 million dollars, after taking just under $4 million to produce. While BOAN was released 24 years previous to GWTW, it is clear that this racism is still prevalent and, as the above numbers show, commercially viable. In both films, the black characters were satirical caricatures of the southern slave population and were often seen not only as members of an inferior race but sometimes even as nothing more than loyal dogs. Human Beings or Man's Best Friend? Unfortunately, this was clearly the southern attitude towards the black population. I suppose this racism is a great history lesson for those curious about race relations during the antebellum, in-war and post-war years, but it makes both films vastly uncomfortable viewing. --Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
What I found interesting is that none of the slave characters ever talked about their own families (if they had them) or relatives or even other slaves. Is this a matter of people in this period not wanting to hear about real slavery (people who worked outside of the house), or was it just a lack of caring? --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
I was watching TCM a few weeks ago and they did a 15 minute feature on Hattie McDaniel, the actress who played Mamie. Before and after ''Gone With The Wind'' McDaniel was type cast into motherly, domestic roles hundreds of times. McDaniel was respected in Hollywood (for what it was/is worth) and won an academy award for best supporting actress for her role as Mamie. Her roles as a domestic caretaker often caricatured blacks by being boisterous and plainspoken. Those portrayals helped make black characters appear lovable and benign, while simultaneously implying that they were subservient and not to be taken seriously. McDaniel and other black actresses were criticized for taking roles which allegedly validated or at least perpetuated the servile status of blacks. McDaniel said “I’d rather play a maid for $700 a week than be one for $7”. I think this movie is as strong a primary source as it is a secondary source, for it reveals the complexity of race relations in this country in the late 1930s. On one hand, blacks had acting jobs, so that is progress from the era of blackface. On the other hand, those acting roles depicted blacks as servants with no desire to advance. McDaniel’s own comment conveys a certain contentment with being a stock character, which sent the message that she was content with being a second class citizen. What did it say to blacks at the time that one of their most beloved actresses was not willing to rock the boat? – Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
"Gone With the Wind" is beautifully filmed and edited. The use of color, music and other forms of mise en scene are spectacular, which a whole other class period could be devoted to for discussion. One of the scenes that stood out to me was when one of the soldiers comes back from battle and exclaims "It's over, the war is over, we surrendered!" Immediately after this, the spectrum of reactions from the south is expressed in only a matter of seconds through a couple of lines (these lines are of course paraphrased to the best of my memory): "Why did we ever go to war?" (feeling of reluctance and regret), "Oh (insert name of husband) is coming home!" (relief that a loved one made it alive), "We surrendered?!?!" (shock of losing the war). - David F<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to say - the first half.... LONG and BORING. The second half - on the edge of my seat at times. I had to leave for a club meeting (for literally 5 minutes) and it was hard to pry myself away. I must say NOT what I expected. Also, I totally called the deaths of Bonnie (foreshadowing) and Melanie (classic Little Women-like Beth character). -Elle<br />
<br />
One more thing - symbolism... I felt that Scarlet's love for Ashley (which tragically ended at the end at his wife's death, when Scarlet finally really gets a clue and realizes Ashley has loved his wife all along) was symbolic for the death of the south. Not a very uplifting ending. -Elle<br />
<br />
Very nice insights, Elle. I was just wondering the likelihood of someone like Scarlett's character truly existing during the Civil War. Her extremely demanding personality gave me no choice but to stereotype all white women in the south during that time; but, I still feel that nobody that hysterical could really be based off a real person(s). I know a lot of it probably has to do with dramatic effect, but generalizing off of Elle's interpretation of Scarlett's love for Ashley symbolizing the death of the south, is Scarlett's personality representative of the arrogance of the South and how that lead to severe psychological repercussions? - David F.<br />
<br />
What a demeaning image of a southern white lady, and how awful to have to play that role and reinforce this stereotype! Scarlett is purely selfish, immature, whiny, vain, stubborn, hysterical, greedy...the list goes on. Uggh! And how she is in the beginning turning from one guy to another, entirely insincere and loving attention. She marries to help herself and spite other men, and it takes until the loving, perfect Melanie dies for her to realize that Ashley was right when he said that he loved his wife and not her, and to realize that Rhett also loved her, like he always said he did. And I don't even need to go into her spending habits. Frankly, I couldn't give a damn what she did without Rhett, either. To sum it up, as Elle said, "God, she's pathetic." -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
How is Rhett supposed to have become and stayed a millionaire? -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
I beg to differ on several of the above comments. First off, I LOVE AND WILL FOREVER LOVE THIS STORY!!!!!! The film is amazing in so many ways in its own right but the story Margaret Mitchell invented is beautiful. The characters are each tragically flawed in just the perfect way to make you love them, but mostly hate them and yet keeps you wanting to read it. I went as Scarlet in the red "look your part" dress in 2nd grade, so yeah, I am an undying fan. Scarlet is all of those horrible things but Rhett is a lot of them too. He just admits to them instead of trying to adhere to the hypocrisy of that society until Bonnie comes along. And the movie is ridiculously sad at the end, giving you zero time to breath in between Rhett's devastation over Scarlet's miscarriage (a word that they were not allowed to say in 1939 Code Hollywood), to Bonnie's death and then Melanie's death and then the final blow of Rhett leaving Scarlet at the precise moment she has her freakin' epiphany. But I love all these characters, even Scarlet- because Melanie (even though she deludes herself into thinking that Scarlet is not in love with Ashley) does see the good qualities of Scarlet, her sense of loyalty and the constant protection she provides to her family. It all seems selfish and she whines to some about having to do it, but in the end she goes back to Tara, the place that gives her strength because it is apart of her identity as the daughter of an Irish man, as a Southerner, as passionate person who demands control over her own life and destiny and will prevail "as God as her witness" even under all the tragedies of the world. It is actually an inspiring character, because she does change in the end (though you can debate that point) for the better. She gains a bit of insight and learns to love those she has taken for granted, and let go of others she had no right to love in the first place (got over her silly girlhood crush basically). I could quote this TIMELESS FILM all night long so I'll stop before I do.--Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
After Rhett gets drunk and sweeps Scarlett off her feet to presumably have "marital relations" with her, when we see her the next morning in her bed, was she smiling because she received multiple orgasms or was she happy for some other reasons? Can it be assume that since Rhett likes to hang around harlots and "bad women" like Belle, that he knows how to be an impeccable lover?-Lauren<br />
<br />
Was it really that common of a practice to take group naps in other people's homes? In the movie it seemed like a common occurrence during parties. -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving? We're they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes? If so, would there had been any radishes left? I've only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Nothing is explained, but somehow they do manage enough food to even feed returning soldiers too, though much to selfish Scarlet's dismay.--Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
Remember this is fiction it was not meant to be looked at critically. Do we judge other works of fiction with the same characteristics? -- Kellye Sorber</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_6_Questions/Comments329--Week 6 Questions/Comments2008-10-01T19:44:27Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* a Right: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
There are a lot of accurate points of this movie from the multiple clothing styles of the different eras to the attitudes of pre-war and post-war Southerners. It is clear during the winter of 1863/64 that things had turned for the worse in the war. While Ashley is home they talk about the last chicken and the last bit of wine and the shortage of fabric, also Ashley explains that the South is on the retreat and he believes they have no hope for victory, which was true after Gettysburg. The men before the war are completely unpractical and have too much "arrogance" as Rhett says. Young, eager Charles Hamilton thinks that the war will be over in a couple of weeks. By the wars end, the film does an excellent job at showing the loss. Not just the poverty and the carpetbaggers and the burning of plantation homes, but that "nearly every home in the county" lost sons and fathers. The men who come back, like Ashley, are forever damaged and weakened mentally, if not also physically, by post-traumatic stress, which was understandable when most were homeless and without income. From the perspective of white planter Southerners, the viewpoints and attitudes and beliefs aren't totally inaccurate, most white people in the South in 1939 still saw felt the tragic loss of a grand and noble civilization that was now "gone with the wind," never mind what former slaves or their children really felt of thought about the time and the war. And no American film to this point had shown the gritty, destructive side of war as seen from the home front like GWTW had. The shortage of medical supplies and the sheer numbers of the injured and dying that Scarlet encounters at in the hospital. --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
As Jackie said, there were a lot of things that the movie did get right, such as one scene where Rhett tells Scarlett that she has to date him because "there is no one else around older than 16 and younger than 60 to show [her] a good time." As we discussed in class, most of the men in the South during the Civil War between those ages were off fighting, and many of them died, posing a problem for the women back at home. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
One of Rhett Butler's first lines in this film is him explaining how the North was better equipped than the South, a reason why they shouldn't have gone into war in the first place. He states that while the North was armed with factories, superior weapons, and coal mines, all the South had were "slaves, cotton, and arrogance." This is a nice summary of the South's economic dependence on the production of cotton, which is of course directly dependent on slave labor. Furthermore, the "arrogance" can be interpreted as their belief in white supremacy and how that may have driven the South to go to war (which the movie eventually proved to be destructive to them). - David F<br />
<br />
I found the depiction of the civil war "hospitals" to be at least mildly accurate. They gave no sense of cleanliness or sterility, and were at times gruesome as Scarlett couldn't handle bearing witness to the amputation sans chloroform. Perhaps there were some instances of nurse touching in the movie which was not allowed in real life, but it did portray one lady writing a letter for an incapacitated man as mentioned in the lecture. Also there was some sense that disease played just as important a role in the death toll as the war wounds. Scarlett's first husband falls to pneumonia, her mother to typhoid, and there were allusions to lice and other diseases in the "hospitals." -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Post-traumatic stress/depression displayed by the returning Confederate soldiers was at least shown in the movie, though not named. Ashley came back and he was not happy with the destroyed life he came back to. He lost his sense of being a man.-Lauren<br />
<br />
''Gone with the Wind'' did a great job with portraying the notion of the romanticized southern history and lifestyle. The nation is on the brink of civil war yet in the movie they are having a grand ole time at the bbq and various balls. As the men are discussing the war, they believe it is more important to be gentlemen who know how to use their words as oppose to discussing potential strategies. Rhett Butler is ostracized for explaining that the North has a better chance of winning the war because they have factories, ship yards, coal mines and other necessary supplies. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I believe the southern gender roles are accurately portrayed, most especially in the beginning/first half of the movie. Concerning the elite class, the women are dainty, southern belles who wear big dresses and flaunt fancy, elaborate hats. Marriage was intended for money and land, which is explained when Mr. O'Hara explains to Scarlett that it doesn't matter who you marry just as long as he's southern and thinks the same way. While the women are upstairs napping, the men are downstairs smoking, drinking and talking man business such as war. The movie is pretty stereotypical of what people believed and how they acted at the time. The movie shows how the South was convinced that it would be victorious because the soldiers were defending slavery, cotton, and southern land. The movie truly turned the North into the villain, which was a prevailing belief in the South. The South was not a fan base for Abraham Lincoln. In her journal, Ella explains her despise for Lincoln and in the movie Scarlett tells Rhett at the fundraiser that on that night she would have even danced with Abraham Lincoln. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
It really does portray the romanticized version of the south, most people take a good part of this movie to explain what they know about southern history. The movie did a good job portraying the different challenges women faced when the war started. They were thrown into new and different roles on top of having to do the different tasks they had to before the war. Mallory at that point in the movie when Scarlett tells Rhett that she would have danced with Lincoln she still hates Rhett he is just a way for her to have fun and enjoy herself. She is so miserable not being able to have fun since she is a widow that she will take any opportunity to have a good time. - Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I found the scene at the hospital although not completely accurate does do a very good job at depicting how gruesome a Civil War hospital was. Many people got horrible injuries many people had to have limbs amputated. The movie also does a great job showing depression and trauma in people after the events of the war especially in men. Mr. Wilks and Scarlett's father are both prominent examples of depression in the movie. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
I have only watched the first half of the film, but one problem I'd like to note so far, is that when Sherman was bombing and taking over Atlanta, everyone was fleeing. There was no notice in the film about everyone except the needed governmental positions were to leave, everyone left beforehand. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Props to alluding to the KKK. But Great and Unbelievable Condemnation to making it seem glorious and righteous! Yeah that's maybe what the bitter white dudes who created it thought but the movie makes it seem so gentile, defending their women from rape. Never mind that slave women had been sexually abused and taken advantage of for years and years before the war and then too, they were in danger during the war. The only thing the film or the book for that matter worries about is the virtue of white Ladies like Scarlet who goes off into the backwoods where poor criminal men (black and white) live and almost gets raped. The movie portrays her attacker as white and her savior as a former slave who had always been treated with respect and who in turn cared highly for his former mistress. This type of justification and wacky self-righteousness was ever present in the 20th century. The South had recently experienced a resurgence of the KKK- and black men who often lynched under the excuse that they had assaulted a white woman (usually if it had any truth at all it was consensual). The movie treads so lightly on the subject (even less than the book) that what was really going on is practically undetectable. It's been a while since my sister had seen the film but even, now I had to explain to her that "illegal raid" was the KKK in action and as characters we are made to feel completely fond of or sympathetic for. --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
This might be nit-picky, but the scenes where Scarlett and Melanie are working as nurses for the wounded soldiers, they are bandaging the soldiers and taking their temperatures. As we discussed in class, female nurses at this time would not be doing things like that; it would have been considered inappropriate, and they would have been doing tasks such as writing letters home for soldiers. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
In regards to women’s roles, it is apparent that Scarlet takes full advantage of the men being away. She keeps her role even when they return, managing the farm, the mill, the store, and her countless husbands. This example is of a truly one of a kind woman, and I don’t think (from my knowledge on gender roles etc.) that many women welcomed that much more responsibility, or were bold enough to take it into their own hands. -Elle<br />
<br />
I have to mention Sherman’s march – sure Sherman wasn’t the nicest, but the Yankees are so villain-ized that it proves how much hatred there really was between the confederates and Yankees. Even from what is considered a southern state, Virginia, I was never taught such a one sided account. One thing that was overlooked that we discussed in class was the Confederates’ path of destruction as well – they tried to eliminate food sources that the Yankees could later stumble upon. -Elle<br />
<br />
In the movie's romanticizing of the antebellum South, it appeared to me that the movie completely glossed over whites who were not in the planter class elite. There were no representations of the poor whites, or really any whites who owned less than a score of slaves who were not city dwellers. Also, though there was a mention of some of the O'Hara slaves running off, many slaves chose to remain very loyal to the family despite the South's tenuous hold on slavery. - Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Is Melanie supposed to be absolutely ignorant that Scarlett loves Ashley? She and Scarlett were very close since Charles died and Scarlett moved in with her and her aunt, but part of Scarlett's friendship is just a facade, because she promised her love that she'd look after Melanie. You'd think that it wouldn't take 8 or so years for someone to see Scarlett in Ashley's arms and pick up on something. - Whitney H.<br />
<br />
Whitney, Melanie is not ignorant to that fact that Scarlett love Ashley but she is such a good person that she doesn't want to believe in bad things. Melanie chooses to ignore that fact. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
What the deal with Scarlett's cleavage? Every other woman is dressed modestly except for Belle (no coincidence). Once Scarlett returns to Tara and her father, she takes to wearing her pink dress WAY unbuttoned, and after that it seems like the only time you don't see bare chest is when she's in mourning! But when she gets money and all these nice new clothes she does buy some dresses that cover her up more. This all seems quite scandalous to be in a movie in 1939. Someone mentioned "Aviator"--do you remember the cleavage discussion that went on with the board of censors? Yeah. How easy was it to get that much on screen for GWTW? -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
As far as censor issues go for this movie, I mostly think language and content was the issue--not cleavage. When comparing the chest size of Hughe's muse Jane Russell and Vivien Leigh it doesn't seem to be as big a deal you know? They weren't pushing the envelope much more than anyone else was back then. And plus, this was a BIG budget movie that was highly publicized and popular before filming even began so censors would not have even had much power over it. Alos keep in mind, they were probably sending things to the Prod. Code Office for approval throughout production. The two censor issues I know of were the lines "I don't give a damn" (got away with it cuz the emphasis was on "give" and not "damn" and the line "maybe you'll get luck and have an miscarriage" which had to be changed to "have an accident."--Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
Dr. McClurken mentioned in his lecture that men who returned home after the war stepped back into their patriarchal roles, but Ashley acted so feminine, like he lost all hope of regaining his masculinity. It seemed to me that his wife tried her best to keep both of their spirits afloat as they did their best to survive. Does anyone else think that or do people disagree? -Lauren<br />
<br />
When this movie first came out it was pretty much given a rated of X which then was similar to our now a days R. I have grown up watching this with my grandmother and I remember her telling me that when it first came out she was forbidden to go see it by her parents. She would have been around 15 at that time.<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
George Fitzhugh’s “The Blessings of Slavery” shows how ignorant white southern slave owners can be. The idea that a person is more happy in forced servitude than as a free citizen is ridiculous. Beyond that, it meshes with stories of other slaveholders that were surprised when their slaves ran away – treating slaves well is better than treating them terribly, but they are still slaves. Gone with the Wind falls into this ignorance. Like most film productions where southern whites are slaveholders, the slaves love their masters like family. Mammy, Sissy, etc. (I can’t help but flashback to the Patriot as Mel helps his free black friends plow the field). -Elle<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
So apparently the Civil War only affected white people.... Mammy and Prissy and the other old slave man all stay with Miss Scarlet and her family throughout the whole movie. Not once is there mention of slaves being emancipated, and not once do the slaves mention being free (although we do see Old Sam is living away from them now, since he became a trench digger). Through all that post-war poverty, and being the only blacks left on Tara, they stayed loyal. But of course! They'd always been treated and fed well and loved their white family and would never think of anything but staying. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
The addressing of racial issues in Gone With The Wind was equally infuriating and heartbreaking. The thought that kept rushing through my head during the scenes with Mammy, Pris and Pork was it's similarity to 1915's Birth Of A Nation, which cost $110,000 to make and grossed $3 million in the US and $10 million worldwide. Gone With The Wind, to date, has grossed nearly $200 million dollars, after taking just under $4 million to produce. While BOAN was released 24 years previous to GWTW, it is clear that this racism is still prevalent and, as the above numbers show, commercially viable. In both films, the black characters were satirical caricatures of the southern slave population and were often seen not only as members of an inferior race but sometimes even as nothing more than loyal dogs. Human Beings or Man's Best Friend? Unfortunately, this was clearly the southern attitude towards the black population. I suppose this racism is a great history lesson for those curious about race relations during the antebellum, in-war and post-war years, but it makes both films vastly uncomfortable viewing. --Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
What I found interesting is that none of the slave characters ever talked about their own families (if they had them) or relatives or even other slaves. Is this a matter of people in this period not wanting to hear about real slavery (people who worked outside of the house), or was it just a lack of caring? --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
I was watching TCM a few weeks ago and they did a 15 minute feature on Hattie McDaniel, the actress who played Mamie. Before and after ''Gone With The Wind'' McDaniel was type cast into motherly, domestic roles hundreds of times. McDaniel was respected in Hollywood (for what it was/is worth) and won an academy award for best supporting actress for her role as Mamie. Her roles as a domestic caretaker often caricatured blacks by being boisterous and plainspoken. Those portrayals helped make black characters appear lovable and benign, while simultaneously implying that they were subservient and not to be taken seriously. McDaniel and other black actresses were criticized for taking roles which allegedly validated or at least perpetuated the servile status of blacks. McDaniel said “I’d rather play a maid for $700 a week than be one for $7”. I think this movie is as strong a primary source as it is a secondary source, for it reveals the complexity of race relations in this country in the late 1930s. On one hand, blacks had acting jobs, so that is progress from the era of blackface. On the other hand, those acting roles depicted blacks as servants with no desire to advance. McDaniel’s own comment conveys a certain contentment with being a stock character, which sent the message that she was content with being a second class citizen. What did it say to blacks at the time that one of their most beloved actresses was not willing to rock the boat? – Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
"Gone With the Wind" is beautifully filmed and edited. The use of color, music and other forms of mise en scene are spectacular, which a whole other class period could be devoted to for discussion. One of the scenes that stood out to me was when one of the soldiers comes back from battle and exclaims "It's over, the war is over, we surrendered!" Immediately after this, the spectrum of reactions from the south is expressed in only a matter of seconds through a couple of lines (these lines are of course paraphrased to the best of my memory): "Why did we ever go to war?" (feeling of reluctance and regret), "Oh (insert name of husband) is coming home!" (relief that a loved one made it alive), "We surrendered?!?!" (shock of losing the war). - David F<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to say - the first half.... LONG and BORING. The second half - on the edge of my seat at times. I had to leave for a club meeting (for literally 5 minutes) and it was hard to pry myself away. I must say NOT what I expected. Also, I totally called the deaths of Bonnie (foreshadowing) and Melanie (classic Little Women-like Beth character). -Elle<br />
<br />
One more thing - symbolism... I felt that Scarlet's love for Ashley (which tragically ended at the end at his wife's death, when Scarlet finally really gets a clue and realizes Ashley has loved his wife all along) was symbolic for the death of the south. Not a very uplifting ending. -Elle<br />
<br />
Very nice insights, Elle. I was just wondering the likelihood of someone like Scarlett's character truly existing during the Civil War. Her extremely demanding personality gave me no choice but to stereotype all white women in the south during that time; but, I still feel that nobody that hysterical could really be based off a real person(s). I know a lot of it probably has to do with dramatic effect, but generalizing off of Elle's interpretation of Scarlett's love for Ashley symbolizing the death of the south, is Scarlett's personality representative of the arrogance of the South and how that lead to severe psychological repercussions? - David F.<br />
<br />
What a demeaning image of a southern white lady, and how awful to have to play that role and reinforce this stereotype! Scarlett is purely selfish, immature, whiny, vain, stubborn, hysterical, greedy...the list goes on. Uggh! And how she is in the beginning turning from one guy to another, entirely insincere and loving attention. She marries to help herself and spite other men, and it takes until the loving, perfect Melanie dies for her to realize that Ashley was right when he said that he loved his wife and not her, and to realize that Rhett also loved her, like he always said he did. And I don't even need to go into her spending habits. Frankly, I couldn't give a damn what she did without Rhett, either. To sum it up, as Elle said, "God, she's pathetic." -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
How is Rhett supposed to have become and stayed a millionaire? -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
I beg to differ on several of the above comments. First off, I LOVE AND WILL FOREVER LOVE THIS STORY!!!!!! The film is amazing in so many ways in its own right but the story Margaret Mitchell invented is beautiful. The characters are each tragically flawed in just the perfect way to make you love them, but mostly hate them and yet keeps you wanting to read it. I went as Scarlet in the red "look your part" dress in 2nd grade, so yeah, I am an undying fan. Scarlet is all of those horrible things but Rhett is a lot of them too. He just admits to them instead of trying to adhere to the hypocrisy of that society until Bonnie comes along. And the movie is ridiculously sad at the end, giving you zero time to breath in between Rhett's devastation over Scarlet's miscarriage (a word that they were not allowed to say in 1939 Code Hollywood), to Bonnie's death and then Melanie's death and then the final blow of Rhett leaving Scarlet at the precise moment she has her freakin' epiphany. But I love all these characters, even Scarlet- because Melanie (even though she deludes herself into thinking that Scarlet is not in love with Ashley) does see the good qualities of Scarlet, her sense of loyalty and the constant protection she provides to her family. It all seems selfish and she whines to some about having to do it, but in the end she goes back to Tara, the place that gives her strength because it is apart of her identity as the daughter of an Irish man, as a Southerner, as passionate person who demands control over her own life and destiny and will prevail "as God as her witness" even under all the tragedies of the world. It is actually an inspiring character, because she does change in the end (though you can debate that point) for the better. She gains a bit of insight and learns to love those she has taken for granted, and let go of others she had no right to love in the first place (got over her silly girlhood crush basically). I could quote this TIMELESS FILM all night long so I'll stop before I do.--Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
After Rhett gets drunk and sweeps Scarlett off her feet to presumably have "marital relations" with her, when we see her the next morning in her bed, was she smiling because she received multiple orgasms or was she happy for some other reasons? Can it be assume that since Rhett likes to hang around harlots and "bad women" like Belle, that he knows how to be an impeccable lover?-Lauren<br />
<br />
Was it really that common of a practice to take group naps in other people's homes? In the movie it seemed like a common occurrence during parties. -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
If everything had been taken from Tarra (spelling?), how were the father and 2 houseservants surviving? We're they eating only radishes? I know this is nit-picky, but honestly, could they have survived on those radishes? If so, would there had been any radishes left? I've only watched the first 1/2 at this point, so its possible it is explained later... but that really bothers me. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Nothing is explained, but somehow they do manage enough food to even feed returning soldiers too, though much to selfish Scarlet's dismay.--Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
Remember this is fiction it was not meant to be looked at critically. Do we judge other works of fiction with the same characteristics? -- Kellye Sorber</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments329--Week 5 Questions/Comments2008-09-24T22:56:25Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 4 Public reaction/impact */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
We've discussed in class the importance of the language barrier between two cultures and how well have movies portrayed this (or not portrayed it at well). Past movies we've watched such as Pocahontas brought up questions such as how does everyone, including the Native Americans, know English even before the British arrived in the New World. Having the Mendes speak in their native tongue provides an authentic feel to the movie, but also conveys an important factor during these trials. The fact that the Mendes neither spoke English nor Spanish made it difficult for communication between Baldwin and Cinque and in court, which the movie gets right...even adding a touch of humor to this aspect. - David F<br />
<br />
Aagh! You totally stole my comment! I agree, Amistad was an amazing way to show how addressing language barrier can actually strengthen a movie's plot and themes. Not only do we see how Baldwin and Cinque struggle to understand one another (sometimes comedically, sometimes seriously) but we see how it helps the grow as people through understanding each other's cultures, and it also is used as evidence that the Mendi are born Africans. This leads to themes- like a people who can't speak for themselves, but overcome the impossible injustices they face as free people. I thought it was a fascinating directorial choice to not use subtitles for the Mendi until about 20-30 min. into the film. The Spanish get subtitles but audience is purposely put in the dark about what the Mendi are saying until people start to really try to talk to them. It makes it take longer for the viewer to understand and get to know the Mendi. It makes them seem foreign, and bewildering, and a bit nonsensical too, like we are looking from the point of view of the Americans who are either ignoring them as intelligent people of another culture or as the Americans who are trying to help them but can't communicate with them. --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
Right - still going off the same thing... I am a little more skeptical - the humor that D-Flo refers to sticks out in my mind. When Baldwin and Cinque are both saying "how do I find out where you're from" and "how can I tell you where I'm from" I am just a little skeptical. I like to think that through language barriers we all can think similarly and problem solve though. Another instance is when Cinque is asking all the questions via the translator to JQA. I thought it was interesting to note that JQA's argument did end up being in essence Cinque's words. To summarize - I felt that Amistad did a good job of portraying the language barrier, but did have a few inconsistencies in this area (which were most likely purposeful for entertainment value). -Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
<br />
At the point where Holabird is questioning Cinque about slavery within Africa, there is trouble in translation because 'slave' can only be translated as 'worker.' We see an example of this when Olaudah Equiano writes of slavery in Africa as an entirely different concept--workers or servants, and he was well-treated and included--than what started happening once he got to the coast. However, with Holabird's argument that whether it's slavery or indentured servitude, the concept is the same, the film gives little indication to the viewer that the concept truly is different. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
It's good to have the British captain confirm to Holabird in testimony that Cinque's account of the captives' treatment was a common occurrence, so the viewer understands that as well. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
I thought that regarding the initial court proceedings, the movie portrayed the varied interests well. That there were many groups: the abolitionists, the state, Ruis and Mendez, and the two guys from LI helped show how this trial was at times confusing for everyone involved. Also I believe the movie did well to show how the case became a symbol greater than the fate of the Amistad slaves. The abolitionists wanted them to be the first major blow against slavery while MVB wanted the case to fall in his favor to appease southern pressure. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I think the movie portrayed the middle passage with ample brutality and accuracy. Since I cannot believe that conditions would have been any better, were they any worse? As far as middle passage portrayals go, where does this one rank? Have there been many other portrayals? In other words, was this the fist exposure the American public had to the reality of "The Middle Passage"? - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
As with many others, I felt the movie portrayed the language barrier fairly well. I like the humor that comes out in the movie here and there. I also felt that the directors did well with portraying the conditions of captured Africans and slaves on the ships as well. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
One other event the movie got right was the part where Baldwin is shouting out numbers in Mende to see if anyone would understand him. Fortunately, someone understood him! ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
The part I felt that was portrayed best historically was the slave ship scenes. They do a very good job at showing the terrible conditions shown towards slaves similar to the account given from the readings. The ships clearly showed the crowded conditions punishments and the situations where the sick are tossed overboard. The only problem I had with these parts is that there was a significant amount of women and children on board the ships. This does not seem likely because the preferred slaves of Europeans would be males. Women and children slaves aboard ships would also be the first ones likely to be thrown overboard.- Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
One thing I noticed about Dr. M's lecture was the overwhelming amount of historical figures involved with the trial surrounding the Amistad slaves. So a question I asked myself before watching the movie was which historical characters would the movie focus on. The most obvious is Joseph Cinque (but I probably would not have known this if I haven't heard of this film before), but I think you could argue that every other name Dr. M mentioned in class deserved much focus in order to understand the history of the Amistad trial. Roger Baldwin and JQA are the other two figures the movie gives more screen time to, but I feel like much more important figures deserve greater insight and character development. For example, President Van Buren would have had much to say about the trial since he was up for re-election during this time period. Also, I initially thought Morgan Freeman's character was a reflection of James Pennington, but after reading "Reel History," I discovered that Theodore was fictitious and that the movie was actually criticized for not including those prominent blacks involved with the abolition movement (71). Additionally, other important historical figures such as Queen Isabella of Spain (at least I think she was a Queen in the movie) and the Grimke sisters needed more emphasis to understand this historical event. - David F.<br />
<br />
David sort of touches on my question about who WAS Morgan Freeman's character? I don't quite understand why the entire movie would build itself upon actual people and then when it comes to the black abolitionist, they create a new character. We knew that there was a Reverend Pennington, so why not actually base Freeman's character on him? --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I have a few things to say about the characters. Matthew McConaughey's character of Roger Baldwin was full humor, but I thought that depiction was inaccurate. Dr. M said the real Baldwin was in his 40's, whereas in the movie, he was depicted as a young, fresh, and inexperienced lawyer. It can be argued that he was this movie's eye candy, as Jackie might say. His important role in the trials was right, but it was he who talked to John Quincy Adams in the movie to get involved in the trials, not Lewis Tappan, as it was in reality. As for Queen Isabella, was she really eleven or was she younger? -Lauren<br />
<br />
Actually I would say the eye candy of this movie was either Cinque, who was constantly shirtless, or Covey, who was just so damn pretty- but my silliness aside, I thought this was one of Matthew McConaughey's finer roles. And between his costume (shabby dress and sideburns) and his convincing performance as a compelling lawyer (though inexperienced in the courtroom) I think his usual stereotype as a leading man hottie is irrelevant here as is his age, since he still came across as serious as and as strong as Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins. But, I was also peeved by the Morgan Freeman character fabrication issue. "Of course it's him!" I said to myself as soon as I heard the voice. If there is going to be a wise, cunning, and quietly righteous black man in a period film, it is going to be played by Freeman! But when you've got such a fail-safe stock character like that, why bother trying portray the connections to the real freed black abolitionist, James Pennington? And how about those female speaking roles... or should I say role! I can understand when a movie is made about a time when women weren't put in the history books, but there WERE the Grimke sisters, who were certainly more prominent in the publicity around the case than a man who never existed (Freeman)! The only individual female character we see is the self-centered, pre-teen Queen Isabela II. Way to make women look good Hollywood! But hey, at least they didn't invent or fabricate a love story for once!--Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
How involved was Queen Isabella? I remember learning that the Spanish Ambassador to the US got his panties in a twist over this whole issue, but I don't recall hearing how involved and aware Isabella was in the incident. It makes sense for her to be aware of the event and to care about it, but how much of an active part did she play? Also, how much of a complete nutbag was John Quincey Adams? The movie, to me, made him seem like he was a bit, well, off mentally. Was it just old age? --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
The Lewis Tappan Document describes the jail arrangements of the Amistad captives. In this source Cinque is jailed with other criminals separate from his people. He is also not allowed to be removed from said cell because he was not trusted. This is VERY different in the film, in which Cinque leaves the cell on many occasions and is even unchained in the presence of John Quincy Adams in his study. -Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Question - How many women and children were aboard the Amistad and made it out alive? It struck me as odd that there would be young and female survivors of this entire ordeal - given Cinque's account of killing off/starving/drowning the weak and less profitable slaves on the original journey, tacked onto the fact that the majority of slaves in the trade were men in the first place. - Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Answer: I thought there were a few women and children survivors that made it onto the Amistad. As for why they would be there in the first place, I imagine, is because (with a mix of men and women) slaveowners would hope that they would procreate and then their children would become the property of the slave-owners who bought them (free slaves basically).--Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
So we know that they really appealed to the District Court, and didn't replace the judge, and that they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, too. But what's the deal with the trial? It looks like Adams gives a little, powerful speech based on Cinque's words...nothing close to an 8.5-hour oratory. Are we supposed to assume that the arguments made in lesser courts are also made before the Supreme Court before what we see, or that Adams's little bit was all it took for the court to hear the case and rule on it? -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
Wait. Whitney. Did you really want the movie to go on for another 8.5 hrs? Baldwin gave a speech and testimony (repeating mostly what he had already argued in lower courts) over a period of two days, but ALL of that happened off camera. I think we should cut the filmmakers some slack on summary of Adams' real speech. --Jackie<br />
<br />
I agree, the movie was long enough as it was. I would have never wanted it to go on longer so that it could include a longer speech made by Adams. You get the basic understanding of what was happening without going into more detail in the court arguments. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
A number of people have already made comments on this but I, too, have something to say about Matthew McConaughey's Baldwin. As we learned in class yesterday, Baldwin was a Yale educated lawyer ''known'' for defending the unfortunate. If his name was already well known in society then he had to have been around for a few years. As we learn every week, it is up to the discretion of the film makers as to how a certain character should look/talk/act etc. but I just found this typical, romanticized Hollywood to have an up and coming actor play an up and coming lawyer. -- Mallory C. <br />
<br />
Was it accurate to have Evangelicals wearing crosses? I was under the impression that wearing a cross was much more prevalent in Catholicism and that it was more common for Evangelicals to carry around Bibles. -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
If I remember, Dr. M said that there were only 4 crew and the 2 guys who from Cuba or whatever. There looked to be a lot more than that at the beginning of the movie. I guess most Americans would find 4 crewman as unbelievable or something like that... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
How did all of a sudden Cinque seem to know so much about American law? I know that his questions were being translated but still, I would never expect that he would have any understanding of the concepts behind why certain things were being done. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I felt that they gave the cargo hold waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much height and space, because from lecture on Tuesday it was like the area was usually barely tall enough for the Africans to sit up, much less fully stand with room still between their heads and the ceiling. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I too wondered about whether the Middle Passage scenes should have been even harsher, though they were effective in showing the inhumanity of the situation. I did wonder whether a woman that was super pregnant would be selected to make the journey knowing full well the conditions were less than optimal for childbirth? Also, I guess this is nitpicking but I believe that only 5 of the 9 Justices were slave owners but in the film it was reported that 7 held slaves. Lastly, I have always read that JQA was one of, if not the smartest of the presidents, so was it accurate to have him be such a bumbling eccentric?-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I thought Morgan Freeman’s character might be a fabrication at first because he didn’t seems to fit with the Pennington discussed in class. It turns out he was indeed made up for the movie. What was the purpose of Joadson at all? And, of course, I was expecting a ''Big Damn Heroes'' moment from John Quincy Adams considering how much they were building it up. And that’s what we get. Now, the speech had pretty much nothing to do with the trial, and it was all about anti-slavery which would have turned off the Southern judges, and, hey, it only ''felt'' like it was hours long instead of being the actual eight hours of JQA’s real speech, but it was awesome. Still, I would have loved to see the judges dismiss everything he said like they did in real life, but then again, the movie isn’t a comedy. And it ''would'' have been funny to see, since he was set up as the final hope since the start of the movie. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Would they really have had to work that hard to convince JQA to take the case becuase in the movie it seemed like JQA was really not interested and it took asking by several people before he agreed to come hear Cinque's story. It was only after he had talked to Cinque that he agreed to take the case.- Christine W.<br />
<br />
I was surprised to see how quickly Cinque picked up on American law when he was questioning JQA via the translator. What is the likelihood that thru a translator he would have been able to understand American law that quickly and understand it enough to be able to question it. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
One thing particularly bothered me about this movie is the constant references of the Civil War. It is unlikely at the time that many people would really feel that a Civil war was a serious possibility. It seems to be more a tool of foreshadowing and feels historically out of place. The figures in this movie other than Africans and African Americans all seem to have a bit of silliness or weirdness about them. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
The portrayal of Cinque fit the description of him by Lewis Tappan. Tappan described Cinque as having "a good deal of gracefulness and native diginity (Tappan, p. 351)." In the movie, Djimon Hounsou who played Cinque was able to get that description across great. His presence was so strong and that of a leader. He looked like he was born to the position that he achieved as his character. He was dignified as he walked about and testified in the courts, even in shackles. -Lauren<br />
<br />
Hounsou's Cinque has grace and dignity sometimes, particularly in court, with Adams, and telling his lion story, but a good deal of the time he is shouting with eyes wide and nostrils flared-whether on the Amistad or riled up in jail. In combination with certain postures and grunts at various points, that's more like raw African savage than the graceful and dignified native we see later. However, when Baldwin is trying to tell him that the other Mende captives look up to him, he is very modest, saying he cannot speak for them and telling his lion story. It is made clear that he hasn't always been their leader, when he's first arguing with Fala after the mutiny, who he continues to have tension with in the jail. However, at one point in the trial, Cinque notices all the fidgeting in the court and looks like he's about to lose it, but then stands up and starts saying "Give us, us free!" He is really made noble here, because not only is he holding out his manacled hands in front of him, but the sunlight is streaming through the window onto the Mendi just so, accompanied by angelic singing. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
There seems to be a lack of consistency when it comes to the description of the Mendi/ Mandingos in Tappan’s account and their representation in the film. Tappan describes Cinquez as “…about 5 feet 8 inches high, of fine proportions, with a noble air. Indeed, the whole company, although thin in flesh, and generally of slight forms, and limbs…The Mandingoes are described in books as being a very gentle race, cheerful in their dispositions, inquisitive, credulous, simple hearted and much given to trading propensities” (Tappan 350). In the movie none of the Mendi were 5’8, none of them were cheerful in disposition, and none of them had slight builds (true to one aspect of this description, Cinquez was inquisitive towards John Quincy Adams). So, who are we to believe? Tappan, who could have very well been sugar coating facts for sympathy in the case? Or Spielberg who could have used stereotypically strong and angry slave stock characters for dramatic appeal? – Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
Maritime History was a popular subject for films of 1997... Titanic anyone. --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
So we started the 90s with Native American films and moved on to Maritime films... Don't forget that Waterworld was made in 1995. :-p I liked it, but I await the 'cringes' --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
How much of The Civil War talk in the film was accurate? This event, and subsequent trials took place 20 years before the outbreak of The Civil War. Did the nation really feel like it was on the brink of civil war for this long? Or is this just another case of hindsight as we saw with the treatment of the Revolutionary War in ''Last of the Mohicans''? It is my opinion that the characters in the movie referenced an inevitable civil war exorbitantly. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
In a way, it kind of amazes me that this movie is not more well known. In my opinion, it is a good, solid movie. As a result, it makes me question why more people don't know if its existence. It has such a star-studded cast that you would think that over half of us in class would have known about it. This leads me to the question of subject matter -- do we think that because of the basic storyline, most people were turned off from the movie? Or was it just not publicized well enough? It's a shame because I think it's a movie that people would enjoy (and I didn't even mind the gore so much! Mostly because it was dark when they had the gross scenes.) --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
This movie does a GREAT job of articulating the abolitionist viewpoint, and telling a compelling story of slaves throwing off the shackles of their oppressors. For those reasons this movie makes a powerful and effective emotional impact. However, I feel that an accurate movie, made about a slave story from the south, would better challenge our understanding of that time in our history. I think the overall impact of this movie was diminished because it did not directly challenge American slavery on the ultimate battleground- the plantation. The story of the Amistad slaves was a court case largely decided by the letter of the law, and it set a narrow and particular precedent. A more effective movie would not only present the abolitionist cause, it would tell a story that served as an immediate catalyst for emancipation.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I don’t get choked up at movies very often, but the scenes on the Tecora… not only did I get a little choked up, I felt a little sick to my stomach. The crowded quarters, the lack of food, the beatings, the suicides, the sexual assaults, the complete disregard for life. I’d say it was pretty accurate. And even when it wasn’t (for instance, why would slave traders expect anyone to buy a baby?), I’m not sure if it necessarily matters that much. It was effective and intense. I think it needs to be as terrible and gruesome as possible because we’re ''supposed'' to find it repulsive. Slavery is repulsive. I don't believe we can really comprehend that unless we've seen it ourselves, and films can bring us a little closer to understanding. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The abolitionist movement is underrepresented in this movie and several people have noted that people have been placed in improper roles or have been exaggerated. This movie does succeed in showing many of the hardships faced by African's in slave ships and presents a strong anti slavery message. This message, however is presented in a way that associates more with the time it was made rather than the past. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
I take issue with the storyline that centers around the replacement of the judge. This did not happen, the case was appealed to another court. The film makes it look like Van Buren intervened in the proceedings and placed a judge on the bench that would rule against the Mende. The new judge is described as young, Catholic, and without anything to prove- a pawn of the Van Buren/ Calhoun contingency. Why would the film makers fabricate this part of the storyline? If the film makers wanted to demonize the governmental leaders of the time for their racist attitudes and policies, couldn’t they have just used the actual words of the men who held those beliefs? I’m sure we would find them offensive enough.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
As was mentioned in class this morning, I wonder why the story of Amistad and the film are not more well known. With the extraordinary cast, director, and overall impact of the film, it's strange that it did not receive more recognition. Also, given that politicians were looking at this case as a monumental turning point to begin the civil war, how is it not more integral in our nation's history? Something that stuck with me was a line of JQA, something along the lines of - "I want the next generation to know the name Cinque as well as Patrick Henry." Why don't we? -Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Excellent points Elle! I am recommending this 10 year old movie to everyone I know cuz I only just found out how great it is! I think the history books gloss over the Amistad case in high schools because there wasn't just one action or event that sparked the Civil War. So many little things (though usually monument, like this, when looked at individually) lead to the impossible tension that caused the war to be arguably inevitable. But, I think what the movie is trying to show, is that nobody wanted that inevitable clash of the south and north to be on their head (as Calhoun says to van Buren in the film). As for the Patrick Henry thing, I think its hilarious that while we remember a man who famously spoke words that were not his own, we forget the man who had to have his own important words spoken by a translator (if that makes any sense)- what I mean to say is, that I believe the Cinque's sentiments on rights to freedom, heard second-hand, are better worth remembering than Patrick Henry's plagiarized speech, but only Antebellum African Americans they ever bother to teach are Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tudman --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
<br />
I think the reason this particular story never made it into the popular folklore of our national history until 1997 (and it can be argued that it still has not) is because the court decision did not indict or attempt to dismantle the American institution of slavery. The story of the Amistad slaves was a custodial issue. The case boiled down to the fact that these Mende were illegally entered into the slave trade, and by happenstance ended up in America. No one in America had legitimate claim to them, so the Mende were allowed to be free. These Mende never participated in slave labor, and for that reason it could be said that the decision to keep these Africans out of slavery would not necessarily serve as a precedent for those African- Americans already enslaved. These slaves got justice, but due to the narrowly defined court decision the judgment did not translate into justice for other slaves. N.B. That is not to say the the arguments made in the various trials did not lend support to the abolitionist cause. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I read in an article that there was a historian on set, overseeing the filming of ''Amistad''; showing that it was Spielberg's intention to have the majority of the facts historically accurate. This is a great film and regardless of the historical inaccuracies in ''Amistad'', in my opinion, Spielberg and the other film makers were courageous in creating a film that broke the mold. Slavery as told by the perspective of the victims is rarely if ever portrayed on the big screen. It does a good job of showing the American public that the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln were amongst a number of key events on the road to the emancipation of slaves. -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
Touching on Jackie's point, to be honest I never learned about the Amistad case until class on Tuesday. I don't recall my history books ever mentioning it which is a pity because it is a truly remarkable event in history and it should be taught to history classes. Also, I absolutely loved Yamba. I thought his character was amazing. Whether he was based off of a real figure or not, I don't really care. He was simply wonderful. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Why were there not more captions? It seemed like most of the time what was being said by the Mende was not important enough to caption. I felt like if they were going to have them talk it would have been better to caption it all, that way maybe they coculd show some insight to what they were thinking. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Though we touched on this movie in high school (mostly to show the horrors of the Middle Passage) I agree with Jason as to why this movie has in some ways failed to capture the public's imagination. As inspiring as JQA's final speech was (loved the portrait of JA slightly blurred over his shoulder), as in real life this wasn't an anti-slavery ruling. This was a matter of property. Perhaps this is why when asked most people probably wouldn't come up with this film before other examples of Spielberg historic films. I know I would have referenced Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, and Munich before Amistad, which in some ways is a shame. Ultimately I feel that this movie is most valuable in its depiction of the Middle Passage which struck me as the most realistic that filmmakers could likely get away with.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Overall, ''Amistad'' is my favorite of the movies we’ve watched so far, and it's probably the strongest in its impact on the viewer. With Steven Spielberg, John Williams, and talented actors, it better be good. Though Morgan Freeman always seems to play the same character (whatever works), I could barely recognize Anthony Hopkins and Matthew McConaughey. I also want to say it’s the most historically accurate film that we’ve watched so far, but I’m not sure if I’m confident enough to say that. It’s not without its problems. I think one of the biggest issues is that the Amistad case was made out to be some kind of turning point in antislavery, but the case was more about illegal slavery than slavery itself. Also, the characters kept mentioning a civil war between the North and South, as though everyone knew it was definitely going to happen. The movie even seemed to make it look like the Amistad case was one of the causes! --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Overall I thought the movie was really well done. It seems to be the most historically accurate movie we have watched which may have somethng to do with why it is not very well known. I think another thing to consider is how well did this movie do when it came out, did it come out the same time as some other bigger movie? - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Another thing to consider is this movie is about slavery and tries to accuratly represent what happened to slaves atleast on the passage over. How many people are going to be willing to see a movie about a subject in our nations's history that we don't like to talk about to begin with especially if it portrays us in a bad light and is graphic. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I may have heard J.Q. Adams wrong but it sounded like he suggested tearing up the word of Jefferson in the court oom. I am pretty sure that would not go over very well with anyone in the court.-- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
Another thing that stood out to me was why would any of the prisoners be let out of their cells? espesiecly a possible slave in a property dispute.</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments329--Week 5 Questions/Comments2008-09-24T22:50:10Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* b Inaccurate/issues: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
We've discussed in class the importance of the language barrier between two cultures and how well have movies portrayed this (or not portrayed it at well). Past movies we've watched such as Pocahontas brought up questions such as how does everyone, including the Native Americans, know English even before the British arrived in the New World. Having the Mendes speak in their native tongue provides an authentic feel to the movie, but also conveys an important factor during these trials. The fact that the Mendes neither spoke English nor Spanish made it difficult for communication between Baldwin and Cinque and in court, which the movie gets right...even adding a touch of humor to this aspect. - David F<br />
<br />
Aagh! You totally stole my comment! I agree, Amistad was an amazing way to show how addressing language barrier can actually strengthen a movie's plot and themes. Not only do we see how Baldwin and Cinque struggle to understand one another (sometimes comedically, sometimes seriously) but we see how it helps the grow as people through understanding each other's cultures, and it also is used as evidence that the Mendi are born Africans. This leads to themes- like a people who can't speak for themselves, but overcome the impossible injustices they face as free people. I thought it was a fascinating directorial choice to not use subtitles for the Mendi until about 20-30 min. into the film. The Spanish get subtitles but audience is purposely put in the dark about what the Mendi are saying until people start to really try to talk to them. It makes it take longer for the viewer to understand and get to know the Mendi. It makes them seem foreign, and bewildering, and a bit nonsensical too, like we are looking from the point of view of the Americans who are either ignoring them as intelligent people of another culture or as the Americans who are trying to help them but can't communicate with them. --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
Right - still going off the same thing... I am a little more skeptical - the humor that D-Flo refers to sticks out in my mind. When Baldwin and Cinque are both saying "how do I find out where you're from" and "how can I tell you where I'm from" I am just a little skeptical. I like to think that through language barriers we all can think similarly and problem solve though. Another instance is when Cinque is asking all the questions via the translator to JQA. I thought it was interesting to note that JQA's argument did end up being in essence Cinque's words. To summarize - I felt that Amistad did a good job of portraying the language barrier, but did have a few inconsistencies in this area (which were most likely purposeful for entertainment value). -Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
<br />
At the point where Holabird is questioning Cinque about slavery within Africa, there is trouble in translation because 'slave' can only be translated as 'worker.' We see an example of this when Olaudah Equiano writes of slavery in Africa as an entirely different concept--workers or servants, and he was well-treated and included--than what started happening once he got to the coast. However, with Holabird's argument that whether it's slavery or indentured servitude, the concept is the same, the film gives little indication to the viewer that the concept truly is different. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
It's good to have the British captain confirm to Holabird in testimony that Cinque's account of the captives' treatment was a common occurrence, so the viewer understands that as well. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
I thought that regarding the initial court proceedings, the movie portrayed the varied interests well. That there were many groups: the abolitionists, the state, Ruis and Mendez, and the two guys from LI helped show how this trial was at times confusing for everyone involved. Also I believe the movie did well to show how the case became a symbol greater than the fate of the Amistad slaves. The abolitionists wanted them to be the first major blow against slavery while MVB wanted the case to fall in his favor to appease southern pressure. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I think the movie portrayed the middle passage with ample brutality and accuracy. Since I cannot believe that conditions would have been any better, were they any worse? As far as middle passage portrayals go, where does this one rank? Have there been many other portrayals? In other words, was this the fist exposure the American public had to the reality of "The Middle Passage"? - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
As with many others, I felt the movie portrayed the language barrier fairly well. I like the humor that comes out in the movie here and there. I also felt that the directors did well with portraying the conditions of captured Africans and slaves on the ships as well. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
One other event the movie got right was the part where Baldwin is shouting out numbers in Mende to see if anyone would understand him. Fortunately, someone understood him! ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
The part I felt that was portrayed best historically was the slave ship scenes. They do a very good job at showing the terrible conditions shown towards slaves similar to the account given from the readings. The ships clearly showed the crowded conditions punishments and the situations where the sick are tossed overboard. The only problem I had with these parts is that there was a significant amount of women and children on board the ships. This does not seem likely because the preferred slaves of Europeans would be males. Women and children slaves aboard ships would also be the first ones likely to be thrown overboard.- Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
One thing I noticed about Dr. M's lecture was the overwhelming amount of historical figures involved with the trial surrounding the Amistad slaves. So a question I asked myself before watching the movie was which historical characters would the movie focus on. The most obvious is Joseph Cinque (but I probably would not have known this if I haven't heard of this film before), but I think you could argue that every other name Dr. M mentioned in class deserved much focus in order to understand the history of the Amistad trial. Roger Baldwin and JQA are the other two figures the movie gives more screen time to, but I feel like much more important figures deserve greater insight and character development. For example, President Van Buren would have had much to say about the trial since he was up for re-election during this time period. Also, I initially thought Morgan Freeman's character was a reflection of James Pennington, but after reading "Reel History," I discovered that Theodore was fictitious and that the movie was actually criticized for not including those prominent blacks involved with the abolition movement (71). Additionally, other important historical figures such as Queen Isabella of Spain (at least I think she was a Queen in the movie) and the Grimke sisters needed more emphasis to understand this historical event. - David F.<br />
<br />
David sort of touches on my question about who WAS Morgan Freeman's character? I don't quite understand why the entire movie would build itself upon actual people and then when it comes to the black abolitionist, they create a new character. We knew that there was a Reverend Pennington, so why not actually base Freeman's character on him? --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I have a few things to say about the characters. Matthew McConaughey's character of Roger Baldwin was full humor, but I thought that depiction was inaccurate. Dr. M said the real Baldwin was in his 40's, whereas in the movie, he was depicted as a young, fresh, and inexperienced lawyer. It can be argued that he was this movie's eye candy, as Jackie might say. His important role in the trials was right, but it was he who talked to John Quincy Adams in the movie to get involved in the trials, not Lewis Tappan, as it was in reality. As for Queen Isabella, was she really eleven or was she younger? -Lauren<br />
<br />
Actually I would say the eye candy of this movie was either Cinque, who was constantly shirtless, or Covey, who was just so damn pretty- but my silliness aside, I thought this was one of Matthew McConaughey's finer roles. And between his costume (shabby dress and sideburns) and his convincing performance as a compelling lawyer (though inexperienced in the courtroom) I think his usual stereotype as a leading man hottie is irrelevant here as is his age, since he still came across as serious as and as strong as Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins. But, I was also peeved by the Morgan Freeman character fabrication issue. "Of course it's him!" I said to myself as soon as I heard the voice. If there is going to be a wise, cunning, and quietly righteous black man in a period film, it is going to be played by Freeman! But when you've got such a fail-safe stock character like that, why bother trying portray the connections to the real freed black abolitionist, James Pennington? And how about those female speaking roles... or should I say role! I can understand when a movie is made about a time when women weren't put in the history books, but there WERE the Grimke sisters, who were certainly more prominent in the publicity around the case than a man who never existed (Freeman)! The only individual female character we see is the self-centered, pre-teen Queen Isabela II. Way to make women look good Hollywood! But hey, at least they didn't invent or fabricate a love story for once!--Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
How involved was Queen Isabella? I remember learning that the Spanish Ambassador to the US got his panties in a twist over this whole issue, but I don't recall hearing how involved and aware Isabella was in the incident. It makes sense for her to be aware of the event and to care about it, but how much of an active part did she play? Also, how much of a complete nutbag was John Quincey Adams? The movie, to me, made him seem like he was a bit, well, off mentally. Was it just old age? --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
The Lewis Tappan Document describes the jail arrangements of the Amistad captives. In this source Cinque is jailed with other criminals separate from his people. He is also not allowed to be removed from said cell because he was not trusted. This is VERY different in the film, in which Cinque leaves the cell on many occasions and is even unchained in the presence of John Quincy Adams in his study. -Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Question - How many women and children were aboard the Amistad and made it out alive? It struck me as odd that there would be young and female survivors of this entire ordeal - given Cinque's account of killing off/starving/drowning the weak and less profitable slaves on the original journey, tacked onto the fact that the majority of slaves in the trade were men in the first place. - Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Answer: I thought there were a few women and children survivors that made it onto the Amistad. As for why they would be there in the first place, I imagine, is because (with a mix of men and women) slaveowners would hope that they would procreate and then their children would become the property of the slave-owners who bought them (free slaves basically).--Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
So we know that they really appealed to the District Court, and didn't replace the judge, and that they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, too. But what's the deal with the trial? It looks like Adams gives a little, powerful speech based on Cinque's words...nothing close to an 8.5-hour oratory. Are we supposed to assume that the arguments made in lesser courts are also made before the Supreme Court before what we see, or that Adams's little bit was all it took for the court to hear the case and rule on it? -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
Wait. Whitney. Did you really want the movie to go on for another 8.5 hrs? Baldwin gave a speech and testimony (repeating mostly what he had already argued in lower courts) over a period of two days, but ALL of that happened off camera. I think we should cut the filmmakers some slack on summary of Adams' real speech. --Jackie<br />
<br />
I agree, the movie was long enough as it was. I would have never wanted it to go on longer so that it could include a longer speech made by Adams. You get the basic understanding of what was happening without going into more detail in the court arguments. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
A number of people have already made comments on this but I, too, have something to say about Matthew McConaughey's Baldwin. As we learned in class yesterday, Baldwin was a Yale educated lawyer ''known'' for defending the unfortunate. If his name was already well known in society then he had to have been around for a few years. As we learn every week, it is up to the discretion of the film makers as to how a certain character should look/talk/act etc. but I just found this typical, romanticized Hollywood to have an up and coming actor play an up and coming lawyer. -- Mallory C. <br />
<br />
Was it accurate to have Evangelicals wearing crosses? I was under the impression that wearing a cross was much more prevalent in Catholicism and that it was more common for Evangelicals to carry around Bibles. -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
If I remember, Dr. M said that there were only 4 crew and the 2 guys who from Cuba or whatever. There looked to be a lot more than that at the beginning of the movie. I guess most Americans would find 4 crewman as unbelievable or something like that... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
How did all of a sudden Cinque seem to know so much about American law? I know that his questions were being translated but still, I would never expect that he would have any understanding of the concepts behind why certain things were being done. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I felt that they gave the cargo hold waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much height and space, because from lecture on Tuesday it was like the area was usually barely tall enough for the Africans to sit up, much less fully stand with room still between their heads and the ceiling. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I too wondered about whether the Middle Passage scenes should have been even harsher, though they were effective in showing the inhumanity of the situation. I did wonder whether a woman that was super pregnant would be selected to make the journey knowing full well the conditions were less than optimal for childbirth? Also, I guess this is nitpicking but I believe that only 5 of the 9 Justices were slave owners but in the film it was reported that 7 held slaves. Lastly, I have always read that JQA was one of, if not the smartest of the presidents, so was it accurate to have him be such a bumbling eccentric?-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I thought Morgan Freeman’s character might be a fabrication at first because he didn’t seems to fit with the Pennington discussed in class. It turns out he was indeed made up for the movie. What was the purpose of Joadson at all? And, of course, I was expecting a ''Big Damn Heroes'' moment from John Quincy Adams considering how much they were building it up. And that’s what we get. Now, the speech had pretty much nothing to do with the trial, and it was all about anti-slavery which would have turned off the Southern judges, and, hey, it only ''felt'' like it was hours long instead of being the actual eight hours of JQA’s real speech, but it was awesome. Still, I would have loved to see the judges dismiss everything he said like they did in real life, but then again, the movie isn’t a comedy. And it ''would'' have been funny to see, since he was set up as the final hope since the start of the movie. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Would they really have had to work that hard to convince JQA to take the case becuase in the movie it seemed like JQA was really not interested and it took asking by several people before he agreed to come hear Cinque's story. It was only after he had talked to Cinque that he agreed to take the case.- Christine W.<br />
<br />
I was surprised to see how quickly Cinque picked up on American law when he was questioning JQA via the translator. What is the likelihood that thru a translator he would have been able to understand American law that quickly and understand it enough to be able to question it. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
One thing particularly bothered me about this movie is the constant references of the Civil War. It is unlikely at the time that many people would really feel that a Civil war was a serious possibility. It seems to be more a tool of foreshadowing and feels historically out of place. The figures in this movie other than Africans and African Americans all seem to have a bit of silliness or weirdness about them. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
The portrayal of Cinque fit the description of him by Lewis Tappan. Tappan described Cinque as having "a good deal of gracefulness and native diginity (Tappan, p. 351)." In the movie, Djimon Hounsou who played Cinque was able to get that description across great. His presence was so strong and that of a leader. He looked like he was born to the position that he achieved as his character. He was dignified as he walked about and testified in the courts, even in shackles. -Lauren<br />
<br />
Hounsou's Cinque has grace and dignity sometimes, particularly in court, with Adams, and telling his lion story, but a good deal of the time he is shouting with eyes wide and nostrils flared-whether on the Amistad or riled up in jail. In combination with certain postures and grunts at various points, that's more like raw African savage than the graceful and dignified native we see later. However, when Baldwin is trying to tell him that the other Mende captives look up to him, he is very modest, saying he cannot speak for them and telling his lion story. It is made clear that he hasn't always been their leader, when he's first arguing with Fala after the mutiny, who he continues to have tension with in the jail. However, at one point in the trial, Cinque notices all the fidgeting in the court and looks like he's about to lose it, but then stands up and starts saying "Give us, us free!" He is really made noble here, because not only is he holding out his manacled hands in front of him, but the sunlight is streaming through the window onto the Mendi just so, accompanied by angelic singing. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
There seems to be a lack of consistency when it comes to the description of the Mendi/ Mandingos in Tappan’s account and their representation in the film. Tappan describes Cinquez as “…about 5 feet 8 inches high, of fine proportions, with a noble air. Indeed, the whole company, although thin in flesh, and generally of slight forms, and limbs…The Mandingoes are described in books as being a very gentle race, cheerful in their dispositions, inquisitive, credulous, simple hearted and much given to trading propensities” (Tappan 350). In the movie none of the Mendi were 5’8, none of them were cheerful in disposition, and none of them had slight builds (true to one aspect of this description, Cinquez was inquisitive towards John Quincy Adams). So, who are we to believe? Tappan, who could have very well been sugar coating facts for sympathy in the case? Or Spielberg who could have used stereotypically strong and angry slave stock characters for dramatic appeal? – Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
Maritime History was a popular subject for films of 1997... Titanic anyone. --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
So we started the 90s with Native American films and moved on to Maritime films... Don't forget that Waterworld was made in 1995. :-p I liked it, but I await the 'cringes' --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
How much of The Civil War talk in the film was accurate? This event, and subsequent trials took place 20 years before the outbreak of The Civil War. Did the nation really feel like it was on the brink of civil war for this long? Or is this just another case of hindsight as we saw with the treatment of the Revolutionary War in ''Last of the Mohicans''? It is my opinion that the characters in the movie referenced an inevitable civil war exorbitantly. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
In a way, it kind of amazes me that this movie is not more well known. In my opinion, it is a good, solid movie. As a result, it makes me question why more people don't know if its existence. It has such a star-studded cast that you would think that over half of us in class would have known about it. This leads me to the question of subject matter -- do we think that because of the basic storyline, most people were turned off from the movie? Or was it just not publicized well enough? It's a shame because I think it's a movie that people would enjoy (and I didn't even mind the gore so much! Mostly because it was dark when they had the gross scenes.) --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
This movie does a GREAT job of articulating the abolitionist viewpoint, and telling a compelling story of slaves throwing off the shackles of their oppressors. For those reasons this movie makes a powerful and effective emotional impact. However, I feel that an accurate movie, made about a slave story from the south, would better challenge our understanding of that time in our history. I think the overall impact of this movie was diminished because it did not directly challenge American slavery on the ultimate battleground- the plantation. The story of the Amistad slaves was a court case largely decided by the letter of the law, and it set a narrow and particular precedent. A more effective movie would not only present the abolitionist cause, it would tell a story that served as an immediate catalyst for emancipation.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I don’t get choked up at movies very often, but the scenes on the Tecora… not only did I get a little choked up, I felt a little sick to my stomach. The crowded quarters, the lack of food, the beatings, the suicides, the sexual assaults, the complete disregard for life. I’d say it was pretty accurate. And even when it wasn’t (for instance, why would slave traders expect anyone to buy a baby?), I’m not sure if it necessarily matters that much. It was effective and intense. I think it needs to be as terrible and gruesome as possible because we’re ''supposed'' to find it repulsive. Slavery is repulsive. I don't believe we can really comprehend that unless we've seen it ourselves, and films can bring us a little closer to understanding. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
I take issue with the storyline that centers around the replacement of the judge. This did not happen, the case was appealed to another court. The film makes it look like Van Buren intervened in the proceedings and placed a judge on the bench that would rule against the Mende. The new judge is described as young, Catholic, and without anything to prove- a pawn of the Van Buren/ Calhoun contingency. Why would the film makers fabricate this part of the storyline? If the film makers wanted to demonize the governmental leaders of the time for their racist attitudes and policies, couldn’t they have just used the actual words of the men who held those beliefs? I’m sure we would find them offensive enough.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
As was mentioned in class this morning, I wonder why the story of Amistad and the film are not more well known. With the extraordinary cast, director, and overall impact of the film, it's strange that it did not receive more recognition. Also, given that politicians were looking at this case as a monumental turning point to begin the civil war, how is it not more integral in our nation's history? Something that stuck with me was a line of JQA, something along the lines of - "I want the next generation to know the name Cinque as well as Patrick Henry." Why don't we? -Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Excellent points Elle! I am recommending this 10 year old movie to everyone I know cuz I only just found out how great it is! I think the history books gloss over the Amistad case in high schools because there wasn't just one action or event that sparked the Civil War. So many little things (though usually monument, like this, when looked at individually) lead to the impossible tension that caused the war to be arguably inevitable. But, I think what the movie is trying to show, is that nobody wanted that inevitable clash of the south and north to be on their head (as Calhoun says to van Buren in the film). As for the Patrick Henry thing, I think its hilarious that while we remember a man who famously spoke words that were not his own, we forget the man who had to have his own important words spoken by a translator (if that makes any sense)- what I mean to say is, that I believe the Cinque's sentiments on rights to freedom, heard second-hand, are better worth remembering than Patrick Henry's plagiarized speech, but only Antebellum African Americans they ever bother to teach are Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tudman --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
<br />
I think the reason this particular story never made it into the popular folklore of our national history until 1997 (and it can be argued that it still has not) is because the court decision did not indict or attempt to dismantle the American institution of slavery. The story of the Amistad slaves was a custodial issue. The case boiled down to the fact that these Mende were illegally entered into the slave trade, and by happenstance ended up in America. No one in America had legitimate claim to them, so the Mende were allowed to be free. These Mende never participated in slave labor, and for that reason it could be said that the decision to keep these Africans out of slavery would not necessarily serve as a precedent for those African- Americans already enslaved. These slaves got justice, but due to the narrowly defined court decision the judgment did not translate into justice for other slaves. N.B. That is not to say the the arguments made in the various trials did not lend support to the abolitionist cause. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I read in an article that there was a historian on set, overseeing the filming of ''Amistad''; showing that it was Spielberg's intention to have the majority of the facts historically accurate. This is a great film and regardless of the historical inaccuracies in ''Amistad'', in my opinion, Spielberg and the other film makers were courageous in creating a film that broke the mold. Slavery as told by the perspective of the victims is rarely if ever portrayed on the big screen. It does a good job of showing the American public that the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln were amongst a number of key events on the road to the emancipation of slaves. -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
Touching on Jackie's point, to be honest I never learned about the Amistad case until class on Tuesday. I don't recall my history books ever mentioning it which is a pity because it is a truly remarkable event in history and it should be taught to history classes. Also, I absolutely loved Yamba. I thought his character was amazing. Whether he was based off of a real figure or not, I don't really care. He was simply wonderful. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Why were there not more captions? It seemed like most of the time what was being said by the Mende was not important enough to caption. I felt like if they were going to have them talk it would have been better to caption it all, that way maybe they coculd show some insight to what they were thinking. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Though we touched on this movie in high school (mostly to show the horrors of the Middle Passage) I agree with Jason as to why this movie has in some ways failed to capture the public's imagination. As inspiring as JQA's final speech was (loved the portrait of JA slightly blurred over his shoulder), as in real life this wasn't an anti-slavery ruling. This was a matter of property. Perhaps this is why when asked most people probably wouldn't come up with this film before other examples of Spielberg historic films. I know I would have referenced Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, and Munich before Amistad, which in some ways is a shame. Ultimately I feel that this movie is most valuable in its depiction of the Middle Passage which struck me as the most realistic that filmmakers could likely get away with.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Overall, ''Amistad'' is my favorite of the movies we’ve watched so far, and it's probably the strongest in its impact on the viewer. With Steven Spielberg, John Williams, and talented actors, it better be good. Though Morgan Freeman always seems to play the same character (whatever works), I could barely recognize Anthony Hopkins and Matthew McConaughey. I also want to say it’s the most historically accurate film that we’ve watched so far, but I’m not sure if I’m confident enough to say that. It’s not without its problems. I think one of the biggest issues is that the Amistad case was made out to be some kind of turning point in antislavery, but the case was more about illegal slavery than slavery itself. Also, the characters kept mentioning a civil war between the North and South, as though everyone knew it was definitely going to happen. The movie even seemed to make it look like the Amistad case was one of the causes! --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Overall I thought the movie was really well done. It seems to be the most historically accurate movie we have watched which may have somethng to do with why it is not very well known. I think another thing to consider is how well did this movie do when it came out, did it come out the same time as some other bigger movie? - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Another thing to consider is this movie is about slavery and tries to accuratly represent what happened to slaves atleast on the passage over. How many people are going to be willing to see a movie about a subject in our nations's history that we don't like to talk about to begin with especially if it portrays us in a bad light and is graphic. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I may have heard J.Q. Adams wrong but it sounded like he suggested tearing up the word of Jefferson in the court oom. I am pretty sure that would not go over very well with anyone in the court.-- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
Another thing that stood out to me was why would any of the prisoners be let out of their cells? espesiecly a possible slave in a property dispute.</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_5_Questions/Comments329--Week 5 Questions/Comments2008-09-24T22:42:15Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* a Right: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== a Right: ==<br />
We've discussed in class the importance of the language barrier between two cultures and how well have movies portrayed this (or not portrayed it at well). Past movies we've watched such as Pocahontas brought up questions such as how does everyone, including the Native Americans, know English even before the British arrived in the New World. Having the Mendes speak in their native tongue provides an authentic feel to the movie, but also conveys an important factor during these trials. The fact that the Mendes neither spoke English nor Spanish made it difficult for communication between Baldwin and Cinque and in court, which the movie gets right...even adding a touch of humor to this aspect. - David F<br />
<br />
Aagh! You totally stole my comment! I agree, Amistad was an amazing way to show how addressing language barrier can actually strengthen a movie's plot and themes. Not only do we see how Baldwin and Cinque struggle to understand one another (sometimes comedically, sometimes seriously) but we see how it helps the grow as people through understanding each other's cultures, and it also is used as evidence that the Mendi are born Africans. This leads to themes- like a people who can't speak for themselves, but overcome the impossible injustices they face as free people. I thought it was a fascinating directorial choice to not use subtitles for the Mendi until about 20-30 min. into the film. The Spanish get subtitles but audience is purposely put in the dark about what the Mendi are saying until people start to really try to talk to them. It makes it take longer for the viewer to understand and get to know the Mendi. It makes them seem foreign, and bewildering, and a bit nonsensical too, like we are looking from the point of view of the Americans who are either ignoring them as intelligent people of another culture or as the Americans who are trying to help them but can't communicate with them. --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
Right - still going off the same thing... I am a little more skeptical - the humor that D-Flo refers to sticks out in my mind. When Baldwin and Cinque are both saying "how do I find out where you're from" and "how can I tell you where I'm from" I am just a little skeptical. I like to think that through language barriers we all can think similarly and problem solve though. Another instance is when Cinque is asking all the questions via the translator to JQA. I thought it was interesting to note that JQA's argument did end up being in essence Cinque's words. To summarize - I felt that Amistad did a good job of portraying the language barrier, but did have a few inconsistencies in this area (which were most likely purposeful for entertainment value). -Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
<br />
At the point where Holabird is questioning Cinque about slavery within Africa, there is trouble in translation because 'slave' can only be translated as 'worker.' We see an example of this when Olaudah Equiano writes of slavery in Africa as an entirely different concept--workers or servants, and he was well-treated and included--than what started happening once he got to the coast. However, with Holabird's argument that whether it's slavery or indentured servitude, the concept is the same, the film gives little indication to the viewer that the concept truly is different. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
It's good to have the British captain confirm to Holabird in testimony that Cinque's account of the captives' treatment was a common occurrence, so the viewer understands that as well. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
I thought that regarding the initial court proceedings, the movie portrayed the varied interests well. That there were many groups: the abolitionists, the state, Ruis and Mendez, and the two guys from LI helped show how this trial was at times confusing for everyone involved. Also I believe the movie did well to show how the case became a symbol greater than the fate of the Amistad slaves. The abolitionists wanted them to be the first major blow against slavery while MVB wanted the case to fall in his favor to appease southern pressure. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I think the movie portrayed the middle passage with ample brutality and accuracy. Since I cannot believe that conditions would have been any better, were they any worse? As far as middle passage portrayals go, where does this one rank? Have there been many other portrayals? In other words, was this the fist exposure the American public had to the reality of "The Middle Passage"? - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
As with many others, I felt the movie portrayed the language barrier fairly well. I like the humor that comes out in the movie here and there. I also felt that the directors did well with portraying the conditions of captured Africans and slaves on the ships as well. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
One other event the movie got right was the part where Baldwin is shouting out numbers in Mende to see if anyone would understand him. Fortunately, someone understood him! ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
The part I felt that was portrayed best historically was the slave ship scenes. They do a very good job at showing the terrible conditions shown towards slaves similar to the account given from the readings. The ships clearly showed the crowded conditions punishments and the situations where the sick are tossed overboard. The only problem I had with these parts is that there was a significant amount of women and children on board the ships. This does not seem likely because the preferred slaves of Europeans would be males. Women and children slaves aboard ships would also be the first ones likely to be thrown overboard.- Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
One thing I noticed about Dr. M's lecture was the overwhelming amount of historical figures involved with the trial surrounding the Amistad slaves. So a question I asked myself before watching the movie was which historical characters would the movie focus on. The most obvious is Joseph Cinque (but I probably would not have known this if I haven't heard of this film before), but I think you could argue that every other name Dr. M mentioned in class deserved much focus in order to understand the history of the Amistad trial. Roger Baldwin and JQA are the other two figures the movie gives more screen time to, but I feel like much more important figures deserve greater insight and character development. For example, President Van Buren would have had much to say about the trial since he was up for re-election during this time period. Also, I initially thought Morgan Freeman's character was a reflection of James Pennington, but after reading "Reel History," I discovered that Theodore was fictitious and that the movie was actually criticized for not including those prominent blacks involved with the abolition movement (71). Additionally, other important historical figures such as Queen Isabella of Spain (at least I think she was a Queen in the movie) and the Grimke sisters needed more emphasis to understand this historical event. - David F.<br />
<br />
David sort of touches on my question about who WAS Morgan Freeman's character? I don't quite understand why the entire movie would build itself upon actual people and then when it comes to the black abolitionist, they create a new character. We knew that there was a Reverend Pennington, so why not actually base Freeman's character on him? --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I have a few things to say about the characters. Matthew McConaughey's character of Roger Baldwin was full humor, but I thought that depiction was inaccurate. Dr. M said the real Baldwin was in his 40's, whereas in the movie, he was depicted as a young, fresh, and inexperienced lawyer. It can be argued that he was this movie's eye candy, as Jackie might say. His important role in the trials was right, but it was he who talked to John Quincy Adams in the movie to get involved in the trials, not Lewis Tappan, as it was in reality. As for Queen Isabella, was she really eleven or was she younger? -Lauren<br />
<br />
Actually I would say the eye candy of this movie was either Cinque, who was constantly shirtless, or Covey, who was just so damn pretty- but my silliness aside, I thought this was one of Matthew McConaughey's finer roles. And between his costume (shabby dress and sideburns) and his convincing performance as a compelling lawyer (though inexperienced in the courtroom) I think his usual stereotype as a leading man hottie is irrelevant here as is his age, since he still came across as serious as and as strong as Morgan Freeman or Anthony Hopkins. But, I was also peeved by the Morgan Freeman character fabrication issue. "Of course it's him!" I said to myself as soon as I heard the voice. If there is going to be a wise, cunning, and quietly righteous black man in a period film, it is going to be played by Freeman! But when you've got such a fail-safe stock character like that, why bother trying portray the connections to the real freed black abolitionist, James Pennington? And how about those female speaking roles... or should I say role! I can understand when a movie is made about a time when women weren't put in the history books, but there WERE the Grimke sisters, who were certainly more prominent in the publicity around the case than a man who never existed (Freeman)! The only individual female character we see is the self-centered, pre-teen Queen Isabela II. Way to make women look good Hollywood! But hey, at least they didn't invent or fabricate a love story for once!--Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
How involved was Queen Isabella? I remember learning that the Spanish Ambassador to the US got his panties in a twist over this whole issue, but I don't recall hearing how involved and aware Isabella was in the incident. It makes sense for her to be aware of the event and to care about it, but how much of an active part did she play? Also, how much of a complete nutbag was John Quincey Adams? The movie, to me, made him seem like he was a bit, well, off mentally. Was it just old age? --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
The Lewis Tappan Document describes the jail arrangements of the Amistad captives. In this source Cinque is jailed with other criminals separate from his people. He is also not allowed to be removed from said cell because he was not trusted. This is VERY different in the film, in which Cinque leaves the cell on many occasions and is even unchained in the presence of John Quincy Adams in his study. -Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Question - How many women and children were aboard the Amistad and made it out alive? It struck me as odd that there would be young and female survivors of this entire ordeal - given Cinque's account of killing off/starving/drowning the weak and less profitable slaves on the original journey, tacked onto the fact that the majority of slaves in the trade were men in the first place. - Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Answer: I thought there were a few women and children survivors that made it onto the Amistad. As for why they would be there in the first place, I imagine, is because (with a mix of men and women) slaveowners would hope that they would procreate and then their children would become the property of the slave-owners who bought them (free slaves basically).--Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
So we know that they really appealed to the District Court, and didn't replace the judge, and that they appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, too. But what's the deal with the trial? It looks like Adams gives a little, powerful speech based on Cinque's words...nothing close to an 8.5-hour oratory. Are we supposed to assume that the arguments made in lesser courts are also made before the Supreme Court before what we see, or that Adams's little bit was all it took for the court to hear the case and rule on it? -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
Wait. Whitney. Did you really want the movie to go on for another 8.5 hrs? Baldwin gave a speech and testimony (repeating mostly what he had already argued in lower courts) over a period of two days, but ALL of that happened off camera. I think we should cut the filmmakers some slack on summary of Adams' real speech. --Jackie<br />
<br />
I agree, the movie was long enough as it was. I would have never wanted it to go on longer so that it could include a longer speech made by Adams. You get the basic understanding of what was happening without going into more detail in the court arguments. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
A number of people have already made comments on this but I, too, have something to say about Matthew McConaughey's Baldwin. As we learned in class yesterday, Baldwin was a Yale educated lawyer ''known'' for defending the unfortunate. If his name was already well known in society then he had to have been around for a few years. As we learn every week, it is up to the discretion of the film makers as to how a certain character should look/talk/act etc. but I just found this typical, romanticized Hollywood to have an up and coming actor play an up and coming lawyer. -- Mallory C. <br />
<br />
Was it accurate to have Evangelicals wearing crosses? I was under the impression that wearing a cross was much more prevalent in Catholicism and that it was more common for Evangelicals to carry around Bibles. -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
If I remember, Dr. M said that there were only 4 crew and the 2 guys who from Cuba or whatever. There looked to be a lot more than that at the beginning of the movie. I guess most Americans would find 4 crewman as unbelievable or something like that... --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
How did all of a sudden Cinque seem to know so much about American law? I know that his questions were being translated but still, I would never expect that he would have any understanding of the concepts behind why certain things were being done. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I felt that they gave the cargo hold waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much height and space, because from lecture on Tuesday it was like the area was usually barely tall enough for the Africans to sit up, much less fully stand with room still between their heads and the ceiling. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I too wondered about whether the Middle Passage scenes should have been even harsher, though they were effective in showing the inhumanity of the situation. I did wonder whether a woman that was super pregnant would be selected to make the journey knowing full well the conditions were less than optimal for childbirth? Also, I guess this is nitpicking but I believe that only 5 of the 9 Justices were slave owners but in the film it was reported that 7 held slaves. Lastly, I have always read that JQA was one of, if not the smartest of the presidents, so was it accurate to have him be such a bumbling eccentric?-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
I thought Morgan Freeman’s character might be a fabrication at first because he didn’t seems to fit with the Pennington discussed in class. It turns out he was indeed made up for the movie. What was the purpose of Joadson at all? And, of course, I was expecting a ''Big Damn Heroes'' moment from John Quincy Adams considering how much they were building it up. And that’s what we get. Now, the speech had pretty much nothing to do with the trial, and it was all about anti-slavery which would have turned off the Southern judges, and, hey, it only ''felt'' like it was hours long instead of being the actual eight hours of JQA’s real speech, but it was awesome. Still, I would have loved to see the judges dismiss everything he said like they did in real life, but then again, the movie isn’t a comedy. And it ''would'' have been funny to see, since he was set up as the final hope since the start of the movie. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Would they really have had to work that hard to convince JQA to take the case becuase in the movie it seemed like JQA was really not interested and it took asking by several people before he agreed to come hear Cinque's story. It was only after he had talked to Cinque that he agreed to take the case.- Christine W.<br />
<br />
I was surprised to see how quickly Cinque picked up on American law when he was questioning JQA via the translator. What is the likelihood that thru a translator he would have been able to understand American law that quickly and understand it enough to be able to question it. - Christine W. <br />
<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to current scholarship or to primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
The portrayal of Cinque fit the description of him by Lewis Tappan. Tappan described Cinque as having "a good deal of gracefulness and native diginity (Tappan, p. 351)." In the movie, Djimon Hounsou who played Cinque was able to get that description across great. His presence was so strong and that of a leader. He looked like he was born to the position that he achieved as his character. He was dignified as he walked about and testified in the courts, even in shackles. -Lauren<br />
<br />
Hounsou's Cinque has grace and dignity sometimes, particularly in court, with Adams, and telling his lion story, but a good deal of the time he is shouting with eyes wide and nostrils flared-whether on the Amistad or riled up in jail. In combination with certain postures and grunts at various points, that's more like raw African savage than the graceful and dignified native we see later. However, when Baldwin is trying to tell him that the other Mende captives look up to him, he is very modest, saying he cannot speak for them and telling his lion story. It is made clear that he hasn't always been their leader, when he's first arguing with Fala after the mutiny, who he continues to have tension with in the jail. However, at one point in the trial, Cinque notices all the fidgeting in the court and looks like he's about to lose it, but then stands up and starts saying "Give us, us free!" He is really made noble here, because not only is he holding out his manacled hands in front of him, but the sunlight is streaming through the window onto the Mendi just so, accompanied by angelic singing. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
There seems to be a lack of consistency when it comes to the description of the Mendi/ Mandingos in Tappan’s account and their representation in the film. Tappan describes Cinquez as “…about 5 feet 8 inches high, of fine proportions, with a noble air. Indeed, the whole company, although thin in flesh, and generally of slight forms, and limbs…The Mandingoes are described in books as being a very gentle race, cheerful in their dispositions, inquisitive, credulous, simple hearted and much given to trading propensities” (Tappan 350). In the movie none of the Mendi were 5’8, none of them were cheerful in disposition, and none of them had slight builds (true to one aspect of this description, Cinquez was inquisitive towards John Quincy Adams). So, who are we to believe? Tappan, who could have very well been sugar coating facts for sympathy in the case? Or Spielberg who could have used stereotypically strong and angry slave stock characters for dramatic appeal? – Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
Maritime History was a popular subject for films of 1997... Titanic anyone. --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
So we started the 90s with Native American films and moved on to Maritime films... Don't forget that Waterworld was made in 1995. :-p I liked it, but I await the 'cringes' --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
How much of The Civil War talk in the film was accurate? This event, and subsequent trials took place 20 years before the outbreak of The Civil War. Did the nation really feel like it was on the brink of civil war for this long? Or is this just another case of hindsight as we saw with the treatment of the Revolutionary War in ''Last of the Mohicans''? It is my opinion that the characters in the movie referenced an inevitable civil war exorbitantly. -Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
In a way, it kind of amazes me that this movie is not more well known. In my opinion, it is a good, solid movie. As a result, it makes me question why more people don't know if its existence. It has such a star-studded cast that you would think that over half of us in class would have known about it. This leads me to the question of subject matter -- do we think that because of the basic storyline, most people were turned off from the movie? Or was it just not publicized well enough? It's a shame because I think it's a movie that people would enjoy (and I didn't even mind the gore so much! Mostly because it was dark when they had the gross scenes.) --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
This movie does a GREAT job of articulating the abolitionist viewpoint, and telling a compelling story of slaves throwing off the shackles of their oppressors. For those reasons this movie makes a powerful and effective emotional impact. However, I feel that an accurate movie, made about a slave story from the south, would better challenge our understanding of that time in our history. I think the overall impact of this movie was diminished because it did not directly challenge American slavery on the ultimate battleground- the plantation. The story of the Amistad slaves was a court case largely decided by the letter of the law, and it set a narrow and particular precedent. A more effective movie would not only present the abolitionist cause, it would tell a story that served as an immediate catalyst for emancipation.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I don’t get choked up at movies very often, but the scenes on the Tecora… not only did I get a little choked up, I felt a little sick to my stomach. The crowded quarters, the lack of food, the beatings, the suicides, the sexual assaults, the complete disregard for life. I’d say it was pretty accurate. And even when it wasn’t (for instance, why would slave traders expect anyone to buy a baby?), I’m not sure if it necessarily matters that much. It was effective and intense. I think it needs to be as terrible and gruesome as possible because we’re ''supposed'' to find it repulsive. Slavery is repulsive. I don't believe we can really comprehend that unless we've seen it ourselves, and films can bring us a little closer to understanding. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
== 5 Other movies/questions of style/framing/storyline ==<br />
<br />
I take issue with the storyline that centers around the replacement of the judge. This did not happen, the case was appealed to another court. The film makes it look like Van Buren intervened in the proceedings and placed a judge on the bench that would rule against the Mende. The new judge is described as young, Catholic, and without anything to prove- a pawn of the Van Buren/ Calhoun contingency. Why would the film makers fabricate this part of the storyline? If the film makers wanted to demonize the governmental leaders of the time for their racist attitudes and policies, couldn’t they have just used the actual words of the men who held those beliefs? I’m sure we would find them offensive enough.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
== 6 Overall ==<br />
<br />
As was mentioned in class this morning, I wonder why the story of Amistad and the film are not more well known. With the extraordinary cast, director, and overall impact of the film, it's strange that it did not receive more recognition. Also, given that politicians were looking at this case as a monumental turning point to begin the civil war, how is it not more integral in our nation's history? Something that stuck with me was a line of JQA, something along the lines of - "I want the next generation to know the name Cinque as well as Patrick Henry." Why don't we? -Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Excellent points Elle! I am recommending this 10 year old movie to everyone I know cuz I only just found out how great it is! I think the history books gloss over the Amistad case in high schools because there wasn't just one action or event that sparked the Civil War. So many little things (though usually monument, like this, when looked at individually) lead to the impossible tension that caused the war to be arguably inevitable. But, I think what the movie is trying to show, is that nobody wanted that inevitable clash of the south and north to be on their head (as Calhoun says to van Buren in the film). As for the Patrick Henry thing, I think its hilarious that while we remember a man who famously spoke words that were not his own, we forget the man who had to have his own important words spoken by a translator (if that makes any sense)- what I mean to say is, that I believe the Cinque's sentiments on rights to freedom, heard second-hand, are better worth remembering than Patrick Henry's plagiarized speech, but only Antebellum African Americans they ever bother to teach are Frederick Douglas and Harriet Tudman --Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
<br />
I think the reason this particular story never made it into the popular folklore of our national history until 1997 (and it can be argued that it still has not) is because the court decision did not indict or attempt to dismantle the American institution of slavery. The story of the Amistad slaves was a custodial issue. The case boiled down to the fact that these Mende were illegally entered into the slave trade, and by happenstance ended up in America. No one in America had legitimate claim to them, so the Mende were allowed to be free. These Mende never participated in slave labor, and for that reason it could be said that the decision to keep these Africans out of slavery would not necessarily serve as a precedent for those African- Americans already enslaved. These slaves got justice, but due to the narrowly defined court decision the judgment did not translate into justice for other slaves. N.B. That is not to say the the arguments made in the various trials did not lend support to the abolitionist cause. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I read in an article that there was a historian on set, overseeing the filming of ''Amistad''; showing that it was Spielberg's intention to have the majority of the facts historically accurate. This is a great film and regardless of the historical inaccuracies in ''Amistad'', in my opinion, Spielberg and the other film makers were courageous in creating a film that broke the mold. Slavery as told by the perspective of the victims is rarely if ever portrayed on the big screen. It does a good job of showing the American public that the Civil War and Abraham Lincoln were amongst a number of key events on the road to the emancipation of slaves. -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
Touching on Jackie's point, to be honest I never learned about the Amistad case until class on Tuesday. I don't recall my history books ever mentioning it which is a pity because it is a truly remarkable event in history and it should be taught to history classes. Also, I absolutely loved Yamba. I thought his character was amazing. Whether he was based off of a real figure or not, I don't really care. He was simply wonderful. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Why were there not more captions? It seemed like most of the time what was being said by the Mende was not important enough to caption. I felt like if they were going to have them talk it would have been better to caption it all, that way maybe they coculd show some insight to what they were thinking. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
Though we touched on this movie in high school (mostly to show the horrors of the Middle Passage) I agree with Jason as to why this movie has in some ways failed to capture the public's imagination. As inspiring as JQA's final speech was (loved the portrait of JA slightly blurred over his shoulder), as in real life this wasn't an anti-slavery ruling. This was a matter of property. Perhaps this is why when asked most people probably wouldn't come up with this film before other examples of Spielberg historic films. I know I would have referenced Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, and Munich before Amistad, which in some ways is a shame. Ultimately I feel that this movie is most valuable in its depiction of the Middle Passage which struck me as the most realistic that filmmakers could likely get away with.-Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Overall, ''Amistad'' is my favorite of the movies we’ve watched so far, and it's probably the strongest in its impact on the viewer. With Steven Spielberg, John Williams, and talented actors, it better be good. Though Morgan Freeman always seems to play the same character (whatever works), I could barely recognize Anthony Hopkins and Matthew McConaughey. I also want to say it’s the most historically accurate film that we’ve watched so far, but I’m not sure if I’m confident enough to say that. It’s not without its problems. I think one of the biggest issues is that the Amistad case was made out to be some kind of turning point in antislavery, but the case was more about illegal slavery than slavery itself. Also, the characters kept mentioning a civil war between the North and South, as though everyone knew it was definitely going to happen. The movie even seemed to make it look like the Amistad case was one of the causes! --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Overall I thought the movie was really well done. It seems to be the most historically accurate movie we have watched which may have somethng to do with why it is not very well known. I think another thing to consider is how well did this movie do when it came out, did it come out the same time as some other bigger movie? - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Another thing to consider is this movie is about slavery and tries to accuratly represent what happened to slaves atleast on the passage over. How many people are going to be willing to see a movie about a subject in our nations's history that we don't like to talk about to begin with especially if it portrays us in a bad light and is graphic. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I may have heard J.Q. Adams wrong but it sounded like he suggested tearing up the word of Jefferson in the court oom. I am pretty sure that would not go over very well with anyone in the court.-- Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
Another thing that stood out to me was why would any of the prisoners be let out of their cells? espesiecly a possible slave in a property dispute.</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments329--Week 4 Questions/Comments2008-09-17T21:59:36Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 1b Inaccurate/issues: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1a Right: ==<br />
<br />
This is just a minor note, but the corn isn't perfect, so that is at least correct. Also (and I'm still in the beginning of the movie while I write this), the son Gaberial (in the Continental Army)had no gloves, but cloth wraps on his hands. That shows that there was enough to go around, even so early in the war.--Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
At the dinner table, while the armies are moving closer to the household, the one son mentions "Lord knows what they'll do to you women." That means that the movie at least wants to convey the impression that soldiers did harm to the women. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
I know this is going to be discussed quite a bit, but it really does bear mentioning: Mel Gibson must have been the first real American hero. It's the only possible reason for that godawful accent (he could have at least kept the Australian and been ''something'' that existed at the time!) --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
<br />
To comment on the portrayal of the blacks, the women looked like the stereotypical Mammies, albeit, not as plump as Scarlett O'Hara's mammy, but looking similar in dress and head covering. The women were shown to be obedient and efficient in their care for the children of their white masters. The men were all content in the movie as well, especially when the British came to "set them free." The blacks literally were dragged away from their white owners or landowners. Even though the black men were free, there weas no distinguishing for the British. Occam, the black militiaman, seems fine enough to serve in his master's stead. His master describes him as not smart but strong. The man's build is stereotypical of the African man made to laborious work, not for intellectual discussions. -Lauren<br />
<br />
So, Mel Gibson slaughtered innocents at a Disney resort and campground? That ''is'' sinful. Seriously, that’s the only Fort Wilderness I’ve ever heard of… --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Benjamin Martin doesn’t own slaves. They are freedmen and willingly work for him. He helps them plow the land. ''Of course''. After all, what kind of action hero can own slaves? Apparently, we want our heroes with pure intentions. Was this a situation that happened at all? Sure, the movie had some mentions of slavery and racism, but it was so secondary you’d almost forget the setting is South Carolina. It was nice to see that there were some blacks in the British lines during the final battle, though. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Were women allowed into General Assembly meetings? Were there really Black communities of freed or runaway slaves out on the open beach? That seems like a bad place to hang out, being in plain sight and what not. Weren’t most of those communities in various swamps? Also, why did Gabriel have such a low opinion of the guys who joined the militia? Wasn’t the Continental Army mostly made up of rabble and outcasts too? On the subject of the Continental Army, I always wonder at its depictions in paintings and other media. Considering they were often poorly supplied and oft-butt whupped by the British, what are the chances they would have fancy matching uniforms? Heck, at Valley Forge a lot soldiers were without the very basics (like shoes and coats), let alone pretty uniforms. Most importantly, were the British ever that brutal during the Revolution? Like, Naziesque burning people in a church brutal? I think not. People actually took note of the laws of war at that time. Anyway, wasn’t it the American guerilla forces who were committing the atrocities? --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
There are many things I felt that were deeply wrong portayals of history in the movie. The portrayal of peoples atitutudes toward slavery is majorly flawed with everybody, but one person (who comes to be tolerant later) treating slaves as equals. This is colonial South Carolina yet all the colonials are portrayed as all accepting and understanding of each other. Additionally the way Gabriel speaks up to his father and his father giving in is pretty absurd considering South Carolina during the colonial period is highly patriarchal. The scene where Mel Gibson massacres a bunch of soldiers with only a tomahawk does not help the movies realism factor ether. For people in South Carolina during the war it is not likely that they would have a strong national identity, but rather be focused on regional identities. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
Another thing that bothers me in this movie is that although this is an age of high child mortalities and illnesses are a serious problem, none of this is portrayed at all. All of the characters in the movie are shown as perfectly healthy. Combat and war was certainly not the only danger and conflict to the people at the time. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
In "Reel History", Toplin discusses how some historical movies have done poorly due to the fact that they have not had a clear-cut villain. However, in my opinion, this movie suffers from an almost Disney-like black and white villain portayal. We can obviously never know if the real Tarleton was as cold blooded or murderous, but it is not a stretch to assume that it was more for the benefit of the audience's entertainment rather than historical accuracy. --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
One thing the movie particularly glances over is that slavery was a big issue in the rhetoric of colonists fighting the war. The documents have frequent references to British policy as being slavery on Americans. This point is, however completely lost in this movie because of the movies false portrayal of peoples attitudes towards slavery. Slaves and free blacks were a very badly treated group in the South especially South Carolina, but the slaves and masters in the movie are shown living happily together with little or new tension between them. People in the colonies compared British actions to slavery precisely because they knew it would be absolutely horrible to be a slave. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
I don't know if this was true in the 'time period of the movie' but a trait that emerges from the year of the movie being made tried is a man can be proud and raise a family on his own without a wife. Single-parent homes are increasing nowadays, but they are not just headed by the mother now, there has been an increase in single parents father households. Yes I know the wife had died in the movie, but just saying that that is an aspect of today's time that comes out in the movie, at least to me. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
I just had a question and I wasn't sure to be it here or in another section, but were some in the colonies already referring to the 'nations of the colonies' as America? Its not that important I guess, but I was just curious about this. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Did the British really randomly burn fields and houses and kill all the livestock like that? That's just retarded if they did! Did they think "oh we can do whatever the hell we want and the people will still love us?" Bullshit! That'll just make people want to stand up against you because you destroyed their lives! What the fuck would they have left to worry about if you start doing that shit?? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Since this is a reaction I felt it fit here, the one British Colonel bothered me on familiarity, and then I placed it! Colonel William Tavington (The jerk) of the British militia, also plays Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter movies. I find it funny that Jason Isaacs plays a 'evil' and 'asshole' character. >^.^< I think Jason has a pattern building. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 5 Overall ==<br />
<br />
For the portrayals of colonial ex-soldiers who fought for the British during the French and Indian War, is it realistic to have a man stand up before a crowd and exclaim his grievances against the British Crown? He said his leg was cut off by the British after the war and proclaimed another limb was cut off metaphorically by the taxes! Was his leg really chopped off by the British or taken off because of war casualties? -Lauren<br />
<br />
Overall I feel as though this is by far the most accurate movie that we have watched yet. I watched a special making of feature on my DVD and was surprised at the amount of effort the movie's creators took to ensure that the costumes were as accurate as possible. The ideas for the uniforms came from actual revolutionary uniforms at the Smithsonian Museum. The featurette after the movie also talked about the basis for several of the main characters including Mel Gibson's character being based off of Thomas Sumter, Andrew Pickens and Francis Marion. It also mentioned Tarrington being based off of the real Tarleton. It seems to me that this movie did a good job with accuracy. While some of the actual battles may not be real they did mostly depict backwoods skirmishes.-- Kelly Sorber<br />
<br />
The rules of war really astonished me. I cant believe that men really would go after the officers first. I thought that this was just something the movie did to show Benjamin Martins hatred toward the British officers. I was surprised to read about this in this weeks readings. But I guess when you think about the "rules of war" didn't really apply to this war when so many officers ordered the killing of women and children. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In the beginning when the British come to Martin's home the officer tells the slaves that if they go to join with the British they will be granted freedom. One of the slaves says that they are already freemen. Is this true? Are his slaves really free or are they just saying that? If they are really free how common was that for the free slaves to stay and work on a southern plantation? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I was shocked to read about how some men really did aim for the officers because in the movie there is a scene where Mel tells his sons to start with the officers and work their way down. I always thought this was just a way to show how distraught Mel was over the killing of his son. It also makes me question the brutality in the rest of the movie. Was it accurate or exaggerated to show the hatred between Mel and Tavington. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
After the movie I watched a one of the bonus features of the movie called True Patriot. In it the writers, producers, and other people who worked on the movie talked about the research they did in order to be historically accurate. It was really interesting to hear that the half built house the former militia members were working on at the end was meant to symbolize the building of a new nation and how the hardest part was going to be the issue of slavery. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
This movie also did a much better job of showing the passage of time. As you watch you can really believe several years have passed during the course of the movie. The romances are also more believable at least Gabriel's (Heath Ledger) was, Mel's was a little bit more questionable. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Following along with Christine's comment, I don't care if these sorts of romances actually happened, but seriously. She was his dead wife's sister. If that was just a way for the filmmakers to grant Mel Gibson a leading lady, then they should have just opted out of that one. Too creepy for my taste, thank you. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In the beginning at the SC Assembly in Charles Town, one man says that we are "one nation, an American Nation," and someone says that they are "citizens of an American Nation." But at this point they were still considering themselves citizens of individual colonies, right? None of this one nation business, but thirteen colonies to become independent from Britain. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
Repeated Inaccuracies: a) Once again, throughout the whole movie, we see amazing accuracy in shooting with muskets. Accuracy is vague when it gets to the face-to-face in lines on a field kind of fighting, but when the militia, and even Samuel and Nathan early on, are shooting, they're much better shots than the British regulars. b) really early on, when we see Continental soldiers (?) opening up nice, huge, sheaves of yellow, genetically engineered corn. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed in the movie that we discussed in class was how some white soldiers disapproved of black men being allowed to enlist in the militia. There was one scene in particular which I thought the movie got right where one of the white soldiers made a snide comment on how he believed that black soldiers should not be given weapons. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
Were incidents of excessive cruelty, such as the one where all the townspeople are told to go into the church, and are locked up and then the church is burned down with them still in the church, common, or were incidents like that one in the movie used just for dramatic effect in the movie? ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
As for how the upper-class are portrayed in this movie, I think the British upper-class were portrayed as rather silly, and air-headed. An example of this is when Benjamin Martin and his men dress up as British soldiers, and burn down the British ship that is docked while the British are having a party. As the ship bursts into flames, one of the ladies at the party looks at the ship, laughs, and squeals "Ooh fireworks!", indicating that she clearly has no idea what was happening. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
Katherine, I think I remember the woman holding a seeing glass. Could it be the she couldn't see very well?-Lauren<br />
<br />
Question about Charlotte: Did she happen to own that plantation herself? Inheritance? Was she widowed? It doesn't appear she had anyone with her there or in town except slaves, and there is no indication that a husband or brother was away fighting. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
I really enjoy this movie but there are a few things that I have to point out that did not fit. Amanda has already touched on this but many of the characters have different accents. Benjamin - Americanized English, Gabriel- Australian and then the younger son, Thomas - British. All the while various characters in the movie have different accents. Also, I believe two young, unwed people kissing in public would have been frowned upon, i.e. Gabriel and Anne. - Mallory C.<br />
<br />
Overall, this movie does a good job at portraying the events that happened during the Revolutionary War through its accurate representation of clothing, military formations, style of combat, gender roles, and depictions of the British and colonists in general. The movie also does a good job at providing an overall background for what was happening elsewhere during the Revolution, doing this by making up conversations (usually with messengers) about what else was going on up north, with Washington’s army, and with other factors involved in the war. The movie also provides insight about how slaves, neutral colonists, fathers and sons, and women thought about the war. However, it occurs that this movie seems a little biased toward the British because the movie’s point of view portrays the British as the evil and sinister empire that brutally destroys everything in sight, and the turn of unfortunate events experienced by the patriot militia automatically gears the viewer to root for the Patriots. Point is; if the British made a movie about the same events, would they have depicted them and portrayed them the same way this movie has? Would the British capitalize on making the Patriots out to be the evil, sinister, disobeying, disloyal debtors? <br />
–James D.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think one things this movie touched on well was the scarier side to having the "home field advantage." Often in history classes the notion that the Patriots had the battle fought on their own soil is praised and often accredited with aiding the Patriots when it came to winning the war. And while this may be true, the darker aspects to having this advantage are often overlooked. In the movie, it became clearer how violent the opposing armies were and how close these battles came to homes. I think this is an aspect often overlooked and it's a scary notion that battles were being fought literally in backyards. The British were able to avoid a number civilian deaths on their side for this very reason (Excluding the Loyalists.) --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
While watching the movie it seemed to me that most young men were extremely eager to join up with the Regulars. Was this an honest representation? I can understand Mel Gibson's point of view and not wanting his sons to join up, but Gabriel and Thomas seemed more than ready to run off to the camps. I didn't think men were that eager to be volunteering. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
One more question - Were the Militias the groups of men using the guerrilla tactics? I noticed there was a difference between the Regulars and the Militia but I wasn't sure if that was the difference between the two. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
''The Patriot'' did a good job of showing how uniformed and precise the British Army was, which is also seen in ''The Last of the Mohicans''. The movie also portrays the brutality of the war, not only the soldiers who suffered fighting on the line and endured harsh winters, but also the effect the war had on civilians. Much of the fighting was done on farms and in front/ behind people's homes which ultimately led to many homes being destroyed. I am curious though, would the militia also have had uniforms? And how were they funded? --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I couldn't help but make some references to ''Braveheart'' while watching ''The Patriot'': When Mel Gibson is running out of his burning house with weapons in hand and also towards the end when Mel Gibson is riding on his horse with the colonist's flag waving behind, he is riding up and down the line of soldiers, just as William Wallace did. -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
Would women be allowed in a meeting of the legislature? When Gabriel comes to the church to enlist the men of the village and none of them made any moves to get up and go, Anne called them out. Was it probable for a woman to do this?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
There was no widespread loyalism shown in the movie, in fact, Wilkins is the only loyalist that springs to mind.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Is that how prisoner exchange worked? Wouldn't the British have sent someone out first to verify "the ghost's" claims?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Was that a maroon community that we saw? Was it an accurate depiction?- Jason Ward <br />
<br />
One issue I have with the time progression is that Cornwallis was in South Carolina for about the entire movie. Even if that is true, the Storyline would have us believe that Martin and his band of renegades were the only force keeping the British in South Carolina. The only mention they make of the regulars after a while was that Gates was a "damn fool", and there is no mention of fellow patriotic militia groups doing their part to chip away at the British force. It just seems like Martin's group of militia was singlehandedly preventing British advancement. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
The movie made it seem as though the Americans and the French had patched up all of their old wounds and that the fraternity of being soldiers together would last forever. The Letter from George Mason in the reading, ''Boisterous Sea of Liberty'', painted a different picture. Mason said that Virginians did not trust the French and that they expected the French to exploit post- war American weaknesses. These fears were real enough to lead the Americans to sign a separate peace with England.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Overall, the movie wasn’t bad. It was fairly entertaining, and the cast was made up of some pretty awesome actors, like Jason Isaacs (always playing the bad guy) and Rene Auberjonois. However, the romance was cliché. I had a sinking feeling of dread that Ben and Aunt Charlotte would get together the first time they stood in the same vicinity as each other. And so it was. Then we have Benjamin Martin not willing to fight the British, but when his son is killed we see him go into ''Action Hero Rambo'' mode where he beats down twenty redcoats with a little help from his younger sons. That was definitely in the vein of Hollywood revenge/action flicks of the... well, for many years now. And let's not talk about those parenting skills. --Taylor Brann</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments329--Week 4 Questions/Comments2008-09-17T21:52:26Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 2 Film's relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1a Right: ==<br />
<br />
This is just a minor note, but the corn isn't perfect, so that is at least correct. Also (and I'm still in the beginning of the movie while I write this), the son Gaberial (in the Continental Army)had no gloves, but cloth wraps on his hands. That shows that there was enough to go around, even so early in the war.--Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
At the dinner table, while the armies are moving closer to the household, the one son mentions "Lord knows what they'll do to you women." That means that the movie at least wants to convey the impression that soldiers did harm to the women. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
I know this is going to be discussed quite a bit, but it really does bear mentioning: Mel Gibson must have been the first real American hero. It's the only possible reason for that godawful accent (he could have at least kept the Australian and been ''something'' that existed at the time!) --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
<br />
To comment on the portrayal of the blacks, the women looked like the stereotypical Mammies, albeit, not as plump as Scarlett O'Hara's mammy, but looking similar in dress and head covering. The women were shown to be obedient and efficient in their care for the children of their white masters. The men were all content in the movie as well, especially when the British came to "set them free." The blacks literally were dragged away from their white owners or landowners. Even though the black men were free, there weas no distinguishing for the British. Occam, the black militiaman, seems fine enough to serve in his master's stead. His master describes him as not smart but strong. The man's build is stereotypical of the African man made to laborious work, not for intellectual discussions. -Lauren<br />
<br />
So, Mel Gibson slaughtered innocents at a Disney resort and campground? That ''is'' sinful. Seriously, that’s the only Fort Wilderness I’ve ever heard of… --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Benjamin Martin doesn’t own slaves. They are freedmen and willingly work for him. He helps them plow the land. ''Of course''. After all, what kind of action hero can own slaves? Apparently, we want our heroes with pure intentions. Was this a situation that happened at all? Sure, the movie had some mentions of slavery and racism, but it was so secondary you’d almost forget the setting is South Carolina. It was nice to see that there were some blacks in the British lines during the final battle, though. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Were women allowed into General Assembly meetings? Were there really Black communities of freed or runaway slaves out on the open beach? That seems like a bad place to hang out, being in plain sight and what not. Weren’t most of those communities in various swamps? Also, why did Gabriel have such a low opinion of the guys who joined the militia? Wasn’t the Continental Army mostly made up of rabble and outcasts too? On the subject of the Continental Army, I always wonder at its depictions in paintings and other media. Considering they were often poorly supplied and oft-butt whupped by the British, what are the chances they would have fancy matching uniforms? Heck, at Valley Forge a lot soldiers were without the very basics (like shoes and coats), let alone pretty uniforms. Most importantly, were the British ever that brutal during the Revolution? Like, Naziesque burning people in a church brutal? I think not. People actually took note of the laws of war at that time. Anyway, wasn’t it the American guerilla forces who were committing the atrocities? --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
There are many things I felt that were deeply wrong portayals of history in the movie. The portrayal of peoples atitutudes toward slavery is majorly flawed with everybody, but one person (who comes to be tolerant later) treating slaves as equals. This is colonial South Carolina yet all the colonials are portrayed as all accepting and understanding of each other. Additionally the way Gabriel speaks up to his father and his father giving in is pretty absurd considering South Carolina during the colonial period is highly patriarchal. The scene where Mel Gibson massacres a bunch of soldiers with only a tomahawk does not help the movies realism factor ether. For people in South Carolina during the war it is not likely that they would have a strong national identity, but rather be focused on regional identities. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
In "Reel History", Toplin discusses how some historical movies have done poorly due to the fact that they have not had a clear-cut villain. However, in my opinion, this movie suffers from an almost Disney-like black and white villain portayal. We can obviously never know if the real Tarleton was as cold blooded or murderous, but it is not a stretch to assume that it was more for the benefit of the audience's entertainment rather than historical accuracy. --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
One thing the movie particularly glances over is that slavery was a big issue in the rhetoric of colonists fighting the war. The documents have frequent references to British policy as being slavery on Americans. This point is, however completely lost in this movie because of the movies false portrayal of peoples attitudes towards slavery. Slaves and free blacks were a very badly treated group in the South especially South Carolina, but the slaves and masters in the movie are shown living happily together with little or new tension between them. People in the colonies compared British actions to slavery precisely because they knew it would be absolutely horrible to be a slave. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
I don't know if this was true in the 'time period of the movie' but a trait that emerges from the year of the movie being made tried is a man can be proud and raise a family on his own without a wife. Single-parent homes are increasing nowadays, but they are not just headed by the mother now, there has been an increase in single parents father households. Yes I know the wife had died in the movie, but just saying that that is an aspect of today's time that comes out in the movie, at least to me. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
I just had a question and I wasn't sure to be it here or in another section, but were some in the colonies already referring to the 'nations of the colonies' as America? Its not that important I guess, but I was just curious about this. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Did the British really randomly burn fields and houses and kill all the livestock like that? That's just retarded if they did! Did they think "oh we can do whatever the hell we want and the people will still love us?" Bullshit! That'll just make people want to stand up against you because you destroyed their lives! What the fuck would they have left to worry about if you start doing that shit?? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Since this is a reaction I felt it fit here, the one British Colonel bothered me on familiarity, and then I placed it! Colonel William Tavington (The jerk) of the British militia, also plays Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter movies. I find it funny that Jason Isaacs plays a 'evil' and 'asshole' character. >^.^< I think Jason has a pattern building. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 5 Overall ==<br />
<br />
For the portrayals of colonial ex-soldiers who fought for the British during the French and Indian War, is it realistic to have a man stand up before a crowd and exclaim his grievances against the British Crown? He said his leg was cut off by the British after the war and proclaimed another limb was cut off metaphorically by the taxes! Was his leg really chopped off by the British or taken off because of war casualties? -Lauren<br />
<br />
Overall I feel as though this is by far the most accurate movie that we have watched yet. I watched a special making of feature on my DVD and was surprised at the amount of effort the movie's creators took to ensure that the costumes were as accurate as possible. The ideas for the uniforms came from actual revolutionary uniforms at the Smithsonian Museum. The featurette after the movie also talked about the basis for several of the main characters including Mel Gibson's character being based off of Thomas Sumter, Andrew Pickens and Francis Marion. It also mentioned Tarrington being based off of the real Tarleton. It seems to me that this movie did a good job with accuracy. While some of the actual battles may not be real they did mostly depict backwoods skirmishes.-- Kelly Sorber<br />
<br />
The rules of war really astonished me. I cant believe that men really would go after the officers first. I thought that this was just something the movie did to show Benjamin Martins hatred toward the British officers. I was surprised to read about this in this weeks readings. But I guess when you think about the "rules of war" didn't really apply to this war when so many officers ordered the killing of women and children. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In the beginning when the British come to Martin's home the officer tells the slaves that if they go to join with the British they will be granted freedom. One of the slaves says that they are already freemen. Is this true? Are his slaves really free or are they just saying that? If they are really free how common was that for the free slaves to stay and work on a southern plantation? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I was shocked to read about how some men really did aim for the officers because in the movie there is a scene where Mel tells his sons to start with the officers and work their way down. I always thought this was just a way to show how distraught Mel was over the killing of his son. It also makes me question the brutality in the rest of the movie. Was it accurate or exaggerated to show the hatred between Mel and Tavington. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
After the movie I watched a one of the bonus features of the movie called True Patriot. In it the writers, producers, and other people who worked on the movie talked about the research they did in order to be historically accurate. It was really interesting to hear that the half built house the former militia members were working on at the end was meant to symbolize the building of a new nation and how the hardest part was going to be the issue of slavery. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
This movie also did a much better job of showing the passage of time. As you watch you can really believe several years have passed during the course of the movie. The romances are also more believable at least Gabriel's (Heath Ledger) was, Mel's was a little bit more questionable. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Following along with Christine's comment, I don't care if these sorts of romances actually happened, but seriously. She was his dead wife's sister. If that was just a way for the filmmakers to grant Mel Gibson a leading lady, then they should have just opted out of that one. Too creepy for my taste, thank you. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In the beginning at the SC Assembly in Charles Town, one man says that we are "one nation, an American Nation," and someone says that they are "citizens of an American Nation." But at this point they were still considering themselves citizens of individual colonies, right? None of this one nation business, but thirteen colonies to become independent from Britain. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
Repeated Inaccuracies: a) Once again, throughout the whole movie, we see amazing accuracy in shooting with muskets. Accuracy is vague when it gets to the face-to-face in lines on a field kind of fighting, but when the militia, and even Samuel and Nathan early on, are shooting, they're much better shots than the British regulars. b) really early on, when we see Continental soldiers (?) opening up nice, huge, sheaves of yellow, genetically engineered corn. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed in the movie that we discussed in class was how some white soldiers disapproved of black men being allowed to enlist in the militia. There was one scene in particular which I thought the movie got right where one of the white soldiers made a snide comment on how he believed that black soldiers should not be given weapons. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
Were incidents of excessive cruelty, such as the one where all the townspeople are told to go into the church, and are locked up and then the church is burned down with them still in the church, common, or were incidents like that one in the movie used just for dramatic effect in the movie? ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
As for how the upper-class are portrayed in this movie, I think the British upper-class were portrayed as rather silly, and air-headed. An example of this is when Benjamin Martin and his men dress up as British soldiers, and burn down the British ship that is docked while the British are having a party. As the ship bursts into flames, one of the ladies at the party looks at the ship, laughs, and squeals "Ooh fireworks!", indicating that she clearly has no idea what was happening. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
Katherine, I think I remember the woman holding a seeing glass. Could it be the she couldn't see very well?-Lauren<br />
<br />
Question about Charlotte: Did she happen to own that plantation herself? Inheritance? Was she widowed? It doesn't appear she had anyone with her there or in town except slaves, and there is no indication that a husband or brother was away fighting. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
I really enjoy this movie but there are a few things that I have to point out that did not fit. Amanda has already touched on this but many of the characters have different accents. Benjamin - Americanized English, Gabriel- Australian and then the younger son, Thomas - British. All the while various characters in the movie have different accents. Also, I believe two young, unwed people kissing in public would have been frowned upon, i.e. Gabriel and Anne. - Mallory C.<br />
<br />
Overall, this movie does a good job at portraying the events that happened during the Revolutionary War through its accurate representation of clothing, military formations, style of combat, gender roles, and depictions of the British and colonists in general. The movie also does a good job at providing an overall background for what was happening elsewhere during the Revolution, doing this by making up conversations (usually with messengers) about what else was going on up north, with Washington’s army, and with other factors involved in the war. The movie also provides insight about how slaves, neutral colonists, fathers and sons, and women thought about the war. However, it occurs that this movie seems a little biased toward the British because the movie’s point of view portrays the British as the evil and sinister empire that brutally destroys everything in sight, and the turn of unfortunate events experienced by the patriot militia automatically gears the viewer to root for the Patriots. Point is; if the British made a movie about the same events, would they have depicted them and portrayed them the same way this movie has? Would the British capitalize on making the Patriots out to be the evil, sinister, disobeying, disloyal debtors? <br />
–James D.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think one things this movie touched on well was the scarier side to having the "home field advantage." Often in history classes the notion that the Patriots had the battle fought on their own soil is praised and often accredited with aiding the Patriots when it came to winning the war. And while this may be true, the darker aspects to having this advantage are often overlooked. In the movie, it became clearer how violent the opposing armies were and how close these battles came to homes. I think this is an aspect often overlooked and it's a scary notion that battles were being fought literally in backyards. The British were able to avoid a number civilian deaths on their side for this very reason (Excluding the Loyalists.) --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
While watching the movie it seemed to me that most young men were extremely eager to join up with the Regulars. Was this an honest representation? I can understand Mel Gibson's point of view and not wanting his sons to join up, but Gabriel and Thomas seemed more than ready to run off to the camps. I didn't think men were that eager to be volunteering. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
One more question - Were the Militias the groups of men using the guerrilla tactics? I noticed there was a difference between the Regulars and the Militia but I wasn't sure if that was the difference between the two. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
''The Patriot'' did a good job of showing how uniformed and precise the British Army was, which is also seen in ''The Last of the Mohicans''. The movie also portrays the brutality of the war, not only the soldiers who suffered fighting on the line and endured harsh winters, but also the effect the war had on civilians. Much of the fighting was done on farms and in front/ behind people's homes which ultimately led to many homes being destroyed. I am curious though, would the militia also have had uniforms? And how were they funded? --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I couldn't help but make some references to ''Braveheart'' while watching ''The Patriot'': When Mel Gibson is running out of his burning house with weapons in hand and also towards the end when Mel Gibson is riding on his horse with the colonist's flag waving behind, he is riding up and down the line of soldiers, just as William Wallace did. -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
Would women be allowed in a meeting of the legislature? When Gabriel comes to the church to enlist the men of the village and none of them made any moves to get up and go, Anne called them out. Was it probable for a woman to do this?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
There was no widespread loyalism shown in the movie, in fact, Wilkins is the only loyalist that springs to mind.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Is that how prisoner exchange worked? Wouldn't the British have sent someone out first to verify "the ghost's" claims?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Was that a maroon community that we saw? Was it an accurate depiction?- Jason Ward <br />
<br />
One issue I have with the time progression is that Cornwallis was in South Carolina for about the entire movie. Even if that is true, the Storyline would have us believe that Martin and his band of renegades were the only force keeping the British in South Carolina. The only mention they make of the regulars after a while was that Gates was a "damn fool", and there is no mention of fellow patriotic militia groups doing their part to chip away at the British force. It just seems like Martin's group of militia was singlehandedly preventing British advancement. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
The movie made it seem as though the Americans and the French had patched up all of their old wounds and that the fraternity of being soldiers together would last forever. The Letter from George Mason in the reading, ''Boisterous Sea of Liberty'', painted a different picture. Mason said that Virginians did not trust the French and that they expected the French to exploit post- war American weaknesses. These fears were real enough to lead the Americans to sign a separate peace with England.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Overall, the movie wasn’t bad. It was fairly entertaining, and the cast was made up of some pretty awesome actors, like Jason Isaacs (always playing the bad guy) and Rene Auberjonois. However, the romance was cliché. I had a sinking feeling of dread that Ben and Aunt Charlotte would get together the first time they stood in the same vicinity as each other. And so it was. Then we have Benjamin Martin not willing to fight the British, but when his son is killed we see him go into ''Action Hero Rambo'' mode where he beats down twenty redcoats with a little help from his younger sons. That was definitely in the vein of Hollywood revenge/action flicks of the... well, for many years now. And let's not talk about those parenting skills. --Taylor Brann</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_4_Questions/Comments329--Week 4 Questions/Comments2008-09-17T21:41:35Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 1b Inaccurate/issues: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1a Right: ==<br />
<br />
This is just a minor note, but the corn isn't perfect, so that is at least correct. Also (and I'm still in the beginning of the movie while I write this), the son Gaberial (in the Continental Army)had no gloves, but cloth wraps on his hands. That shows that there was enough to go around, even so early in the war.--Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
At the dinner table, while the armies are moving closer to the household, the one son mentions "Lord knows what they'll do to you women." That means that the movie at least wants to convey the impression that soldiers did harm to the women. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
I know this is going to be discussed quite a bit, but it really does bear mentioning: Mel Gibson must have been the first real American hero. It's the only possible reason for that godawful accent (he could have at least kept the Australian and been ''something'' that existed at the time!) --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
<br />
To comment on the portrayal of the blacks, the women looked like the stereotypical Mammies, albeit, not as plump as Scarlett O'Hara's mammy, but looking similar in dress and head covering. The women were shown to be obedient and efficient in their care for the children of their white masters. The men were all content in the movie as well, especially when the British came to "set them free." The blacks literally were dragged away from their white owners or landowners. Even though the black men were free, there weas no distinguishing for the British. Occam, the black militiaman, seems fine enough to serve in his master's stead. His master describes him as not smart but strong. The man's build is stereotypical of the African man made to laborious work, not for intellectual discussions. -Lauren<br />
<br />
So, Mel Gibson slaughtered innocents at a Disney resort and campground? That ''is'' sinful. Seriously, that’s the only Fort Wilderness I’ve ever heard of… --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Benjamin Martin doesn’t own slaves. They are freedmen and willingly work for him. He helps them plow the land. ''Of course''. After all, what kind of action hero can own slaves? Apparently, we want our heroes with pure intentions. Was this a situation that happened at all? Sure, the movie had some mentions of slavery and racism, but it was so secondary you’d almost forget the setting is South Carolina. It was nice to see that there were some blacks in the British lines during the final battle, though. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Were women allowed into General Assembly meetings? Were there really Black communities of freed or runaway slaves out on the open beach? That seems like a bad place to hang out, being in plain sight and what not. Weren’t most of those communities in various swamps? Also, why did Gabriel have such a low opinion of the guys who joined the militia? Wasn’t the Continental Army mostly made up of rabble and outcasts too? On the subject of the Continental Army, I always wonder at its depictions in paintings and other media. Considering they were often poorly supplied and oft-butt whupped by the British, what are the chances they would have fancy matching uniforms? Heck, at Valley Forge a lot soldiers were without the very basics (like shoes and coats), let alone pretty uniforms. Most importantly, were the British ever that brutal during the Revolution? Like, Naziesque burning people in a church brutal? I think not. People actually took note of the laws of war at that time. Anyway, wasn’t it the American guerilla forces who were committing the atrocities? --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
There are many things I felt that were deeply wrong portayals of history in the movie. The portrayal of peoples atitutudes toward slavery is majorly flawed with everybody, but one person (who comes to be tolerant later) treating slaves as equals. This is colonial South Carolina yet all the colonials are portrayed as all accepting and understanding of each other. Additionally the way Gabriel speaks up to his father and his father giving in is pretty absurd considering South Carolina during the colonial period is highly patriarchal. The scene where Mel Gibson massacres a bunch of soldiers with only a tomahawk does not help the movies realism factor ether. For people in South Carolina during the war it is not likely that they would have a strong national identity, but rather be focused on regional identities. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
In "Reel History", Toplin discusses how some historical movies have done poorly due to the fact that they have not had a clear-cut villain. However, in my opinion, this movie suffers from an almost Disney-like black and white villain portayal. We can obviously never know if the real Tarleton was as cold blooded or murderous, but it is not a stretch to assume that it was more for the benefit of the audience's entertainment rather than historical accuracy. --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
I don't know if this was true in the 'time period of the movie' but a trait that emerges from the year of the movie being made tried is a man can be proud and raise a family on his own without a wife. Single-parent homes are increasing nowadays, but they are not just headed by the mother now, there has been an increase in single parents father households. Yes I know the wife had died in the movie, but just saying that that is an aspect of today's time that comes out in the movie, at least to me. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
I just had a question and I wasn't sure to be it here or in another section, but were some in the colonies already referring to the 'nations of the colonies' as America? Its not that important I guess, but I was just curious about this. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Did the British really randomly burn fields and houses and kill all the livestock like that? That's just retarded if they did! Did they think "oh we can do whatever the hell we want and the people will still love us?" Bullshit! That'll just make people want to stand up against you because you destroyed their lives! What the fuck would they have left to worry about if you start doing that shit?? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Since this is a reaction I felt it fit here, the one British Colonel bothered me on familiarity, and then I placed it! Colonel William Tavington (The jerk) of the British militia, also plays Lucius Malfoy in the Harry Potter movies. I find it funny that Jason Isaacs plays a 'evil' and 'asshole' character. >^.^< I think Jason has a pattern building. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
== 5 Overall ==<br />
<br />
For the portrayals of colonial ex-soldiers who fought for the British during the French and Indian War, is it realistic to have a man stand up before a crowd and exclaim his grievances against the British Crown? He said his leg was cut off by the British after the war and proclaimed another limb was cut off metaphorically by the taxes! Was his leg really chopped off by the British or taken off because of war casualties? -Lauren<br />
<br />
Overall I feel as though this is by far the most accurate movie that we have watched yet. I watched a special making of feature on my DVD and was surprised at the amount of effort the movie's creators took to ensure that the costumes were as accurate as possible. The ideas for the uniforms came from actual revolutionary uniforms at the Smithsonian Museum. The featurette after the movie also talked about the basis for several of the main characters including Mel Gibson's character being based off of Thomas Sumter, Andrew Pickens and Francis Marion. It also mentioned Tarrington being based off of the real Tarleton. It seems to me that this movie did a good job with accuracy. While some of the actual battles may not be real they did mostly depict backwoods skirmishes.-- Kelly Sorber<br />
<br />
The rules of war really astonished me. I cant believe that men really would go after the officers first. I thought that this was just something the movie did to show Benjamin Martins hatred toward the British officers. I was surprised to read about this in this weeks readings. But I guess when you think about the "rules of war" didn't really apply to this war when so many officers ordered the killing of women and children. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
In the beginning when the British come to Martin's home the officer tells the slaves that if they go to join with the British they will be granted freedom. One of the slaves says that they are already freemen. Is this true? Are his slaves really free or are they just saying that? If they are really free how common was that for the free slaves to stay and work on a southern plantation? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I was shocked to read about how some men really did aim for the officers because in the movie there is a scene where Mel tells his sons to start with the officers and work their way down. I always thought this was just a way to show how distraught Mel was over the killing of his son. It also makes me question the brutality in the rest of the movie. Was it accurate or exaggerated to show the hatred between Mel and Tavington. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
After the movie I watched a one of the bonus features of the movie called True Patriot. In it the writers, producers, and other people who worked on the movie talked about the research they did in order to be historically accurate. It was really interesting to hear that the half built house the former militia members were working on at the end was meant to symbolize the building of a new nation and how the hardest part was going to be the issue of slavery. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
This movie also did a much better job of showing the passage of time. As you watch you can really believe several years have passed during the course of the movie. The romances are also more believable at least Gabriel's (Heath Ledger) was, Mel's was a little bit more questionable. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Following along with Christine's comment, I don't care if these sorts of romances actually happened, but seriously. She was his dead wife's sister. If that was just a way for the filmmakers to grant Mel Gibson a leading lady, then they should have just opted out of that one. Too creepy for my taste, thank you. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
In the beginning at the SC Assembly in Charles Town, one man says that we are "one nation, an American Nation," and someone says that they are "citizens of an American Nation." But at this point they were still considering themselves citizens of individual colonies, right? None of this one nation business, but thirteen colonies to become independent from Britain. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
Repeated Inaccuracies: a) Once again, throughout the whole movie, we see amazing accuracy in shooting with muskets. Accuracy is vague when it gets to the face-to-face in lines on a field kind of fighting, but when the militia, and even Samuel and Nathan early on, are shooting, they're much better shots than the British regulars. b) really early on, when we see Continental soldiers (?) opening up nice, huge, sheaves of yellow, genetically engineered corn. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
One thing I noticed in the movie that we discussed in class was how some white soldiers disapproved of black men being allowed to enlist in the militia. There was one scene in particular which I thought the movie got right where one of the white soldiers made a snide comment on how he believed that black soldiers should not be given weapons. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
Were incidents of excessive cruelty, such as the one where all the townspeople are told to go into the church, and are locked up and then the church is burned down with them still in the church, common, or were incidents like that one in the movie used just for dramatic effect in the movie? ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
As for how the upper-class are portrayed in this movie, I think the British upper-class were portrayed as rather silly, and air-headed. An example of this is when Benjamin Martin and his men dress up as British soldiers, and burn down the British ship that is docked while the British are having a party. As the ship bursts into flames, one of the ladies at the party looks at the ship, laughs, and squeals "Ooh fireworks!", indicating that she clearly has no idea what was happening. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
Katherine, I think I remember the woman holding a seeing glass. Could it be the she couldn't see very well?-Lauren<br />
<br />
Question about Charlotte: Did she happen to own that plantation herself? Inheritance? Was she widowed? It doesn't appear she had anyone with her there or in town except slaves, and there is no indication that a husband or brother was away fighting. -Whitney H.<br />
<br />
I really enjoy this movie but there are a few things that I have to point out that did not fit. Amanda has already touched on this but many of the characters have different accents. Benjamin - Americanized English, Gabriel- Australian and then the younger son, Thomas - British. All the while various characters in the movie have different accents. Also, I believe two young, unwed people kissing in public would have been frowned upon, i.e. Gabriel and Anne. - Mallory C.<br />
<br />
Overall, this movie does a good job at portraying the events that happened during the Revolutionary War through its accurate representation of clothing, military formations, style of combat, gender roles, and depictions of the British and colonists in general. The movie also does a good job at providing an overall background for what was happening elsewhere during the Revolution, doing this by making up conversations (usually with messengers) about what else was going on up north, with Washington’s army, and with other factors involved in the war. The movie also provides insight about how slaves, neutral colonists, fathers and sons, and women thought about the war. However, it occurs that this movie seems a little biased toward the British because the movie’s point of view portrays the British as the evil and sinister empire that brutally destroys everything in sight, and the turn of unfortunate events experienced by the patriot militia automatically gears the viewer to root for the Patriots. Point is; if the British made a movie about the same events, would they have depicted them and portrayed them the same way this movie has? Would the British capitalize on making the Patriots out to be the evil, sinister, disobeying, disloyal debtors? <br />
–James D.<br />
<br />
<br />
I think one things this movie touched on well was the scarier side to having the "home field advantage." Often in history classes the notion that the Patriots had the battle fought on their own soil is praised and often accredited with aiding the Patriots when it came to winning the war. And while this may be true, the darker aspects to having this advantage are often overlooked. In the movie, it became clearer how violent the opposing armies were and how close these battles came to homes. I think this is an aspect often overlooked and it's a scary notion that battles were being fought literally in backyards. The British were able to avoid a number civilian deaths on their side for this very reason (Excluding the Loyalists.) --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
While watching the movie it seemed to me that most young men were extremely eager to join up with the Regulars. Was this an honest representation? I can understand Mel Gibson's point of view and not wanting his sons to join up, but Gabriel and Thomas seemed more than ready to run off to the camps. I didn't think men were that eager to be volunteering. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
One more question - Were the Militias the groups of men using the guerrilla tactics? I noticed there was a difference between the Regulars and the Militia but I wasn't sure if that was the difference between the two. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
''The Patriot'' did a good job of showing how uniformed and precise the British Army was, which is also seen in ''The Last of the Mohicans''. The movie also portrays the brutality of the war, not only the soldiers who suffered fighting on the line and endured harsh winters, but also the effect the war had on civilians. Much of the fighting was done on farms and in front/ behind people's homes which ultimately led to many homes being destroyed. I am curious though, would the militia also have had uniforms? And how were they funded? --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I couldn't help but make some references to ''Braveheart'' while watching ''The Patriot'': When Mel Gibson is running out of his burning house with weapons in hand and also towards the end when Mel Gibson is riding on his horse with the colonist's flag waving behind, he is riding up and down the line of soldiers, just as William Wallace did. -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
Would women be allowed in a meeting of the legislature? When Gabriel comes to the church to enlist the men of the village and none of them made any moves to get up and go, Anne called them out. Was it probable for a woman to do this?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
There was no widespread loyalism shown in the movie, in fact, Wilkins is the only loyalist that springs to mind.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Is that how prisoner exchange worked? Wouldn't the British have sent someone out first to verify "the ghost's" claims?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Was that a maroon community that we saw? Was it an accurate depiction?- Jason Ward <br />
<br />
One issue I have with the time progression is that Cornwallis was in South Carolina for about the entire movie. Even if that is true, the Storyline would have us believe that Martin and his band of renegades were the only force keeping the British in South Carolina. The only mention they make of the regulars after a while was that Gates was a "damn fool", and there is no mention of fellow patriotic militia groups doing their part to chip away at the British force. It just seems like Martin's group of militia was singlehandedly preventing British advancement. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
The movie made it seem as though the Americans and the French had patched up all of their old wounds and that the fraternity of being soldiers together would last forever. The Letter from George Mason in the reading, ''Boisterous Sea of Liberty'', painted a different picture. Mason said that Virginians did not trust the French and that they expected the French to exploit post- war American weaknesses. These fears were real enough to lead the Americans to sign a separate peace with England.- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Overall, the movie wasn’t bad. It was fairly entertaining, and the cast was made up of some pretty awesome actors, like Jason Isaacs (always playing the bad guy) and Rene Auberjonois. However, the romance was cliché. I had a sinking feeling of dread that Ben and Aunt Charlotte would get together the first time they stood in the same vicinity as each other. And so it was. Then we have Benjamin Martin not willing to fight the British, but when his son is killed we see him go into ''Action Hero Rambo'' mode where he beats down twenty redcoats with a little help from his younger sons. That was definitely in the vein of Hollywood revenge/action flicks of the... well, for many years now. And let's not talk about those parenting skills. --Taylor Brann</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments329--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-09-11T03:44:02Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 2 Film's relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1a Right: ==<br />
<br />
<br />
A common theme that is definitely true in real history (mentioned in lecture as well as World Turned Upside Down/Calloway article) as well as its portrayal in Last of the Mohicans, is that Native Americans gained little from interactions with Europeans, and they lost everything (their land, their race, their culture, their lives). Hence, the last of the Mohicans. In that respect this film did a good job of demonstrating (if even to the slightest degree) the plight of the Indian race due to European involvement. -Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Cora had to ask Nathaniel why the murdered family was isolated, to which he responded that after 7 years of indentured servitude in VA, these people needed to go somewhere farther away to get any land. That seems right that she, the daughter of a general, raised in London, would not be fully aware of the causes for some threats the settlers faced, of some of the less obvious issues that helped make the war what it was. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I can see why the Mohicans didn't want to bury the family that they came across while they were running. It makes sense that if they were to move them others would know that someone had been there. Was it common for the Native Americans to try to cover their tracks? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
It was also obvious in the movie how easily the Native Americans could play the settlers off of each other. It was effortless, or so it seemed to us, for Magua to act as a scout for the British, but secretly support the French because of what he would get out of that relationship. That was something we definitely studied and I thought the movie did a decent job representing that. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think the backdrop of the movie was actually fairly historically accurate. It captured British superiority towards the colonists and the beginnings of the tensions that would lead to the Revolution. Also, the British did surrender to the French at Fort William Henry and they were attacked by the Indians as they left the area. Of course, the attack had more to do with the Natives wanting their promised war spoils rather than one vengeful leader, but the movie did show that the Indians started retracting their alliances with the French following the fort’s surrender. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
'Right' in this case is totally different in regard to the original book or to history. While looking through some of the chapters of the book, I was actually shocked to know that they called Hawkeye 'The Long Rifle.' I can't lie, I thought that was totally 1990s Native American sexual innuendo. -- Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
The European mindset that they held the right to control the country and live on and dominate the land as they saw fit seemed pretty accurate to me, not to be too harsh. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
The mindset that the land was for the taking (by England). The movie also managed the 'superiority complex' of the British army towards the colonist militia. The costuming and makeup departments seem to have been able to get the 'look' of the Mohican as compared to the picture shown to us in class on Tuesday. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
A far as the historical accuracy of the films is concerned, I was pleased to read in the articles that Indian adoptions of colonists were actually practiced. This at least means the basis of Nathaniel as adopted is sound. – Wesley Weeks<br />
<br />
To me, the way the movie portrayed the Europeans and the Native Americans fighting was accurate. They showed the Europeans fighting in neat, organized rows, with an officer telling them when to shoot, while the Native Americans were shown fighting all over, and without someone to tell them when and where to shoot. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
To piggy back on what Katherine mentioned, I too agreed that the movie appeared to depict the manner in which the different groups fought rather well. As was mentioned in the lecture, the Native Americans adapted the technologies to their own liking. Thus they used rifles when applicable, but did not abandon their tomahawks or war clubs. Also it was accurate in the way in which the colonists were not treated well by the British regulars and it did well (though maybe a bit heavy-handed) to illustrate this tension. A last detail that the movie seemed to get right was the way in which both the French and the British used the various tribes with little regard for the Native Americans' interests. Mohicans are decimated and the Huron (and Magua) are left to act at the whim of the French. Though the tribes may have been allied with a European power the movie shows that in the end they were to be left out of the spoils of victory. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
There were a few things that rang true to me throughout the movie. The mention that the tribes eventually played off each other and the warring Europeans was reinforced very well throughout the movie. Magua's evil cunning was evidenced in all it's brutal glory(?) as he literally hacked and slashed through anyone that opposed him, paying no mind to who he betrays in the process. The French-British and British-American hostilities also seemed very accurate to me. While Manifest Destiny would soon destroy much of the pre-existing diplomacy between the Americans and Indians, for now both sides fully understood that they had to be united to stave off any hostilities forced on them by the other Europeans. Finally, as Mallory said above, the European imperialism struck me as unfortunately accurate as well. As the intro text explained, it was a battle for control of the nation. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
This is kind of on the border between right and wrong, but when Hawkeye was walking toward the Sachem and was being "attacked" by the Huron, I think that was a sort of running the gauntlet. Although it was a bit more brutal than the one Susanna Johnson described, I could imagine they could possibly do something along those lines. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:36, 10 September 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Most of the inaccuracies from this movie seem to come not from the actual facts themselves, but from the way the movie singles out certain aspects while leaving other aspects out. For instance it was true that militias had very unhappy men and in many cases were willing to desert. The movie, however seems to glorify these men by only showing this one aspect of the colonial family man just wanting to go home. This movie does incorporate several aspects that are true, but it conveniently leaves other facts out resulting in a false impression of what is actually going on. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Question- I know it was not all that uncommon for a Native American tribe to adopt “white sons” like Hawkeye or Nathaniel, but how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially. In this case the Mohicans had no women left and therefore had no other option, but I wondered if it was likely that Native Americans and white women would really get together. - Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Question- How rebellious were the settlers at this point toward the British crown rule? I felt that in the struggle between the British crown and the settlers, the mention of tyranny may have been a bit premature (at least to my knowledge on the topic), but I did like that there was a pre-revolution sense of injustice among the settlers. Was this premature or accurate for the time? - Elle Weaver <br />
<br />
Remember that the British officers were condescending toward the colonial militia. It's not just the militiamen talking about the British tyranny that indicates the struggle. First, when Duncan (Phelps?)tells Munro that the militiamen negotiated terms of service in the war, Munro responds something to the effect that that was just like them--the colonials think they can set their own terms. And then, when Nathaniel is trying to tell Munro that the militiamen's families are either threatened or being killed, and they should be allowed to go back to defend, Munro says that they can't go (they'd be shot if they did), because, essentially, that the threatened families are trivial in comparison to the army's objectives. He obviously sees himself/the army/the British in general as superior to them, and couldn't care less about these men's families. This attitude is easy to recognize, and caps off the injustice. But I think at that point the settlers wanted fair treatment and mainly hoped or believed that relations could still be mended with the mother country. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Question: is it at all a stretch that an angry Huron (Magwa) who wants revenge would want to cut out the heart of his enemy and burn his seed alive? -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I was wondering the same thing that Elle was about adopting white sons. From what I remember learning in the past I don't remember this. What would make a tribe adopt members of the white race? What would make a white settler want to leave other colonists and join the Native Americans? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
One issue I have with the movie is the accents. I mean, what was going on with the different accents scattered throughout? Because based on Munro's accent, he definitely did not raise his daughters and the colonists just seemed to be a bit off as well. Was the "American accent" emerging this early? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Question- This may come across, unintentionally, as ignorant but were the Huron unusually violent? The reading ''First Peoples'' explains that war parties came prepared with clothing and moccasins when abducting their captives which seems somewhat thoughtful. I know this doesn't describe every war party, especially Magua's tribe because we learn that he is going after Col. Munro in order to avenge his family's death, but it was just something I kept in mind while watching ''The Last of the Mohicans'' since in the movie the Huron kill the settlers and pillage their homes. However, I chalked this up to being an example of the film's historical inaccuracy. Again, this doesn't pertain to all tribes but in the movie the women are called "dogs" and "slaves" were as in the reading ''First Peoples'' it is said that women and children were treated well because they were being adopted into the community. These two examples prove that the director's main objective was to create an intriguing story. In my opinon, the movie was a little too concerned with the romantic aspect of history (i.e. good vs. evil), similar to ''Pocahontas'', rather than being a sound example of historical facts. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
The Minavavan reading focused on how the Algonkians had not accepted the English as the replacements for the French. Minavavan makes the distinction that just because the French might be out of the power struggle, the Algonkians were by no means going to cede their land and culture passively. "Englishmen, although you have conquered the French, you have not yet conquered us! We are not your slaves." In the final sentences of Minavavan's speech he insinuates a leeriness of the English, but acknowledges no aggression on their part- offering a peace pipe. Sadly, I think the movie took too much creative license and distorted the actual sentiments of the Native Americans (from what I can gather from this particular reading). In the movie the French and English made an agreement that the English would move on from the fort, but on their journey the English were ambushed by a band of native attackers. I think it is safe to say that the American Indians who had fought alongside the French would be upset with a changing of the guard, but I do not get the sense that they were willing to continue fighting independently. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Question: We're guns already that accurate, in low light, at that point? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
'''The Abenakis Defy The English''': “When the United States held treaties with Indian Tribes in the nineteenth century, American Commissioners often dictated their terms and spoke down to Indian delegates with the arrogance of power. In colonial times the power balance was much more equal and Indian speakers often “gave as good as they got” in their negotiations with Europeans.” I believe this movie is still portraying the Native- Euro relationship through the lens of the nineteenth century, as opposed to the relationship of the 17th and 18th centuries as conveyed in our primary source documents. At the end of the film when Hawkeye and his compatriots were going to rescue the Daughters Munro and Duncan the entire negotiation process was dominated by the romantic/ Anglo demands. The Sachem said that Cora was going to be put to death, but then Hawkeye and Duncan plead to get her off the hook. With seemingly no defense of his position, the sachem changes his mind. Firstly, the reading, “A captive with the Abenakis” makes it seem as though death would not be the course of action taken against a captive, especially a woman. Secondly, I find it suspect that a Sachem would be so easily swayed in decision making.- Jason <br />
Ward<br />
<br />
Question: Is this how we are now supposed to identify our "question" posts? I thought a simple question mark was a sufficient indicator. haha. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Question: Was the tribe fighting along the French in this film Patrilinial? Many times the Chief seemed to be obsessed with wiping out Munro's seed. Or did he just understand that the English were Patrilinial and therefore wanted to make his contempt for Munro clear?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Watching the film it struck me how insistent Magua was about “wiping out the seed of the grey-haired man.” It seemed unbelievable and if the Huron were matrilineal, it wouldn’t even make sense. – Wesley Weeks<br />
<br />
I also liked how the movie portrayed the colonists as already at the time of the French and Indian War as having a national identity as basically Americans. – Wesley Weeks<br />
<br />
Based on the film it seemed that the Native Americans mostly used guns at this point in time. This doesn't seem accurate; the film makes it seem like the Native Americans just dropped their native weapons and knew exactly how to shoot a gun within a few days.<br />
--Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
Kellye asked why the Indians would adopt white settlers. Calloway says on page 169 of "A Captive with the Abenakis," the reason for the tribes to adopt white people was to replace those that had died, to balance out the population levels. The sachem of the Huron in which Magua belonged to in the movie seemed to adopt Alice into the tribe when he made her Magua's wife to replace Magua's dead children and to continue the Munro blood. -Lauren <br />
<br />
To comment on Elle’s question of “how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially,” I don’t think it was rare, for instance, on page 177 of “A Captive with the Abenakis,” Susanna Willard mentions that her second master Gill married a woman of “true Indian blood.” Though Gill was well adopted into the Indian culture, he still had an interracial marriage. I think the issue is whether there were many intercultural marriages between captive whites and non-captive whites like the movie. -Lauren<br />
<br />
In Last of the Mohicans there is a definite good vs. evil battle going on. There are good and bad Indians, the good being the 3 Mohicans who save everyone on countless occasions (who are also conveniently more civilized seeming and dressing) and the bad being the Hurons – especially Magwa. There are also clearly defined lines between colonial settlers and the British military. The military breaks its promises and uses the colonists for its own purposes, neglecting their rights to defend their families etc. They are of course not as bad as the French who work with the bad Indians who ambush the British. In short, there are any levels of good and evil but they are clearly defined. This could be an appropriate source to describe how settlers would feel about this conflict. - Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Going off of Elle's comment about "Good vs. Bad," you could definitely see a bit of bias throughout the movie. Magwa and the Huron's were the "bad guys" in the film definitely indicating strong anti-French sentiments throughout. It's clear that, if this were based explicitly on Cooper's novel, that it is definitely from the point of view of the British. It just emphasizes that this war was fought on multiple levels and it shows how often the Native Americans were "trapped" into picking sides. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think that the movie had good insight as to how the settlers felt about fighting a British/French war. Where it was obvious that some showed a loyalty to Great Britain it was clear that most truly didn't think of themselves as under British rule. Many clearly didn't want to fight but preferred to be with those on the frontier. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
This is more of a question about the Onandogas and Cayugas reading, but I noticed that they used the word "Sachem" frequently and even to describe some of the colonists. I know sachems were like chieftans, so was this a term of respect in regards to the colonists as well? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Kelly, I interpret the usage of sachem by the Indians for the European authority figures as a sign of respect, but also their interpretation of what the equivalent position of the colonists. The Indians, from my understanding by the reading, didn't have the hierarchy in the same way the Europeans did. Through interpretation,a word like general equaled sachem because there was no word for general in their language. -Lauren <br />
<br />
I know Hawkeye’s past isn’t completely far-fetched, one of the readings even mentioned a fellow who had been captured by Indians as a boy and spent several years with them, but I wonder how common it was. How often did Natives accept white kids as their own? --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The Captivity Narrative is a really great source to contrast with not just this movie, but any movie about Native American/white interactions at the time. The Natives sound to be about as nice as they could be, given the situation. While Susanna Johnson is quite whiny and put-upon, I don't think the Natives were attempting to torture her. It was just a cultural difference, since English women were too dainty for forest travel (though giving birth in the woods is impressive). Interestingly, the main woman in the movie was quite a trooper (too much so?), especially when contrasted with this source. --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
Question: Did they actually battle at night like that? (Like around 37 minutes into the film) --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I think the film does show how seeds were laid in this war for the later American Revolution. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Comparing the film to the Captivity Narrative, the film showed mostly that Indians would torture their captives and burn them at stakes for sacrifices. In the Captivity Narrative, it states that many of the tribes before the war would take you captive and adopt you into their families or replace a deceased relatives with you. How common was this? --Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
The way the Indians treated prisoners in the reading seemed to ring in common with the movie except for one aspect it does not seem likely that the Indians would have though of burning the girl instead of the man in relation to the readings because they tended to treat women kindly. If they had a British officer it would be more likely they would ransom him rather than just let him go or kill him. When Mogwa took the women prisoner it did not seem he had any ill will towards her and seemed to treat her fairly well. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
This movie definitely represents the time in which it was made. First of all, the early to mid 1990s seemed to be a good time to make movies about Native Americans (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Geronimo, and probably more). One reason could be that, in 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was passed, as was the Native American Languages Act. While these weren't really spectacularly progressive, our gov't was at least showing a recognition of their rights. It seemed to be something of a turning point in the way we looked at Native Americans (or perhaps it made us look at them in the first place). --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
I think this movie represents classic American culture. That sense that we emerged from a nation of frontiersmen who had to fight for everything they wanted with their women right beside them. There's Hawkeye who lives with the Indians and can shoot anything no matter how far away and right beside him is Cora who when the battle gets rough pulls out a gun and kills an Indian to save herself and her sister. However, her noticeably weaker sister doesn't survive in the end. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Christine that the movie in many ways played into the traditional ideas of our frontier spirit in America, especially with the blonde frontiersman who appears to lead the militia. The movie also played into the idea of the noble savage in many ways. Hawkeye, though brought up by Native Americans, is of Anglo descent and served as a way for whites to envision themselves as Indians. But the true Indians in the movie, especially Magua and the Huron, embody the view of the natives as savages for their underhanded and brutal tactics in battle. Even the "good" Indians fall into the traditional "noble savage" paradigm as they rarely speak in the movie, only really at the end do you get an idea of what the Father is thinking. Ultimately this movie would fit right into the noble savage canon. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Last of the Mohicans is a good representation of how people in the 1990s liked their movies: epics with a historical setting, graphic violence, and a love story. Braveheart, Dances With Wolves, even Titanic. In Cooper's novel, Hawkeye saves Col. Munro from Magua; in the film we get to see our main antagonist cut out the colonel's heart. Also in the book, Alice and Duncan live happily ever after, and Cora's relationship with Hawkeye is nonexistent. The sweeping, tragic ending of the 1992 adaptation was more palatable to modern audiences. - Sarah Richardson<br />
<br />
I see Last of the Mohicans as a film made for the baby boom generation. Most of who would be in their late 30s/mid 40s at this point. Films like this feature, as McClurken put it, the archetypal American hero that baby boomers grew up worshipping. I liken Hawkeye to the Lone Ranger. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:52, 10 September 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 5 Overall ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to point this out - near the end please notice that there is an extremely fake rock that Nathaniel (AKA DDL) pushes off of in his hurry to stop his brother from attacking Magwa and company. It shakes but Daniel Day Lewis pays no mind - he can make rocks shake like that.<br />
<br />
Overall, now I'm not sure if this is applicable to the discussion or not, but in my opinion this is the type of movie that causes people to stop watching historical films. Yes, there were a lot of good things about it when it came to accuracy, but it was just so dull throughout. Now, "Pocahontas" may have been one of the least accurate movies ever created, but it had a more interesting (and I use that word loosely) storyline. Do we think that there is a way to balance the two out? Is it possible to have a historical movie that is both relatively accurate and entertaining? I understand that it may also be too early in the semester to judge since we're only on our second movie, but I suppose it is something to think about. (Now, I could be alone in my critique of the movie because I had heard excellent reviews about it but I'm sorry, I don't think you could get me to sit and watch it again.) -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I would like to begin by saying that I love the music in this movie. However, it does not cancel out the way I feel about the rest of the movie. I agree with Kelly in that I don't think I could watch it another time. Clips and pieces of the movie were interesting but overall I found it somewhat dry and boring. I wish the fight scene at the end was a little more dramatic and detailed but instead it just went by quickly. I guess that is up to the discretion of the director. The movie has it's moments but at times I found myself wanting the movie to hurry up to the next scene. -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I have to agree with everyone so far. This movie was boring as sin, completely not what I expected. I had always heard people talk about it so well, like a classic! While it was pretty and the music was nice, it was dull (even the battles), graphic, and once again, almost everyone in the movie is fluent in at least 2-3 languages. The "love story" is ridiculously bad, much like John Smith/Pocahontas. Perhaps people did have lower standards back then, and didn't take as much time to get to know each other, but this true love in only 24 hours phenom just makes movies seem more unrealistic. Besides, the good Indian v. bad Indian seemed a little heavy-handed. If we were to have a movie where a "savage" had killed the English governor's daughter and wife and entire town, it would be a portrayal of a white guy seeking justice, NOT being an evil murderer. -- Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
Usually, there has to be a willing suspension of disbelief for movies, but I still couldn’t help but wonder what the chances were that the main characters would be the ''only'' ones to escape in both attacks. In this case, the expendable red shirts were literally wearing red shirts! Seriously though, what happened to the men in the canoe with Duncan during the massacre? I didn’t see them hiding out below the waterfall later on… --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
All in all, it could have been a good movie, but for one thing-- the contrived romance. It sorta of ruined the viewing pleasure for me, though it was pretty funny sometimes. After all, we had such gems as this exchange:<br />
Hawkeye stares at Cora.<br />
Cora: What are you looking at?<br />
*long pause*<br />
Hawkeye: I’m looking at you.<br />
*even longer pause*<br />
Cora stares at Hawkeye.<br />
Hawkeye stares at Cora.<br />
Cora stares at Hawkeye.<br />
Hawkeye stares at Cora.<br />
Cora smiles at Hawkeye.<br />
Hawkeye smiles at Cora.<br />
Yeah, that’s some great writing there. Really. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Haha, that's funny.--Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I remember that I purchased this movie many years ago, however I never tried to look at it in any sort of historical aspect, so I viewed it from a different light this time. I also hadn't watched the movie in quite a while, so I had forgotten quite a bit of it. Although something that I do find annoying in almost all films, the women can go through hell and back and only their hair is a little messed up but their make up still looks perfect. Stupid films and trying to say that women need to be skinny with big chests with perfect hair and faces... -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Question: Did Native Americans pose as a different tribe during the war like Magua did? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Question: Because this movie was a book first and the movie is based on the book and subsequent movies should we be judging it for its historical accuracy or how well it followed the book? - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Even though the book has a historical setting it is fiction and unlike Pocahontas is not based on anything specific so can we hold it to the same standards? - Christine W.<br />
<br />
To answer Christine's question, I don't think this movie should be held to the same standards as movie such as Pocahontas since it is not based on one specific event. And, as we discussed in class James Fenimore Cooper had never met a Native American before, and what he knew of them came from other people, so it's understandable that he might have a skewed impression of Native Americans in his books. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I definitely have to agree with Amanda's point that all of the major Native American characters in the film are perfectly good or completely bad. In fact, the only morally ambiguous characters in the entire film are Duncan and Col. Munro! The Cora/Hawkeye love story, undoubtedly added to attract viewers, sometimes seems like comic relief. Although I like the film, I recognize that it has numerous flaws. Someone should have told the costume department that Daniel Day Lewis looked like he came straight off the cover of a romance novel, and not just in his shirtless scene. - Sarah Richardson<br />
<br />
The character of Mogwa was very interesting to me when I watched this movie. The movie portrays him as a monstrous savage and a villian, but if you actually pay attention to what he says about what happened to him how could one not feel just a little bit sympathetic for him. He obviously had some serious justifications for his rage although the movie focuses so much on his violence that he can be portrayed as just another bad guy. What really ends up striking me with this movie is how certain groups of people are glorified and others are condemned. -Jonathan Bell</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments329--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-09-11T03:27:19Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 5 Overall */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1a Right: ==<br />
<br />
<br />
A common theme that is definitely true in real history (mentioned in lecture as well as World Turned Upside Down/Calloway article) as well as its portrayal in Last of the Mohicans, is that Native Americans gained little from interactions with Europeans, and they lost everything (their land, their race, their culture, their lives). Hence, the last of the Mohicans. In that respect this film did a good job of demonstrating (if even to the slightest degree) the plight of the Indian race due to European involvement. -Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Cora had to ask Nathaniel why the murdered family was isolated, to which he responded that after 7 years of indentured servitude in VA, these people needed to go somewhere farther away to get any land. That seems right that she, the daughter of a general, raised in London, would not be fully aware of the causes for some threats the settlers faced, of some of the less obvious issues that helped make the war what it was. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I can see why the Mohicans didn't want to bury the family that they came across while they were running. It makes sense that if they were to move them others would know that someone had been there. Was it common for the Native Americans to try to cover their tracks? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
It was also obvious in the movie how easily the Native Americans could play the settlers off of each other. It was effortless, or so it seemed to us, for Magua to act as a scout for the British, but secretly support the French because of what he would get out of that relationship. That was something we definitely studied and I thought the movie did a decent job representing that. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think the backdrop of the movie was actually fairly historically accurate. It captured British superiority towards the colonists and the beginnings of the tensions that would lead to the Revolution. Also, the British did surrender to the French at Fort William Henry and they were attacked by the Indians as they left the area. Of course, the attack had more to do with the Natives wanting their promised war spoils rather than one vengeful leader, but the movie did show that the Indians started retracting their alliances with the French following the fort’s surrender. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
'Right' in this case is totally different in regard to the original book or to history. While looking through some of the chapters of the book, I was actually shocked to know that they called Hawkeye 'The Long Rifle.' I can't lie, I thought that was totally 1990s Native American sexual innuendo. -- Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
The European mindset that they held the right to control the country and live on and dominate the land as they saw fit seemed pretty accurate to me, not to be too harsh. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
The mindset that the land was for the taking (by England). The movie also managed the 'superiority complex' of the British army towards the colonist militia. The costuming and makeup departments seem to have been able to get the 'look' of the Mohican as compared to the picture shown to us in class on Tuesday. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
A far as the historical accuracy of the films is concerned, I was pleased to read in the articles that Indian adoptions of colonists were actually practiced. This at least means the basis of Nathaniel as adopted is sound. – Wesley Weeks<br />
<br />
To me, the way the movie portrayed the Europeans and the Native Americans fighting was accurate. They showed the Europeans fighting in neat, organized rows, with an officer telling them when to shoot, while the Native Americans were shown fighting all over, and without someone to tell them when and where to shoot. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
To piggy back on what Katherine mentioned, I too agreed that the movie appeared to depict the manner in which the different groups fought rather well. As was mentioned in the lecture, the Native Americans adapted the technologies to their own liking. Thus they used rifles when applicable, but did not abandon their tomahawks or war clubs. Also it was accurate in the way in which the colonists were not treated well by the British regulars and it did well (though maybe a bit heavy-handed) to illustrate this tension. A last detail that the movie seemed to get right was the way in which both the French and the British used the various tribes with little regard for the Native Americans' interests. Mohicans are decimated and the Huron (and Magua) are left to act at the whim of the French. Though the tribes may have been allied with a European power the movie shows that in the end they were to be left out of the spoils of victory. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
There were a few things that rang true to me throughout the movie. The mention that the tribes eventually played off each other and the warring Europeans was reinforced very well throughout the movie. Magua's evil cunning was evidenced in all it's brutal glory(?) as he literally hacked and slashed through anyone that opposed him, paying no mind to who he betrays in the process. The French-British and British-American hostilities also seemed very accurate to me. While Manifest Destiny would soon destroy much of the pre-existing diplomacy between the Americans and Indians, for now both sides fully understood that they had to be united to stave off any hostilities forced on them by the other Europeans. Finally, as Mallory said above, the European imperialism struck me as unfortunately accurate as well. As the intro text explained, it was a battle for control of the nation. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
This is kind of on the border between right and wrong, but when Hawkeye was walking toward the Sachem and was being "attacked" by the Huron, I think that was a sort of running the gauntlet. Although it was a bit more brutal than the one Susanna Johnson described, I could imagine they could possibly do something along those lines. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:36, 10 September 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Most of the inaccuracies from this movie seem to come not from the actual facts themselves, but from the way the movie singles out certain aspects while leaving other aspects out. For instance it was true that militias had very unhappy men and in many cases were willing to desert. The movie, however seems to glorify these men by only showing this one aspect of the colonial family man just wanting to go home. This movie does incorporate several aspects that are true, but it conveniently leaves other facts out resulting in a false impression of what is actually going on. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Question- I know it was not all that uncommon for a Native American tribe to adopt “white sons” like Hawkeye or Nathaniel, but how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially. In this case the Mohicans had no women left and therefore had no other option, but I wondered if it was likely that Native Americans and white women would really get together. - Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Question- How rebellious were the settlers at this point toward the British crown rule? I felt that in the struggle between the British crown and the settlers, the mention of tyranny may have been a bit premature (at least to my knowledge on the topic), but I did like that there was a pre-revolution sense of injustice among the settlers. Was this premature or accurate for the time? - Elle Weaver <br />
<br />
Remember that the British officers were condescending toward the colonial militia. It's not just the militiamen talking about the British tyranny that indicates the struggle. First, when Duncan (Phelps?)tells Munro that the militiamen negotiated terms of service in the war, Munro responds something to the effect that that was just like them--the colonials think they can set their own terms. And then, when Nathaniel is trying to tell Munro that the militiamen's families are either threatened or being killed, and they should be allowed to go back to defend, Munro says that they can't go (they'd be shot if they did), because, essentially, that the threatened families are trivial in comparison to the army's objectives. He obviously sees himself/the army/the British in general as superior to them, and couldn't care less about these men's families. This attitude is easy to recognize, and caps off the injustice. But I think at that point the settlers wanted fair treatment and mainly hoped or believed that relations could still be mended with the mother country. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Question: is it at all a stretch that an angry Huron (Magwa) who wants revenge would want to cut out the heart of his enemy and burn his seed alive? -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I was wondering the same thing that Elle was about adopting white sons. From what I remember learning in the past I don't remember this. What would make a tribe adopt members of the white race? What would make a white settler want to leave other colonists and join the Native Americans? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
One issue I have with the movie is the accents. I mean, what was going on with the different accents scattered throughout? Because based on Munro's accent, he definitely did not raise his daughters and the colonists just seemed to be a bit off as well. Was the "American accent" emerging this early? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Question- This may come across, unintentionally, as ignorant but were the Huron unusually violent? The reading ''First Peoples'' explains that war parties came prepared with clothing and moccasins when abducting their captives which seems somewhat thoughtful. I know this doesn't describe every war party, especially Magua's tribe because we learn that he is going after Col. Munro in order to avenge his family's death, but it was just something I kept in mind while watching ''The Last of the Mohicans'' since in the movie the Huron kill the settlers and pillage their homes. However, I chalked this up to being an example of the film's historical inaccuracy. Again, this doesn't pertain to all tribes but in the movie the women are called "dogs" and "slaves" were as in the reading ''First Peoples'' it is said that women and children were treated well because they were being adopted into the community. These two examples prove that the director's main objective was to create an intriguing story. In my opinon, the movie was a little too concerned with the romantic aspect of history (i.e. good vs. evil), similar to ''Pocahontas'', rather than being a sound example of historical facts. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
The Minavavan reading focused on how the Algonkians had not accepted the English as the replacements for the French. Minavavan makes the distinction that just because the French might be out of the power struggle, the Algonkians were by no means going to cede their land and culture passively. "Englishmen, although you have conquered the French, you have not yet conquered us! We are not your slaves." In the final sentences of Minavavan's speech he insinuates a leeriness of the English, but acknowledges no aggression on their part- offering a peace pipe. Sadly, I think the movie took too much creative license and distorted the actual sentiments of the Native Americans (from what I can gather from this particular reading). In the movie the French and English made an agreement that the English would move on from the fort, but on their journey the English were ambushed by a band of native attackers. I think it is safe to say that the American Indians who had fought alongside the French would be upset with a changing of the guard, but I do not get the sense that they were willing to continue fighting independently. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Question: We're guns already that accurate, in low light, at that point? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
'''The Abenakis Defy The English''': “When the United States held treaties with Indian Tribes in the nineteenth century, American Commissioners often dictated their terms and spoke down to Indian delegates with the arrogance of power. In colonial times the power balance was much more equal and Indian speakers often “gave as good as they got” in their negotiations with Europeans.” I believe this movie is still portraying the Native- Euro relationship through the lens of the nineteenth century, as opposed to the relationship of the 17th and 18th centuries as conveyed in our primary source documents. At the end of the film when Hawkeye and his compatriots were going to rescue the Daughters Munro and Duncan the entire negotiation process was dominated by the romantic/ Anglo demands. The Sachem said that Cora was going to be put to death, but then Hawkeye and Duncan plead to get her off the hook. With seemingly no defense of his position, the sachem changes his mind. Firstly, the reading, “A captive with the Abenakis” makes it seem as though death would not be the course of action taken against a captive, especially a woman. Secondly, I find it suspect that a Sachem would be so easily swayed in decision making.- Jason <br />
Ward<br />
<br />
Question: Is this how we are now supposed to identify our "question" posts? I thought a simple question mark was a sufficient indicator. haha. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Question: Was the tribe fighting along the French in this film Patrilinial? Many times the Chief seemed to be obsessed with wiping out Munro's seed. Or did he just understand that the English were Patrilinial and therefore wanted to make his contempt for Munro clear?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Watching the film it struck me how insistent Magua was about “wiping out the seed of the grey-haired man.” It seemed unbelievable and if the Huron were matrilineal, it wouldn’t even make sense. – Wesley Weeks<br />
<br />
I also liked how the movie portrayed the colonists as already at the time of the French and Indian War as having a national identity as basically Americans. – Wesley Weeks<br />
<br />
Based on the film it seemed that the Native Americans mostly used guns at this point in time. This doesn't seem accurate; the film makes it seem like the Native Americans just dropped their native weapons and knew exactly how to shoot a gun within a few days.<br />
--Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
Kellye asked why the Indians would adopt white settlers. Calloway says on page 169 of "A Captive with the Abenakis," the reason for the tribes to adopt white people was to replace those that had died, to balance out the population levels. The sachem of the Huron in which Magua belonged to in the movie seemed to adopt Alice into the tribe when he made her Magua's wife to replace Magua's dead children and to continue the Munro blood. -Lauren <br />
<br />
To comment on Elle’s question of “how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially,” I don’t think it was rare, for instance, on page 177 of “A Captive with the Abenakis,” Susanna Willard mentions that her second master Gill married a woman of “true Indian blood.” Though Gill was well adopted into the Indian culture, he still had an interracial marriage. I think the issue is whether there were many intercultural marriages between captive whites and non-captive whites like the movie. -Lauren<br />
<br />
In Last of the Mohicans there is a definite good vs. evil battle going on. There are good and bad Indians, the good being the 3 Mohicans who save everyone on countless occasions (who are also conveniently more civilized seeming and dressing) and the bad being the Hurons – especially Magwa. There are also clearly defined lines between colonial settlers and the British military. The military breaks its promises and uses the colonists for its own purposes, neglecting their rights to defend their families etc. They are of course not as bad as the French who work with the bad Indians who ambush the British. In short, there are any levels of good and evil but they are clearly defined. This could be an appropriate source to describe how settlers would feel about this conflict. - Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Going off of Elle's comment about "Good vs. Bad," you could definitely see a bit of bias throughout the movie. Magwa and the Huron's were the "bad guys" in the film definitely indicating strong anti-French sentiments throughout. It's clear that, if this were based explicitly on Cooper's novel, that it is definitely from the point of view of the British. It just emphasizes that this war was fought on multiple levels and it shows how often the Native Americans were "trapped" into picking sides. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think that the movie had good insight as to how the settlers felt about fighting a British/French war. Where it was obvious that some showed a loyalty to Great Britain it was clear that most truly didn't think of themselves as under British rule. Many clearly didn't want to fight but preferred to be with those on the frontier. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
This is more of a question about the Onandogas and Cayugas reading, but I noticed that they used the word "Sachem" frequently and even to describe some of the colonists. I know sachems were like chieftans, so was this a term of respect in regards to the colonists as well? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Kelly, I interpret the usage of sachem by the Indians for the European authority figures as a sign of respect, but also their interpretation of what the equivalent position of the colonists. The Indians, from my understanding by the reading, didn't have the hierarchy in the same way the Europeans did. Through interpretation,a word like general equaled sachem because there was no word for general in their language. -Lauren <br />
<br />
I know Hawkeye’s past isn’t completely far-fetched, one of the readings even mentioned a fellow who had been captured by Indians as a boy and spent several years with them, but I wonder how common it was. How often did Natives accept white kids as their own? --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The Captivity Narrative is a really great source to contrast with not just this movie, but any movie about Native American/white interactions at the time. The Natives sound to be about as nice as they could be, given the situation. While Susanna Johnson is quite whiny and put-upon, I don't think the Natives were attempting to torture her. It was just a cultural difference, since English women were too dainty for forest travel (though giving birth in the woods is impressive). Interestingly, the main woman in the movie was quite a trooper (too much so?), especially when contrasted with this source. --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
Question: Did they actually battle at night like that? (Like around 37 minutes into the film) --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I think the film does show how seeds were laid in this war for the later American Revolution. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Comparing the film to the Captivity Narrative, the film showed mostly that Indians would torture their captives and burn them at stakes for sacrifices. In the Captivity Narrative, it states that many of the tribes before the war would take you captive and adopt you into their families or replace a deceased relatives with you. How common was this? --Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
This movie definitely represents the time in which it was made. First of all, the early to mid 1990s seemed to be a good time to make movies about Native Americans (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Geronimo, and probably more). One reason could be that, in 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was passed, as was the Native American Languages Act. While these weren't really spectacularly progressive, our gov't was at least showing a recognition of their rights. It seemed to be something of a turning point in the way we looked at Native Americans (or perhaps it made us look at them in the first place). --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
I think this movie represents classic American culture. That sense that we emerged from a nation of frontiersmen who had to fight for everything they wanted with their women right beside them. There's Hawkeye who lives with the Indians and can shoot anything no matter how far away and right beside him is Cora who when the battle gets rough pulls out a gun and kills an Indian to save herself and her sister. However, her noticeably weaker sister doesn't survive in the end. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Christine that the movie in many ways played into the traditional ideas of our frontier spirit in America, especially with the blonde frontiersman who appears to lead the militia. The movie also played into the idea of the noble savage in many ways. Hawkeye, though brought up by Native Americans, is of Anglo descent and served as a way for whites to envision themselves as Indians. But the true Indians in the movie, especially Magua and the Huron, embody the view of the natives as savages for their underhanded and brutal tactics in battle. Even the "good" Indians fall into the traditional "noble savage" paradigm as they rarely speak in the movie, only really at the end do you get an idea of what the Father is thinking. Ultimately this movie would fit right into the noble savage canon. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Last of the Mohicans is a good representation of how people in the 1990s liked their movies: epics with a historical setting, graphic violence, and a love story. Braveheart, Dances With Wolves, even Titanic. In Cooper's novel, Hawkeye saves Col. Munro from Magua; in the film we get to see our main antagonist cut out the colonel's heart. Also in the book, Alice and Duncan live happily ever after, and Cora's relationship with Hawkeye is nonexistent. The sweeping, tragic ending of the 1992 adaptation was more palatable to modern audiences. - Sarah Richardson<br />
<br />
I see Last of the Mohicans as a film made for the baby boom generation. Most of who would be in their late 30s/mid 40s at this point. Films like this feature, as McClurken put it, the archetypal American hero that baby boomers grew up worshipping. I liken Hawkeye to the Lone Ranger. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:52, 10 September 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 5 Overall ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to point this out - near the end please notice that there is an extremely fake rock that Nathaniel (AKA DDL) pushes off of in his hurry to stop his brother from attacking Magwa and company. It shakes but Daniel Day Lewis pays no mind - he can make rocks shake like that.<br />
<br />
Overall, now I'm not sure if this is applicable to the discussion or not, but in my opinion this is the type of movie that causes people to stop watching historical films. Yes, there were a lot of good things about it when it came to accuracy, but it was just so dull throughout. Now, "Pocahontas" may have been one of the least accurate movies ever created, but it had a more interesting (and I use that word loosely) storyline. Do we think that there is a way to balance the two out? Is it possible to have a historical movie that is both relatively accurate and entertaining? I understand that it may also be too early in the semester to judge since we're only on our second movie, but I suppose it is something to think about. (Now, I could be alone in my critique of the movie because I had heard excellent reviews about it but I'm sorry, I don't think you could get me to sit and watch it again.) -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I would like to begin by saying that I love the music in this movie. However, it does not cancel out the way I feel about the rest of the movie. I agree with Kelly in that I don't think I could watch it another time. Clips and pieces of the movie were interesting but overall I found it somewhat dry and boring. I wish the fight scene at the end was a little more dramatic and detailed but instead it just went by quickly. I guess that is up to the discretion of the director. The movie has it's moments but at times I found myself wanting the movie to hurry up to the next scene. -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I have to agree with everyone so far. This movie was boring as sin, completely not what I expected. I had always heard people talk about it so well, like a classic! While it was pretty and the music was nice, it was dull (even the battles), graphic, and once again, almost everyone in the movie is fluent in at least 2-3 languages. The "love story" is ridiculously bad, much like John Smith/Pocahontas. Perhaps people did have lower standards back then, and didn't take as much time to get to know each other, but this true love in only 24 hours phenom just makes movies seem more unrealistic. Besides, the good Indian v. bad Indian seemed a little heavy-handed. If we were to have a movie where a "savage" had killed the English governor's daughter and wife and entire town, it would be a portrayal of a white guy seeking justice, NOT being an evil murderer. -- Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
Usually, there has to be a willing suspension of disbelief for movies, but I still couldn’t help but wonder what the chances were that the main characters would be the ''only'' ones to escape in both attacks. In this case, the expendable red shirts were literally wearing red shirts! Seriously though, what happened to the men in the canoe with Duncan during the massacre? I didn’t see them hiding out below the waterfall later on… --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
All in all, it could have been a good movie, but for one thing-- the contrived romance. It sorta of ruined the viewing pleasure for me, though it was pretty funny sometimes. After all, we had such gems as this exchange:<br />
Hawkeye stares at Cora.<br />
Cora: What are you looking at?<br />
*long pause*<br />
Hawkeye: I’m looking at you.<br />
*even longer pause*<br />
Cora stares at Hawkeye.<br />
Hawkeye stares at Cora.<br />
Cora stares at Hawkeye.<br />
Hawkeye stares at Cora.<br />
Cora smiles at Hawkeye.<br />
Hawkeye smiles at Cora.<br />
Yeah, that’s some great writing there. Really. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Haha, that's funny.--Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I remember that I purchased this movie many years ago, however I never tried to look at it in any sort of historical aspect, so I viewed it from a different light this time. I also hadn't watched the movie in quite a while, so I had forgotten quite a bit of it. Although something that I do find annoying in almost all films, the women can go through hell and back and only their hair is a little messed up but their make up still looks perfect. Stupid films and trying to say that women need to be skinny with big chests with perfect hair and faces... -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Question: Did Native Americans pose as a different tribe during the war like Magua did? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Question: Because this movie was a book first and the movie is based on the book and subsequent movies should we be judging it for its historical accuracy or how well it followed the book? - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Even though the book has a historical setting it is fiction and unlike Pocahontas is not based on anything specific so can we hold it to the same standards? - Christine W.<br />
<br />
To answer Christine's question, I don't think this movie should be held to the same standards as movie such as Pocahontas since it is not based on one specific event. And, as we discussed in class James Fenimore Cooper had never met a Native American before, and what he knew of them came from other people, so it's understandable that he might have a skewed impression of Native Americans in his books. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I definitely have to agree with Amanda's point that all of the major Native American characters in the film are perfectly good or completely bad. In fact, the only morally ambiguous characters in the entire film are Duncan and Col. Munro! The Cora/Hawkeye love story, undoubtedly added to attract viewers, sometimes seems like comic relief. Although I like the film, I recognize that it has numerous flaws. Someone should have told the costume department that Daniel Day Lewis looked like he came straight off the cover of a romance novel, and not just in his shirtless scene. - Sarah Richardson<br />
<br />
The character of Mogwa was very interesting to me when I watched this movie. The movie portrays him as a monstrous savage and a villian, but if you actually pay attention to what he says about what happened to him how could one not feel just a little bit sympathetic for him. He obviously had some serious justifications for his rage although the movie focuses so much on his violence that he can be portrayed as just another bad guy. What really ends up striking me with this movie is how certain groups of people are glorified and others are condemned. -Jonathan Bell</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_3_Questions/Comments329--Week 3 Questions/Comments2008-09-11T03:13:43Z<p>Jbell2ja: /* 1a Right: */</p>
<hr />
<div>== 1 Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?) ==<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== 1a Right: ==<br />
<br />
<br />
A common theme that is definitely true in real history (mentioned in lecture as well as World Turned Upside Down/Calloway article) as well as its portrayal in Last of the Mohicans, is that Native Americans gained little from interactions with Europeans, and they lost everything (their land, their race, their culture, their lives). Hence, the last of the Mohicans. In that respect this film did a good job of demonstrating (if even to the slightest degree) the plight of the Indian race due to European involvement. -Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Cora had to ask Nathaniel why the murdered family was isolated, to which he responded that after 7 years of indentured servitude in VA, these people needed to go somewhere farther away to get any land. That seems right that she, the daughter of a general, raised in London, would not be fully aware of the causes for some threats the settlers faced, of some of the less obvious issues that helped make the war what it was. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I can see why the Mohicans didn't want to bury the family that they came across while they were running. It makes sense that if they were to move them others would know that someone had been there. Was it common for the Native Americans to try to cover their tracks? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
<br />
It was also obvious in the movie how easily the Native Americans could play the settlers off of each other. It was effortless, or so it seemed to us, for Magua to act as a scout for the British, but secretly support the French because of what he would get out of that relationship. That was something we definitely studied and I thought the movie did a decent job representing that. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think the backdrop of the movie was actually fairly historically accurate. It captured British superiority towards the colonists and the beginnings of the tensions that would lead to the Revolution. Also, the British did surrender to the French at Fort William Henry and they were attacked by the Indians as they left the area. Of course, the attack had more to do with the Natives wanting their promised war spoils rather than one vengeful leader, but the movie did show that the Indians started retracting their alliances with the French following the fort’s surrender. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
'Right' in this case is totally different in regard to the original book or to history. While looking through some of the chapters of the book, I was actually shocked to know that they called Hawkeye 'The Long Rifle.' I can't lie, I thought that was totally 1990s Native American sexual innuendo. -- Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
The European mindset that they held the right to control the country and live on and dominate the land as they saw fit seemed pretty accurate to me, not to be too harsh. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
The mindset that the land was for the taking (by England). The movie also managed the 'superiority complex' of the British army towards the colonist militia. The costuming and makeup departments seem to have been able to get the 'look' of the Mohican as compared to the picture shown to us in class on Tuesday. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
A far as the historical accuracy of the films is concerned, I was pleased to read in the articles that Indian adoptions of colonists were actually practiced. This at least means the basis of Nathaniel as adopted is sound. – Wesley Weeks<br />
<br />
To me, the way the movie portrayed the Europeans and the Native Americans fighting was accurate. They showed the Europeans fighting in neat, organized rows, with an officer telling them when to shoot, while the Native Americans were shown fighting all over, and without someone to tell them when and where to shoot. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
To piggy back on what Katherine mentioned, I too agreed that the movie appeared to depict the manner in which the different groups fought rather well. As was mentioned in the lecture, the Native Americans adapted the technologies to their own liking. Thus they used rifles when applicable, but did not abandon their tomahawks or war clubs. Also it was accurate in the way in which the colonists were not treated well by the British regulars and it did well (though maybe a bit heavy-handed) to illustrate this tension. A last detail that the movie seemed to get right was the way in which both the French and the British used the various tribes with little regard for the Native Americans' interests. Mohicans are decimated and the Huron (and Magua) are left to act at the whim of the French. Though the tribes may have been allied with a European power the movie shows that in the end they were to be left out of the spoils of victory. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
There were a few things that rang true to me throughout the movie. The mention that the tribes eventually played off each other and the warring Europeans was reinforced very well throughout the movie. Magua's evil cunning was evidenced in all it's brutal glory(?) as he literally hacked and slashed through anyone that opposed him, paying no mind to who he betrays in the process. The French-British and British-American hostilities also seemed very accurate to me. While Manifest Destiny would soon destroy much of the pre-existing diplomacy between the Americans and Indians, for now both sides fully understood that they had to be united to stave off any hostilities forced on them by the other Europeans. Finally, as Mallory said above, the European imperialism struck me as unfortunately accurate as well. As the intro text explained, it was a battle for control of the nation. -Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
This is kind of on the border between right and wrong, but when Hawkeye was walking toward the Sachem and was being "attacked" by the Huron, I think that was a sort of running the gauntlet. Although it was a bit more brutal than the one Susanna Johnson described, I could imagine they could possibly do something along those lines. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:36, 10 September 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Most of the inaccuracies from this movie seem to come not from the actual facts themselves, but from the way the movie singles out certain aspects while leaving other aspects out. For instance it was true that militias had very unhappy men and in many cases were willing to desert. The movie, however seems to glorify these men by only showing this one aspect of the colonial family man just wanting to go home. This movie does incorporate several aspects that are true, but it conveniently leaves other facts out resulting in a false impression of what is actually going on. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
== 1b Inaccurate/issues: ==<br />
<br />
<br />
Question- I know it was not all that uncommon for a Native American tribe to adopt “white sons” like Hawkeye or Nathaniel, but how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially. In this case the Mohicans had no women left and therefore had no other option, but I wondered if it was likely that Native Americans and white women would really get together. - Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Question- How rebellious were the settlers at this point toward the British crown rule? I felt that in the struggle between the British crown and the settlers, the mention of tyranny may have been a bit premature (at least to my knowledge on the topic), but I did like that there was a pre-revolution sense of injustice among the settlers. Was this premature or accurate for the time? - Elle Weaver <br />
<br />
Remember that the British officers were condescending toward the colonial militia. It's not just the militiamen talking about the British tyranny that indicates the struggle. First, when Duncan (Phelps?)tells Munro that the militiamen negotiated terms of service in the war, Munro responds something to the effect that that was just like them--the colonials think they can set their own terms. And then, when Nathaniel is trying to tell Munro that the militiamen's families are either threatened or being killed, and they should be allowed to go back to defend, Munro says that they can't go (they'd be shot if they did), because, essentially, that the threatened families are trivial in comparison to the army's objectives. He obviously sees himself/the army/the British in general as superior to them, and couldn't care less about these men's families. This attitude is easy to recognize, and caps off the injustice. But I think at that point the settlers wanted fair treatment and mainly hoped or believed that relations could still be mended with the mother country. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Question: is it at all a stretch that an angry Huron (Magwa) who wants revenge would want to cut out the heart of his enemy and burn his seed alive? -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I was wondering the same thing that Elle was about adopting white sons. From what I remember learning in the past I don't remember this. What would make a tribe adopt members of the white race? What would make a white settler want to leave other colonists and join the Native Americans? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
One issue I have with the movie is the accents. I mean, what was going on with the different accents scattered throughout? Because based on Munro's accent, he definitely did not raise his daughters and the colonists just seemed to be a bit off as well. Was the "American accent" emerging this early? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Question- This may come across, unintentionally, as ignorant but were the Huron unusually violent? The reading ''First Peoples'' explains that war parties came prepared with clothing and moccasins when abducting their captives which seems somewhat thoughtful. I know this doesn't describe every war party, especially Magua's tribe because we learn that he is going after Col. Munro in order to avenge his family's death, but it was just something I kept in mind while watching ''The Last of the Mohicans'' since in the movie the Huron kill the settlers and pillage their homes. However, I chalked this up to being an example of the film's historical inaccuracy. Again, this doesn't pertain to all tribes but in the movie the women are called "dogs" and "slaves" were as in the reading ''First Peoples'' it is said that women and children were treated well because they were being adopted into the community. These two examples prove that the director's main objective was to create an intriguing story. In my opinon, the movie was a little too concerned with the romantic aspect of history (i.e. good vs. evil), similar to ''Pocahontas'', rather than being a sound example of historical facts. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
The Minavavan reading focused on how the Algonkians had not accepted the English as the replacements for the French. Minavavan makes the distinction that just because the French might be out of the power struggle, the Algonkians were by no means going to cede their land and culture passively. "Englishmen, although you have conquered the French, you have not yet conquered us! We are not your slaves." In the final sentences of Minavavan's speech he insinuates a leeriness of the English, but acknowledges no aggression on their part- offering a peace pipe. Sadly, I think the movie took too much creative license and distorted the actual sentiments of the Native Americans (from what I can gather from this particular reading). In the movie the French and English made an agreement that the English would move on from the fort, but on their journey the English were ambushed by a band of native attackers. I think it is safe to say that the American Indians who had fought alongside the French would be upset with a changing of the guard, but I do not get the sense that they were willing to continue fighting independently. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Question: We're guns already that accurate, in low light, at that point? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
<br />
'''The Abenakis Defy The English''': “When the United States held treaties with Indian Tribes in the nineteenth century, American Commissioners often dictated their terms and spoke down to Indian delegates with the arrogance of power. In colonial times the power balance was much more equal and Indian speakers often “gave as good as they got” in their negotiations with Europeans.” I believe this movie is still portraying the Native- Euro relationship through the lens of the nineteenth century, as opposed to the relationship of the 17th and 18th centuries as conveyed in our primary source documents. At the end of the film when Hawkeye and his compatriots were going to rescue the Daughters Munro and Duncan the entire negotiation process was dominated by the romantic/ Anglo demands. The Sachem said that Cora was going to be put to death, but then Hawkeye and Duncan plead to get her off the hook. With seemingly no defense of his position, the sachem changes his mind. Firstly, the reading, “A captive with the Abenakis” makes it seem as though death would not be the course of action taken against a captive, especially a woman. Secondly, I find it suspect that a Sachem would be so easily swayed in decision making.- Jason <br />
Ward<br />
<br />
Question: Is this how we are now supposed to identify our "question" posts? I thought a simple question mark was a sufficient indicator. haha. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Question: Was the tribe fighting along the French in this film Patrilinial? Many times the Chief seemed to be obsessed with wiping out Munro's seed. Or did he just understand that the English were Patrilinial and therefore wanted to make his contempt for Munro clear?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Watching the film it struck me how insistent Magua was about “wiping out the seed of the grey-haired man.” It seemed unbelievable and if the Huron were matrilineal, it wouldn’t even make sense. – Wesley Weeks<br />
<br />
I also liked how the movie portrayed the colonists as already at the time of the French and Indian War as having a national identity as basically Americans. – Wesley Weeks<br />
<br />
Based on the film it seemed that the Native Americans mostly used guns at this point in time. This doesn't seem accurate; the film makes it seem like the Native Americans just dropped their native weapons and knew exactly how to shoot a gun within a few days.<br />
--Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== 2 Film's relationship to scholarship/primary sources from the time ==<br />
<br />
Kellye asked why the Indians would adopt white settlers. Calloway says on page 169 of "A Captive with the Abenakis," the reason for the tribes to adopt white people was to replace those that had died, to balance out the population levels. The sachem of the Huron in which Magua belonged to in the movie seemed to adopt Alice into the tribe when he made her Magua's wife to replace Magua's dead children and to continue the Munro blood. -Lauren <br />
<br />
To comment on Elle’s question of “how common was it for Native Americans to date or marry inter racially,” I don’t think it was rare, for instance, on page 177 of “A Captive with the Abenakis,” Susanna Willard mentions that her second master Gill married a woman of “true Indian blood.” Though Gill was well adopted into the Indian culture, he still had an interracial marriage. I think the issue is whether there were many intercultural marriages between captive whites and non-captive whites like the movie. -Lauren<br />
<br />
In Last of the Mohicans there is a definite good vs. evil battle going on. There are good and bad Indians, the good being the 3 Mohicans who save everyone on countless occasions (who are also conveniently more civilized seeming and dressing) and the bad being the Hurons – especially Magwa. There are also clearly defined lines between colonial settlers and the British military. The military breaks its promises and uses the colonists for its own purposes, neglecting their rights to defend their families etc. They are of course not as bad as the French who work with the bad Indians who ambush the British. In short, there are any levels of good and evil but they are clearly defined. This could be an appropriate source to describe how settlers would feel about this conflict. - Elle Weaver<br />
<br />
Going off of Elle's comment about "Good vs. Bad," you could definitely see a bit of bias throughout the movie. Magwa and the Huron's were the "bad guys" in the film definitely indicating strong anti-French sentiments throughout. It's clear that, if this were based explicitly on Cooper's novel, that it is definitely from the point of view of the British. It just emphasizes that this war was fought on multiple levels and it shows how often the Native Americans were "trapped" into picking sides. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I think that the movie had good insight as to how the settlers felt about fighting a British/French war. Where it was obvious that some showed a loyalty to Great Britain it was clear that most truly didn't think of themselves as under British rule. Many clearly didn't want to fight but preferred to be with those on the frontier. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
This is more of a question about the Onandogas and Cayugas reading, but I noticed that they used the word "Sachem" frequently and even to describe some of the colonists. I know sachems were like chieftans, so was this a term of respect in regards to the colonists as well? -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
Kelly, I interpret the usage of sachem by the Indians for the European authority figures as a sign of respect, but also their interpretation of what the equivalent position of the colonists. The Indians, from my understanding by the reading, didn't have the hierarchy in the same way the Europeans did. Through interpretation,a word like general equaled sachem because there was no word for general in their language. -Lauren <br />
<br />
I know Hawkeye’s past isn’t completely far-fetched, one of the readings even mentioned a fellow who had been captured by Indians as a boy and spent several years with them, but I wonder how common it was. How often did Natives accept white kids as their own? --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
The Captivity Narrative is a really great source to contrast with not just this movie, but any movie about Native American/white interactions at the time. The Natives sound to be about as nice as they could be, given the situation. While Susanna Johnson is quite whiny and put-upon, I don't think the Natives were attempting to torture her. It was just a cultural difference, since English women were too dainty for forest travel (though giving birth in the woods is impressive). Interestingly, the main woman in the movie was quite a trooper (too much so?), especially when contrasted with this source. --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
Question: Did they actually battle at night like that? (Like around 37 minutes into the film) --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
I think the film does show how seeds were laid in this war for the later American Revolution. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Comparing the film to the Captivity Narrative, the film showed mostly that Indians would torture their captives and burn them at stakes for sacrifices. In the Captivity Narrative, it states that many of the tribes before the war would take you captive and adopt you into their families or replace a deceased relatives with you. How common was this? --Ashley Scutari<br />
<br />
== 3 Movie as primary source about makers/time/setting/genre ==<br />
<br />
This movie definitely represents the time in which it was made. First of all, the early to mid 1990s seemed to be a good time to make movies about Native Americans (Pocahontas, Dances with Wolves, Geronimo, and probably more). One reason could be that, in 1990, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was passed, as was the Native American Languages Act. While these weren't really spectacularly progressive, our gov't was at least showing a recognition of their rights. It seemed to be something of a turning point in the way we looked at Native Americans (or perhaps it made us look at them in the first place). --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
I think this movie represents classic American culture. That sense that we emerged from a nation of frontiersmen who had to fight for everything they wanted with their women right beside them. There's Hawkeye who lives with the Indians and can shoot anything no matter how far away and right beside him is Cora who when the battle gets rough pulls out a gun and kills an Indian to save herself and her sister. However, her noticeably weaker sister doesn't survive in the end. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Christine that the movie in many ways played into the traditional ideas of our frontier spirit in America, especially with the blonde frontiersman who appears to lead the militia. The movie also played into the idea of the noble savage in many ways. Hawkeye, though brought up by Native Americans, is of Anglo descent and served as a way for whites to envision themselves as Indians. But the true Indians in the movie, especially Magua and the Huron, embody the view of the natives as savages for their underhanded and brutal tactics in battle. Even the "good" Indians fall into the traditional "noble savage" paradigm as they rarely speak in the movie, only really at the end do you get an idea of what the Father is thinking. Ultimately this movie would fit right into the noble savage canon. -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
Last of the Mohicans is a good representation of how people in the 1990s liked their movies: epics with a historical setting, graphic violence, and a love story. Braveheart, Dances With Wolves, even Titanic. In Cooper's novel, Hawkeye saves Col. Munro from Magua; in the film we get to see our main antagonist cut out the colonel's heart. Also in the book, Alice and Duncan live happily ever after, and Cora's relationship with Hawkeye is nonexistent. The sweeping, tragic ending of the 1992 adaptation was more palatable to modern audiences. - Sarah Richardson<br />
<br />
I see Last of the Mohicans as a film made for the baby boom generation. Most of who would be in their late 30s/mid 40s at this point. Films like this feature, as McClurken put it, the archetypal American hero that baby boomers grew up worshipping. I liken Hawkeye to the Lone Ranger. --[[User:Shauser|Shauser]] 20:52, 10 September 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 4 Public reaction/impact ==<br />
<br />
<br />
== 5 Overall ==<br />
<br />
<br />
I have to point this out - near the end please notice that there is an extremely fake rock that Nathaniel (AKA DDL) pushes off of in his hurry to stop his brother from attacking Magwa and company. It shakes but Daniel Day Lewis pays no mind - he can make rocks shake like that.<br />
<br />
Overall, now I'm not sure if this is applicable to the discussion or not, but in my opinion this is the type of movie that causes people to stop watching historical films. Yes, there were a lot of good things about it when it came to accuracy, but it was just so dull throughout. Now, "Pocahontas" may have been one of the least accurate movies ever created, but it had a more interesting (and I use that word loosely) storyline. Do we think that there is a way to balance the two out? Is it possible to have a historical movie that is both relatively accurate and entertaining? I understand that it may also be too early in the semester to judge since we're only on our second movie, but I suppose it is something to think about. (Now, I could be alone in my critique of the movie because I had heard excellent reviews about it but I'm sorry, I don't think you could get me to sit and watch it again.) -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I would like to begin by saying that I love the music in this movie. However, it does not cancel out the way I feel about the rest of the movie. I agree with Kelly in that I don't think I could watch it another time. Clips and pieces of the movie were interesting but overall I found it somewhat dry and boring. I wish the fight scene at the end was a little more dramatic and detailed but instead it just went by quickly. I guess that is up to the discretion of the director. The movie has it's moments but at times I found myself wanting the movie to hurry up to the next scene. -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I have to agree with everyone so far. This movie was boring as sin, completely not what I expected. I had always heard people talk about it so well, like a classic! While it was pretty and the music was nice, it was dull (even the battles), graphic, and once again, almost everyone in the movie is fluent in at least 2-3 languages. The "love story" is ridiculously bad, much like John Smith/Pocahontas. Perhaps people did have lower standards back then, and didn't take as much time to get to know each other, but this true love in only 24 hours phenom just makes movies seem more unrealistic. Besides, the good Indian v. bad Indian seemed a little heavy-handed. If we were to have a movie where a "savage" had killed the English governor's daughter and wife and entire town, it would be a portrayal of a white guy seeking justice, NOT being an evil murderer. -- Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
Usually, there has to be a willing suspension of disbelief for movies, but I still couldn’t help but wonder what the chances were that the main characters would be the ''only'' ones to escape in both attacks. In this case, the expendable red shirts were literally wearing red shirts! Seriously though, what happened to the men in the canoe with Duncan during the massacre? I didn’t see them hiding out below the waterfall later on… --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
All in all, it could have been a good movie, but for one thing-- the contrived romance. It sorta of ruined the viewing pleasure for me, though it was pretty funny sometimes. After all, we had such gems as this exchange:<br />
Hawkeye stares at Cora.<br />
Cora: What are you looking at?<br />
*long pause*<br />
Hawkeye: I’m looking at you.<br />
*even longer pause*<br />
Cora stares at Hawkeye.<br />
Hawkeye stares at Cora.<br />
Cora stares at Hawkeye.<br />
Hawkeye stares at Cora.<br />
Cora smiles at Hawkeye.<br />
Hawkeye smiles at Cora.<br />
Yeah, that’s some great writing there. Really. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Haha, that's funny.--Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I remember that I purchased this movie many years ago, however I never tried to look at it in any sort of historical aspect, so I viewed it from a different light this time. I also hadn't watched the movie in quite a while, so I had forgotten quite a bit of it. Although something that I do find annoying in almost all films, the women can go through hell and back and only their hair is a little messed up but their make up still looks perfect. Stupid films and trying to say that women need to be skinny with big chests with perfect hair and faces... -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Question: Did Native Americans pose as a different tribe during the war like Magua did? --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Question: Because this movie was a book first and the movie is based on the book and subsequent movies should we be judging it for its historical accuracy or how well it followed the book? - Christine W.<br />
<br />
Even though the book has a historical setting it is fiction and unlike Pocahontas is not based on anything specific so can we hold it to the same standards? - Christine W.<br />
<br />
To answer Christine's question, I don't think this movie should be held to the same standards as movie such as Pocahontas since it is not based on one specific event. And, as we discussed in class James Fenimore Cooper had never met a Native American before, and what he knew of them came from other people, so it's understandable that he might have a skewed impression of Native Americans in his books. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
I definitely have to agree with Amanda's point that all of the major Native American characters in the film are perfectly good or completely bad. In fact, the only morally ambiguous characters in the entire film are Duncan and Col. Munro! The Cora/Hawkeye love story, undoubtedly added to attract viewers, sometimes seems like comic relief. Although I like the film, I recognize that it has numerous flaws. Someone should have told the costume department that Daniel Day Lewis looked like he came straight off the cover of a romance novel, and not just in his shirtless scene. - Sarah Richardson</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_2_Questions/Comments329--Week 2 Questions/Comments2008-09-04T00:07:35Z<p>Jbell2ja: </p>
<hr />
<div>'''As you add comments and/or especially questions and debate topics, think about areas we will discuss on TH. Key areas will be: Movie as secondary source about the past (What did it get right? What did it get wrong?); Film's relationship to scholarship; Movie as primary sources about makers/time/setting/genre; Public reaction/impact -- Dr. M'''<br />
<br />
It really is amazing just how different the portrayal of a character in history to film differs, or at least things that they did. Disney portrays attacking Natives and fighting Englishmen, who have no problems with food or staying alive. John Smith meets a grown up Pocahontas, not a 10 year old. I guess they thought it would make for a better story. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
This reading felt more like a trading journal, which I suppose is mostly what they did at the time. Pocahontas is such a minor character that she is only mentioned twice by name. She doesn't seem to have made a large impact on him, if any at all, actually. It doesn't even appear that they can speak to each other, begging the question.. where did Disney come up with this storyline? --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
I know that it is really unrealistic and not factual but I like the movie Pocahontas better than the real story. The real story just seems so depressing. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I have to agree with Kellye, I really liked the Disney movie even if its not very factual. Its still a fun movie to sit and watch on occassion... even though its not all correct by far... a person can get an extremely generic storyline... either way, I've always enjoyed the musical animated movies anyways >.< I'm such a sucker for 'em. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Well, Kellye, that's what Disney's good for. The movie version of the story is pretty far-fetched that it makes me wonder how many kids took this for truth once they saw the movie and how many parents didn't realize how innacurate it was. I know I was shocked to learn that Pocahontas and John Smith were not really together and that another man entirely was involved (talking about Rolfe here.) And regardless of how many times I've seen the movie, I still can't believe there wasn't a single mention of John Rolfe, anywhere. Also, why do you think Disney chose to make Ratcliffe "the governor" when in Smith's account he was one of the captains? --Kelly Wuyscik <br />
<br />
I read John Smith's journal before watching Pocahontas for this class and I was amazed at how much I picked up on. While I was watching the movie I had the tendency to think well that's not what John said happens. I know his journal is not totally reliable but it does provide an interesting foil for the movie. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I was surprised at how much John talked about the landscape in his journal. For a man who seemed to only be interested in himself and the wonders he achieved he talks a lot about the rivers and the trees and the fields he sees on his journeys. I also thought it was interesting to read about how, according to him, he was always the one to go places and make trades and the Indians only recognized him. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I agree with Christine in how in depth Smith goes into with the landscape of the Indians. With that said, the film does not accurately portray what the Eastern woodlands really looked like. I did not recall any swamplands that contributed to the disease that plagued the colonists. The relationship between Smith and the Indians seemed rather cordial in my opinion, which of course we learn changes as more accounts of Smith and his journey are re-written over time. Additionally, I'm not used to reading Olde English text, so this was a fairly difficult read for me. - David F.<br />
<br />
After today's lecture, and watching the movie tonight, I have to say that Disney did get some things correct. For instance, in the beginning of the movie, they showed the women gathering the crops, and the men were fishing, gender divisions of labor that we talked about in class. Also, towards the end of the movie, John Smith was about to have his head bashed in with a club, we discussed this event in class today as well. This is not to say that Disney got everything right, but they did get a few things about Pocahontas correct. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
<br />
One reason I'm not fond of cartoon movies is how the characters' bodies are drawn. First of all, we have a dashing, young, blond, popular John Smith. Animated females always have to have some sort of sex appeal, from penguins to Pocahontas. Therefore, and to facilitate the invented romance, we have 17-ish-year-old Pocahontas with an ideal hourglass Victorian body, complete with 16-inch waist, whose posture never fails to accentuate her bust and hips. Meanwhile, Smith in 1608 describes Powhatan's daughter as "a child of ten years old: which, not only for feature, countenance, and proportion, much exceedeth any of the rest of his people: but for wit and spirit, the only Nonpareil of his country." This indicates that Disney's Pocahontas is not entirely invented, just very embellished and sexy. This all just reinforces the mass idea that romance cannot exist without sexy bodies, and just isn't a good story without them. - Whitney Holcomb.<br />
<br />
Katherine: remember that the head-bashing was something only mentioned in the 1624 account by Smith. True, it was written, but Disney doesn't care about its reality or not. - Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
Disney also reinforces the film perception of cowboys-v.-Indians as each only wanting to kill the other-but with colonists, not cowboys. It portrays both sides as warlike, eager to kill the enemy, with only the heroine able to think diplomacy could help. Not once is there any attempt to communicate between the sides. And this while Smith's 1608 account has few hostilities, until stealing becomes a big issue after about a year, and is filled with trade, generosity, communication, providing feasts and guides, and even sending 13-year-old Thomas to Powhatan. Is it so hard for a kids' movie to indicate friendliness between two unfamiliar peoples? Apparently so, because this movie had to be all about how a young Indian woman changed the hearts of every person (except Governor Ratcliffe). Kids who see this are bound to believe that it was all about conflict when the colonists met the Indians. This movie totally leads uniformed children (and adults) to believe that this is what Jamestown, Pocahontas, and Indian relations were really like. - Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
It is good to see that Disney incorporates the Indians' belief in spirits to help guide them or, in Pocahontas's case, to interpret dreams. The thing that gets me though, is that although she is talking to a tree, when it tells her to listen to the spirits that are all around, it's like it's the first time it has ever occurred to her, which I would think would have been natural. After all, she listens to Grandmother Willow! - Whitney<br />
<br />
For extended information about Pocahontas, I recommend going to fredmarkers.umwblogs.org, a McClurken project some of us did last spring, and reading "Kidnapping of Pocahontas" (go to "1600s"), researched and written by Elle. - Whitney<br />
<br />
While watching the movie I found it almost laughable how stereotypical the movie really is. Within just the opening scene the Native American characters are in loin cloths, with their hair braided and adorned with feathers. Also, the men are shown carrying bows and arrows. It is true they were the choice weaponry but I would guess they did not carry them around every second of the day. I have not seen the full movie since it came out in 1995 and at the age of 8 I would never have second guessed Disney. I believed that this story of Pocahontas, which is loosely based on history, was true. This just further proves what we discussed last week which is that movies do have the power to educate and influence people, especially children. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
It is evident that Disney was more interested in creating a captivating story rather than bringing to the big screen an interesting piece of history. I agree with Whitney about the display of the character's physical appearances. Why is it a universal conception that the only way a movie, and in this case a historical account, can only be interesting is if the those involved have beautiful features and muscular and toned bodies? In this movie it is totally unrealistic, especially since realistically John Smith was 35 and Pocahontas was 10, although in the movie she looked 25. The movie does not represent John Smith's 1608 account because in his version of the story about meeting the Native Americans, he barely talks about Pocahontas. When he does he notes that she is a young girl of 10 years old and refers to her as Powhatan's "little Daughter." I did like how in the movie the Native Americans are very in tune with nature, as seen by Pocahontas' relationship with Grandmother Willow and Meeko. --Mallory C.<br />
<br />
I want to rant a little about Disney and its depiction of women. I've seen Disney getting lambasted pretty often for helping to perpetuate the "Pretty Pretty Princess" stereotype, where the meek, kind-hearted, helpless woman needs a strong manly man to save her. I would agree that many of Disney's earlier films, like Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, do fall into this stereotype. But considering the time these movies were made, should we be surprised? Wasn't Disney was just following the feminine ideal of the time? I think we can safely say that Disney has done a better job since then in depicting its women as more independent, strong, and complex. For instance, Princess Jasmine wasn't exactly a whimpering willow and Mulan was kicking butt and taking names. Today, most of us don't want to see a weak woman who needs a man to save her; that's just not our idealization of women anymore. So, is it fair for Disney to be attacked for making movies that reflected the perceived role of women at the time they were made? Would it even be a problem if Disney movies weren't so enduringly popular? How much do Disney movies even affect our view of women's roles? And to be a little more on topic, how much do Disney movies affect our view of historical events? -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
Can anyone tell me the rhyme or reason behind the extra "e" added to some words in the Smith account? Now, I know English has evolved over time, but I'm curious who decided what words would have the "e" and what words wouldn't have it. Heck, sometimes Smith gave a word an extra "e" and later he'd leave the "e" off the same word! -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
While as a movie it is entertaining and not the most historically accurate, it did have some truth to it. As we learned yesterday, women would work in the fields gathering food as a community which is portrayed in the movie. Also, the men are shown fishing which was an important source of nutrition for the Native Americans. -- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
Dear Dr. M - I hate to admit this but once again you were right. Determing the historical accuracy of a movie such as "Pocahontas" is indeed like shooting fish in a barrel. I'm sorry I doubted you. But to be fair, one has to admit that the reaction that the Native Americans had when first seeing the "pale faced ones" had to be pretty accurate. It was a new group of people arriving on their land and they didn't know anything about them. They were unprepared to deal with them and that was shown in the movie. Powhatan even mentioned to Kocoum that they couldn't just immediately go fight - they didn't know enough about their enemy to ensure they would win. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
The movie did have some truth to it, as Mallory said it does show the women working in the fields and the men fishing. You can also see the clear relationship between the Native Americans and nature. However, at the same time there the movie has some errors. The most obvious being the love story. So where is the swamp land in the movie that was such a large part of the Jamestown landscape? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I'm not sure where the swamp land was and I think John Smith should have been ill after washing his face in brackish water. But I do have one question - I know that in the movie "The Lion King" the opening song is merely gibberish and not actually Swahili. Is this also the case for the Native American language Disney used in some of their songs? --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
OK, one more question. Did anyone else get a bit confused towards the end of John Smith's 1608 account? I was doing very well understanding his English but then once he started discussing all of the other Federations and the reasons they were meeting each other, I started to lose track of who was doing what. But, like everyone else, I find it amusing that he mentions Pocahontas once and, although he understands she's the favorite child, it's just a brief encounter the two seem to have. --Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
As was discussed earlier, there was a lot that I found surprisingly accurate about the Disney portrayal, an admission that seems almost blasphemous. The amount of honor and trust that Pocahontas showed for Grandmother Willow was closely in line with our discussions of matrilineal and matriarchal societies. However, the idealization of the Englishmen greatly bothered me. It seems as though Governor Ratcliffe would not have been the only power-hungry, greedy man in the lot, yet he is the only member of the Virginia Company with explicitly corrupt motives. Also, did anyone else feel as though the Native Americans were depicted as weak and inferior? This may have been subconscious thought working its way to the forefront, but it seemed to me as though Pocahontas and Powhatan were the only strong Native characters in the movie. --Cash Nelson<br />
<br />
I think this movie got a lot of things right, over-dramatized many events, and completely butchered the historical narrative of the John Smith era in Virginia. Somethings I feel that were accurately portrayed include the trip over on the high seas (although the rescue of a man overboard was for pure entertainment). I was shocked that the movie showed the gender division of labor, the reverence for ritual, and the legacy of native sports/ games rather accurately. The inclusion of the Grandmother Willow character shows a matriarchal society with a reverence for nature. I think the film correctly portrayed the English motivations and expectations about the new world, along with the attitudes towards the natives. Outside of those strengths the film makers completely abandoned the history of the relations between settlers and natives. Disney literally kept the historical names and then fabricated storylines and events. Historically, Kocoum and Pocahontas were not about to wed when the English arrived, Kocoum was not killed by Thomas, and the list goes on... I think what is most damaging about this movie is that it does not convey the relationship between settlers and natives well. In the John Smith writing he made it sound like life was good in the colony and that the indians were helpful, peppered with seemingly random and baseless disputes. The relationship in the movie was immediately cantankerous, with a neat and clean resolution.-- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
I agree with Jason in that I was surprised at Disney portraying the Natives' gendered division of labor in an accurate way. Though they emphasized the connection between the natives and nature, I wonder if perhaps the use of Mother Willow did more to patronize their beliefs? Also, was it me or did nearly all of the "extras" who were natives look almost exactly alike, whereas the English "extras" had more discernible differences? Is this another instance of Disney marginalizing a minority culture? -Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
To comment on Bryan's second question, it seemed to me that the colonial extras also look similar, though in rank rather than appearance. Dr. M mentioned in the lecture on Tuesday that many or most of the men who came from England were second sons and jewelers, not laborers who were used to the hard work. In the movie, all of the men except for the governor and his steward looked like peasants! And since they came from England, why did I hear a man with a Scottish accent? -Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
Regarding the butchering of the account of Indian-English relations, what level responsibility does Disney have in presenting an accurate account of the historical relationship between Smith and Pocahontas? Also, is it possible that by framing the Jamestown settlement in a pseudo Romeo & Juliet manner, does that allow for a more accessible form of history for young viewers (Disney's target demographic)? Does the romantacizing of Smith and Pocahontas make history more accessible to youngsters in the same way that Washington and the cherry tree introduces children to a Founding Father? Lastly, where would Disney be without epic cliffs (Pride Rock from Lion King, Pocahontas' Diving ledge, etc.)?<br />
<br />
While I was watching the movie it dawned on me that, they kept the same person as 'leader' from the ship ride over until the end where the hog-tie him and ship him back to England. Also John Smith is almost idolized by his crewmates, but I didn't exactly get that feeling from the reading. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Watching the movie I looked at Pocahontas and just thought why is she 25. Then looked at John Smith and thought why does he look the same age as her. Another thing was why Pocahontas's tribe was patriarchal? Her father gave her no choice in anything.---Matt DeMarr<br />
<br />
Did you guys noticed how Disney Americanized the Indians in the 1990's fashion? I noticed, for example, how one couple greeted each other openly. The woman even knocked down her man once he got out of his canoe. To me, that gesture was more of the modern couple, rather than the American Indians of the 17th century. The behavior between Pocahontas and her friend struck me more like American teenagers, rather than teenagers of that time. Terms like "break a leg" and "gift basket" in the contexts that they were used in in the movie are modern. I felt like the movie was a primary source about the mid-1990s than a primary source of the 17th century. -Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
Consider the source! Lets take a look at the Disney corporation. I had an English class Freshman year, (Brian will hopefully remember our time debunking Disney well)that effectively revealed the biases of Disney characters and stroylines, while also providing a context and rationale for the ideology that drove Walt and his successors. Walt Diney had a Conservative or at least traditionalist world view which led him to create masterpieces that featured a male- dominated, Anglo- Saxon based folklore. A folklore that seems to now be inextricably linked with the American identity. To add to what Taylor has said I would actually say that Disney has not improved their record of chauvanism and moralistic storytelling, only that they have improved how effectively they convey it. Ariel from ''The Little Mermaid'' is one of the saddest and most blatant portrayals of female subservience. As it pertains to Pocahontas, the fact that the story told on the screen exists outside the realm of basic historical facts allows Disney to rewrite American History. At the end of the film everything is tied up in a little bow. Powhatan says to Smith "you are always welcome in our village", and Pocahontas cries and chases after the ship as it leaves because she will miss her love. This movie ends on such a high note that I wouldn't be surprised if many people thought that was the end of Euro/ native hostilities. Disney did not leave room for sequels which could be entitled Genocide, Trail of Tears, or Reservation. The last ten minutes of this movie imply that because the two sides made peace, the English gained control of this continent thanks to the benevolence of the Native Americans. - Jason Ward<br />
<br />
One of the biggest problems with this movie is there is no real sense of development over time. The events all happily immediately after another instead of progressing over time. From the reading it is easy to tell that the relationships with the Indians developed slowly over time and there was a lot of negotiation involved. I also find it ironic that Kokoam Pocahontas's actual husband was killed during the movie. - Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
Despite the flaws in historical accuracy the message Disney presents in this movie is a very good message for the young. That is it emphasizes cross cultural understanding. Disney presents this movie in the same way, however they approached faerie tale romance stories probably to keep the appeal to its target audience and maintain the same style it used on its previous animated movies. The question we should ask here is if the value of cross cultural understanding expressed in this movie is more valuable to young people then presenting the actual history of the events involved?- Jonathan Bell<br />
<br />
The reading of John Smith really focuses on diplomacy, trade and fighting exclusively. One of the interesting things about the reading is Smith constantly mentions the Indians giving him and men with him big feasts. The whole effect seems to present that the relations with the Indians went fairly well at the beginning. Another interesting thing I noted in relation to the movie is Smith didn't travel alone, but had men with him and the only time he ended up alone was when his men were killed. - Jonathan Bell</div>Jbell2jahttps://mcclurken.umwhistory.org/wiki/index.php?title=329--Week_1_Questions/Comments329--Week 1 Questions/Comments2008-08-28T02:48:30Z<p>Jbell2ja: </p>
<hr />
<div>Place your questions/comments/debate ideas about this week's film here.<br />
<br />
This class is awesome.<br />
<br />
We have Lady Rebecca Rolfe watching over our every word...beware.<br />
<br />
If we pick a movie that was originally a book, should we read the book, too?<br />
<br />
In the words of Senator Arlen Specter, "When Hollywood speaks, the world listens...when Washington speaks, the world snoozes (Why Movies Matter, pp. 1-2)." The words by Senator Specter are funny, yet relevant. Hollywood arouses the general audience more than politicians in Washington D.C. Do people need entertainment to push them into political involvement and awareness?-Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
On Lauren's comments on if we need Hollywood to make us interested in politics, I would say yes and no. When some people see their favorite celebrity endorsing a certain candidate, they too get interested in politics, even if they never were interested in politics before. For example, during the Presidential election years, MTV does a campaign with celebrities to encourage the young people to vote, and has shown in the past to be successful. Other people are just interested in politics in general, and don't need celebrities to encourage them to get involved. ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
In "Hollywood's America," the author mentioned that the movie "Across the Pacific" was hastily rewritten after Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese. Instead, the setting was changed to the Panama Canal. It reminded me of movies about the Twin Towers and how movies about them were reportedly halted because of 9/11. - Lauren Hicks<br />
<br />
After reading "Slaves on Screen" I admit that I was put in a sense of contemplation. I had never really thought about poetry in the sense of fictional and nonfictional. It made me wonder more about movies, about movies I don't think are all that historically based, and just how much history from the time it was made is it the movie. For example, the gender roles played by women and men in the movie, are the roles based on what society expects at the time or is the director taking his or her own twist on what he or she believes the gender roles should be. Is the director taking a more radical or traditional approach to those roles. -- Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
In the second paragraph of "Movies and American Society" it mentions that movies show us "how to dress, how to look, or what to buy." Movies also tend to say how a person's body should be shaped, that women should wear makeup to be pretty, etc... Movies penetrate society on many levels of how we think about ourselves and other people, some times I wonder if its safe to watch them, but then I think of how much fun I have watching them and communicating with others about the movie which is also mentioned in "Movies and American Society." --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Perhaps it can be unsafe to watch movies in some cases. For instance, the women on screen are often ideals and it sometimes leads to ordinary women doing dangerous things in attempts to become those ideals. And then there are the various uses of movies as propaganda and tools of manipulation. But, as the article mentions, movies have also been forces of good. They can bring awareness to the suffering in the world and make viewers want to take action against it. Also, more personally, they can just make us feel better after a bad day. --Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
I had just a quick question about "Hollywood's America...." It mentions that some theaters were called nickelodeons at one point in time (page 10) because it cost a nickel to view the production. I was curious if the children's channel Nickelodeon was somehow a spinoff of those theaters, or just something completely unrelated. --Ashley Wilkins<br />
<br />
Yep, that's where the name comes from! -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
"Slaves on Screen" said that movies are just starting to be a source of history. There are many older movies, like Gone With the Wind, that have been around for decades. So what does starting to be a source really mean. Are they talking about that it is just starting to be credited as a valuable source? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I think the bigger point was that historical writers have had a few thousands years to develop ways of interpreting and presenting history, while filmmakers have had just over a century to develop their presentation techniques, which is probably part of the reason historians have largely ignored films as credible historical sources. Filmmakers are still the new kids on the block. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
What movies today would be considered to be the most accurate cultural artifacts of our time? Are they portraying what we want future generations to remember when they think of us? -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
To attempt to answer Kellye's first question, I believe no movie has portrayed history, now or in the past, accurately. To see what I mean, look at the movie "Vantage Point." There are several people who witnessed the attempted assassination, but they all have different views of the event. Therefore, no matter the movie, each film will have its own bias and viewpoint, never the whole, objective story. As for Kellye's second question, future generations who have not experienced events that we all have, such as 9/11, won't see them as we experienced them and familiar references that we know will get misinterpreted by future generations and history will get blurred from its original context like a game of Telephone. -Lauren Hicks <br />
<br />
Maybe the reason so many historians are unwilling to really analyze and comment on "history-oriented" movies is because they are not fully comfortable with the changing technology. As we become a more technology centered society historians and other individuals will have to look to new and different methods for unlocking history. I agree with the reading in Reel History, that "history-oriented" movies can be look at like any historical text, they are simply perspectives of an event or time. -- Kellye Sorber<br />
<br />
I liked the "Slaves on Screen" reading, though I felt it jumped around quite a bit. I was appalled by Zanuck's comment on "Rothschild." While it is just egregious to history buffs on its own, it also offends by implying (at least to me) that what actually happened in history is not interesting enough to make a movie about. There is a fine line between creative license and fiction, and perhaps Zanuck fancies himself more of a poet than a historian. -- Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
One problem with history-oriented movies is that it gives historians another level to analyze. This can be beneficial to some studies, but not if you were simply studying what actually happened (not the inevitable analyses). Kind of like the difference between reading the diary of Anne Frank and a 1980s analysis of the diary of Anne Frank. --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
I thought it was interesting in "Why Movies Matter" that filmmaking today and in the 1910s sound familiar: anyone with a camera and some kind of budget can make a movie today, there are just infinitely more outlets and audiences available than there were then. Is this circular motion or was the period in between the one we will not see again? --Amanda Russell<br />
<br />
Slaves on Screen suggests that history itself must be carefully constructed, qualified and must admit the patchy areas of assumption or inference, whereas film is a story which is primarily entertainment which has less assumed qualifications. The films based on real life events are then questioned by the viewer, which really is a positive step towards getting more persons interested in history (in my humble opinion). –Elle W.<br />
<br />
Why Movies Matter describes the overall social impact of movies that I had never really thought about. A quote that particularly demonstrated the importance and dominance of movies as a mode of mass communication was on page 4 – “Far more people are today reached by the moving picture than by the daily press, [and] while we read the newspaper only in parts, the moving picture we see complete.” And this was in 1908! A few pages later… I also liked the idea of censorship being another testimony to how influential films can be on the American public. If movies didn’t really matter or mean something to America, why would censorship be necessary? – Elle W.<br />
<br />
I enjoyed the introduction of the book. It clearly lays out the direction of which the book is headed and I am already convinced that historic films deserve more credit than they are given. Getting the story out there allows more people to think, question, and investigate further in more traditional ways. This argument meshes well with the Slaves on Screen idea. –Elle W.<br />
<br />
Like Elle, I saw a correlation between the intro to the "Reel History" book and the "Slaves on Screen" article. Film is so easily brushed off by critics and historians as a credible source of information, but I believe that using films and movies makes history interesting for more people. True, some filmmakers take "artistic license" a bit too far and the historical content is a bit stretched, but having someone sit down to watch a movie on a historical event catches one's interest more easily. By seeing the event on screen it allows them to actually picture what they're studying (or are now interested in studying) and applies the whole "face to a name" bit. They feel more involved with the past than by just reading text on a page. -Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
I agree with Elle and Kelly. I thought the argument in the intro of "Reel History" was very good and shows that films can be a relevant source of history and sometimes seeing it on the screen even if some liberties were taken in the story brings it alive in a way that is more vibrant and real than just reading it sometimes. ~ Mary Beth C.<br />
<br />
While reading the introduction to Reel History: In Defense of Hollywood by Robert Brent Toplin, I found myself agreeing with many of Toplin's arguments. He explains that oftentimes artists and authors leave out details in order to make their work more understandable. Is this idea not true of directors or screen writers, who themselves are artists? History-orientated movies take a lot of heat for not including every detail of the story within the film. However, there are times when every detail isn't necessarily possible because it prevents the plot of the movie to flow properly. It is up to the judgment of the director to pick and choose which aspect of the story he/she wants to portray. As long as the facts are correct the audience can take away valuable information concerning the past from that particular movie. Movies have a great opportunity to teach the audience about a significant part of history. A story that is so important that it must be turned into a film in order to become better known to the masses. The article Movies and American Society edited by Steven J.Ross, relates nicely to what Toplin is arguing: Movies are a significant part of our culture, with millions of people going to the movies everyday; therefore, they have the power to educate and ultimately shape the intellect of America. The article further explains that film makers have the power to influence the way in which people view their society, government, even the world. Film makers have the ability to influence the way in which the audience views history and enable the audience to understand how history is created by everyday experiences.- Mallory C.<br />
<br />
Several of the posts have brought up the possible growth of movies as accurate historical acounts or something of that nature. Taylor pointed out that movies which have some tie to history are perhaps continuing to develope through the still very new medium of cinema, while historical writers have had longer to hone techniques of accurate story telling of historical events. But (unless we are talking about movies that are strictly non-fiction documentaries) whether they are historically/period based or not, there is an important descrepency to recognize in making this comparison. Movies are not pure imitation of life. They are forms of art which most often incorporate recognizable and familiar aspects of life in order to appeal to its audience. And whenever life is represented by a form of art, some aspect of factuality is lost by the mere imitation (like the Platonic Theory of Forms- it is not the true ideal (form) when it is already a copy- it has lost some truth). Thus, unless we are comparing historically related movies to historical fiction books, they are not comparable to histories and textbooks. ~Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
With my previous comment in mind...<br />
My debate question: As forms of art/and or entertainment, should all directors of historically based movies be held to the same level of hisotrical integrity that historians are? Or to the same degree that writers of historical fiction? <br />
(Futher more... Which is more important, artistic integrity and the director's artistic expression/message or a movie's historical accuracy? ~Jackie Reed<br />
<br />
I think to some degree directors should be held to the same level of historical integrity as historians. If the intention of the director is to portray a significant piece of history then the film should be accurate. If the director is aiming for credibility in the business then it would be in his/her best interest to get their facts straight. Wouldn't it be pointless for the director to not do some background research for the film? - Mallory C.<br />
<br />
n.b. my post accepts Jackie's premise as sound. However, I would like to shift Jackie's debate back on to the historian. Let's talk about the standard by which historians are judged. We do it every time we write a research paper. We ask who wrote the secondary source? Who published the secondary source? What kinds of motivations were behind the construction of the source?, and so on. Just look at a subject's historigraphy to see that written history is not always air-tight. I think it would do us well this semester to not just analyze how film makers interpret history, but how historians interpret history. Too often we take historical texts as gospel (especially when compared to artistic representations), but is there really an ultimate truth by which we can compare apples and oranges? (historical text being apples, historical films being oranges)- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
Jason brings up an interesting point when he said that "history is not always air-tight." To kind of support this a little further, I'd like to bring up one of our favorite sources, Wikipedia. Now, granted it is not the most reliable source of information on the planet but we do all use it as a starting point. But just looking at the history of those pages on historical events you can see that even events that took place hundreds of years ago are still under debate. Those pages are constantly updated and changed, sometimes by the hour. Historians themselves always have their own bias and oftentimes that is overlooked when doing research. How is this any different from a filmmaker and his bias? Or the bias of someone creating a documentary? - Kelly Wuyscik<br />
<br />
This is in response to Jackie's post. Although you have simplified your concern to a basic "is A better than B" question, I find the content rather complex. A great film that tries to tell a story during a specific period in our history combines the historical fact with the director's artistic expression/message. At times, the result makes it difficult for us to separate the two. I think when someone makes a movie, they take what is already generally known about history and fill in the little holes with what the director feels happened. A common debate of these movies is their portrayal of the character(s). Without a primary source, we become subjective to how we believe certain historical figures behaved. So to answer your question, I don't think directors should be held to the same level of historians are because I feel that they actually try to do different things. Historians give us facts about the past, and directors try to bring to life these facts while expressing their own artistry in their work. - David Flores<br />
<br />
A couple people have touched on this already, and it's a topic that I find interesting. The "Why Movies Matter" and the "Hollywood's America" articles both bring up the debate of whether the media creates society's values, or do they merely convey them in their work? I've always thought that the media used television and movies to help convey society's values (for example, The Simpsons conveying the importance of family by taking the model of a 1950's American family structure). But after reading these articles, its seems apparent that movies, especially in the 20's and 30's, had the distinct role of creating society's values. This includes how women should be portrayed, the behavior of lesser-known ethnic groups, and so on. Movies are a powerful tool in shaping what people believe (or think they should believe) in. - David Flores<br />
<br />
I agree with David that movies are a really powerful way of molding what people believe about others, but I wonder what people would think or be like if they didn't have movies to influence them. Would people still have thought that "...Africans were savages, and that their Afro-American decedents were lazy, happy-go-lucky, thieving, sexually promiscuous , and mentally inferior" (Alvin F. Poussaint quote on page 2 of Why Movies Matter), and would people's buying habits be different as well? ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
Why are academicians so upset with directors if history is not accurately represented? How damaging is it for directors to make egregious errors in historical accuracy? Does a film's message/ social commentary need to be grounded in "fact" or can the film's message transcend the nuts and bolts of historical accuracy?- Jason Ward<br />
<br />
While reading both the introduction to ''Reel History'' and the "Slaves on Screen" excerpt, I was struck by the notion of just how new a medium film study is when compared to more traditional forms of history. I had never thought about how the relatively new status of films likely contribute greatly in the medium's lack of respect as a means for historical discovery. The example used in "Slaves on Screen" of how Homer's poetry once was the standard form of passing on historical information showed the way that the study of history has been subjective over time. The excerpt also pointed to how Herodotus and Thucydides in many instances made up their own interpretations of speeches in history. This is a practice not unlike the artistic license used by filmmakers for their dialogue. Clearly historic films are not as far off from the more traditional means of passing on historical knowledge. - Bryan Mull <br />
<br />
At the end of the excerpt "Slaves on Screen" I was struck by the observation that audiences react well to the disclaimer placed before many movies: Based on a True Story. I know that I have on occasions been spurred to delve into a subject tackled by a film because of that disclaimer. The author then goes to point out that because movies based on history can spur such questioning, the film medium has a rightful place in the historical arena. I agree with this assessment, as films can touch people in ways that normal texts can never hope to achieve. The emotional responses elicited by films allow for a greater passion than some books and the emotions can spur greater inquiry to the past. Thus, I agree with Davis and believe that the film medium certainly has an important place in history. - Bryan Mull<br />
<br />
In the "Movies and American Society" article, I thought it was interesting to see how the themes of movies have changed through the years to reflect what was happening in society at that particular time, such as the patriotic movies of the 40's and the sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's and yuppies of the 80's. Even today you can see specific themes like this-such as the movies about the war in Iraq that have recently come out. It will be interesting to go back and view some of the new films in about 10 years to see if our perspective has changed. ~ Mary Beth C.<br />
<br />
I agree with Bryan about the "Slaves on Screen" article. I usually go to movies that say they are "based on a true story" and then end up going out of the theater and researching the subject myself-to get more information or clarify things. I think that statement can be a good tool to start people off in at least a small amount of research on the topic. My niece (who is 16) hates anything "historical" but will always want to see movies based on an actual event so its an easy way to slip a little history in and then we usually end up discussing the movie and it always leads to us looking things up about the subject and she does not even realize she is learning history! ~ Mary Beth C.<br />
<br />
I thought the introduction of ''Reel History '' was interesting, but I was surprised that the author was not all upset with Hollywood's portrayal of history in movies. I was expecting the book to be about how Hollywood is all wrong when it comes to history, but the author actually believes that "movies can communicate important ideas about the past" (page 1). ~Katherine Stinson~<br />
<br />
The introduction to Movies and American Society argues that movies teach us how to think, specifically mentioning race. While movies and other things do in fact teach cultural values, those values must already existed within the culture to begin with. If a movie taught a value that was not already known in America, it would not be understood and Americans would likely not view or purchase the movie. Movies reproduce culture more than they create it. ~Wesley Weeks<br />
<br />
In response to Jason's question: The idea of the past is a powerful thing. It's "ours" in that it's a part of our national identity and perceived heritage. If a director plays around with facts in an attempt to better present a story or ideal (i.e., Mel Gibson's Braveheart), he or she will be criticized. But if Gibson had made Braveheart in a way that is more historically accurate it wouldn't have been as effective a film. Some view these factual misrepresentations as almost immoral. Historical films are a legitimate art form that when executed well can be an extremely effective historical medium. What's important isn't that these filmmakers bend the rules but rather how they do so. Historical films offer us a view into our own culture through what aspects of the "true" story the film emphasizes or de-emphasizes. - Sarah Richardson<br />
<br />
We've been talking a lot about whether it's appropriate for filmmakers to use artistic license when making historical films. How much artistic license do you think is acceptable? At what point does playing with facts completely cancel out a film's historical legitimacy? - Sarah Richardson<br />
<br />
The “Slaves on Screen” article focused on how the filmmakers created their depictions of history and how they can be a useful tool in understanding the past. It was noticeably silent, though, on how the person who views the movie brings his or her own preconceptions and cultural values to the film. For instance, when the movie Easy Rider was first released, many people thought the director was on the side of the people that kill the main characters at the end because they viewed that action as a good thing. – Wesley Weeks<br />
<br />
I agree with Wesley's earlier comment on movies reproducing culture-- They are responsible for reinforcing and solidifying stereotypes or cultural views already in existence to some extent, and the more that do so, the more discourse created, the more effective they are. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
In ''Why Movies Matter'', Ross tells us that "whether a particular cinematic discourse is true or false is less important than its ability to create a dominant sense of reality." This statement ties together points in the introduction and ''Slaves on Screen'', and means that it doesn't really matter whether a spectator of a 'based on a true story' film leaves wondering how much was accurate. If the director can successfully get his vision across or emphasize a view or stereotype, mission accomplished. -Whitney Holcomb<br />
<br />
I thought it was really interesting how in the introduction to the book the author said movies were not historic because they "do not provide accurate, authentic, truthful, or objective treatments of history" (p. 4). While some of those things may be true about movies they are also true about history in general. Every event in the past that is retold by historians is biased in some way and how do we know what is the true, we can only guess based on evidence. Movies may be more colorful in their depiction of the past but to say they are not historical because they are not objective or truthful would mean that historians should discount any primary source written by a person because people are biased and liars. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
I was surprised to read in the "Hollywood's America" article that all the first major movie producers were immigrants. I am in two immigration classes and writin my senior thesis on the topic so things related to immigration stand out to me. I thought it was interesting because movies are something Americans take pride in and so to learn that the industry was founded by people we at one time did not consider to be Americans is amazing to me and I think it shows just how important immigration is to the heritage of this country. - Christine W.<br />
<br />
''Hollywood’s America'' gave a nice summary of American film. One point I found really interesting was that immigrants began to dominate the movie business fairly early on. It’s ironic that newcomers to the country understood what the American public wanted to see more than American-born businessmen did. Also, HUAC accusing the Boy Scouts of being infiltrated by Communists is a little funny, but really scary too. The fact that Hollywood pulled a movie because a character tried to act as a peacemaker between warring tribes, which “might be regarded as a message for peace and therefore helpful to present communist designs”(21), gives a very clear picture of the fear caused by the Red Scare. -- Taylor Brann<br />
<br />
What all these readings really get me thinking about is just how influential film can be on peoples understanding of history. Even if a film presents information that is not historically true it can still influence people to believe that it is true. Without background knowledge determining what is true in a movie is very impressionistic. One of my favorite films "Tombstone" I can tell must be very fictionalized or exaggerated, but that does not change the fact that I found it enjoyable and it is my only real background on the people and events that were portrayed and leaves a strong impression in my mind. - Jonathan Bell <br />
<br />
The reading from "Hollywood's America" particularly addresses the issue that even if the events portrayed in movies are not true they can still be educational by showing the beliefs and ideology of the people who made them and can give a glance at what sort of issues were important during the time the film was made. This is especially true when talking about movies that were produced many years in the past. Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will" a propaganda film made for the Nazi party is used as a way to answer historical questions such as how the Nazi party was so successful and how they portrayed themselves. - Jonathan Bell</div>Jbell2ja 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